I don't get the arguments for bioessentialism

[FrozenNorth]

Dwarf sorcerers weren't a thing when these ideas were developed.

I don’t recall Dwarfs being barred from the Sorcerer class in 3e.

 

[Staffan]

And if you need to wait 1,400 years to inherit your father's shop, are you really going to get into the same trade as him as human do?

Interestingly, that might have effect on social mobility, unless they are just, as a species, more patient and feel that it is OK to wait.

I remember making a character in a shortlived Eon campaign who was certain that humans' relative shortlivedness was a gift, not a curse. Since we don't last, we want to build things that do. Not necessarily physical things, but things like a business we can hand to our child, or organizations/towns/states that will outlive us, and thus gain us a measure of immortality.

Another advantage is that it allows for, by our standards, slow and peaceful change. Eventually, the people with power will die and be replaced by other people who may have different ideas. But when a king reigns for a century or two, the only way to change things is by revolution.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I remember making a character in a shortlived Eon campaign who was certain that humans' relative shortlivedness was a gift, not a curse. Since we don't last, we want to build things that do. Not necessarily physical things, but things like a business we can hand to our child, or organizations/towns/states that will outlive us, and thus gain us a measure of immortality.

Another advantage is that it allows for, by our standards, slow and peaceful change. Eventually, the people with power will die and be replaced by other people who may have different ideas. But when a king reigns for a century or two, the only way to change things is by revolution.

I often think that the reason that all those elven kingdoms are in the distant past was because elven societies tend to ossify in ways that have trouble adapting to change if the same people are in charge over very long time periods.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Wow...that's quite an extrapolation. Maybe even technically a parade of horribles?

EDIT: To reiterate my position, it's not that we should allow Johnny to have a 20 Str halfling because otherwise he's going to be upset, but that players' tendency to optimize leads to a boring similarity of characters, and discourages them from trying unusual combinations. (D&DBeyond data illustrates that effect.)

So what? Why should pushing unusual combinations be a factor?

 

[The Firebird]

Dwarf sorcerers weren't a thing when these ideas were developed.

Incorrect.

Race limits were dropped at the same time as Sorcerers appeared. Weird mistake to make.

I don’t recall Dwarfs being barred from the Sorcerer class in 3e.

"These ideas" from Micah refers to to the CHA penalty, as I read it. Dwarves had that back in AD&D 1e. At that point the Dwarf Sorcerer wasn't on the menu.

 

[TiQuinn]

"These ideas" from Micah refers to to the CHA penalty, as I read it. Dwarves had that back in AD&D 1e. At that point the Dwarf Sorcerer wasn't on the menu.

Sorcerer wasn't on the menu for anyone.

 

[The Firebird]

Sorcerer wasn't on the menu for anyone.

Yes?

 

[Umbran]

So what? Why should pushing unusual combinations be a factor?

Because, as noted: always having the same combinations gets repetitive and boring.

 

[TiQuinn]

Yes?

Yes, it's weird to talk about dwarf sorcerers in context of 1e when sorcerer wasn't a class whether you were human, dwarf, elf, halfling, or any other race.

 

[The Firebird]

Yes, it's weird to talk about dwarf sorcerers in context of 1e when sorcerer wasn't a class whether you were human, dwarf, elf, halfling, or any other race.

Ok? The point was that no one was thinking of dwarf sorcerers when the CHA penalty was introduced. Multiple people said that was wrong...but it is clearly correct.