Quote from monkmulticlasser >>

Kobold with a medievil plague mask would be dope.

 That was exactly what the character was. Motzu, the kobold "doctor". Doctor in quotation marks because they have no medical degree and Motzu just means doctor in draconic

oh, that's interesting! Character names that have meaning are super cool!

Quote from SigrunOfTheBorderRealms >>

Quote from monkmulticlasser >>

Kobold with a medievil plague mask would be dope.

 That was exactly what the character was. Motzu, the kobold "doctor". Doctor in quotation marks because they have no medical degree and Motzu just means doctor in draconic

 👍

Quote from SigrunOfTheBorderRealms >>

Quote from FleetCenturion >>

Quote from FleetCenturion >

Quote from FleetCenturion >>

 So... You want to become a vampire (damphir, whatever), plus bonuses from Theros, etc., at character creation?  You've just demonstrated in one statement, everything that is wrong with 5e.  The sad part is that WotC is going to let you do it!

 What you've described is a Mary-Sue.  Being special, and completely unearned, culminating in a power fantasy.  Having it written into the rules doesn't change that, nor does it change the fact that an identity is not a character.

 

It's not even about being overpowered, though that's why most do it.  When you mold a backstory to fit an identity, instead of the other way around, you end up with a crappy character.  Why would this kind of character be an adventurer, and why should anyone fight with them?  If the first description of a character is what they look like, and what their lineage is, it doesn't matter how OP they are; the character is weak.  The character's race and special abilities should be the absolute last thing that is considered.  Otherwise, all the immature college kids at the table just end up playing a furry, super hero version of themselves, with no character depth whatsoever.  Serious role players and grognard DMs can't stand these people, and will rightly kill them off the first chance they get (with bonus points if they can make them cry!).

 Wow, you sound like a sanctimonious ******* policing how people play this game and I am glad you're not on my table. Let people play whatever, yo, not everyone writes twenty pages of backstory before they roll for stats. I for one start with a neat concept, like "Kobold Artificer who never takes of their mask" and work from that. I hope shcroeder and cypher have fun playing their "mary sue" characters without the input of gygaxian traditionalists who only accept their way of character creation.

 I agree. Some people's children.

Quote from WillowTehKitsune >>

Quote from SigrunOfTheBorderRealms >>

Quote from FleetCenturion >>

Quote from FleetCenturion >

Quote from FleetCenturion >>

 So... You want to become a vampire (damphir, whatever), plus bonuses from Theros, etc., at character creation?  You've just demonstrated in one statement, everything that is wrong with 5e.  The sad part is that WotC is going to let you do it!

 What you've described is a Mary-Sue.  Being special, and completely unearned, culminating in a power fantasy.  Having it written into the rules doesn't change that, nor does it change the fact that an identity is not a character.

 

It's not even about being overpowered, though that's why most do it.  When you mold a backstory to fit an identity, instead of the other way around, you end up with a crappy character.  Why would this kind of character be an adventurer, and why should anyone fight with them?  If the first description of a character is what they look like, and what their lineage is, it doesn't matter how OP they are; the character is weak.  The character's race and special abilities should be the absolute last thing that is considered.  Otherwise, all the immature college kids at the table just end up playing a furry, super hero version of themselves, with no character depth whatsoever.  Serious role players and grognard DMs can't stand these people, and will rightly kill them off the first chance they get (with bonus points if they can make them cry!).

 Wow, you sound like a sanctimonious ******* policing how people play this game and I am glad you're not on my table. Let people play whatever, yo, not everyone writes twenty pages of backstory before they roll for stats. I for one start with a neat concept, like "Kobold Artificer who never takes of their mask" and work from that. I hope shcroeder and cypher have fun playing their "mary sue" characters without the input of gygaxian traditionalists who only accept their way of character creation.

 I agree. Some people's children.

 I touched a nerve, I see!  So, you start with:   New scaily race + new OP class + mask-wearing edgelord.  Yep, I'm glad I'm not at your table either.  I'm willing to bet it's full of furries, scailies, robots, and fish people, and that every tavern in your world resembles a space port from Star Wars.
My backstories, by the way, are always less than a page, and always created for level one.  A ridiculous, drawn-out backstory is worse than no backstory.
Keep playing though.  At least you'll be writing less fan fiction.

Quote from FleetCenturion >>

Quote from WillowTehKitsune >>

Quote from SigrunOfTheBorderRealms >>

Quote from FleetCenturion >>

Quote from FleetCenturion >

Quote from FleetCenturion >>

 So... You want to become a vampire (damphir, whatever), plus bonuses from Theros, etc., at character creation?  You've just demonstrated in one statement, everything that is wrong with 5e.  The sad part is that WotC is going to let you do it!

 What you've described is a Mary-Sue.  Being special, and completely unearned, culminating in a power fantasy.  Having it written into the rules doesn't change that, nor does it change the fact that an identity is not a character.

