In 5E Drow magic isn't neutered by sunlight, so 5E isn't going to explain that. There's nothing to explain, as far as 5E is concerned. Again, you can bring any or all of those previous edition mechanics back - but then you will have to dig up the lore from those editions too, or make something up. It won't (and shouldn't) be in the pages of a current edition book.
Fair enough; but some such changes I'm hoping might be reconsidered in 5.5. relative to effects on combat strategies such changes have brought; let alone that they had to retcon old lore in order to allow them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
2. WotC should not list ANY campaign specific subtypes at all in the PHB and just stick to the basic descriptions of Dwarves, Elves, Humans, Halflings, etc.
Because I favor simplicity, I favor choice two over choice 1, but I presume choice one will help with additional sales, so will probably expect that to be favored. In choice one, it is clarified that there is specific lore per world and that PHB and MM is not the lore source for the entire multiverse, and it direcs you towards the source of additional lore for your favored worlds. In choice two, no one has to argue about drow et al, because they are not a basic option and therefore will not appear as a playable choice until you get the appropriate campaign setting sourcebook, and can then make Drow as per that worlds version of Drow.
Drow are evidently not setting exclusive, since they show up in multiple settings - they're just like humans, dwarves and all of the other official races in that regard. They are just as basic an option as wood elves or eladrin or stout halflings or half-orcs. Their basic description should be in the PHB, and their setting-specific aspects should go in corresponding setting sourcebooks.
The reason that the PHB lists Forgotten Realms lore is due to Forgotten Realms are the default campaign world and is included as flavor text. The same way that if your playing say Traveller your game is assumed to be in the Third Imperium even though back when Traveller was released the game was setting neutral and after release they added the Third Imperium.
2. WotC should not list ANY campaign specific subtypes at all in the PHB and just stick to the basic descriptions of Dwarves, Elves, Humans, Halflings, etc.
Because I favor simplicity, I favor choice two over choice 1, but I presume choice one will help with additional sales, so will probably expect that to be favored. In choice one, it is clarified that there is specific lore per world and that PHB and MM is not the lore source for the entire multiverse, and it direcs you towards the source of additional lore for your favored worlds. In choice two, no one has to argue about drow et al, because they are not a basic option and therefore will not appear as a playable choice until you get the appropriate campaign setting sourcebook, and can then make Drow as per that worlds version of Drow.
Drow are evidently not setting exclusive, since they show up in multiple settings - they're just like humans, dwarves and all of the other official races in that regard. They are just as basic an option as wood elves or eladrin or stout halflings or half-orcs. Their basic description should be in the PHB, and their setting-specific aspects should go in corresponding setting sourcebooks.
The reason that the PHB lists Forgotten Realms lore is due to Forgotten Realms are the default campaign world and is included as flavor text. The same way that if your playing say Traveller your game is assumed to be in the Third Imperium even though back when Traveller was released the game was setting neutral and after release they added the Third Imperium.
Which they are moving away from Forgotten Realms as the default setting towards a "Multiverse", thus the errata. I am still not sure how people are still not getting this after 18 pages.
Also, no, the mechanics are slightly different. 5e only conveyes disadvantage on attack rolls and perception checks. It doesn't say that some of your magic literally stops working in sunlight.
So, are your problems with errata or the fact that 5e mechanics are slightly to significantly different from the mechanics of other editions? The reasons for disadvantage vs. outright negation are mechanical and balance considerations. I mean, remember way back when humans got nothing on the modifier front? Never mind, prior posts in this thread make your grasp of AD&D suspect. The races were worked, at least initially (and the Drow are among the intial player races in 5e) to have distinctions and balance. To negate a Drow's powers completely is an over nerf. The failure of lore die hards in these debates comes down to failing to realize pretty much every edition of the game had substantial lore contortions in way way or another ... so that the lore could better reflect the mechanical basis of the game.
