Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9724055" data-attributes="member: 18">Likewise that's why 3E and 5E didn't bring back race/class limits, and even the majority of OSR/NSR games don't have them. Because they're wildly unpopular and putting them in a game just makes people less likely to play it. Bioessentialism is an issue but it needs to seen in context, it was kind of lucky because it became an issue at the same time as people were increasingly tiring of species-based modifiers (a lot of which were very weakly supported in the actual lore, and just seemed like cheap/lazy and not necessarily even mildly offensive but almost worse extremely boring stereotypes - like +WIS on Wood Elves? Ever seen a Wood Elf be portrayed as wise in a meaningful way in D&D? Not really, they're usually described as capricious, often petty and territorial, none of which smells very "wise". It's just Druid/Ranger bait!), so the combined feeling pushed to move away from that for a lot of games, and honestly one doesn't miss it.There are games where it makes more sense, of course, but even in those I so many games think moving away from stat mods to actual abilities has caused people to think a bit more deeply about species and about making them interesting.(5E swapping this for the idiocy of making the stat mods all based on dreadful backgrounds, which was in some ways more limiting was a mistake, I note, and a contributing factor to 5E 2024 not making the splash WotC hoped. WotC overestimated how much people cared about bioessentialism specifically and underestimated how much people cared about being able to build the characters they wanted. But that's a whole other thread.)</blockquote>

Verification