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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 9565298" data-attributes="member: 2067">This is how conspiracy theories flourish.A large, complicated entity does something to break your trust in it.So, understandably, you don't trust it.Then the large, complicated entity does something, and gives you a reason for it.And you just...substitute your own...and declare it unfalsifiable. Doesn't matter what they actually say, it's all for some hidden agenda.But I don't need to be psychic and read their true intentions to have an opinion on the design that they're presenting. I'm not Santa Claus. I don't need to know the hidden darkness in their hearts to determine if this design meets the needs for my game. The truth is that no one will ever know all of the true nuances that go into these decisions. All we have in history is the context we have access to, and we never have access to ALL the context.No, it's broke. Creature types have been awkward fits for a number of creatures since they were introduced in 3e. Hell,  earlier, since rangers have favored enemy ("Giant-class" was never clear-cut!). Types themselves have always been kind of kludgy, based in little more than vibes, and mechanically about as relevant as alignment. The conversation around what creatures make good PC's has always been a bit of a tempest, because of how significant a creature can be when used by a PC, in comparison to other PC's, especially once they can also take class levels. These are all perfectly cromulent design spaces for an edition refresh.Why does it matter if this is the origin of the design? Does it change the effect of the design on the game as a whole? If it's good (and I think that it is pretty good!), AND it helps remedy the strong racism vibes in some of the humanoids, is that not just....even better?</blockquote>

Verification