This discussion is about the impact of recent set of errata. Your vanity to contend with the consensus has abandoned that focus so that now you're grousing about design elements of the game that have been in literal play since 5e came out. That makes you insufferable impossible to satisfy within the actual parameters of this discussion because it's not this recent change that's affecting your satisfaction, but stuff put into play at the release of the game.
I can't really tell which is which sometimes i think. Again I'm sort of back to the hobbey only recently -just this year, after being gone for like 12 years. So it's all a bit different compared to all of my old stuff. Yeah, also again, AD&D was before my time. I'm 3E+. I've only recently been able to look at a bit of 2e that the friend who brought me back in has a couple of the books from. Perhaps, but I think mechanics should follow Lore, not vice versa. Again, it's easy to 'cure' a PC drow of most of their light sensitivity issues, so they can be a surface adventurer. They didn't necessarily need to change things for those Drow who mostly stay in the underdark and only come to the surface at night to raid.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
WotC couldn't future-proof the PHB to allow for this: they can't exactly put in titles of and references to books that haven't been published yet.
They can do it now though as part of the eratta. There are lots of books they can reference in a 5.5 PHB. The digital one here can be updated over time to include references to subsequently published campaign setting sourcebooks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
Drow are evidently not setting exclusive, since they show up in multiple settings - they're just like humans, dwarves and all of the other official races in that regard. They are just as basic an option as wood elves or eladrin or stout halflings or half-orcs. Their basic description should be in the PHB, and their setting-specific aspects should go in corresponding setting sourcebooks.
Drow are Elves, a subtype of Elves; as are Woodelves. I don't really know what Eladrin are and will have to read about them. Stout halflings are subtype of Halflings. Half-Orcs are their own thing though - I don't know if they come in multiple subtypes or not. Unless WoTC is changing things so that Drow do count as their own race in the way half-Orcs do; then at the end of the day, they are still Elves.
Also, not all Dark elves are necessarily Drow, are they? I think I rember the Dark Elves in Kryn are actually Sylvan Elves and the title is just one assigned to them when they get banished from that society. I can't remember if there were others, but it's possibe the term 'Drow', really could refer specifically to Lolths version and the wider catagory of Dark Elf would cover some of these you are telling me about that are in other worlds. Are they specifically reffered to there as 'Drow' or as Dark Elves?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
WotC couldn't future-proof the PHB to allow for this: they can't exactly put in titles of and references to books that haven't been published yet.
They can do it now though as part of the eratta. There are lots of books they can reference in a 5.5 PHB. The digital one here can be updated over time to include references to subsequently published campaign setting sourcebooks.
And they still wouldn't be able to reference ones that haven't come out yet, so they'd perpetually be releasing PHB versions they know will become outdated. Moreover, what would really be the point? They wouldn't be putting any extra info in the PHB, other than "this race exists in setting X, Y and Z, you should look up their specific lore in books A, B and C respectively". That really doesn't add any value, all it looks like is a cheap sales pitch to get people to buy extra books. The basic, setting-agnostic stuff is what people would buy the PHB for (among other things) so that's all that needs to be in there.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Drow are evidently not setting exclusive, since they show up in multiple settings - they're just like humans, dwarves and all of the other official races in that regard. They are just as basic an option as wood elves or eladrin or stout halflings or half-orcs. Their basic description should be in the PHB, and their setting-specific aspects should go in corresponding setting sourcebooks.
Drow are Elves, a subtype of Elves; as are Woodelves. I don't really know what Eladrin are and will have to read about them. Stout halflings are subtype of Halflings. Half-Orcs are their own thing though - I don't know if they come in multiple subtypes or not. Unless WoTC is changing things so that Drow do count as their own race in the way half-Orcs do; then at the end of the day, they are still Elves.
Also, not all Dark elves are necessarily Drow, are they? I think I rember the Dark Elves in Kryn are actually Sylvan Elves and the title is just one assigned to them when they get banished from that society. I can't remember if there were others, but it's possibe the term 'Drow', really could refer specifically to Lolths version and the wider catagory of Dark Elf would cover some of these you are telling me about that are in other worlds. Are they specifically reffered to there as 'Drow' or as Dark Elves?
