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: 8119843" data-attributes="member: 6801228">How any times are we going to go around this circle. I'm getting dizzy. You were discussing "innate" racial traits. Let us once more go back to the PHB. What do we see for Dwarves. And the part where it says they get traits "part and parcel with Dwarven nature" which would read innate, we get (in order) the ability score increase, Age, Alignment, Size, Speed, Darkvision, Resilience, Combat Training, Tool Proficiency, Stone Cunning and Language. At no point do the rules call some of these traits "innate" and other not. They do not say you are born with some of them and not others. They do not say they are "derived from ancestry" and not others. If you want to argue that by saying that the traits are "part and parcel with Dwarven nature" that the designers were explicitly telling us that the +2 Con was something dwarves are born with, then you at the same time must say that dwarves are born speaking dwarvish, knowing how to work a belllows in a forge, and how to wield a battleaxe. Because the designers did not in fact seperate these traits, some into innate racial traits and some into non-innate racial traits. Which, leads us to some of these traits being innate, others not, and none of it labeled. Some are obvious like age and size, or tool proficiencies. But, I put forth that some could go either way, Racial ASI's being one of them. Because I can think of learned behaviors that could cause those bonuses.Why do we need to understand the context of this rule? Is there context that would make it less of an official rule if it were discovered?They gave examples of playing against type, they did not define that not having a +2 to your key stat was the only way to play against type. And, since there are multiple ways to play against type, then this rule cannot eliminate it. Also, what about the race/class combos that this opens up that are archetypical and defined by the lore, but mechanically less than optimal? Orcs are the "Godsworn" with religion massively impacting every aspect of their lives. This rule allows for Orc Clerics to more easily exist. I saw recently in Mordenkainen's that Gnomes have a particular fascination for star-gazing, and Forest gnomes have a love of small creautres. This could open up some very thematic Star Druid Gnome characters, who fit perfectly in the lore but are mechanically not "optimized". These are just as "archetypical" as the combos that now exist, but are being relegated into your "against type" category. Why?They aren't changing a rule. They are adding an optional rule. That is the difference. In fact, Tasha's features a lot of options, and something in particular stands out to me. You remember the Class Variant UA? The one that offered different abilities that players could pick instead of their normal ones? It has been repeatedly referred to as the most popular UA ever. But, by your logic, they are changing the rules in the PHB and should have just made 6e instead. I disagree. I think that these optional rules are sorely needed, but I don't think they require an entirely new edition of the game to implement. And, since 6e isn't being released but Tasha's is, I believe the game designer's agree with me.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Still haven't heard a single reason why "more half-elves and Mountain dwarves" is a problem</blockquote>

Verification