"I want to play a Halfling Barbarian but am too weak. This is just not fair. I want the "optional rules" that allow me a 17 starting Strength. Wow, I now have that Strength. Thanks WOTC. Hey, wait a minute, I can't wield a Great Sword as well as Medium class char. That is not fair. I have the same Strength. I demand that rule that demeans smaller stature creatures be removed from the game."
No way, no how, these rules will EVER be seen at my table.
There is a difference between weight and size. Something can weigh not a lot and be incredibly hard for one person to carry because the size of it makes it unwieldy. And as i stated, with rolling stats, something that has been in the game the whole time, you can already have a small race character with a starting 20 str (mountain dwarves get a +2 str). I don't remember anyone ever complaining that they don't get to wield great axes? Straight out of the book " A heavy weapon's size and bulk..." AKA - this restriction has NOTHING to do with a characters ability score. a 75" TV only weighs 40 lbs, but go ahead and try to lift one by yourself.
I like how you are assuming there will be some huge uproar that no one has ever had and that you are saying that a rule won't be allowed at your table before you even know what that rule is. None of us has any idea how this will actually function, we are all just guessing and to say you won't allow something before you even know how it works is naive .
I have no idea what game you are playing, but Dwarves ARE MEDIUM, not small. (page 20, PHB) So you entire argument is based on something utterly wrong. And as for my naivete, I have been around long enough to see what happens with "optional" rules, and how they become the only rules. So yeah, I will hold the line against this silliness as long as I can.
So they are, I was thinking about the 25ft movement I guess, regardless, you can still have an 18 with rolled stats and if the "optional" rules becomes the only rule anyone uses, then the original rule wasn't very good was it?
Because D&D 5e does not differentiate between 'breaking things' Strength and 'Athletic' Strength, one is not permittedto say halflings, gnomes, and other Small creatures cannot have high Strength scores, as most here are positing.
Say at my table, I house rule that halflings, gnomes, and other small creatures cannot exceed a Strength score of 16. Exactly how am I not allowed to do that?
You can do so, certainly.
You are signalling to your players, at that point, that Small creatures in your game are not permitted to possess proficiency in the Athletics skill, nor are they permitted to be barbarians. They also cannot be the most common types of fighters, paladins, or blood hunters. And since we all know that weapons such as crossbows and longbows take significant physical strength to operate, you should put a minimum Strength score on those as well which is above the 16 mark you're imposing on Small creatures.
You will also want to limit those creatures to a similar maximum 16 in Constitution, as their reduced mass - biologically speaking, of course - reduces their ability to withstand trauma or absorb and ignore the effects of harmful pollutants or toxins.
While you're at it, you should also limit any species without a strong cultural background of education and academia to a maximum Intelligence score of 16, as well as prohibiting them from possessing proficiency in any Intelligence-based skill save, possibly, Investigation. Species that raid to survive, or which have not progressed beyond basic hunter-gatherer modes of sustaining themselves, do not have time to build up the urbanized knowledge base everyone associates with Intelligence.
You may also want to consider restricting any species with the Powerful Build species trait to a maximum Dexterity of 16, and prohibit them from possessing proficiency in Stealth, Sleight of Hand, or Acrobatics. After all, a large, bulky body is hardly going to be as dexterous and nimble-fingered as a much smaller creature, nor is it going to be remotely as light on its feet. There is absolutely no possible way they could attempt to train away this disadvantage. Biology is biology, after all, and no amount of heroic effort can supplant biology.
Realistically, what you should likely do on top of imposing these rules is provide your players a list of the species allowed to be played in your games, which two or three classes each of those species is permitted to be, which two or three backgrounds those species are allowed to take, and which five or six skill proficiencies those species are allowed to possess. Because clearly you do not trust your players to come up with reasonable and compelling stories for why their given characters exist, and thus you should ensure all appropriate restrictions are in place before you even start.
Me: "halfings and other small folk are capped at 16 strength for this campaign folks. They're just weaker in stature and ability, based on whatever random story I come up with."
My players: "Ouch. ok cool. There goes my Halfling Barbarian idea. Are they culturally or more inclined to other professions?"
Me: "yes. play and do something not strength based."
Player 1: "Ok sweet. I think I'm gonna go full dex guy then. Rogue, acrobatics to offset my lack of athleticism, etc."
Player 2: "Ok cool. I'll still go Barbarian then. How about Goliath? Tried and true and typical right?"
