Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mephista" data-source="post: 6695870" data-attributes="member: 6786252">Semantics. Saying that kender have ideas of personal property but have no qualms about violating claims of personal property is just splitting hairs.&nbsp;Still accurate, however.&nbsp; Its still knowingly taking someone else's goods, even if not maliciously.&nbsp; &nbsp;More semantics.&nbsp; Curiosity overpowering one's fear and &quot;getting into trouble&quot; can be reasonably called ignoring danger.&nbsp; People read, yes.&nbsp; Nothing is really against what was spelled out in the description, though taken to exaggerated extremes in a few cases.&nbsp;As a matter of survival in a region where goods are scarce and sharing is the only way for the group as a whole to thrive.&nbsp; Kender don't live in such a tribal society.&nbsp; They're living alongside humans (note that I don't see mention of kender living in elven or dwarven societies) who do have plenty.&nbsp; Furthermore, even in these sharing-tribal societies everything has its place so everyone can use them.&nbsp; Kender pick up and wander off with things, keeping them from being used for their necessary function.Truthfully, I assume kender society is treated much like orc society - the logistics are handwaved away to allow the race as written to function, despite being unsustainable without some tweaks.&nbsp;As a matter of survival because there's no other alternative.&nbsp; Not willingly. If a viable way of removing the crime and improving living conditions came along, I promise you only those mentally damaged wouldn't take it.The mere fact we have to compare kender to dangerous criminals and pest-infested living conditions says something, imho.&nbsp; &nbsp;Complexity in these cases does not, under any circumstance, translate to &quot;for advanced players.&quot;&nbsp; That is specifically against the design goal of the 5e game; if the (sub-)classes in these cases ended up that way, it was purely unintentional and against the stated goal of the core book, and thus a failure.Further, I've seen new players sit down and play these complex classes without a problem.&nbsp; The two are not on the same level at all.&nbsp; Advanced mechanical options are the ones that require system mastery, and the base classes (no feats/multi-class) in 5e are designed around requiring little to no system mastery.&nbsp; Its easy to play a wild mage with little system mastery.&nbsp; And the elemental monk is hardly difficult to play at all.&nbsp; You sit down and buy up the abilities you want.So, in short, you agree to disagree?&nbsp; But I don't agree with your disagreeing!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mephista, post: 6695870, member: 6786252"] Semantics. Saying that kender have ideas of personal property but have no qualms about violating claims of personal property is just splitting hairs. Still accurate, however. Its still knowingly taking someone else's goods, even if not maliciously. More semantics. Curiosity overpowering one's fear and "getting into trouble" can be reasonably called ignoring danger. People read, yes. Nothing is really against what was spelled out in the description, though taken to exaggerated extremes in a few cases. As a matter of survival in a region where goods are scarce and sharing is the only way for the group as a whole to thrive. Kender don't live in such a tribal society. They're living alongside humans (note that I don't see mention of kender living in elven or dwarven societies) who do have plenty. Furthermore, even in these sharing-tribal societies everything has its place so everyone can use them. Kender pick up and wander off with things, keeping them from being used for their necessary function. Truthfully, I assume kender society is treated much like orc society - the logistics are handwaved away to allow the race as written to function, despite being unsustainable without some tweaks. As a matter of survival because there's no other alternative. Not willingly. If a viable way of removing the crime and improving living conditions came along, I promise you only those mentally damaged wouldn't take it. The mere fact we have to compare kender to dangerous criminals and pest-infested living conditions says something, imho. Complexity in these cases does not, under any circumstance, translate to "for advanced players." That is specifically against the design goal of the 5e game; if the (sub-)classes in these cases ended up that way, it was purely unintentional and against the stated goal of the core book, and thus a failure. Further, I've seen new players sit down and play these complex classes without a problem. The two are not on the same level at all. Advanced mechanical options are the ones that require system mastery, and the base classes (no feats/multi-class) in 5e are designed around requiring little to no system mastery. Its easy to play a wild mage with little system mastery. And the elemental monk is hardly difficult to play at all. You sit down and buy up the abilities you want. So, in short, you agree to disagree? But I don't agree with your disagreeing! [/QUOTE]

Verification