Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8693388" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Maybe you need to go and read again, because you clearly have no idea what the conversation was about. Charlaquin was asking "why is this a thing, why do people act like this" and I tried to explain it. In the course of that, I used an example of a race concept I am trying to work on, and that partially has the issue I was talking about. So... no, I don't expect WotC to do anything about my homebrew race I'm trying to make. Then it wouldn't be homebrew. If you are asking "is overdesigning multiple races into the same niche a concern WotC should have" ummm.... yes? It seems like a design problem is something the design team should be aware of and consider. Whether they consider they haven't run into an issue yet or not is up to them. But, personally, I would note that there are quite a few races that have effectively died on the vine, because they are either too specific to a setting, or redundant with other options. For Example, Feral Tieflings and Hellfire Tieflings. No one uses them, no one thinks about them, because the Archedevil variants have completely overtaken them and given people what they wanted with the Tieflings. Are gnomes and halflings filling the same niche to a level it is a problem? Probably not. Are gnomes, halflings, goblins, Kobolds, fairies, Aasimar, Changelings, Dhampir, Genasi, Harengon, Hexblood, Kenku, Owling, Reborn, Tabaxi, Tortle and Yuan-Ti are starting to crowd into a single niche starting to become a problem? That's more likely, isn't it.  Right, because obviously my concerns are purely mechanical, and can therefore be dismissed.Yeah, almost like deciding which way to go is difficult. Kind of like it is easy to look at someone else saying "I'm struggling with this" and saying "I don't see why, this is easy"  without anyone asking for their opinion.So, do you have Maxperson blocked? He responded that my non-halfling (to use his formating) "Brave" adventurer would spend more time (to quote) Cowering and running away in fear than the halflings, so the halfling is braver, because they will make those saves. So, yes, it seems someone is making those claims. Now, was he making those claims before I pointed out the problem? No, I wasn't talking to him when I laid out the problem. Because it is a problem I've seen and talked to people about before trying to bring it up in this forum. And instead of discussing the narrative, everyone just keeps pointing to the trait and trying to explain to me how mechanics work. And the thing is, you keep making the same assumption time and time again. You keep assuming that succeeding the check is because of bravery. You keep making bravery a binary state. Are you frightened or not? But, as we all know, being frightened does not prevent you from being brave. I keep repeating this, but everyone keeps just saying " but the trait is called bravery and it allows brave halflings to fight through and not be affected by fear because they are brave" But not suffering from fear IS NOT BRAVERY. You know who else isn't afraid? Frenzy Barbarian while they are raging. They charge, screaming blood and froth and are so blinded by fury they cannot be afraid. Are they brave? Is being enraged to the point of seeing red a sign of bravery? Real life, you know who else isn't affected by fear? People drunk or high. They get enough drugs in them, and they aren't affected by fear either. Is that bravery? No. Because "not affected by fear" =/= Bravery. That isn't what the term means, that isn't why we use it, that isn't the concept. But because they keep using that narrative and tying it to this mechanic... that's the message people are getting. The bravery = "not being affected by fear" and that is a problem in my opinion, because it ignores what bravery actually is.</blockquote>

Verification