 

It's not even about being overpowered, though that's why most do it.  When you mold a backstory to fit an identity, instead of the other way around, you end up with a crappy character.  Why would this kind of character be an adventurer, and why should anyone fight with them?  If the first description of a character is what they look like, and what their lineage is, it doesn't matter how OP they are; the character is weak.  The character's race and special abilities should be the absolute last thing that is considered.  Otherwise, all the immature college kids at the table just end up playing a furry, super hero version of themselves, with no character depth whatsoever.  Serious role players and grognard DMs can't stand these people, and will rightly kill them off the first chance they get (with bonus points if they can make them cry!).

 Wow, you sound like a sanctimonious ******* policing how people play this game and I am glad you're not on my table. Let people play whatever, yo, not everyone writes twenty pages of backstory before they roll for stats. I for one start with a neat concept, like "Kobold Artificer who never takes of their mask" and work from that. I hope shcroeder and cypher have fun playing their "mary sue" characters without the input of gygaxian traditionalists who only accept their way of character creation.

 I agree. Some people's children.

 I touched a nerve, I see!  So, you start with:   New scaily race + new OP class + mask-wearing edgelord.  Yep, I'm glad I'm not at your table either.  I'm willing to bet it's full of furries, scailies, robots, and fish people, and that every tavern in your world resembles a space port from Star Wars.
My backstories, by the way, are always less than a page, and always created for level one.  A ridiculous, drawn-out backstory is worse than no backstory.
Keep playing though.  At least you'll be writing less fan fiction.

 Dude. People have different opinions. its not that uncommon.

Quote from SemanticAvenger >>

Quote from FleetCenturion >>

Quote from schroeder08037 >>

Quote from FleetCenturion >>

Quote from CypherTheNerd >>

Quote from FleetCenturion >>

Quote from CypherTheNerd >>

Really looking forward to this book, especially the lineages feature! I'm curious how lineages will be treated in the character creator, will they appear as feats or will they be supported as a whole new section of character creation? If so, will the supernatural gifts of theros fall under that category as well?

 So... You want to become a vampire (damphir, whatever), plus bonuses from Theros, etc., at character creation?  You've just demonstrated in one statement, everything that is wrong with 5e.  The sad part is that WotC is going to let you do it!

 Oh sorry I should have been clearer haha, no I was asking if it would be implemented in the same way, bc when they released theros there wasn't really an option to use those supernatural gifts, and when I first read about the lineages I interpreted them as being like that. I had an idea for an eladrin hexblood character that I wanted to play and I was wondering if the Hexblood came on top of the race, like a feat, or if they would be separate from feats and find a whole new niche in the character creation section that said if I could have a character that had a lineage and a theros.

 

that said I would 100% play a character with a lineage and a supernatural gift, because that sounds like a fun character haha.

 What you've described is a Mary-Sue.  Being special, and completely unearned, culminating in a power fantasy.  Having it written into the rules doesn't change that, nor does it change the fact that an identity is not a character.

 Hey, whatever floats your boat. If you don’t like powergaming: Guess what? You don’t need to use it. Frankly I think it would be cool to do a MOoT Hexblood. Hags have some elements that remind me of the three fates in Greek mythology. (Which is the inspiration for MOoT) I’ve never played MOoT so I don’t know how an Eladrin would work for that. That’s the thing I like about odd combinations like that for two reasons: 1 generally there’s a logical connection, and finding that gives the player new depth, and 2 it encourages good roleplay. I’m always trying to get my players to flesh out the characters they create. An odd combination, such as a hexblood with a MOoT lineage, forces them to do so. That is, if you are willing to actually put effort into making the characters. The only time I have a problem with odd combinations is when the player offers no explanation other than “it sounds cool” or “it’s more powerful,” rather than giving a legitimate backstory. Truth, identity is not a character, it’s a character’s skeleton, and it inspires better character creation to flesh it out. 

It's not even about being overpowered, though that's why most do it.  When you mold a backstory to fit an identity, instead of the other way around, you end up with a crappy character.  Why would this kind of character be an adventurer, and why should anyone fight with them?  If the first description of a character is what they look like, and what their lineage is, it doesn't matter how OP they are; the character is weak.  The character's race and special abilities should be the absolute last thing that is considered.  Otherwise, all the immature college kids at the table just end up playing a furry, super hero version of themselves, with no character depth whatsoever.  Serious role players and grognard DMs can't stand these people, and will rightly kill them off the first chance they get (with bonus points if they can make them cry!).

 I genuinely cannot understand any mindset that could consider intentionally hurting someone's feelings a worthy goal. 

 And I can't understand how someone would ever be so offended over criticism of a fictional character.  But that's where society is right now.  You'll just have to wait until all us grognards die off.

Quote from CypherTheNerd >>

Quote from FleetCenturion >>

Quote from WillowTehKitsune >>

Quote from SigrunOfTheBorderRealms >>

Quote from FleetCenturion >>

Quote from FleetCenturion >

Quote from FleetCenturion >>

 So... You want to become a vampire (damphir, whatever), plus bonuses from Theros, etc., at character creation?  You've just demonstrated in one statement, everything that is wrong with 5e.  The sad part is that WotC is going to let you do it!

