Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 9188695" data-attributes="member: 29398">Probably not a bad idea, because... (see below)Drow shouldn't be PC-playable IMO, therefore I ignore them when considering what Elves should have going for them.Tough.&nbsp; Them's the breaks.That said, ideally a DM will vary the adventure locations enough that most terrain types will appear at some point.Yep.&nbsp; Again, them's the breaks.&nbsp; My response: always be very flexible with your character concepts, as the dice won't always cooperate.Given that it's a freebie benefit, I can't see any reason to complain if it's something not always useful.So those players don't play that species.&nbsp; End of issue.I've never bought into the D&amp;D depiction of Elvish gender, but for my current campaign I did give the (random frequency) gender-flip piece to pure Orcs (not to Part-Orcs) as an experiment to see how it'd work on a common but non-PC-playable species.&nbsp; So far so good.(this is where the see-below leads) ... Humans should be the baseline* to which everything else is then (vaguely) balanced, including drawbacks to cancel out the benefits.&nbsp; This is why I hold that species-based ASIs should go both up AND down.* - something has to be the baseline against which everything else is measured, and if not Humans then who?To the bolded: no.&nbsp; Flat hard no.&nbsp; As in, dealbreaker-level no.Strength 6 is Strength 6 regardless who or what has it.&nbsp; If you want the Orc to be stronger than a Human in the fiction then give it a higher Strength score to reflect that at the table.If what you're getting at is that the bell-curve for Orc Strength goes more like 7-20 than the 3-18 range for Humans, then I get that.&nbsp; However, what this means to me is that a Strength-6 Orc simply can't exist in the setting: the weakest of Orcs is still Str-7, and the scores have to be adjusted to suit.I don't think things that potentially give great benefits (e.g. angelic ancestry) should ever be chooseable.&nbsp; Random, sure.&nbsp; I expect that some people in the setting are simply better/luckier than others, even among adventurers.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 9188695, member: 29398"] Probably not a bad idea, because... (see below) Drow shouldn't be PC-playable IMO, therefore I ignore them when considering what Elves should have going for them. Tough. Them's the breaks. That said, ideally a DM will vary the adventure locations enough that most terrain types will appear at some point. Yep. Again, them's the breaks. My response: always be very flexible with your character concepts, as the dice won't always cooperate. Given that it's a freebie benefit, I can't see any reason to complain if it's something not always useful. So those players don't play that species. End of issue. I've never bought into the D&D depiction of Elvish gender, but for my current campaign I did give the (random frequency) gender-flip piece to pure Orcs (not to Part-Orcs) as an experiment to see how it'd work on a common but non-PC-playable species. So far so good. (this is where the see-below leads) ... Humans should be the baseline* to which everything else is then (vaguely) balanced, including drawbacks to cancel out the benefits. This is why I hold that species-based ASIs should go both up AND down. * - something has to be the baseline against which everything else is measured, and if not Humans then who? To the bolded: no. Flat hard no. As in, dealbreaker-level no. Strength 6 is Strength 6 regardless who or what has it. If you want the Orc to be stronger than a Human in the fiction then give it a higher Strength score to reflect that at the table. If what you're getting at is that the bell-curve for Orc Strength goes more like 7-20 than the 3-18 range for Humans, then I get that. However, what this means to me is that a Strength-6 Orc simply can't exist in the setting: the weakest of Orcs is still Str-7, and [I]the scores have to be adjusted to suit[/I]. I don't think things that potentially give great benefits (e.g. angelic ancestry) should ever be chooseable. Random, sure. I expect that some people in the setting are simply better/luckier than others, even among adventurers. [/QUOTE]

Verification