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: 9724229" data-attributes="member: 18">I mean, that definitely wasn't the right way to go. The essentially went went from boring bioessentialism to boring classism/stereotyping.Is classism less bad? Oh yes, absolutely, significantly so. Is is still cheap lazy stereotyping which doesn't really serve a purpose or really allow nuance or complexity by packaging together a bunch of stuff that doesn't need to go together? Also yes.And being real again, a lot of people didn't like bioessentialism at all but also didn't hate it enough to demand change solely for that reason, but what they did hate was unnecessary restrictions on stat choice (as proven by 5E from Tasha's to 2024), which 2024 inexplicably reintroduced without even playtesting or acceptance-testing the concept (after it had essentially been essentially eliminated from D&D for half a decade). And I assure you that would NOT have met 70% approval, there's just absolutely no way. They dodged their own evaluation system to put in a concept literally nobody asked for! Classic WotC bum move.I would say so. Stats bonuses are boring and kind of annoyingly limiting (and as I noted, often don't really match the lore and instead seem like arbitrary "Well the bonus has to go somewhere!!!" stuff, which usually leads to just to putting it in a good place for the most stereotypical possible class for that species).Wait what happened with Planescape? I know Spelljammer had the hilariously racist stuff with the monkey people (which is such a giant red flag as a concept you should always be incredibly careful, and WotC weren't even slightly careful), but I didn't hear anything about Planescape's first printing!Why is there a picture of what is clearly a halfling? We know what a halfling looks like.</blockquote>

Verification