Player 3: "Yea man! Let's both go Goliath Barbarians! Twins. Bulky, broad shouldered and full of rage!"
Me: "Sweet."
That is exactly how a session 0 at my table would go, should I do the 16 strength restriction, which I have NEVER done by the way. It was an example.
You on the other hand went complete bat$hit with it. How the hell do you get to your paragraph from my single statement? There's some other major underlying things going on here beyond just playing a game one way vs. another way.
Because D&D 5e does not differentiate between 'breaking things' Strength and 'Athletic' Strength, one is not permittedto say halflings, gnomes, and other Small creatures cannot have high Strength scores, as most here are positing.
Say at my table, I house rule that halflings, gnomes, and other small creatures cannot exceed a Strength score of 16. Exactly how am I not allowed to do that?
You can do so, certainly.
You are signalling to your players, at that point, that Small creatures in your game are not permitted to possess proficiency in the Athletics skill, nor are they permitted to be barbarians. They also cannot be the most common types of fighters, paladins, or blood hunters. And since we all know that weapons such as crossbows and longbows take significant physical strength to operate, you should put a minimum Strength score on those as well which is above the 16 mark you're imposing on Small creatures.
You will also want to limit those creatures to a similar maximum 16 in Constitution, as their reduced mass - biologically speaking, of course - reduces their ability to withstand trauma or absorb and ignore the effects of harmful pollutants or toxins.
While you're at it, you should also limit any species without a strong cultural background of education and academia to a maximum Intelligence score of 16, as well as prohibiting them from possessing proficiency in any Intelligence-based skill save, possibly, Investigation. Species that raid to survive, or which have not progressed beyond basic hunter-gatherer modes of sustaining themselves, do not have time to build up the urbanized knowledge base everyone associates with Intelligence.
You may also want to consider restricting any species with the Powerful Build species trait to a maximum Dexterity of 16, and prohibit them from possessing proficiency in Stealth, Sleight of Hand, or Acrobatics. After all, a large, bulky body is hardly going to be as dexterous and nimble-fingered as a much smaller creature, nor is it going to be remotely as light on its feet. There is absolutely no possible way they could attempt to train away this disadvantage. Biology is biology, after all, and no amount of heroic effort can supplant biology.
Realistically, what you should likely do on top of imposing these rules is provide your players a list of the species allowed to be played in your games, which two or three classes each of those species is permitted to be, which two or three backgrounds those species are allowed to take, and which five or six skill proficiencies those species are allowed to possess. Because clearly you do not trust your players to come up with reasonable and compelling stories for why their given characters exist, and thus you should ensure all appropriate restrictions are in place before you even start.
Ludicrous. First, a cap on stats does not prevent having a proficiency, not in related skills or even the stat itself. Having a cap does not prevent you from classes that use that stat as a primary source. This idea that classes can only be used or useful if you’ve maxed out the stat is ridiculous.
I feel like Jacked_Goblin was just throwing out a hypothetical and Yurei was simply taking that argument to the extreme because the second you start making "rules" that try to rely on realism and how something would function in the real world vs the fantasy game in which it exist, you basically have to break the game. I don't even remember what the original post was discussing, but I am pretty sure we have all strayed from it.
My preferred system of play is generally point-build games. I do 5e because the tools and support for 5e is there, and because that's the generally agreed-upon system for the overall group, but I generally more njoy systems such as GURPS or Savage Worlds that present you with a buffet of options and a budget and tell you to get creative. In these games, when one accepts a massive inherent penalty or disadvantage, they can use that to acquire something else of value.
You impose a maximum Strength score of 16 on Small creatures, with absolutely no counterbalancing positive features to go with it. You are effectively imposing a severe Disadvantage/Hindrance on any Small character - they are never permitted to possess a Strength score above 'Mediocre' - without offering them anything of any value in turn. That is horrible game building. The only way for that to make any sense is if all other species also have to eat their own, roughly equivalent severe disadvantage/hindrance - severe reductions reductions in a different ability score, and restrictions against skills they can or cannot possess, just like the Small creatures in the game.
So. Species with no history of education get a severe reduction in their ceiling Intelligence. Species with the trait signalling 'Large and powerful' get a severe reduction in their ceiling Dexterity. Or, to keep it simple because 5e is fatally allergic to depth, create a chart specifying the small handful of things each species can do in order to fit your vision of a Perfect Adventuring Party. After all, one cannot trust the players to do so themselves, hm?