They're certainly refered to as 'Drow' in multiple settings. I think setting-specific terminology is a moot point, or rather: it's part of the info that can go in setting books. As for subtypes, if they're not setting-exclusive - and they aren't - then they shouldn't be relegated to setting books. They're then common across settings and that means they have their place in a core book or a setting-agnostic race book (like Volo's or Mordenkainen's are supposed to be). Being a subrace doesn't change that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Drow are evidently not setting exclusive, since they show up in multiple settings - they're just like humans, dwarves and all of the other official races in that regard. They are just as basic an option as wood elves or eladrin or stout halflings or half-orcs. Their basic description should be in the PHB, and their setting-specific aspects should go in corresponding setting sourcebooks.
Drow are Elves, a subtype of Elves; as are Woodelves. I don't really know what Eladrin are and will have to read about them. Stout halflings are subtype of Halflings. Half-Orcs are their own thing though - I don't know if they come in multiple subtypes or not. Unless WoTC is changing things so that Drow do count as their own race in the way half-Orcs do; then at the end of the day, they are still Elves.
Also, not all Dark elves are necessarily Drow, are they? I think I rember the Dark Elves in Kryn are actually Sylvan Elves and the title is just one assigned to them when they get banished from that society. I can't remember if there were others, but it's possibe the term 'Drow', really could refer specifically to Lolths version and the wider catagory of Dark Elf would cover some of these you are telling me about that are in other worlds. Are they specifically reffered to there as 'Drow' or as Dark Elves?
Drow exist in many worlds. That has been true through many editions of D&D, including 3/3.5 so you should know that. Eberron for example.
Also, no, the mechanics are slightly different. 5e only conveyes disadvantage on attack rolls and perception checks. It doesn't say that some of your magic literally stops working in sunlight.
So, are your problems with errata or the fact that 5e mechanics are slightly to significantly different from the mechanics of other editions? The reasons for disadvantage vs. outright negation are mechanical and balance considerations. I mean, remember way back when humans got nothing on the modifier front? Never mind, prior posts in this thread make your grasp of AD&D suspect. The races were worked, at least initially (and the Drow are among the intial player races in 5e) to have distinctions and balance. To negate a Drow's powers completely is an over nerf. The failure of lore die hards in these debates comes down to failing to realize pretty much every edition of the game had substantial lore contortions in way way or another ... so that the lore could better reflect the mechanical basis of the game.
This discussion is about the impact of recent set of errata. Your vanity to contend with the consensus has abandoned that focus so that now you're grousing about design elements of the game that have been in literal play since 5e came out. That makes you insufferable impossible to satisfy within the actual parameters of this discussion because it's not this recent change that's affecting your satisfaction, but stuff put into play at the release of the game.
I can't really tell which is which sometimes i think. Again I'm sort of back to the hobbey only recently -just this year, after being gone for like 12 years. So it's all a bit different compared to all of my old stuff. Yeah, also again, AD&D was before my time. I'm 3E+. I've only recently been able to look at a bit of 2e that the friend who brought me back in has a couple of the books from. Perhaps, but I think mechanics should follow Lore, not vice versa. Again, it's easy to 'cure' a PC drow of most of their light sensitivity issues, so they can be a surface adventurer. They didn't necessarily need to change things for those Drow who mostly stay in the underdark and only come to the surface at night to raid.
You want to go back to 2nd edition rules for Drow? With percentage based Magic resistance starting at 50% and adding 2% for each level they gained? And I mean not the one we have in 5th but hardcore, this spell does not affect me, type? Because gosh, I see a future of Drow only campaigns. I will gladly take, it takes longer to level up, slap on the wrist if so.
