I don't get the arguments for bioessentialism

[Micah Sweet]

I am not taking the metaphore too seriously. You aren't taking it seriously enough.

If your biologies work differently from each other, but that only amounts to small practical mechanical differences, then you are back in humans-with-pointy-ears territory again.

But, the D&D chassis isn't built for large practical differences.

Level Up has IMO done a great job of extenuating differences between heritages.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I also think you're taking his comparison to literally: I think what @Umbran is saying is that dramatically different races with dramatically different physiologies are going to cause balance problems.

I mean, it's the same dilemma that keeps coming up with the ASI discussion: it can both be argued that +2 to an ability score (which translates to a +1 die modifier) is a pretty minor difference that could be safely ignored AND it leads to a dramatic bias in the characters that players actually want to play.

So what's going to happen when you have both bunnies and rottweilers? Well, to maintain balance, let's make the bunnies more ferocious, and the rottweilers less ferocious, but leave a little gap to maintain the distinctiveness of the species. Ergo: "Golden retrievers with funny hats."

I hardly think ferocity is the only relevant metric of comparison.

 

[Umbran]

Level Up has IMO done a great job of extenuating differences between heritages.

I have been leaning away from the level of crunch Level Up uses since ... the middle of the 3e era or so.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So, then I might add...

I have noted that mechanically we probably don't need them much. But, there may be a function of engagement - even if the result is humans with funny ears, there's something to be said for inspiring people a bit.

It just pays to realize that's probably the point these, more than simulation of something really nonhuman, or intense optimization work.

That can be the point, for some games, or even at some individual tables. I don't think it's a good generalization.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Against Giants and Beholders and Dragons? Yeah...I don't think so.

There's nothing in our world as cool as the magical treasure those guys guard though.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Maybe you're right...if the IRL rules were comparable to 5e, where you never TPK and the monsters always die.

Is that in the 5e rules? Do you have a page citation?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

There's nothing in our world as cool as the magical treasure those guys guard though.

Snickers!

 

[Micah Sweet]

I have been leaning away from the level of crunch Level Up uses since ... the middle of the 3e era or so.

Good for you. That doesn't change the validity of my claim, just makes it less relevant to you personally.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Snickers!

I stand corrected.

 

[Corinnguard]

Level Up has IMO done a great job of extenuating differences between heritages.

Mostly by splitting species up into heritage and culture, and then letting you mix and match the two to get what you want for your character.

I have been leaning away from the level of crunch Level Up uses since ... the middle of the 3e era or so.

I don't think Level Up comes that close to the level of crunchiness that existed in 3e. More crackle, snap and pop than crunch IMO.