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: 8116861" data-attributes="member: 6801228">So are kobolds.So, "despite their build" means to you that their build is more important? Not the fact that, even with their build, they are incredibly dexterous and stealthy? I didn't know well reasoned arguments worked that way, I figured that if something said, "despite its large size, this is one of the fastest cars" That I would not say that the size is the most important feature. Really? No one? So, if I dug back through these posts I wouldn't find both Oofta and Helldritch lamenting the fact that with Tasha's all races would be reduced to "humans in rubber masks/suits"? Oh, I bet I know, they aren't saying it is "all" that defines the race, it is just so important that the removal of it removes all unique identifying features from them and makes them no better than a rubber mask.And, you are turning this around, but ignoring what I was saying. If you are fine with "this group of races gets a +2 strength and floating +2" and "this group of races gets a +2 Dex and a floating +2" (which by the way, this would likely cover the majority of races between those two) and think that those races can maintain their unique identities... then you should also agree that those races being able to assign their scores as desired will let them keep their unique identities. Which yes, people on "your side" have argued will not be the case. But if six races having a +2 Strength because they are big can stay unique, then the idea that needing unique stat arrays to hold their identity (once again) is false. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Wrong. Because their joints and long limbs or even how their muscles are situated could easily allow them to be big without restricting movement at all.All the rest of this gets into a bit of absurdity, and ignoring the point of Cap'n Kobold, who wasn't talking about watching lions on the savanna, but talking about the lion statblock in the game. Which has a dex of 15, much higher than your human commoner. And, this is really why I think your analogy is just flawed all the way around. You are basing it off of the physics of the square-cube law, and from that drawing the conclusion that small things are faster and more dexterous than big things. Which is a gross oversimplication. Chickens and Penguins are smaller than me. I can outrun them. Wolves and Bears are bigger than me, I cannot outrun them. And with that alone, I have broken your argument, as it was presented. So, now, most likely you would argue I'm not comparing similiar body structures, which, goes right back to the point I made up above. Bugbears may be bigger than your common man (though is it really enough of a difference to matter) but I've seen big, muscular men doing Parkour. There is no reason to assume that Bugbears are somehow less capable of being dexterous and athletic just because they are big. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I did and am trying to discuss ideas. But, after digging deep into a proposed reasoning behind why those ability score mods should be considered integral to the culture of the race, something that was a proposed idea and that you were responding to, what was the result? I had both posters whom I had been debating with for multiple pages tell me that none of it mattered anyways. They didn't care about that point. So, what should I do next? Make up points to argue against? You say the archetypes are going to suffer, but you have no reasoning, you are just stating it. Dwarves will no longer be tough, because everyone has the potential to be tough, and all fighters are going to be tough, so Dwarves won't be tough? But, NPCs are 100% of the purview of the DM. And there is a long tradition of those statblocks not abiding by the same rules as players. So, nothing changes on that front, no matter what the player's rules are. And, at least at my table, all fighters and barbarians have high Cons anyways, dwarves or not. All the wizards have high Intelligence, whether or not they are gnomes or not. So, the only thing changing, is that I might see a gnome fighter. Something that is completely possible right now. Heck, going for dex-based fighter, I could likely pull that off anyways, I would just be behind where I want to be as a character in DnD. So, I've narrowed it down, I've addressed angle after angle, and I still don't see what the game is losing. Something you can't really define, it seems, because you won't define it. It is just an ephemeral something. Meanwhile, I see benefit after benefit. I've had player after player come to me and express interest in these rules, saying that is about time DnD made these rules. So, on one hand, I have a ton of positive support outside of the internet. And on the other, I have a few people here telling me that the game will be ruined, that the game will be changed beyond recongition, that every race will be a human in a rubber mask... and they can't tell me why, just insisting it will be so. So, I don't know why I keep posting. Because it seems to be nothing but grief, for no good reason.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------But you are perfectly fine telling Simon and Schuster (the publishers of "The Joy of Cooking") that they shouldn't publish a new cookbook that shows people how to integrate Moussaka into a Thanksgiving Meal? That tells non-greek people how to make it? Because, that is all Tasha's is. "Here is how to do this, if you want." and by supporting that I am being told I am shoving that flavor into everyone's face. Helldritch was the big person who kept protesting this. They claimed that new DMs would be so blinded by it being an official product that they wouldn't realize that it was destroying their game and ruining the experience. Therefore, it shouldn't even be a published book. Which, it will be. The publisher is making a book to tell us how to add Moussaka to Thanksgiving Dinner. If that is fine when an individual does it, why can't the publisher do it?Because the game mechanics matter for the game mechanics. I have seen this in play. I have had two clerics who felt like a drag upon the party, because they had a 15 wisdom instead of a 16. And one was not played by me, but was another player, who was quite unhappy with the situation. But for the story? For the World? You are right, 15 or 16 doesn't matter. But that just shows that this is an entirely mechanical rule, with limited impact on anything outside of players.By addressing NPCs. By saying it will affect the world. By talking about the "common" parts of the table. Talking about the mood. If those don't matter, then the entire argument is that somehow the DMs world-building is ruined by the choices of race and class the player's make. Which I'm not sure how that would even work.So, if the end result is the same... why does it matter if it was an officially published optional rule or a houserule? The DM can choose to use it or not either way. The results on the game at the table are the same either way. What is the difference? A logo? The fact that more people will see it?I didn't address it because there was nothing to address. I am not against houserules to increase point buy, but they aren't being published in the book and are not the subject of the discussion. Yes, you could always put your highest score in the stat you want. That has been the case since the beginning. The only other part of your post you might want me to address is the 16. And, yeah, I've said it. I do want a 16. So what? It is perfectly within the realm of the possible in the game. Trivially so. I have experience that not having that stat makes my players have less fun. But, my players and myself wanting a 16 shouldn't matter for discussing this rule, the only place I can see someone taking this information is to somehow try to use it to make this only about my preferences in 16's. Which, has nothing to do with their actual arguments against the rule. At least, none that they have stated, that me wanting a 16 somehow is a deal breaker for this rule.So, you want this to be only about how I want a 16, and therefore none of my other points matter? A full rebuttal only requires that I want two things instead of one? Does the fact that I want a new car for a new stereo system completely rebut my desire for a new car to be more fuel effiecient? Has my one desire overridden the other? I could get a care with a new stereo system without getting a fuel economic car. Does that mean that I should settle for only half of what I want? But, I guess in your mind it does. I'm either trying to decieve you, or decieve myself. You feel like you have ascertained the truth and that nothing else I say matters. So, why say more? You've made your mind about me, before I even told you my preference.</blockquote>

Verification