"I want to play a Halfling Barbarian but am too weak. This is just not fair. I want the "optional rules" that allow me a 17 starting Strength. Wow, I now have that Strength. Thanks WOTC. Hey, wait a minute, I can't wield a Great Sword as well as Medium class char. That is not fair. I have the same Strength. I demand that rule that demeans smaller stature creatures be removed from the game."
No way, no how, these rules will EVER be seen at my table.
There is a difference between weight and size. Something can weigh not a lot and be incredibly hard for one person to carry because the size of it makes it unwieldy. And as i stated, with rolling stats, something that has been in the game the whole time, you can already have a small race character with a starting 20 str (mountain dwarves get a +2 str). I don't remember anyone ever complaining that they don't get to wield great axes? Straight out of the book " A heavy weapon's size and bulk..." AKA - this restriction has NOTHING to do with a characters ability score. a 75" TV only weighs 40 lbs, but go ahead and try to lift one by yourself.
I like how you are assuming there will be some huge uproar that no one has ever had and that you are saying that a rule won't be allowed at your table before you even know what that rule is. None of us has any idea how this will actually function, we are all just guessing and to say you won't allow something before you even know how it works is naive .
I have no idea what game you are playing, but Dwarves ARE MEDIUM, not small. (page 20, PHB) So you entire argument is based on something utterly wrong. And as for my naivete, I have been around long enough to see what happens with "optional" rules, and how they become the only rules. So yeah, I will hold the line against this silliness as long as I can.
So they are, I was thinking about the 25ft movement I guess, regardless, you can still have an 18 with rolled stats and if the "optional" rules becomes the only rule anyone uses, then the original rule wasn't very good was it?
Uh no...what it means is that if you roll for stats (already a terrible way to do create a char), and add a +2 to a stat, that has zero to do with any species specific bonuses / limitations, and all about "I am not having fun planning char and deciding on tradeoffs, because I want everything, and I want it now."
I don't see a single person here suggesting the following, because it is:
a. Dumb
b. Blows away the entire premise of these stupid new rules
but here goes:
You want to play by these optional rules? OK, no problem. BUT, you roll every stat in order, and you don't get to switch them around. First stat you roll is Str, then Con, and down the line. If roll a 12 for Str, you are stuck with it, but you are welcome to add your +2 to it. So your Halfling Barbarian is starting with a 14 Str. Deal with it. You want to play this Str based Barbarian? Great. Guess what? The vagaries of his imaginary biology says he was born with a Str of 12.
I don't even remember what the original post was discussing, but I am pretty sure we have all strayed from it.
Not really. This is pretty much 11 pages of going back and forth on the same basic points.
Basically, yeah. There's folks who believe that freedom of choice trumps adherence to code (or that a species is defined by its lore, history, and position within the world more than by its mechanical abilities), there's folks who believe that characters diverging wildly from their species norms breaks verisimilitude and the story of the world, and neither of those groups are really willing to budge. It appears to mostly just be a way to pass the day at this point.
Question: do you find the Paralympics 'stupid'? Because that involves the hard work and motivation of disabled people, who have a disadvantage which makes them 'bad at their job'. And yet they persist, and the achievements are all the more special for it.
Also, cut the crap. It's not 'RACISM'. It is 'REALITY'. Ignoring genetics and adopting a 'Blank Slate' ideology (same as the communists, btw...) is idiotic. An orc will, 99.99/100 times, be born more physically powerful than a kobold. If said kobold wants to become a renowned athletics champion, then that kobold has some serious work to do!
End of discussion.
First i would like to say, that there is a whole subset of this community who is up in arms about something like the 'Combat Wheelchair' existing, so i dont think yurie is the one you should be trying to call ablest.
On that same note though. No people who participate in the Paralympic are not bad at their job, they have just been told by society that they are and then have to reprove their worth. This is the exact type of mindset these new rules are supposed to go against. Just stop, because your bigotry is showing.
Hey, watch the name-calling. And be honest. Modern society supports disabled people and disabled rights 110%, which is why the Paralympics exists. Would there be a Paralympics under Nazism? No. Under Communism? Nope. Our modern day post-Christian ethics are the fairest in all of history, with more support for individualism than there ever has been before. Disabled rights are celebrated, not frowned upon or dismissed. The only mindset which is 'stupid' here is that biology is nonexistent.
Calling out bigotry is not name calling, just fyi. Also i dont see what magical fantasy land has to do with Nazism, Communism or these “Post Christian” ethics you speak of.