 What you've described is a Mary-Sue.  Being special, and completely unearned, culminating in a power fantasy.  Having it written into the rules doesn't change that, nor does it change the fact that an identity is not a character.

 

It's not even about being overpowered, though that's why most do it.  When you mold a backstory to fit an identity, instead of the other way around, you end up with a crappy character.  Why would this kind of character be an adventurer, and why should anyone fight with them?  If the first description of a character is what they look like, and what their lineage is, it doesn't matter how OP they are; the character is weak.  The character's race and special abilities should be the absolute last thing that is considered.  Otherwise, all the immature college kids at the table just end up playing a furry, super hero version of themselves, with no character depth whatsoever.  Serious role players and grognard DMs can't stand these people, and will rightly kill them off the first chance they get (with bonus points if they can make them cry!).

 Wow, you sound like a sanctimonious ******* policing how people play this game and I am glad you're not on my table. Let people play whatever, yo, not everyone writes twenty pages of backstory before they roll for stats. I for one start with a neat concept, like "Kobold Artificer who never takes of their mask" and work from that. I hope shcroeder and cypher have fun playing their "mary sue" characters without the input of gygaxian traditionalists who only accept their way of character creation.

 I agree. Some people's children.

 I touched a nerve, I see!  So, you start with:   New scaily race + new OP class + mask-wearing edgelord.  Yep, I'm glad I'm not at your table either.  I'm willing to bet it's full of furries, scailies, robots, and fish people, and that every tavern in your world resembles a space port from Star Wars.
My backstories, by the way, are always less than a page, and always created for level one.  A ridiculous, drawn-out backstory is worse than no backstory.
Keep playing though.  At least you'll be writing less fan fiction.

 Dude. People have different opinions. its not that uncommon.

 And you're perfectly entitled to them.  Just like I am.

Quote from FleetCenturion >>

Quote from CypherTheNerd >>

Quote from FleetCenturion >>

Quote from WillowTehKitsune >>

Quote from SigrunOfTheBorderRealms >>

Quote from FleetCenturion >>

Quote from FleetCenturion >

Quote from FleetCenturion >>

 So... You want to become a vampire (damphir, whatever), plus bonuses from Theros, etc., at character creation?  You've just demonstrated in one statement, everything that is wrong with 5e.  The sad part is that WotC is going to let you do it!

 What you've described is a Mary-Sue.  Being special, and completely unearned, culminating in a power fantasy.  Having it written into the rules doesn't change that, nor does it change the fact that an identity is not a character.

 

It's not even about being overpowered, though that's why most do it.  When you mold a backstory to fit an identity, instead of the other way around, you end up with a crappy character.  Why would this kind of character be an adventurer, and why should anyone fight with them?  If the first description of a character is what they look like, and what their lineage is, it doesn't matter how OP they are; the character is weak.  The character's race and special abilities should be the absolute last thing that is considered.  Otherwise, all the immature college kids at the table just end up playing a furry, super hero version of themselves, with no character depth whatsoever.  Serious role players and grognard DMs can't stand these people, and will rightly kill them off the first chance they get (with bonus points if they can make them cry!).

 Wow, you sound like a sanctimonious ******* policing how people play this game and I am glad you're not on my table. Let people play whatever, yo, not everyone writes twenty pages of backstory before they roll for stats. I for one start with a neat concept, like "Kobold Artificer who never takes of their mask" and work from that. I hope shcroeder and cypher have fun playing their "mary sue" characters without the input of gygaxian traditionalists who only accept their way of character creation.

 I agree. Some people's children.

 I touched a nerve, I see!  So, you start with:   New scaily race + new OP class + mask-wearing edgelord.  Yep, I'm glad I'm not at your table either.  I'm willing to bet it's full of furries, scailies, robots, and fish people, and that every tavern in your world resembles a space port from Star Wars.
My backstories, by the way, are always less than a page, and always created for level one.  A ridiculous, drawn-out backstory is worse than no backstory.
Keep playing though.  At least you'll be writing less fan fiction.

 Dude. People have different opinions. its not that uncommon.

 And you're perfectly entitled to them.  Just like I am.

 absolutely, but that doesn't mean you shame someone else for their opinions. Like some of us enjoy having characters that have a bunch of abilities, but that doesn't mean that you can't play at tables that enjoy a more gygaxian/traditional d&d approach to character creation. Personally, that idea kinda bores me because it has been done 10000000 times before and I want to do something that is (in my opinion) original. Like had you not said anything, or even if you'd said "I hope this is what they do because it fits what it was originally intended for" then we could've all had an interesting discussion or learned something about what the other thinks instead of subjective arguments about who's dad can beat up the others (or literally whose opinion is better)

Quote from CypherTheNerd >>

Quote from FleetCenturion >>

Quote from CypherTheNerd >>

Quote from FleetCenturion >>

Quote from WillowTehKitsune >>

Quote from SigrunOfTheBorderRealms >>

Quote from FleetCenturion >>

Quote from FleetCenturion >

Quote from FleetCenturion >>

 So... You want to become a vampire (damphir, whatever), plus bonuses from Theros, etc., at character creation?  You've just demonstrated in one statement, everything that is wrong with 5e.  The sad part is that WotC is going to let you do it!

