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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aegeri" data-source="post: 5529695" data-attributes="member: 78116">So if you were wondering why the monsterous races didn't get flex stats, we <a href="http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/27246561/Dragon_397_-__Racial_Ability_Bonuses&post_num=36#492535845" target="_blank">now have an explanation</a>:I am not going to pretend like I get this answer. Apparently "minotaurs" are culturally and psychologically flexible, while all the other races like kobolds and goblins are (apparently) culturally idiots. Somehow there is something about the explanation that fails to make any real sense to me here. Minotaurs in Krynn are apparently a bit different to the typical evil brutal maze based monster of typical fantasy, so maybe I can buy that explanation. At the same time if we're going to take that sort of explanation, it's worth noting goblonoids in Eberron (as an example) are distinctly not idiots and have a deep culture. So this just doesn't make sense to me. Fluff based explanations for mechanics just never actually do - because fluff is inherently mutable and doesn't apply to all settings. It's not a decent explanation whatsoever.Personally I would have much preferred a simpler approach based on the actual mechanics (and what will/won't be supported) such as: "They weren't intended for use as PCs and were intended for NPCs. Those monstrous races that weren't published in a PHB/Dragon, do not get a flex stat because they were not balanced or intended for PC use. If we ever decided to publish them as a full properly balanced PC race, they would get a flex stat like everything else". This also means that the gnoll really should have got a flex stat as well (and probably deserved to given their full write up anyway).It's just really bizarre the logic that goes through wizards these days.</blockquote>

Verification