Exactly, my dude....neither does racism. You brought up that 'they have just been told by society that they are and then have to reprove their worth', and I responded.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hi there! I'm a Christian musician based in Canada :)
What optional rules have become the only rules from past editions?
Specifically, do you mean players and DMs effectively only play one rule variant, or has TSR / WoTC turned a variant rule into a hard rule at some point in the past?
People playing this edition often completely forget that both Multiclassing and Feats are 100% optional and the DM has specifically approve them in the first place.
My preferred system of play is generally point-build games. I do 5e because the tools and support for 5e is there, and because that's the generally agreed-upon system for the overall group, but I generally more njoy systems such as GURPS or Savage Worlds that present you with a buffet of options and a budget and tell you to get creative. In these games, when one accepts a massive inherent penalty or disadvantage, they can use that to acquire something else of value.
So, you don't really like D&D all that much, and would like to see D&D move away from its traditional ruleset to something more like GURPS or Savage Worlds. That explains a lot.
I like Champions way better than D&D as a game system too. But I would never argue that D&D should be more like Champions. If I wanted to play a game like Champions, I'd do something crazy like... play Champions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I don't even remember what the original post was discussing, but I am pretty sure we have all strayed from it.
Not really. This is pretty much 11 pages of going back and forth on the same basic points.
Basically, yeah. There's folks who believe that freedom of choice trumps adherence to code (or that a species is defined by its lore, history, and position within the world more than by its mechanical abilities), there's folks who believe that characters diverging wildly from their species norms breaks verisimilitude and the story of the world, and neither of those groups are really willing to budge. It appears to mostly just be a way to pass the day at this point.
Maybe so, but you’re forgetting another whole segment of us who say that most likely, those inclined to use this rule are probably already doing it because “[They] don’t need rules, man! FIGHT THE SYSTEM!!!” And now the rest of us are gonna be stuck with this just like the also #optionalnotoptional Feats and Multiclassing that everyone looses their shit over if a DM decides to not use them.
Nice try, but not what I said or why I brought those systems up.
If you're going to impose an enormous disadvantage on a player option without any subsequent benefit in trade - such as massively reducing Small characters' Strength celings without any counterbalancing improvements in other areas - what you're basically doing is telling players not to use that option. It is GM speak for "I don't like this, I'd prefer you not to use it, but I don't want to be an ******* and just come out and say that".
In point-build systems, GMs don't get to do that - they have to offer a carrot with every stick. Every disadvantage comes with a point refund. Small species get less total Strength, but they automatically have advantage on Stealth checks to avoid detection and benefit from half the required daily intake of food/water. Tit for tat. Point for point. This for that.
Or be an ******* and just say "you can only ever have 16 Strength, and you get nothing to compensate for that severe hindrance. Suck it up or find a different table, dickwhistle."
What optional rules have become the only rules from past editions?
Specifically, do you mean players and DMs effectively only play one rule variant, or has TSR / WoTC turned a variant rule into a hard rule at some point in the past?
People playing this edition often completely forget that both Multiclassing and Feats are 100% optional and the DM has specifically approve them in the first place.
That is a good example. The major difference between what we've been discussing and those is the fact that both of those variants were in initial PHB and DMG release, but that's still good to be reminded of (I knew Feats were optional, I didn't realise Multi-classing was too). I would also guess people forget due to it being such a common thing. I'm not sure if the Tasha's rules will be that popular, but it will be interesting to see.
My preferred system of play is generally point-build games. I do 5e because the tools and support for 5e is there, and because that's the generally agreed-upon system for the overall group, but I generally more njoy systems such as GURPS or Savage Worlds that present you with a buffet of options and a budget and tell you to get creative. In these games, when one accepts a massive inherent penalty or disadvantage, they can use that to acquire something else of value.
So, you don't really like D&D all that much, and would like to see D&D move away from its traditional ruleset to something more like GURPS or Savage Worlds. That explains a lot.
I like Champions way better than D&D as a game system too. But I would never argue that D&D should be more like Champions. If I wanted to play a game like Champions, I'd do something crazy like... play Champions.
As Yurei already noted though her group wants to play / overall prefers D&D 5e for a variety of reasons.
I think it's fair enough for her table and others to want something official from WoTC to allow different rules around race / ancestry and have some guidance for customisation, and I haven't been convinced it will be bad for tables who don't.
