D&D 5E (2024) Solasta 2 and the 1/2 elf

I was unhappy the first time around when half-orcs were removed. Taking them (and half-elves as well) out again feels like 1989 all over again, with a different group behind the "push".
1751393934940.png
 

log in or register to remove this ad


These dudes have a hard time learning g from their mistakes. I like the 2024 upgrades for the most part but the flavor has gone bad.🤢🤮
I really can't understand this. What's your problem? I mean, the main reason half elf was popular was it was mechanically overpowered. And there is nothing in the new rules that prevents you playing a character of mixed heritage. It just doesn't have a mechanical advantage for power gamers.
 

The mistake I'm talking about is taking certain races out of editions. Tsr dropped the 1/2 orc for 2nd edition.wotc then dropped the gnome in 4th edition. Then hurried to bring it back. I don't give a naughty word about the races powergaming potential. It was not used in 5.24phb for stupid reasons.
 

I really can't understand this. What's your problem? I mean, the main reason half elf was popular was it was mechanically overpowered. And there is nothing in the new rules that prevents you playing a character of mixed heritage. It just doesn't have a mechanical advantage for power gamers.
First off, not everyone liked it because it was "mechanically overpowered". It got one extra ability point, a couple skills, and not much else. A strong choice, but even on the mechanical end it was more that it had features highly flexible to a variety of character concepts that made the half-elf good.

But plenty of us just like half-elves. About half my characters in Baldur's Gate 3 and Solasta have been half-elves, and their extra ability point was nerfed in both (as far as I remember?).

It matters what the default rules are. We don't all play every game at a table where we have full rules input (or feel comfortable rattling off the litany of homebrew rules and rulings we like, or even asking to use non-vanilla content for our character). Fluffing a character as a hybrid with no mechanical difference does not make it feel like a meaningful choice. The game had an option, but some mean wizards took it away, to help sand off the rough and interesting edges of the game and make everything more bland and interchangeable.
 

I for one do not find a single species whose mechanics are appreciably meaningful... especially not when you bury them under 20 levels worth of class mechanics. ;)
 

I really can't understand this. What's your problem? I mean, the main reason half elf was popular was it was mechanically overpowered. And there is nothing in the new rules that prevents you playing a character of mixed heritage. It just doesn't have a mechanical advantage for power gamers.
I dont agree with the bolded. Maybe...maaybee recently...but over the years IME people played half-elf for the flavor and versatility.
 

I for one do not find a single species whose mechanics are appreciably meaningful... especially not when you bury them under 20 levels worth of class mechanics. ;)
which is honestly such a shame IMO, since nearly day 1 one of the most iconic catchphrases of DnD was always 'pick your class and race species' but they're not even in the same league anymore.


tangential general question not just to defcon, do you consider species abilities that are weaker but passive/infinitely usable better or worse to help define a species' identity than a more powerful ability of limited use? i was looking at the orc statblocks and the limited use of '24's adrenaline rush(BA dash, gain temp HP, PB/LR uses) seems like a worse deal to me than it's counterpart in 14's agressive(BA dash, must end closer to an enemy than you started), (and yes i'm aware adrenaline rush was also on some versions of '14 orcs.)
 

They did mention in the call the couldn’t use certain classes that weren’t in the srd like the artificer but 1/2 elf was a maybe. Not sure why the artificer wasn’t allowed
I’m wondering if Larian had gone with bg4 what rules they would have gone with and if another studi say builds bg4 if they will get more than the srd

I certainly didn’t want to start an editions blah blah war.
 

They did mention in the call the couldn’t use certain classes that weren’t in the srd like the artificer but 1/2 elf was a maybe. Not sure why the artificer wasn’t allowed
I’m wondering if Larian had gone with bg4 what rules they would have gone with and if another studi say builds bg4 if they will get more than the srd

I certainly didn’t want to start an editions blah blah war.

Solasta has no direct licensing agreement with WotC, which is why things outside the SRD (like the artificer) are not allowed.

Solasta can make their own version of a half-elf if they want to, since the term "half-elf" isn't owned by anyone (I think Tolkien probably coined it, but the term itself is now explicitly in the Creative Commons regardless).

If and when somebody gets the license to make BG4, they will ipso facto have permission to use more than the SRD, because even the name "Baldur's Gate" is WotC's IP.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top