Also, no, the mechanics are slightly different. 5e only conveyes disadvantage on attack rolls and perception checks. It doesn't say that some of your magic literally stops working in sunlight.
So, are your problems with errata or the fact that 5e mechanics are slightly to significantly different from the mechanics of other editions? The reasons for disadvantage vs. outright negation are mechanical and balance considerations. I mean, remember way back when humans got nothing on the modifier front? Never mind, prior posts in this thread make your grasp of AD&D suspect. The races were worked, at least initially (and the Drow are among the intial player races in 5e) to have distinctions and balance. To negate a Drow's powers completely is an over nerf. The failure of lore die hards in these debates comes down to failing to realize pretty much every edition of the game had substantial lore contortions in way way or another ... so that the lore could better reflect the mechanical basis of the game.
This discussion is about the impact of recent set of errata. Your vanity to contend with the consensus has abandoned that focus so that now you're grousing about design elements of the game that have been in literal play since 5e came out. That makes you insufferable impossible to satisfy within the actual parameters of this discussion because it's not this recent change that's affecting your satisfaction, but stuff put into play at the release of the game.
I can't really tell which is which sometimes i think. Again I'm sort of back to the hobbey only recently -just this year, after being gone for like 12 years. So it's all a bit different compared to all of my old stuff. Yeah, also again, AD&D was before my time. I'm 3E+. I've only recently been able to look at a bit of 2e that the friend who brought me back in has a couple of the books from. Perhaps, but I think mechanics should follow Lore, not vice versa. Again, it's easy to 'cure' a PC drow of most of their light sensitivity issues, so they can be a surface adventurer. They didn't necessarily need to change things for those Drow who mostly stay in the underdark and only come to the surface at night to raid.
You want to go back to 2nd edition rules for Drow? With percentage based Magic resistance starting at 50% and adding 2% for each level they gained? And I mean not the one we have in 5th but hardcore, this spell does not affect me, type? Because gosh, I see a future of Drow only campaigns. I will gladly take, it takes longer to level up, slap on the wrist if so.
Plus Magic Resistance back then was against all magic, make the % check and it does not affect you at all, not merely advantage on saves. So it is good against spells that have no saves or that partially affect you even if you do save.
Every spell became a safe or suck, well MR, and then you still had the saving throw for half or nothing. And like MidnightPlat said upthread, lore changed to follow game mechanics. Otherwise we would still be having species that couldn't become Wizards like Dwarves, and all species but Humans had a class level limitation and woman had a strength limitation. This all changed over the years. I don't want to go back to that to be honest.
You want to go back to 2nd edition rules for Drow? With percentage based Magic resistance starting at 50% and adding 2% for each level they gained? And I mean not the one we have in 5th but hardcore, this spell does not affect me, type? Because gosh, I see a future of Drow only campaigns. I will gladly take, it takes longer to level up, slap on the wrist if so.
Read that bit again, you are responding to.
Yeah, also again, AD&D was before my time. I'm 3E+. I've only recently been able to look at a bit of 2e that the friend who brought me back in has a couple of the books from.
I'm not entirely sure what you are saying is different now. 5e still does have resistances and immunities in play that halve or negate damage from an attack of it's appropriate type. That's why there still are silvered/adamantine weapons and +1 items et al. to overcome damage resistance of certain creatures.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
Plus Magic Resistance back then was against all magic, make the % check and it does not affect you at all, not merely advantage on saves. So it is good against spells that have no saves or that partially affect you even if you do save.
Wait; are you saying in 5e; resistance doesn't halve or etc % damage after the fact but, only conveys advantage on the saving throws? :-(s
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
Every spell became a safe or suck, well MR, and then you still had the saving throw for half or nothing. And like MidnightPlat said upthread, lore changed to follow game mechanics. Otherwise we would still be having species that couldn't become Wizards like Dwarves, and all species but Humans had a class level limitation and woman had a strength limitation. This all changed over the years. I don't want to go back to that to be honest.