You impose a maximum Strength score of 16 on Small creatures, with absolutely no counterbalancing positive features to go with it. You are effectively imposing a severe Disadvantage/Hindrance on any Small character - they are never permitted to possess a Strength score above 'Mediocre' - without offering them anything of any value in turn. That is horrible game building.
In my absolute best Senator Gracchus from Gladiator voice.
"Perhaps you'd be so good to teach us a bit more about game building and game design. Out of your own extensive experience.."
You impose a maximum Strength score of 16 on Small creatures, with absolutely no counterbalancing positive features to go with it. You are effectively imposing a severe Disadvantage/Hindrance on any Small character - they are never permitted to possess a Strength score above 'Mediocre' - without offering them anything of any value in turn. That is horrible game building.
In my absolute best Senator Gracchus from Gladiator voice.
"Perhaps you'd be so good to teach us a bit more about game building and game design. Out of your own extensive experience.."
One doesn't need to have experience in design or building to feel, discuss or argue those points. Playing different systems and having one's own preferences gives a good amount of that.
It's fallacious to say one must have experience in X to be critical of it. It helps, especially if you're talking about the whys etc., but it's not necessary.
That is one of the reasons I prefer a much more rigid system. It is easier for a DM to say 'Yes, I agree, we will make a house rule providing an exception to *this*' than it is for a DM to say 'Yes I know that combination is allowed under the rules, but it is unbalanced and I will not allow it.'
That's the opposite of my experience. It's a lot easier to rule things out than to rule them in.
That's the opposite of my experience. It's a lot easier to rule things out than to rule them in.
Depends on the table and the players. Many players do not like having things "taken away from them." They are rarely unhappy if you give them new options the rules don't usually allow.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So they are, I was thinking about the 25ft movement I guess, regardless, you can still have an 18 with rolled stats and if the "optional" rules becomes the only rule anyone uses, then the original rule wasn't very good was it?
Me: "halfings and other small folk are capped at 16 strength for this campaign folks. They're just weaker in stature and ability, based on whatever random story I come up with."
My players: "Ouch. ok cool. There goes my Halfling Barbarian idea. Are they culturally or more inclined to other professions?"
Me: "yes. play and do something not strength based."
Player 1: "Ok sweet. I think I'm gonna go full dex guy then. Rogue, acrobatics to offset my lack of athleticism, etc."
Player 2: "Ok cool. I'll still go Barbarian then. How about Goliath? Tried and true and typical right?"
Player 3: "Yea man! Let's both go Goliath Barbarians! Twins. Bulky, broad shouldered and full of rage!"
Me: "Sweet."
That is exactly how a session 0 at my table would go, should I do the 16 strength restriction, which I have NEVER done by the way. It was an example.
You on the other hand went complete bat$hit with it. How the hell do you get to your paragraph from my single statement? There's some other major underlying things going on here beyond just playing a game one way vs. another way.
All things Lich - DM tips, tricks, and other creative shenanigans
I feel like Jacked_Goblin was just throwing out a hypothetical and Yurei was simply taking that argument to the extreme because the second you start making "rules" that try to rely on realism and how something would function in the real world vs the fantasy game in which it exist, you basically have to break the game. I don't even remember what the original post was discussing, but I am pretty sure we have all strayed from it.
My preferred system of play is generally point-build games. I do 5e because the tools and support for 5e is there, and because that's the generally agreed-upon system for the overall group, but I generally more njoy systems such as GURPS or Savage Worlds that present you with a buffet of options and a budget and tell you to get creative. In these games, when one accepts a massive inherent penalty or disadvantage, they can use that to acquire something else of value.
You impose a maximum Strength score of 16 on Small creatures, with absolutely no counterbalancing positive features to go with it. You are effectively imposing a severe Disadvantage/Hindrance on any Small character - they are never permitted to possess a Strength score above 'Mediocre' - without offering them anything of any value in turn. That is horrible game building. The only way for that to make any sense is if all other species also have to eat their own, roughly equivalent severe disadvantage/hindrance - severe reductions reductions in a different ability score, and restrictions against skills they can or cannot possess, just like the Small creatures in the game.
So. Species with no history of education get a severe reduction in their ceiling Intelligence. Species with the trait signalling 'Large and powerful' get a severe reduction in their ceiling Dexterity. Or, to keep it simple because 5e is fatally allergic to depth, create a chart specifying the small handful of things each species can do in order to fit your vision of a Perfect Adventuring Party. After all, one cannot trust the players to do so themselves, hm?
Please do not contact or message me.
