Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7593720" data-attributes="member: 6919838">I suppose a lot comes down to how much one believes the book defines their world or they define their world.Would a GM allow a &quot;race&quot; to be more fluid? Can I be a &quot;stone elf&quot; who is a member of elves who have the stats of dwarves, total swap, but more the appearance of elves. Not drow. Or maybe an off-shoot of drow with all the specs of dwarves.Honestly, off the cuff, I would be fine with that. But, unlike what seems to be a source of contention, it would be a part of the world. Folks would not be assuming &quot;only dwarves have&quot; trait ABC. Just like, if I allow reskinning familiars, folks dont assume &quot;only owls have flyby.&quot;Imo, if a gm has an issue with flyby attack, they should fix it, up front, before they let a player choose it... not allow it but then stick it to them by disallowing reskin for funsies.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7593720, member: 6919838"] I suppose a lot comes down to how much one believes the book defines their world or they define their world. Would a GM allow a "race" to be more fluid? Can I be a "stone elf" who is a member of elves who have the stats of dwarves, total swap, but more the appearance of elves. Not drow. Or maybe an off-shoot of drow with all the specs of dwarves. Honestly, off the cuff, I would be fine with that. But, unlike what seems to be a source of contention, it would be a part of the world. Folks would not be assuming "only dwarves have" trait ABC. Just like, if I allow reskinning familiars, folks dont assume "only owls have flyby." Imo, if a gm has an issue with flyby attack, they should fix it, up front, before they let a player choose it... not allow it but then stick it to them by disallowing reskin for funsies. [/QUOTE]

Verification