But I do though; I mean, you know, not the woman thing, but I liked it better when Dwarves for example hate and shum most arcane magic but perhaps for their own runic magic and largely choose to abstain from using it, thus restricting their class access to clerics, fighters, and paladins also finding certain martial classes such as rogue 'dishonourable'.
Again, you could always make exceptions, but as rule It was better IMHO when diferent species had unique focus's of their talents and abilities, and couldn't/wouldn't all just do everything. Versatility was the human thing, the more versatile everyone else becomes, the less distinct they are and the less distinct humans are for being versatile.
Every spell became a safe or suck, well MR, and then you still had the saving throw for half or nothing. And like MidnightPlat said upthread, lore changed to follow game mechanics. Otherwise we would still be having species that couldn't become Wizards like Dwarves, and all species but Humans had a class level limitation and woman had a strength limitation. This all changed over the years. I don't want to go back to that to be honest.
But I do though; I mean, you know, not the woman thing, but I liked it better when Dwarves for example hate and shum most arcane magic but perhaps for their own runic magic and largely choose to abstain from using it, thus restricting their class access to clerics, fighters, and paladins also finding certain martial classes such as rogue 'dishonourable'.
Again, you could always make exceptions, but as rule It was better IMHO when diferent species had unique focus's of their talents and abilities, and couldn't/wouldn't all just do everything. Versatility was the human thing, the more versatile everyone else becomes, the less distinct humans are for being versatile.
etc. plus some additional tweaking. If I can get ahold of it, some pathfinder integrations too, and in cases where actually better, some of 5e
eg, my half orcs do have that constitution bonus as well as a +1 to Dex or Wisdom;
So basically you have been homebrewing your races and lore from the moment you started playing 5th, but you complain something changes you're not even following in the first place?
So basically you have been homebrewing your races and lore from the moment you started playing 5th, but you complain something changes you're not even following in the first place?
...um ... yes ...?
I suppose I'm complaining I had to bother with homebrewing backwards things in the first place as a reaction to IMHO unneccesary changes that seem to have been motivated by treating fantasy races (species) as though they were a reflection of IRL human races (a concept I disagree with the existance of: I'm in the camp that likes to say the human race is only one race); and as a result of that reflection, they are trying to create in-universe statistical racial equity or something, at the expense of the fantasy when actually all of these these fantasy races should have distinct differences between them, and not all should actually have equall access to the same set of progressions for the same costs as one another.
An elf should clearly be a better option for a Mage then a Dwarf, a Dwarf or Half-Orc should clearly be a better option for a tank or heavy-dps style martial character than a halfling; a halfling should clearly be a better option for a finesse and/or stealth based martial character or magically augmented one; and a human should not have any clearly better options because humans aren't better at any one thing.
It’s the absolute height of comedy that a person who admittedly has been away from the game for a dozen or so years is acting as if they are in the position to school others about the true nature of the rules and lore, and that this same person is so very disappointed that the game fails to represent their views. Because vendors make a point of ensuring that people who have spent very little to no money on their product are the ones most satisfied by their product >.>
It’s almost as if the game itself has evolved to appeal to customers spending their money on the product in the last decade instead of stagnating in the hopes that one person will come back to spend their money, which is just crazy for a company in the business of making money to do, right? I’m sure WoTC could have stuck it out all those years and waited for that one person to start buying stuff again. The money spent by this one person surely would have been enough to get them through the decade while that one person was spending their money elsewhere, right?
Why is this thread even still a thing? It’s been like five pages of one poster crying about how the game is not what it used to be but it really should be *tiny indignant foot stamp* Someone needs to realize that the rest of the world does not exist in stasis whenever they are not present, perfectly preserved exactly the way it was when last looked upon and eagerly awaiting reanimation by a certain person’s regard.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Fair enough; but some such changes I'm hoping might be reconsidered in 5.5. relative to effects on combat strategies such changes have brought; let alone that they had to retcon old lore in order to allow them.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
The reason that the PHB lists Forgotten Realms lore is due to Forgotten Realms are the default campaign world and is included as flavor text. The same way that if your playing say Traveller your game is assumed to be in the Third Imperium even though back when Traveller was released the game was setting neutral and after release they added the Third Imperium.
