D&D 5E PHB Races in a Post-MotM 5E

These aren't actual questions, though. The answer is very very clear. Shadar-kai and aquatic elves count as elves, explicitly, for any prerequisite or effect that depends on the character being an elf or not. Same with deep gnomes, duergar, and all the goblinoids. So, yes, they will all be able to take the same racial feats they could before.
they aren't questions FOR YOU
 

log in or register to remove this ad

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
I have been told that both woTc is never wrong but I also can't count any other edition (or mid edition) things they said as broken promises or lies becuse things changed... but nothing can change this time... and I think I am going cross eyed
I'm struggling to think of any thread on these forums wherein anyone has been told any of those things.
 

I'm struggling to think of any thread on these forums wherein anyone has been told any of those things.
okay... good for you, I am literally arguing that I don't trust WotC to mean compatible when they say it, and I was told that they already know what the 2024 books will have for rules and it can't change.
When I brought up the 3 to 3.5 changes I was told that didnt count
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
they aren't questions FOR YOU
They objectively aren't questions. The RAW is extremely clear. The entries for the races in question literally say, "you are also considered an [elf/dwarf/goblin/gnome] for any prerequisite or effect that requires you to be an [elf/dwarf/goblin/gnome]."

It geniunely is not a matter of opinion.

This is like acting like "Sneak Attack doesn't require advantage is you have an ally threatening your target in melee" is a matter of opinion.

They're both literally just what the rules very plainly state.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
okay... good for you, I am literally arguing that I don't trust WotC to mean compatible when they say it, and I was told that they already know what the 2024 books will have for rules and it can't change.
When I brought up the 3 to 3.5 changes I was told that didnt count
You were told they aren't the same situation, because...they aren't. That isn't the same thing as what you're claiming when you blatantly misrepresent what people have told you in order to pretend there is a contradiction.
 

They objectively aren't questions.
if they aren't questions how are we asking them?
You think you have the answer to the question (and you might) but that doesnt mean they aren't qustions.
The RAW is extremely clear.
TO YOU
This is like acting like "Sneak Attack doesn't require advantage is you have an ally threatening your target in melee" is a matter of opinion.
and again, you knowing the answer to "can I sneak attack without advantage if an ally is threatening the target" does no in anyway make it not a valid question.

I will go out on a limb and say almost every question has an answer. Lots of questions have different answers for different people because of Point of View.

using YOUR concept that no question is a valid question if someone knows or thinks they know an answer means that there are almost no questions at all.
 


LadyElect

Explorer
Maybe an ability to keep going when others would drop, modeled by some sort of ability to mitigate exhaustion?
This sounds a bit like the survival equivalent of Relentless Endurance, which doesn’t seem off brand.

TBH I don't think Half-Elves or Half-Orcs will actually see much change. Why would they? They're basically subraces, anyway, and closer to how subraces are being handled going forward, so, little bit of cleaning up at most, IMO.
I suppose I was sneaking in the additional sentiment of wondering if they make the cut in an official revision at all, which I have seen pop up elsewhere. With a decreased focus on prescribed flavor and an increased focus on extensibility, I’d be surprised if the questions of when and why do Half-X’s exist hasn’t crossed WotC desks. But that veers into a vastly different conversation.

As far as a strict revision goes, I would hope Half-Orc gets a more unique identity officially, but Menacing and Savage Attacks provide enough gameplay variance and balance to account for the consistency updates elsewhere. Half-Elf takes a small hit with the Fey Ancestry revision, but perhaps not enough to justify additions elsewhere.
 

Me as the DM: Yes Anon?
Player: DM, how come my Yuan-Ti Pureblood Cleric doesn't have the same Spell Resistance as the Rogue Yuan-Ti PC that Other Player is playing as at our table?

Me as the DM: Oh yeah, your right! Well now your Yuan-Ti Pureblood Cleric's Spell Resistance will get adjusted to be the

same as the original Volo's version like the Rogue Yuan-Ti PC that Other Player plays as.

Anon: Thanks DM!

Me as the DM: No prob, see ya tomorrow for Saturday's session. You got a ride?

Anon: Yup!

Me as the DM: Cool.
 


doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
if they aren't questions how are we asking them?
You think you have the answer to the question (and you might) but that doesnt mean they aren't qustions.

TO YOU

and again, you knowing the answer to "can I sneak attack without advantage if an ally is threatening the target" does no in anyway make it not a valid question.

I will go out on a limb and say almost every question has an answer. Lots of questions have different answers for different people because of Point of View.

using YOUR concept that no question is a valid question if someone knows or thinks they know an answer means that there are almost no questions at all.
Oh goodness sake. A solved question is no longer a question. You can ask a question about it, but that doesn't make the answer in question.

