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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8114264" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Eager to trade? That is how you interpret:"Gold Dwarves who interact with other races (including shield dwarves) tend to be suspicious, taciturn, and secretive, and especially distrustful of anyone who doesn't show outward signs of wealth." Mordenkainens 71-72Also, I re-read the Gold Dwarf section in Mordenkainen's two more times. No mention of them trading with anyone at all. Also, no mention of them being particularly optimistic. They do see themselves as the only "true holders" of dwarf culture, which makes them rather prideful and haughty I'd say. So, are you pulling from a third book at this point? To prove the PHB dwarves have different cultures do we need to pull from both Mordenkainen's and another book. Seems rather excessive.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I almost responded with the same level as sarcasm as you displayed here. Then I took a deep breath and decided to instead treat your response with some measure of respect. Obviously I was aware that settings can change the lore of the game. That was obvious. My point, which you seem to be trying to dismiss with your rampant sarcasm is that if we assume Hill Dwarves got the bonus to wisdom because in Greyhawk they were empathic and made many trade deals, then it would make perfect sense for the Shield Dwarves who share that culture to share that +1 Wisdom. However, they do not. And, unlike Dark Sun Halflings, the PHB specifically calls out that the Hill Dwarf mechanics are meant for the Hill Dwarves of Greyhawk, and the Gold Dwarves of Forgotten Realms. In other words, the PHB already told us what the the setting information was. The Setting in fact, did not change anything. It tells us in fact, that the bonus to wisdom seems to be somewhat arbitrary. Because it was applied to both an insightful, trade pact making type of dwarf, and a xenophobic shut-in style of dwarf, who is more reminiscent of the Mountain Dwarves of Greyhawk. Your calls of "but tradition" and that the lore of the game tells us everything we need to know, have in fact led us to a situation where tradition and the lore of the game supports my point. Hill Dwarves and Mountain Dwarves share most of their culture. To the point that taking two of the major game worlds they are actually flipped, with no one making a big deal out of this ever. But, I suspect, you are not going to accept this, and will instead continue to accuse me of various malfeasances , because discrediting me is the only move you seem to have left to you.You forgot to add the "in my opinion" to the end of that sentence, since I and others have in fact put forth that they are better.Yeah, you did not in fact debunk my argument. So, perhaps save the victory lap. Because, settings, settings my friend, actually work towards my point. Static modifiers do not make sense when the setting can alter the dwarves or any other race to such a degree. Floating modifiers in fact make a lot of sense, unless you want every single setting to have to rewrite every single race. Or, if you want every single race to be the same across all settings. Neither of which, I find particularly compelling. Oh, and claiming that floating modifiers is something that is "lost to history" because of "many failed games" completely misses the truth that... they aren't. 13th Age is a game that has been mentioned multiple times in this thread. IT is not a failed game lost to history. But, I am beginning to think you don't care about debating. You care about slinging stones and declaring that DnD has no growth to make. And I have little interest in just listening to you declare yourself correct with no evidence or reason.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Maybe it was started by that, but I think you may have missed just how harmful some of the stuff in the game could be seen as. People like throwing about the "but they are different species" argument and following it up with absurd examples, like is a field mouse as strong as an elephant. But that misses so much of the actual point. For example, one poster during that explosive few weeks of discussion pointed out a rather startling fact. According to scientific studies women tend to have over 20% less upper body strength than men of similar build and training (I saw in just a breif google search numbers ranging from 20% to 40%.). Are you are of the absolute largest difference in strength in Dungeons and Dragons Races? +0 to +2 to the score, which translates into a maximum of 5% difference. The difference between genders is minor in the real-world, and is still four times larger at a minimum than the 5% difference between "species" in DnD. Which, makes a lot of sense, when you stop and think about it. The vast majority of differences in size between the DnD "species" is a foot or less, and generally less than 20 lbs. That is a margin of error that can fit within the same weight-class in just about any martial arts or wrestling competition. Are some more extreme? Yes, obviously, and I've shown them in this very thread. But, even at those extremes, the actual "in the world" difference is minor. A big deal at the table. A big deal for a player character rolling dice, but for a physical world? Not even worth talking about. And meanwhile, there was a lot of toxic logic and lore surrounding them. A lot of de-humanizing language, which, correlates one to one with dehumanizing language that is being used to put down real-life people. Frankly, I don't want to rehash those debates. That was weeks of my life spent in a furious swarm of toxic naughty word and I don't want to go back to that. But, I think I've been showing over my last few posts, that even the big die-hard fans who hate this rule, don't really know where ability scores are getting determined from. Except for tradition. And tradition was obviously not a good enough reason to prevent this rule from being released. You can hold up your nose and declare that WoTC caved in to fear and social pressure, and destroyed the game. Helldritch and Max can continue screaming from the hill tops that this goes against the way things have always been. Me? I'm going to look forward to making a Dwarven Artificer who over the last two hundred and fifty years has mastered nearly every tool in the game. I'm going to tell my friend who loves Rogues that he now has a lot more options, and we are going to wonder what crazy bard our third friend is going to come up with. We are going to take these rules, and we are going to start making more lore and shaping the game in new ways.</blockquote>

Verification