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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Scott Christian" data-source="post: 8119733" data-attributes="member: 6901101">Could be. Seems like a solid point.I was discussing innate racial traits. Also discussing the ability for one to apply common sense to the authors' use of language in their statements. I mean, they try to reword it so it doesn't sound repetitious, but it's very clear. By virtue of literally means because of... the phrases "inborn ability," "natural ability," "traits deriving from ancestry," all mean you are born with it. One implies it could just be a product of learning, the other means it is innate. Am I reading it wrong? I don't think so.Timeline. I agree they have said it. Timeline. It may have been after the fact. That, I believe, is what someone else was saying.Perspective. That is what it gains us. To me, it is important to have in order to understand the context of something.No, they are eliminating against type all together. The way the PHB defines against type is specifically not having the advantage of a race/class combination that is synergistic. By eliminating against type, according to some, leads to a loss of archetypes and lore.Which is why I suggested it is better to start with a clean slate rather than place players/DM's in that situation. Because, in the end, you can add all sorts of things that are not controversial. You can add spells, just playtest them first. You can add locales and regions. You can add monsters. You can add lore and adventures. You can add magic items. You can add splat for online gaming. You can add new equipment and weapons and armor. You can even add races to match a locale. You can do all these things. But if you choose to change a rule that has been in place for five years, and one that has been a staple for the game for several editions in a row, then maybe, just maybe, don't add it or start from scratch.</blockquote>

Verification