 What you've described is a Mary-Sue.  Being special, and completely unearned, culminating in a power fantasy.  Having it written into the rules doesn't change that, nor does it change the fact that an identity is not a character.

 

It's not even about being overpowered, though that's why most do it.  When you mold a backstory to fit an identity, instead of the other way around, you end up with a crappy character.  Why would this kind of character be an adventurer, and why should anyone fight with them?  If the first description of a character is what they look like, and what their lineage is, it doesn't matter how OP they are; the character is weak.  The character's race and special abilities should be the absolute last thing that is considered.  Otherwise, all the immature college kids at the table just end up playing a furry, super hero version of themselves, with no character depth whatsoever.  Serious role players and grognard DMs can't stand these people, and will rightly kill them off the first chance they get (with bonus points if they can make them cry!).

 Wow, you sound like a sanctimonious ******* policing how people play this game and I am glad you're not on my table. Let people play whatever, yo, not everyone writes twenty pages of backstory before they roll for stats. I for one start with a neat concept, like "Kobold Artificer who never takes of their mask" and work from that. I hope shcroeder and cypher have fun playing their "mary sue" characters without the input of gygaxian traditionalists who only accept their way of character creation.

 I agree. Some people's children.

 I touched a nerve, I see!  So, you start with:   New scaily race + new OP class + mask-wearing edgelord.  Yep, I'm glad I'm not at your table either.  I'm willing to bet it's full of furries, scailies, robots, and fish people, and that every tavern in your world resembles a space port from Star Wars.
My backstories, by the way, are always less than a page, and always created for level one.  A ridiculous, drawn-out backstory is worse than no backstory.
Keep playing though.  At least you'll be writing less fan fiction.

 Dude. People have different opinions. its not that uncommon.

 And you're perfectly entitled to them.  Just like I am.

 absolutely, but that doesn't mean you shame someone else for their opinions. Like some of us enjoy having characters that have a bunch of abilities, but that doesn't mean that you can't play at tables that enjoy a more gygaxian/traditional d&d approach to character creation. Personally, that idea kinda bores me because it has been done 10000000 times before and I want to do something that is (in my opinion) original. Like had you not said anything, or even if you'd said "I hope this is what they do because it fits what it was originally intended for" then we could've all had an interesting discussion or learned something about what the other thinks instead of subjective arguments about who's dad can beat up the others (or literally whose opinion is better)

 I very seriously doubt you've actually been shamed.  Like I said, you are playing an identity, not a character.  If you want to do that, then great, but don't feign offense when someone calls you out for it.

Quote from FleetCenturion >>

Quote from CypherTheNerd >>

Quote from FleetCenturion >>

Quote from CypherTheNerd >>

Quote from FleetCenturion >>

Quote from WillowTehKitsune >>

Quote from SigrunOfTheBorderRealms >>

Quote from FleetCenturion >>

Quote from FleetCenturion >

Quote from FleetCenturion >>

 So... You want to become a vampire (damphir, whatever), plus bonuses from Theros, etc., at character creation?  You've just demonstrated in one statement, everything that is wrong with 5e.  The sad part is that WotC is going to let you do it!

 What you've described is a Mary-Sue.  Being special, and completely unearned, culminating in a power fantasy.  Having it written into the rules doesn't change that, nor does it change the fact that an identity is not a character.

 

It's not even about being overpowered, though that's why most do it.  When you mold a backstory to fit an identity, instead of the other way around, you end up with a crappy character.  Why would this kind of character be an adventurer, and why should anyone fight with them?  If the first description of a character is what they look like, and what their lineage is, it doesn't matter how OP they are; the character is weak.  The character's race and special abilities should be the absolute last thing that is considered.  Otherwise, all the immature college kids at the table just end up playing a furry, super hero version of themselves, with no character depth whatsoever.  Serious role players and grognard DMs can't stand these people, and will rightly kill them off the first chance they get (with bonus points if they can make them cry!).

 Wow, you sound like a sanctimonious ******* policing how people play this game and I am glad you're not on my table. Let people play whatever, yo, not everyone writes twenty pages of backstory before they roll for stats. I for one start with a neat concept, like "Kobold Artificer who never takes of their mask" and work from that. I hope shcroeder and cypher have fun playing their "mary sue" characters without the input of gygaxian traditionalists who only accept their way of character creation.

 I agree. Some people's children.