Uh no...what it means is that if you roll for stats (already a terrible way to do create a char), and add a +2 to a stat, that has zero to do with any species specific bonuses / limitations, and all about "I am not having fun planning char and deciding on tradeoffs, because I want everything, and I want it now."
I don't see a single person here suggesting the following, because it is:
a. Dumb
b. Blows away the entire premise of these stupid new rules
but here goes:
You want to play by these optional rules? OK, no problem. BUT, you roll every stat in order, and you don't get to switch them around. First stat you roll is Str, then Con, and down the line. If roll a 12 for Str, you are stuck with it, but you are welcome to add your +2 to it. So your Halfling Barbarian is starting with a 14 Str. Deal with it. You want to play this Str based Barbarian? Great. Guess what? The vagaries of his imaginary biology says he was born with a Str of 12.
Not really. This is pretty much 11 pages of going back and forth on the same basic points.
Basically, yeah. There's folks who believe that freedom of choice trumps adherence to code (or that a species is defined by its lore, history, and position within the world more than by its mechanical abilities), there's folks who believe that characters diverging wildly from their species norms breaks verisimilitude and the story of the world, and neither of those groups are really willing to budge. It appears to mostly just be a way to pass the day at this point.
Please do not contact or message me.
Exactly, my dude....neither does racism. You brought up that 'they have just been told by society that they are and then have to reprove their worth', and I responded.
Hi there! I'm a Christian musician based in Canada :)
People playing this edition often completely forget that both Multiclassing and Feats are 100% optional and the DM has specifically approve them in the first place.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
So, you don't really like D&D all that much, and would like to see D&D move away from its traditional ruleset to something more like GURPS or Savage Worlds. That explains a lot.
I like Champions way better than D&D as a game system too. But I would never argue that D&D should be more like Champions. If I wanted to play a game like Champions, I'd do something crazy like... play Champions.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Maybe so, but you’re forgetting another whole segment of us who say that most likely, those inclined to use this rule are probably already doing it because “[They] don’t need rules, man! FIGHT THE SYSTEM!!!” And now the rest of us are gonna be stuck with this just like the also #
optionalnotoptional Feats and Multiclassing that everyone looses their shit over if a DM decides to not use them.Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Nice try, but not what I said or why I brought those systems up.
If you're going to impose an enormous disadvantage on a player option without any subsequent benefit in trade - such as massively reducing Small characters' Strength celings without any counterbalancing improvements in other areas - what you're basically doing is telling players not to use that option. It is GM speak for "I don't like this, I'd prefer you not to use it, but I don't want to be an ******* and just come out and say that".
In point-build systems, GMs don't get to do that - they have to offer a carrot with every stick. Every disadvantage comes with a point refund. Small species get less total Strength, but they automatically have advantage on Stealth checks to avoid detection and benefit from half the required daily intake of food/water. Tit for tat. Point for point. This for that.
Or be an ******* and just say "you can only ever have 16 Strength, and you get nothing to compensate for that severe hindrance. Suck it up or find a different table, dickwhistle."
Please do not contact or message me.
That is a good example. The major difference between what we've been discussing and those is the fact that both of those variants were in initial PHB and DMG release, but that's still good to be reminded of (I knew Feats were optional, I didn't realise Multi-classing was too). I would also guess people forget due to it being such a common thing. I'm not sure if the Tasha's rules will be that popular, but it will be interesting to see.
As Yurei already noted though her group wants to play / overall prefers D&D 5e for a variety of reasons.
I think it's fair enough for her table and others to want something official from WoTC to allow different rules around race / ancestry and have some guidance for customisation, and I haven't been convinced it will be bad for tables who don't.
In my absolute best Senator Gracchus from Gladiator voice.
"Perhaps you'd be so good to teach us a bit more about game building and game design. Out of your own extensive experience.."
All things Lich - DM tips, tricks, and other creative shenanigans
One doesn't need to have experience in design or building to feel, discuss or argue those points. Playing different systems and having one's own preferences gives a good amount of that.
It's fallacious to say one must have experience in X to be critical of it. It helps, especially if you're talking about the whys etc., but it's not necessary.
Gosh, I was just gone for one day, back when this was at 3 pages. Now it's at 12, and I am in the process of catching up.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Good luck!
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Don't do it... save your sanity.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
That's the opposite of my experience. It's a lot easier to rule things out than to rule them in.
Depends on the table and the players. Many players do not like having things "taken away from them." They are rarely unhappy if you give them new options the rules don't usually allow.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.