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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 8610727" data-attributes="member: 6704184">Really? I've seen dozens of people, between the various online platforms I discuss DnD on, talking about not liking that they can't make a weak and sickly minotaur wizard, because having the +2 just isn't going to go away, for instance, and I've seen even more arguments about folks being uncomfortable with categorical divisions referred to as "race" having such strong elements of essentialism. I know you've seen those arguments too, because I know you've been active in the same threads wherein I've seen them. But even then, the arguments you're paraphrasing are being unfairly interpreted, here. Being able to represent the character you imagine isn't the same thing as doing what is optimal. Then they aren't talking about optimization. It's that simple.Yes, you have. You just refuse to recognize them or take them at their word, for some reason.You're ignoring what people have actually been saying. It's dissatisfying to play a character that is wrong, just because some other people you'll never meet irl don't like the idea of orcs that are naturally very intelligent. My high Dex and Wis Forest Gnome Ranger just plays more satisfyingly because he has a low Int, just as much as because of his high Wisdom. But even if we were to just accept your premise without challenge, so what? Seriously? Why do you care? Some percentage of the population of gamers are just going to enjoy the game more if they can make their Goliath Warlock just as accurate with Eldritch Blast as they would be if they'd colored within the lines and played a fighter or switched to a tiefling. I don't think it's nearly as big a percentage as the people making the other arguments, but I genuinely don't understand why it matters. Their preferences are just as valid as yours or mine.</blockquote>

Verification