 I touched a nerve, I see!  So, you start with:   New scaily race + new OP class + mask-wearing edgelord.  Yep, I'm glad I'm not at your table either.  I'm willing to bet it's full of furries, scailies, robots, and fish people, and that every tavern in your world resembles a space port from Star Wars.
My backstories, by the way, are always less than a page, and always created for level one.  A ridiculous, drawn-out backstory is worse than no backstory.
Keep playing though.  At least you'll be writing less fan fiction.

 Dude. People have different opinions. its not that uncommon.

 And you're perfectly entitled to them.  Just like I am.

 absolutely, but that doesn't mean you shame someone else for their opinions. Like some of us enjoy having characters that have a bunch of abilities, but that doesn't mean that you can't play at tables that enjoy a more gygaxian/traditional d&d approach to character creation. Personally, that idea kinda bores me because it has been done 10000000 times before and I want to do something that is (in my opinion) original. Like had you not said anything, or even if you'd said "I hope this is what they do because it fits what it was originally intended for" then we could've all had an interesting discussion or learned something about what the other thinks instead of subjective arguments about who's dad can beat up the others (or literally whose opinion is better)

 I very seriously doubt you've actually been shamed.  Like I said, you are playing an identity, not a character.  If you want to do that, then great, but don't feign offense when someone calls you out for it.

 That's a fair point, but can I ask why you feel the need to aggressively attack 5e? Like I have no issue with anyone who says aD&D or 3e is better (I dont get 3e but to be fair I played like 1 session so it's an uninformed opinion) but you seem super defensive about 5e being so bad. I dont think you're wrong because you feel it's bad, but what does it get you? Some people enjoy 5e because its accessible and easier to understand. That doesnt make them any less d&d players, does it? In the end we all just enjoy playing characters and telling stories with our friends.

I'm not trying to convince you I'm right, I'm just curious what it is that makes you so against 5e

Quote from FleetCenturion >>

Quote from CypherTheNerd >>

Quote from FleetCenturion >>

Quote from WillowTehKitsune >>

Quote from SigrunOfTheBorderRealms >>

Quote from FleetCenturion >>

Quote from FleetCenturion >

Quote from FleetCenturion >>

 So... You want to become a vampire (damphir, whatever), plus bonuses from Theros, etc., at character creation?  You've just demonstrated in one statement, everything that is wrong with 5e.  The sad part is that WotC is going to let you do it!

 What you've described is a Mary-Sue.  Being special, and completely unearned, culminating in a power fantasy.  Having it written into the rules doesn't change that, nor does it change the fact that an identity is not a character.

 

It's not even about being overpowered, though that's why most do it.  When you mold a backstory to fit an identity, instead of the other way around, you end up with a crappy character.  Why would this kind of character be an adventurer, and why should anyone fight with them?  If the first description of a character is what they look like, and what their lineage is, it doesn't matter how OP they are; the character is weak.  The character's race and special abilities should be the absolute last thing that is considered.  Otherwise, all the immature college kids at the table just end up playing a furry, super hero version of themselves, with no character depth whatsoever.  Serious role players and grognard DMs can't stand these people, and will rightly kill them off the first chance they get (with bonus points if they can make them cry!).

 Wow, you sound like a sanctimonious ******* policing how people play this game and I am glad you're not on my table. Let people play whatever, yo, not everyone writes twenty pages of backstory before they roll for stats. I for one start with a neat concept, like "Kobold Artificer who never takes of their mask" and work from that. I hope shcroeder and cypher have fun playing their "mary sue" characters without the input of gygaxian traditionalists who only accept their way of character creation.

 I agree. Some people's children.

 I touched a nerve, I see!  So, you start with:   New scaily race + new OP class + mask-wearing edgelord.  Yep, I'm glad I'm not at your table either.  I'm willing to bet it's full of furries, scailies, robots, and fish people, and that every tavern in your world resembles a space port from Star Wars.
My backstories, by the way, are always less than a page, and always created for level one.  A ridiculous, drawn-out backstory is worse than no backstory.
Keep playing though.  At least you'll be writing less fan fiction.

 Dude. People have different opinions. its not that uncommon.

 And you're perfectly entitled to them.  Just like I am.

 Yes, you're perfectly entitled to your opinions that people who disagree with you should suffer. You're not entitled to speak them without receiving criticism. 

Quote from FleetCenturion >>

Quote from CypherTheNerd >>

Quote from FleetCenturion >>

Quote from CypherTheNerd >>

Quote from FleetCenturion >>

Quote from WillowTehKitsune >>

Quote from SigrunOfTheBorderRealms >>

Quote from FleetCenturion >>

Quote from FleetCenturion >

Quote from FleetCenturion >>

 So... You want to become a vampire (damphir, whatever), plus bonuses from Theros, etc., at character creation?  You've just demonstrated in one statement, everything that is wrong with 5e.  The sad part is that WotC is going to let you do it!

