Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mirrorrorrim" data-source="post: 9132079" data-attributes="member: 7040132">Yaarel, you seem to be inventing definitions that weren't previously there for 5E. Or you are borrowing from older editions and are assuming they can be used as truth for 5e. You seem to be using those invented definitions as justification to change rules. I'm not following the justification.First of all, just as a reminder, in 5E, "Antimagic" doesn't exist outside the Antimagic Field spell, which is very specifically defined. It does not say anything like you are asserting. If the species itself was affected by the spell, it would say so. Every race in the game was created by higher powers, and it doesn't make them inherently affected by Antimagic Field. (hundreds of millions of years of natural evolution isn't a thing in D&D worlds.) I brought that up because you are asserting that because lineage provides spells, the lineage itself would probably be vulnerable to Antimagic Field. So elves, gnomes, tieflings, and any species that can cast a spell because of their species (or any race that was divinely/magically/supernaturally created, which is all of them) is affected by Antimagic Field? What does that even look like? Do they just disappear like summoned creatures? Because that makes no sense. We already know that spells can't be cast. That's not what is being discussed here.You say your suggestions are to get rid of racism. Are you thinking that the very existence of variant species itself is a source of racism? If there are high elves, wood elves, sea elves, and drow, and they can breed with one another because they are all elves, are the rules are racist? Is being different from each other enough reason to assume they are racist against each other? Do you think the words "subrace/subspecies" or "lineage" are racist? I really don't get what source of racism you are referring to.Or is it that you want something more simplistic with less variation? For instance, there being only one type of Dwarf with no species variations? Is that right? Because it also sounds like you also want Culture to absorb mechanical physical and magical variations. So, a human that takes the "sea elf" or "aquatic" Culture gets waterbreathing that is dispellable? That's never been what Culture means. I also don't want a Terrain/Environment entry where every player chooses between a land humanoid, or a waterbreathing sea humanoid, or a winged sky humanoid.The D&D fantasy game has all kinds of creatures that are biological variants of each other. You see it in the Monster Manual, and you see it in the Players Handbook. For example, the existence of Dragonborn, and there being multiple variations for every base dragon-type, and different ways to portray even the same dragon-type, does not make dragonborn racist.If the natural language used to describe something doesn't quite match the rules as written, it is usually the problem of the natural language being used, and it may need an editing pass. If the printed game rules are causing narrative conflicts compared to your preferred house rules, and is the reason why you want to make changes to the game, why do you think the problem is with the rules as written? Because I'm not seeing suggestions to make things better. I'm only seeing suggestions to make the rules as written fit your house rules better. It's fine to want that, but I won't be accepting non-factual facts as good enough reasons to win me over to support it.</blockquote>

Verification