Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
What do you think about Monte's new PHB Racial Levels?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="The Little Raven" data-source="post: 1087800" data-attributes="member: 10095"><p><strong>Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is this right?</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The whole tom-ay-to/tom-ah-to argument does not apply to this. You called it a "blatant oversight." I called it a "deliberately skewed game mechanic." This was not a reference to it being discriminatory or not.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Maybe you should reference things in context. Let's take a look at what I said about it being a "deliberately skewed game mechanic," shall we?</p><p></p><p>"It's not a blatant oversight. It's a deliberating skewed game mechanic. Just like True Necromancer is skewed towards Necromancy spells."</p><p></p><p>Nothing in there about it not being discriminatory. In fact, the only thing this states is that it wasn't an oversight, but an intentional design choice. But I did make a comment about it being discriminatory... let's take a look at that comment as well.</p><p></p><p>"As for it being discrimination against classes... ummm... what? Gearing racial classes towards the race's favored class is about as discriminating as the race having a favored class."</p><p></p><p>So... I said it was about as discriminating as favored class... which makes perfect sense.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, they have "Favored Class: Any," which means they are supposed to be just as good at being wizards, clerics, bards, druids, rangers, paladins, and sorcerers... even better in some cases. This is because humans are versatile and adaptable. Thus, a human spellcaster would gain some of that versatility with an increased spell progression. A racial class that values "versatility" but shafts you on spellcasting (if you possessed it) wouldn't fit its own concept very well.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Maybe you need a definition of the word "oversight."</p><p></p><p>o·ver·sight (n.) - An unintentional omission or mistake. </p><p></p><p>Now... the spellcasting was neither an omission, nor was it a mistake. It was intentionally placed there by the designers, so it was not a "blatant oversight."</p><p></p><p>It was a fix to mesh the racial levels together better with multiclassing and spellcasters.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="The Little Raven, post: 1087800, member: 10095"] [b]Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is this right?[/b] The whole tom-ay-to/tom-ah-to argument does not apply to this. You called it a "blatant oversight." I called it a "deliberately skewed game mechanic." This was not a reference to it being discriminatory or not. Maybe you should reference things in context. Let's take a look at what I said about it being a "deliberately skewed game mechanic," shall we? "It's not a blatant oversight. It's a deliberating skewed game mechanic. Just like True Necromancer is skewed towards Necromancy spells." Nothing in there about it not being discriminatory. In fact, the only thing this states is that it wasn't an oversight, but an intentional design choice. But I did make a comment about it being discriminatory... let's take a look at that comment as well. "As for it being discrimination against classes... ummm... what? Gearing racial classes towards the race's favored class is about as discriminating as the race having a favored class." So... I said it was about as discriminating as favored class... which makes perfect sense. No, they have "Favored Class: Any," which means they are supposed to be just as good at being wizards, clerics, bards, druids, rangers, paladins, and sorcerers... even better in some cases. This is because humans are versatile and adaptable. Thus, a human spellcaster would gain some of that versatility with an increased spell progression. A racial class that values "versatility" but shafts you on spellcasting (if you possessed it) wouldn't fit its own concept very well. Maybe you need a definition of the word "oversight." o·ver·sight (n.) - An unintentional omission or mistake. Now... the spellcasting was neither an omission, nor was it a mistake. It was intentionally placed there by the designers, so it was not a "blatant oversight." It was a fix to mesh the racial levels together better with multiclassing and spellcasters. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
What do you think about Monte's new PHB Racial Levels?
Top