 What you've described is a Mary-Sue.  Being special, and completely unearned, culminating in a power fantasy.  Having it written into the rules doesn't change that, nor does it change the fact that an identity is not a character.

 

It's not even about being overpowered, though that's why most do it.  When you mold a backstory to fit an identity, instead of the other way around, you end up with a crappy character.  Why would this kind of character be an adventurer, and why should anyone fight with them?  If the first description of a character is what they look like, and what their lineage is, it doesn't matter how OP they are; the character is weak.  The character's race and special abilities should be the absolute last thing that is considered.  Otherwise, all the immature college kids at the table just end up playing a furry, super hero version of themselves, with no character depth whatsoever.  Serious role players and grognard DMs can't stand these people, and will rightly kill them off the first chance they get (with bonus points if they can make them cry!).

 Wow, you sound like a sanctimonious ******* policing how people play this game and I am glad you're not on my table. Let people play whatever, yo, not everyone writes twenty pages of backstory before they roll for stats. I for one start with a neat concept, like "Kobold Artificer who never takes of their mask" and work from that. I hope shcroeder and cypher have fun playing their "mary sue" characters without the input of gygaxian traditionalists who only accept their way of character creation.

 I agree. Some people's children.

 I touched a nerve, I see!  So, you start with:   New scaily race + new OP class + mask-wearing edgelord.  Yep, I'm glad I'm not at your table either.  I'm willing to bet it's full of furries, scailies, robots, and fish people, and that every tavern in your world resembles a space port from Star Wars.
My backstories, by the way, are always less than a page, and always created for level one.  A ridiculous, drawn-out backstory is worse than no backstory.
Keep playing though.  At least you'll be writing less fan fiction.

 Dude. People have different opinions. its not that uncommon.

 And you're perfectly entitled to them.  Just like I am.

 absolutely, but that doesn't mean you shame someone else for their opinions. Like some of us enjoy having characters that have a bunch of abilities, but that doesn't mean that you can't play at tables that enjoy a more gygaxian/traditional d&d approach to character creation. Personally, that idea kinda bores me because it has been done 10000000 times before and I want to do something that is (in my opinion) original. Like had you not said anything, or even if you'd said "I hope this is what they do because it fits what it was originally intended for" then we could've all had an interesting discussion or learned something about what the other thinks instead of subjective arguments about who's dad can beat up the others (or literally whose opinion is better)

 I very seriously doubt you've actually been shamed.  Like I said, you are playing an identity, not a character.  If you want to do that, then great, but don't feign offense when someone calls you out for it.

 There's little difference. Characters are fictional representations of people, and people have identities. They have conceptions of self. Good roleplaying will always incorporate that. Like how you're currently roleplaying someone whose conception of self is "I'm always right because I'm old and anything new is bad."

"...bonus points to if you can make them cry while leaving the table..."

I would hope that isn't ever projected onto newcomers to D&D as I'm positive they wouldn't stick around long enough to even engage with these extra modules. 

Quote from Silvercoins >>

"...bonus points to if you can make them cry while leaving the table..."

I would hope that isn't ever projected onto newcomers to D&D as I'm positive they wouldn't stick around long enough to even engage with these extra modules. 

 When that "newcomer" shows up to the table with his half-angel, half-demon, werewolf/vampire artificer tank, he's not there to play a game.  He's there to act out a power fantasy, at the expense of everyone else at the table.

Quote from SemanticAvenger >>

Quote from FleetCenturion >>

Quote from CypherTheNerd >>

Quote from FleetCenturion >>

Quote from CypherTheNerd >>

Quote from FleetCenturion >>

Quote from WillowTehKitsune >>

Quote from SigrunOfTheBorderRealms >>

Quote from FleetCenturion >>

Quote from FleetCenturion >

Quote from FleetCenturion >>

 So... You want to become a vampire (damphir, whatever), plus bonuses from Theros, etc., at character creation?  You've just demonstrated in one statement, everything that is wrong with 5e.  The sad part is that WotC is going to let you do it!

 What you've described is a Mary-Sue.  Being special, and completely unearned, culminating in a power fantasy.  Having it written into the rules doesn't change that, nor does it change the fact that an identity is not a character.

 

It's not even about being overpowered, though that's why most do it.  When you mold a backstory to fit an identity, instead of the other way around, you end up with a crappy character.  Why would this kind of character be an adventurer, and why should anyone fight with them?  If the first description of a character is what they look like, and what their lineage is, it doesn't matter how OP they are; the character is weak.  The character's race and special abilities should be the absolute last thing that is considered.  Otherwise, all the immature college kids at the table just end up playing a furry, super hero version of themselves, with no character depth whatsoever.  Serious role players and grognard DMs can't stand these people, and will rightly kill them off the first chance they get (with bonus points if they can make them cry!).

 Wow, you sound like a sanctimonious ******* policing how people play this game and I am glad you're not on my table. Let people play whatever, yo, not everyone writes twenty pages of backstory before they roll for stats. I for one start with a neat concept, like "Kobold Artificer who never takes of their mask" and work from that. I hope shcroeder and cypher have fun playing their "mary sue" characters without the input of gygaxian traditionalists who only accept their way of character creation.

