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: 8117555" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Isn't there?Let me ask these questions.Is their a niche for healers in a group of six players?If one person plays a Life Cleric, one person plays a Dream Druid, one person plays an Artificer and the fourth plays a rogue with the Healer feat, has the niche been overlapped?Does it matter that one of them uses dex, the other intelligence and two wisdom to create that overlap?You may say this is about race, and so I am missing the point, but the point is that more than race, it is your class that determines what abilities you want. Bards and Warlocks are going to both focus on Cha, and that is more niche overlap than you would get with two Tieflings, one who goes Wizard and one who goes Bard.So, yeah, there is a niche protection problem in the game if two players sit down to both play a barbarian. That is true whether one is a half orc and the other a goliath, whether they are both half-orcs, or is one is a half-orc and one is a halfling.The halfling being in this mix doesn't change the niche problem. Also, we have to remember, while Halflings now make better barbarians, half-orcs and goliaths now make better rogues too. This isn't one-sided.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Well, there is a controversy in DnD about making them descended from dragons explicitly, so they side-eyed it this time. But the Forgotten Realms Wiki still refers to them as being related to dragons, 3.5 had the "Races of Dragon" book that included Kobold stuff, and it seems from some basic research that 3.X was the edition that made Kobolds into Dragon-kin.5e made it more ambigious, because some people seem to hate Dragons being associated with such weak creatures, but ambigious doesn't mean they denied it, and it is perfectly reasonable and supported by the game that they are descended from dragon blood.So, rounding this back around. Dragonborn get a strength bonus because they are born of dragons and dragons are strong. Dragons also happen to be big.Kobolds got a strength penalty (now removed) and are also highly likely to be draconic in origin, but they are small.Therefore, it seems more likely Dragonborn and Dragons got bonuses to strength because they are big, not because they are draconic.And, "big things are stronger" is... fine I guess, I just don't find it an interesting way to define nealry half a dozen races.You realize that just because you say you would never use it doesn't mean it wasn't your idea and therefore your rule, right?You've done this at least twice now, telling me how you'd never use this rule, it is just a compromise....for no one I guess, because who is going to accept a compromise proposed by someone who wouldn't use it themselves?Right, big things strong, just like all the other big things.No, the context was not clear. I think you are only seeing the argument you wish they had made, not the one they were making. After all, if it was just about stats, then Scott Christian or Helldrtich  (can't remember which) wouldn't have talked about this rule strangling the years of effort a DM put into world-building. They wouldn't have tried to defend racial abilities by saying they are tied to culture. Heck, they said it would ruin the lore.It was very clear they were talking about role-playing the race as a whole, not that mechanical specialization would lead them to being mechanically like humans. I'm not sure what the opposite of a strawman is, when you defend a position far more reasonable than was actually taken, but this is what you are doing Max.Why?They are born of dragons, they are a race of miners who work all day, the image of them from the monster manual shows clear corded musculature... what would be nonsensical about them getting a strength score?Being small?The small size category would also fit Chimpanzees, Orangutans and Bonbo's. Creatures that are fairly well established as being far stronger that we as human's anticipate, sometimes to deadly effect.With that being the case, I can't even say with certainty that being small would by definition put them as not having a strength bonus. So, why would it be nonsensical?I see you are going to ignore the questions I asked, and just redirect the conversation back into dead horse territory.First off, I have not seen a single person who has been on "your side" of the debate say that they liked your compromise at all. So, not sure where you got the impression it is well liked. I've been the only person to even engage you about it, unless people have been sending you PMs.Secondly, it does the exact same thing Tasha's is getting blasted for. Only, instead of "just pick two" it is "just pick, but we chose one of the options for you" If picking one score is okay, why is picking two bad? Why do I need to be told that orcs have to have a +2 strength? What am I gaining here? "Big things are strong"? Okay, neat, don't need that to be true. Heck, even you think it is a bad rule, because you've said you would never use it. So, I'm not sure why you are even pushing it.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Well, sort of, but not really my point.Who is the archetypical farmer?Now a days you might see a depiction of a man, older, weathered skin, practical and proficient in fixing machines.Go back a bit, and you see similiar traits, but he is a younger man, strong, builds things, has dreams of living a life of luxury from his country estate.Go back farther, the farmer was a dirty, desperate man, scrabbling to survive under the booted heels placed on his neck.There wasn't, to my knowledge, a big influential character who changed the depictions of farmers, it was changed by farmers changing over time.And this has applied to a lot archetypes. There was a brief period of time when punks and rebels who wanted to tear down established systems were heroes. Now that isn't the case. Not because of an influential character, but because of drifting ideas of what heroism we idealize right now.</blockquote>

Verification