Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Minigiant" data-source="post: 8455710" data-attributes="member: 63508">The ultraconservativism is not tradition.The Ultraconservativism is wanting each race tofollow a stereotype even though D&amp;D is supposed to support thousands of worlds and settings.MM LOTR style Orcs or MM Minotaurs might not make sense in a Greco-Roman setting or a setting built of Post-Han China.High elves might not make sense in a Post Apoc setting like Dark Sun.Saying itis corrupted or that species areuntouched severly messes the point as many of the Pro-Float want more biological traits attributed to races.It's not all for power. It's mainly due to D&amp;D 5e's conservatism and oversimplification.Let's look at the Orc Caster.Before an orc was a weak but functional caster. Thier high strength.could be used with touch spells and there were tons of touch spells. Their high constitution could be used to get in closeenough to use touch spells. It wasn't a good archatype but it had a point.What happened in 5e? Touch spells use your casting stat. There are few touch spells. Every caster got tougher. The casters make spell melee attacks with their casting stat.&nbsp; Whereas orcs and halforcs where leaned harder to weapons.So now where they once was a niche for them, there is none for the orc wizard/sorcerer/cleric/warlock. Any complaints where chased away with &quot;Well orcs are supposed to be melee. You just want the +2 INT for power gaming.&quot;And this goes for a lot of characher concepts. The simplification of rules, lack of creativity in might and magic design, and hard push to streotypical roles for many races mean a lot of character concepts in modern D&amp;D don't function. It's basically the major flaw with 5e crunch.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Minigiant, post: 8455710, member: 63508"] The ultraconservativism is not tradition. The Ultraconservativism is wanting each race tofollow a stereotype even though D&D is supposed to support thousands of worlds and settings. MM LOTR style Orcs or MM Minotaurs might not make sense in a Greco-Roman setting or a setting built of Post-Han China. High elves might not make sense in a Post Apoc setting like Dark Sun. Saying itis corrupted or that species areuntouched severly messes the point as many of the Pro-Float want more biological traits attributed to races. It's not all for power. It's mainly due to D&D 5e's conservatism and oversimplification. Let's look at the Orc Caster. Before an orc was a weak but functional caster. Thier high strength.could be used with touch spells and there were tons of touch spells. Their high constitution could be used to get in closeenough to use touch spells. It wasn't a good archatype but it had a point. What happened in 5e? Touch spells use your casting stat. There are few touch spells. Every caster got tougher. The casters make spell melee attacks with their casting stat. Whereas orcs and halforcs where leaned harder to weapons. So now where they once was a niche for them, there is none for the orc wizard/sorcerer/cleric/warlock. Any complaints where chased away with "Well orcs are supposed to be melee. You just want the +2 INT for power gaming." And this goes for a lot of characher concepts. The simplification of rules, lack of creativity in might and magic design, and hard push to streotypical roles for many races mean a lot of character concepts in modern D&D don't function. It's basically the major flaw with 5e crunch. [/QUOTE]

Verification