If feature A says, "you count as X for prerequisites" and feature B says "You have to be X to take this", then you can take feature B if you have feature A.
knock it off. you don't get to tell me what I have or have not been told
I'm correcting a misrepresentation of my and other's statements to you.
This sounds a bit like the survival equivalent of Relentless Endurance, which doesn’t seem off brand.
Yeah, and makes them tough in a different way from Hill Dwarves. If it wasn't a thing for Goliaths, I'd give them something like Stone's Endurance, and play on the idea of Durin's Bane (dwarves turning to stone in sunlight), but it's fine, I am already doing that for the doragr (dwarves) in my own game.
I suppose I was sneaking in the additional sentiment of wondering if they make the cut in an official revision at all, which I have seen pop up elsewhere. With a decreased focus on prescribed flavor and an increased focus on extensibility, I’d be surprised if the questions of when and why do Half-X’s exist hasn’t crossed WotC desks. But that veers into a vastly different conversation.
Yeah I think people like playing them enough that they'll stick around regardless, but I see where you're coming from.
As far as a strict revision goes, I would hope Half-Orc gets a more unique identity officially, but Menacing and Savage Attacks provide enough gameplay variance and balance to account for the consistency updates elsewhere. Half-Elf takes a small hit with the Fey Ancestry revision, but perhaps not enough to justify additions elsewhere.
Half-elves are already quite strong, so yeah I suspect they may not see any additions. Though, they're also a bit boring mechanically, tbh.
 

Oh goodness sake. A solved question is no longer a question.
wait what? how do you figure? if 1 person knows the answer is that solved? if 0.005% of the population of the world knows is that 'solved' and no longer a question? at what point do you (or anyone) get to claim a question no longer counts?
You can ask a question about it, but that doesn't make the answer in question.
the answer in the question? I don't understand this sentence at all.
I'm correcting a misrepresentation of my and other's statements to you.
YOU DO NOT GET TO TELL ANYONE WHAT THEY HAVE EXPERENCED.
not me, not anyone. the sooner you get that straightened out the better conversations will be. feel free to tell people YOUR experiences even your SHARED experiences. but telling people what they themselves experienced is a form of calling people liars.
 


YOU DO NOT GET TO TELL ANYONE WHAT THEY HAVE EXPERENCED.
not me, not anyone. the sooner you get that straightened out the better conversations will be. feel free to tell people YOUR experiences even your SHARED experiences. but telling people what they themselves experienced is a form of calling people liars.
They did not. Badwolf just said they elaborating on statements that Badwolf and others stated to you on this forum.
 

Badwolf answered the question. It’s plainly there rules as written. The only way to get confused is to miss the part that answers it.
but he didn't just answer it, he claimed it an invalid question... he could have said "Hey I have the book and it say X Y Z" he instead chose to argue that no one can have the question and that the question is not valid (then some posts later answered it... but an answered question is still and especially was valid before said answer)
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
wait what? how do you figure? if 1 person knows the answer is that solved? if 0.005% of the population of the world knows is that 'solved' and no longer a question? at what point do you (or anyone) get to claim a question no longer counts?

the answer in the question? I don't understand this sentence at all.
Is there a language barrier, here? It feels like there might be. If so, perhaps we can start over with a better understanding of what the things I've said in this thread actually mean.

To be "in question" means to be in a state of doubt or uncertainty.

To question something or ask a question about something does not cause that thing to actually be in question, it just means that the questioner does not know the answer and is seeking it.

You can ask me what sex I am, though it would be rude. Doing so would not put my sex into question, it would not make my sex a question. It would simply mean that you have a question about a thing with an objective answer.
YOU DO NOT GET TO TELL ANYONE WHAT THEY HAVE EXPERENCED.
not me, not anyone. the sooner you get that straightened out the better conversations will be. feel free to tell people YOUR experiences even your SHARED experiences. but telling people what they themselves experienced is a form of calling people liars.
Oof. I never told you what you experienced. Stop jumping to wild conclusions and being so damn accusatory with anyone you disagree with, for goodness sake.

It is not a crime to point out to someone that no one actually said the thing they're accusing people of saying. Sometimes, a person is just wrong about what was said. It happens. Telling you that you're wrong is not calling you a liar.
 


doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
@GMforPowergamers What I and @MonsterEnvy are doing is not what you seem to think we are doing, and I don't appreciate the false accusations.

We are trying to explain to you that the things people said in other threads do not mean the things you claimed in this thread, and are not actually contradictory statements, as you implied.

This has absolutely nothing to do with telling you your own experiences, calling you a liar, or any other wild accusation you might make.
 


Is there a language barrier, here? It feels like there might be. If so, perhaps we can start over with a better understanding of what the things I've said in this thread actually mean.

To be "in question" means to be in a state of doubt or uncertainty.
yes and I can have something be in question even if you know the answer... and visa versa,

My dad is a car guy I only know 'put gas in turn key go vroom vroom' he has LOTS of answeres about cars that are in question to me. He however can not use a smart phone no matter how many times I explain it (like there are TV comercials making fun of things I had to explain to him 5 or 6 times) aka I have answers to things he does not.

My dad doesn't play D&D... he has no idea what Thac0 means or what a warlock or warlord is for a class... me knowing those things doesn't invalidate him asking "what do you mean THACO?"
To question something or ask a question about something does not cause that thing to actually be in question, it just means that the questioner does not know the answer and is seeking it.
okay so far you seem to be getting this... you have an answer, you can provide it without saying the qustion is invalid... it even would have ended this argument before it started.
Oof. I never told you what you experienced. Stop jumping to wild conclusions and being so damn accusatory with anyone you disagree with, for goodness sake.
I quoted you telling me that I have been told things don't count...
It is not a crime to point out to someone that no one actually said the thing they're accusing people of saying.
it is not a crime. It is highly rude and in no way your place.
Sometimes, a person is just wrong about what was said. It happens. Telling you that you're wrong is not calling you a liar.
telling me that I am "accusing people of saying" things they didn't is infact calling me a liar.
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top