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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crimson Longinus" data-source="post: 8448671" data-attributes="member: 7025508">I don't think these are really a different thing. Both represent capabilities the species may posses.How it 'seeing in dark' not a competency? It's the same thing. And certainly competency affects psychology.I've always liked small species, the whole 'small people in a big world' has always been appealing to me. They need to employ guile, stealth  and diplomacy in order to survive. Imagine human adventurers in world mostly populated by giants. But I still feel being superhobbits will mess with that somewhat. If humans were just as strong as giants living in a giant world as a human would feel pretty different.You'd have problem fitting in spaces. Others might find you scary, but if it was common knowledge that ogres are bizarrely weak for their size and actually not any stronger than humans that might not be the case.I really like playing with size differences, but this is my biggest issue with homogenisation of D&D races. My disbelief suspensors might be (barely, but still) to handle most of it, but I really feel that depiction of creatures of drastically different sizes is where it breaks. And I like to have such creatures. This is not just an issue with small races, it is also an issue with all 'should really be large but is medium for balance reasons' races. They just feel wrong. Such drastic physiological difference should be more than mostly cosmetics. And frankly, I care more about representing it properly than I care about balance.</blockquote>

Verification