Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="the Jester" data-source="post: 5874990" data-attributes="member: 1210">Perhaps because gamers tend to bitch and moan when the meaning of a game term has changed? Witness 4e's saving throws: non-4e players, IME, tend to get all weird about the term saving throw as used in 4e.Why have separate terms for the two? Is the distinction because some are pc races and some aren't? Is an orc a demihuman or a humanoid, and does the answer change from a campaign in which orcs are a viable pc race to a campaign in which they aren't? What about dromites (3.5 XPH- little bug men)? Are they demihumans (as a pc race) or humanoids (as a very nonhuman yet basically human-shaped race)? What about thri-kreen? What about goblins and kobolds? The problem with "demihuman" and "humanoid" as different terms is that there is no actual hard and fast definition of the difference, and demihuman is just another term that clutters the glossary for no gain.Because they aren't subclasses. If my theme is "gladiator" and I'm a fighter, and your theme is also "gladiator" but you're a barbarian, what exactly is "gladiator" supposed to be a subclass of? No thanks. If the mechanic is fresh, using old-school terminology at best confuses the issue and at worst alienates some players. I don't see any real gain from your suggestion, but I certainly predict butt hurt.</blockquote>