Which they are moving away from Forgotten Realms as the default setting towards a "Multiverse", thus the errata. I am still not sure how people are still not getting this after 18 pages.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I can't really tell which is which sometimes i think. Again I'm sort of back to the hobbey only recently -just this year, after being gone for like 12 years. So it's all a bit different compared to all of my old stuff. Yeah, also again, AD&D was before my time. I'm 3E+. I've only recently been able to look at a bit of 2e that the friend who brought me back in has a couple of the books from. Perhaps, but I think mechanics should follow Lore, not vice versa. Again, it's easy to 'cure' a PC drow of most of their light sensitivity issues, so they can be a surface adventurer. They didn't necessarily need to change things for those Drow who mostly stay in the underdark and only come to the surface at night to raid.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
They can do it now though as part of the eratta. There are lots of books they can reference in a 5.5 PHB. The digital one here can be updated over time to include references to subsequently published campaign setting sourcebooks.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
Drow are Elves, a subtype of Elves; as are Woodelves. I don't really know what Eladrin are and will have to read about them. Stout halflings are subtype of Halflings. Half-Orcs are their own thing though - I don't know if they come in multiple subtypes or not. Unless WoTC is changing things so that Drow do count as their own race in the way half-Orcs do; then at the end of the day, they are still Elves.
Also, not all Dark elves are necessarily Drow, are they? I think I rember the Dark Elves in Kryn are actually Sylvan Elves and the title is just one assigned to them when they get banished from that society. I can't remember if there were others, but it's possibe the term 'Drow', really could refer specifically to Lolths version and the wider catagory of Dark Elf would cover some of these you are telling me about that are in other worlds. Are they specifically reffered to there as 'Drow' or as Dark Elves?
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
And they still wouldn't be able to reference ones that haven't come out yet, so they'd perpetually be releasing PHB versions they know will become outdated. Moreover, what would really be the point? They wouldn't be putting any extra info in the PHB, other than "this race exists in setting X, Y and Z, you should look up their specific lore in books A, B and C respectively". That really doesn't add any value, all it looks like is a cheap sales pitch to get people to buy extra books. The basic, setting-agnostic stuff is what people would buy the PHB for (among other things) so that's all that needs to be in there.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
They're certainly refered to as 'Drow' in multiple settings. I think setting-specific terminology is a moot point, or rather: it's part of the info that can go in setting books. As for subtypes, if they're not setting-exclusive - and they aren't - then they shouldn't be relegated to setting books. They're then common across settings and that means they have their place in a core book or a setting-agnostic race book (like Volo's or Mordenkainen's are supposed to be). Being a subrace doesn't change that.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Drow exist in many worlds. That has been true through many editions of D&D, including 3/3.5 so you should know that. Eberron for example.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
It's the one from the computer game, they could have handled that lore inclusion a wee bit better imo.
You want to go back to 2nd edition rules for Drow? With percentage based Magic resistance starting at 50% and adding 2% for each level they gained? And I mean not the one we have in 5th but hardcore, this spell does not affect me, type? Because gosh, I see a future of Drow only campaigns. I will gladly take, it takes longer to level up, slap on the wrist if so.
Every spell became a safe or suck, well MR, and then you still had the saving throw for half or nothing. And like MidnightPlat said upthread, lore changed to follow game mechanics. Otherwise we would still be having species that couldn't become Wizards like Dwarves, and all species but Humans had a class level limitation and woman had a strength limitation. This all changed over the years. I don't want to go back to that to be honest.
Read that bit again, you are responding to.
