Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 9297482" data-attributes="member: 7635">So, I just took a look at the packet [USER=6789971]@bedir than[/USER] linked me, and I can't say I'm overly impressed. Now don't get me wrong, I'm fine with the lineage/Heritage system. The idea of a halfling with the scavenger or gnome with cottager isn't the problem. It's that the linage itself is kinda meh. It feels like they took two species and stitched them together. It doesn't feel like a unique species, but a generic template for &quot;short PC&quot; Maybe the final book will spell it out better, but I fail to see what those two species have in common but &quot;short&quot; and perhaps &quot;not overly popular&quot;. I mean, I could probably combine gnome and dwarf into one lineage and get the same result. And as stated, I don't overly like the idea subraces/lineages/heritages/fnargs (God's I wished we had settled on one set of nomenclature!) to &quot;limit&quot; the number of playable creatures in the game. High elf and Drow should have separate stats, not be a bullet point in a generic one-size-fits-all &quot;elf&quot;. This is doubly true for putting all planetouched in a single species, putting all goblinoids into a single species, etc. I can accept species choice point when it doesn't fundamentally change the species (your shifter trait or aasimar manifestation) for a species where presumably the subspecies differs on a visual, cultural, or biological level (elf vs drow, gnome vs halfling) make the choice more interesting than &quot;darkvision vs poison resistance&quot; or &quot;what bonus spells I know&quot;. Then again, this was always going to be the problem with separating &quot;biological&quot; and &quot;cultural&quot; traits; there aren't enough balanced biological options to make the differences meaningful without resorting weird pseudo-cultural traits like &quot;the gods blessed them with proficiency in X&quot; or &quot;they have magical gift to cast Y spells&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Remathilis, post: 9297482, member: 7635"] So, I just took a look at the packet [USER=6789971]@bedir than[/USER] linked me, and I can't say I'm overly impressed. Now don't get me wrong, I'm fine with the lineage/Heritage system. The idea of a halfling with the scavenger or gnome with cottager isn't the problem. It's that the linage itself is kinda meh. It feels like they took two species and stitched them together. It doesn't feel like a unique species, but a generic template for "short PC" Maybe the final book will spell it out better, but I fail to see what those two species have in common but "short" and perhaps "not overly popular". I mean, I could probably combine gnome and dwarf into one lineage and get the same result. And as stated, I don't overly like the idea subraces/lineages/heritages/fnargs (God's I wished we had settled on one set of nomenclature!) to "limit" the number of playable creatures in the game. High elf and Drow should have separate stats, not be a bullet point in a generic one-size-fits-all "elf". This is doubly true for putting all planetouched in a single species, putting all goblinoids into a single species, etc. I can accept species choice point when it doesn't fundamentally change the species (your shifter trait or aasimar manifestation) for a species where presumably the subspecies differs on a visual, cultural, or biological level (elf vs drow, gnome vs halfling) make the choice more interesting than "darkvision vs poison resistance" or "what bonus spells I know". Then again, this was always going to be the problem with separating "biological" and "cultural" traits; there aren't enough balanced biological options to make the differences meaningful without resorting weird pseudo-cultural traits like "the gods blessed them with proficiency in X" or "they have magical gift to cast Y spells". [/QUOTE]

Verification