 I agree. Some people's children.

 I touched a nerve, I see!  So, you start with:   New scaily race + new OP class + mask-wearing edgelord.  Yep, I'm glad I'm not at your table either.  I'm willing to bet it's full of furries, scailies, robots, and fish people, and that every tavern in your world resembles a space port from Star Wars.
My backstories, by the way, are always less than a page, and always created for level one.  A ridiculous, drawn-out backstory is worse than no backstory.
Keep playing though.  At least you'll be writing less fan fiction.

 Dude. People have different opinions. its not that uncommon.

 And you're perfectly entitled to them.  Just like I am.

 absolutely, but that doesn't mean you shame someone else for their opinions. Like some of us enjoy having characters that have a bunch of abilities, but that doesn't mean that you can't play at tables that enjoy a more gygaxian/traditional d&d approach to character creation. Personally, that idea kinda bores me because it has been done 10000000 times before and I want to do something that is (in my opinion) original. Like had you not said anything, or even if you'd said "I hope this is what they do because it fits what it was originally intended for" then we could've all had an interesting discussion or learned something about what the other thinks instead of subjective arguments about who's dad can beat up the others (or literally whose opinion is better)

 I very seriously doubt you've actually been shamed.  Like I said, you are playing an identity, not a character.  If you want to do that, then great, but don't feign offense when someone calls you out for it.

 There's little difference. Characters are fictional representations of people, and people have identities. They have conceptions of self. Good roleplaying will always incorporate that. Like how you're currently roleplaying someone whose conception of self is "I'm always right because I'm old and anything new is bad."

 Wrong.  These players never think beyond how their character looks.  That is an identity, with nothing else behind it.  They are not playing someone from another culture.  If they were, they wouldn't come up with "kobold-artificer-Batman."  They're just playing a funny looking human.

Quote from SemanticAvenger >>

Quote from FleetCenturion >>

Quote from CypherTheNerd >>

Quote from FleetCenturion >>

Quote from WillowTehKitsune >>

Quote from SigrunOfTheBorderRealms >>

Quote from FleetCenturion >>

Quote from FleetCenturion >

Quote from FleetCenturion >>

 So... You want to become a vampire (damphir, whatever), plus bonuses from Theros, etc., at character creation?  You've just demonstrated in one statement, everything that is wrong with 5e.  The sad part is that WotC is going to let you do it!

 What you've described is a Mary-Sue.  Being special, and completely unearned, culminating in a power fantasy.  Having it written into the rules doesn't change that, nor does it change the fact that an identity is not a character.

 

It's not even about being overpowered, though that's why most do it.  When you mold a backstory to fit an identity, instead of the other way around, you end up with a crappy character.  Why would this kind of character be an adventurer, and why should anyone fight with them?  If the first description of a character is what they look like, and what their lineage is, it doesn't matter how OP they are; the character is weak.  The character's race and special abilities should be the absolute last thing that is considered.  Otherwise, all the immature college kids at the table just end up playing a furry, super hero version of themselves, with no character depth whatsoever.  Serious role players and grognard DMs can't stand these people, and will rightly kill them off the first chance they get (with bonus points if they can make them cry!).

 Wow, you sound like a sanctimonious ******* policing how people play this game and I am glad you're not on my table. Let people play whatever, yo, not everyone writes twenty pages of backstory before they roll for stats. I for one start with a neat concept, like "Kobold Artificer who never takes of their mask" and work from that. I hope shcroeder and cypher have fun playing their "mary sue" characters without the input of gygaxian traditionalists who only accept their way of character creation.

 I agree. Some people's children.

 I touched a nerve, I see!  So, you start with:   New scaily race + new OP class + mask-wearing edgelord.  Yep, I'm glad I'm not at your table either.  I'm willing to bet it's full of furries, scailies, robots, and fish people, and that every tavern in your world resembles a space port from Star Wars.
My backstories, by the way, are always less than a page, and always created for level one.  A ridiculous, drawn-out backstory is worse than no backstory.
Keep playing though.  At least you'll be writing less fan fiction.

 Dude. People have different opinions. its not that uncommon.

 And you're perfectly entitled to them.  Just like I am.

 Yes, you're perfectly entitled to your opinions that people who disagree with you should suffer. You're not entitled to speak them without receiving criticism. 

 And don't forget I also probably kick puppies!

Quote from FleetCenturion >>

Quote from Silvercoins >>

"...bonus points to if you can make them cry while leaving the table..."

I would hope that isn't ever projected onto newcomers to D&D as I'm positive they wouldn't stick around long enough to even engage with these extra modules. 

 When that "newcomer" shows up to the table with his half-angel, half-demon, werewolf/vampire artificer tank, he's not there to play a game.  He's there to act out a power fantasy, at the expense of everyone else at the table.