I'm not entirely sure what you are saying is different now. 5e still does have resistances and immunities in play that halve or negate damage from an attack of it's appropriate type. That's why there still are silvered/adamantine weapons and +1 items et al. to overcome damage resistance of certain creatures.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
Wait; are you saying in 5e; resistance doesn't halve or etc % damage after the fact but, only conveys advantage on the saving throws? :-(s
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
But I do though; I mean, you know, not the woman thing, but I liked it better when Dwarves for example hate and shum most arcane magic but perhaps for their own runic magic and largely choose to abstain from using it, thus restricting their class access to clerics, fighters, and paladins also finding certain martial classes such as rogue 'dishonourable'.
Again, you could always make exceptions, but as rule It was better IMHO when diferent species had unique focus's of their talents and abilities, and couldn't/wouldn't all just do everything. Versatility was the human thing, the more versatile everyone else becomes, the less distinct they are and the less distinct humans are for being versatile.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
So this table 7 is what you still use? https://adnd2e.fandom.com/wiki/DMG_Ch2_Racial_Level_Restrictions
I think I relatively use ones like these:
3e SRD:Dwarves, Hill (Race) - D&D Wiki (dandwiki.com) / SRD:Dwarves, Hill (Race) - D&D Wiki (dandwiki.com) /
3e SRD:Elves, High (Race) - D&D Wiki (dandwiki.com) / SRD:Elves, High (Race) - D&D Wiki (dandwiki.com) /
3e SRD:Halflings, Lightfoot (Race) - D&D Wiki (dandwiki.com) / SRD:Halflings, Lightfoot (Race) - D&D Wiki (dandwiki.com) /
3e SRD:Half-Orcs (Race) - D&D Wiki (dandwiki.com) / SRD:Half-Orcs (Race) - D&D Wiki (dandwiki.com) /
etc. plus some additional tweaking. If I can get ahold of it, some pathfinder integrations too, and in cases where actually better, some of 5e
eg, my half orcs do have that constitution bonus as well as a +1 to Dex or Wisdom;
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
So basically you have been homebrewing your races and lore from the moment you started playing 5th, but you complain something changes you're not even following in the first place?
...um ... yes ...?
I suppose I'm complaining I had to bother with homebrewing backwards things in the first place as a reaction to IMHO unneccesary changes that seem to have been motivated by treating fantasy races (species) as though they were a reflection of IRL human races (a concept I disagree with the existance of: I'm in the camp that likes to say the human race is only one race); and as a result of that reflection, they are trying to create in-universe statistical racial equity or something, at the expense of the fantasy when actually all of these these fantasy races should have distinct differences between them, and not all should actually have equall access to the same set of progressions for the same costs as one another.
An elf should clearly be a better option for a Mage then a Dwarf, a Dwarf or Half-Orc should clearly be a better option for a tank or heavy-dps style martial character than a halfling; a halfling should clearly be a better option for a finesse and/or stealth based martial character or magically augmented one; and a human should not have any clearly better options because humans aren't better at any one thing.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
It’s the absolute height of comedy that a person who admittedly has been away from the game for a dozen or so years is acting as if they are in the position to school others about the true nature of the rules and lore, and that this same person is so very disappointed that the game fails to represent their views. Because vendors make a point of ensuring that people who have spent very little to no money on their product are the ones most satisfied by their product >.>
It’s almost as if the game itself has evolved to appeal to customers spending their money on the product in the last decade instead of stagnating in the hopes that one person will come back to spend their money, which is just crazy for a company in the business of making money to do, right? I’m sure WoTC could have stuck it out all those years and waited for that one person to start buying stuff again. The money spent by this one person surely would have been enough to get them through the decade while that one person was spending their money elsewhere, right?
Why is this thread even still a thing? It’s been like five pages of one poster crying about how the game is not what it used to be but it really should be *tiny indignant foot stamp* Someone needs to realize that the rest of the world does not exist in stasis whenever they are not present, perfectly preserved exactly the way it was when last looked upon and eagerly awaiting reanimation by a certain person’s regard.