I'm talking about ANY newcomer that comes across your salty ways not just the ones you're picking on right now. 

And we all know you don't care about anyone but you bud don't kid yourself. 

Quote from corrintherogue >>

im thinking a COD style zombie campaign  anybody else?

 THAT WOULD BE COOL.

Quote from FleetCenturion >>

Quote from SemanticAvenger >>

Quote from FleetCenturion >>

Quote from CypherTheNerd >>

Quote from FleetCenturion >>

Quote from CypherTheNerd >>

Quote from FleetCenturion >>

Quote from WillowTehKitsune >>

Quote from SigrunOfTheBorderRealms >>

Quote from FleetCenturion >>

Quote from FleetCenturion >

Quote from FleetCenturion >>

 So... You want to become a vampire (damphir, whatever), plus bonuses from Theros, etc., at character creation?  You've just demonstrated in one statement, everything that is wrong with 5e.  The sad part is that WotC is going to let you do it!

 What you've described is a Mary-Sue.  Being special, and completely unearned, culminating in a power fantasy.  Having it written into the rules doesn't change that, nor does it change the fact that an identity is not a character.

 

It's not even about being overpowered, though that's why most do it.  When you mold a backstory to fit an identity, instead of the other way around, you end up with a crappy character.  Why would this kind of character be an adventurer, and why should anyone fight with them?  If the first description of a character is what they look like, and what their lineage is, it doesn't matter how OP they are; the character is weak.  The character's race and special abilities should be the absolute last thing that is considered.  Otherwise, all the immature college kids at the table just end up playing a furry, super hero version of themselves, with no character depth whatsoever.  Serious role players and grognard DMs can't stand these people, and will rightly kill them off the first chance they get (with bonus points if they can make them cry!).

 Wow, you sound like a sanctimonious ******* policing how people play this game and I am glad you're not on my table. Let people play whatever, yo, not everyone writes twenty pages of backstory before they roll for stats. I for one start with a neat concept, like "Kobold Artificer who never takes of their mask" and work from that. I hope shcroeder and cypher have fun playing their "mary sue" characters without the input of gygaxian traditionalists who only accept their way of character creation.

 I agree. Some people's children.

 I touched a nerve, I see!  So, you start with:   New scaily race + new OP class + mask-wearing edgelord.  Yep, I'm glad I'm not at your table either.  I'm willing to bet it's full of furries, scailies, robots, and fish people, and that every tavern in your world resembles a space port from Star Wars.
My backstories, by the way, are always less than a page, and always created for level one.  A ridiculous, drawn-out backstory is worse than no backstory.
Keep playing though.  At least you'll be writing less fan fiction.

 Dude. People have different opinions. its not that uncommon.

 And you're perfectly entitled to them.  Just like I am.

 absolutely, but that doesn't mean you shame someone else for their opinions. Like some of us enjoy having characters that have a bunch of abilities, but that doesn't mean that you can't play at tables that enjoy a more gygaxian/traditional d&d approach to character creation. Personally, that idea kinda bores me because it has been done 10000000 times before and I want to do something that is (in my opinion) original. Like had you not said anything, or even if you'd said "I hope this is what they do because it fits what it was originally intended for" then we could've all had an interesting discussion or learned something about what the other thinks instead of subjective arguments about who's dad can beat up the others (or literally whose opinion is better)

 I very seriously doubt you've actually been shamed.  Like I said, you are playing an identity, not a character.  If you want to do that, then great, but don't feign offense when someone calls you out for it.

 There's little difference. Characters are fictional representations of people, and people have identities. They have conceptions of self. Good roleplaying will always incorporate that. Like how you're currently roleplaying someone whose conception of self is "I'm always right because I'm old and anything new is bad."

 Wrong.  These players never think beyond how their character looks.  That is an identity, with nothing else behind it.  They are not playing someone from another culture.  If they were, they wouldn't come up with "kobold-artificer-Batman."  They're just playing a funny looking human.

 So, just to clarify, you are making that it is a crime for inexperienced players; who might I mention, may have never created a character, to create a character with any less panache than a veteran player? I’m afraid that  if early developers of the game held the same views as you: the game wouldn’t exist because being a new player would be a crime.

 And might I mention that if a new player is that “furry” or whatever you call them, it’s the fault of more experienced players (such as yourself) who would sooner slander them and their characters than help them achieve the level of quality you obsess over. And guess what? Nobody on this chat is at your table? So it’s not your responsibility nor your authority to censure somebody’s ideas. Everybody has their own standard. I don’t have a problem with yours as long as you don’t try to force it on other people (Like you just did) and start a raging chat debate that consumes time that could be spent exchanging constructive ideas (like you just did)

I love well developed characters. I love authors like Tolkien who give two books of backstory. If I saw a few of your characters, I’d most likely enjoy your work. But I’m not going to threaten my two newest members of my party (who are close friends) with emotional abuse lest they write nine pages of rich  newberry-worthy backstory