Yeah, pretty sure you were a little too young to experience the "New Coke" phenomenon. I am sure there were many in the board room of Coke saying the same thing.
Nope, definitely was alive for that. But keep on flogging that horse, I'm sure they'll reverse aaalllll the decisions you don't like, any day now.
It's not like the game actually takes into account physics, chemistry, biology, biomechanics, thermodynamics...trying to explain basically any mechanic in D&D in terms of real-world logic is a shell game.
It's magic. It's fantasy. "A wizard did it." If people stressed as much about, say, carry limits as they do "race" mechanics, no one would bother playing. In the grand scheme of things, ST 20 halflings and CHA 20 half-orcs aren't going to ruin anything.
Sure, I mean, while we’re at it, let’s make 1/2 Orcs 3ft tall, living pastoral lives, loving to cook and eat, having great dental hygiene, civilized, and neighborly. Why not? It is all just fantasy anyway.
(I mean, if you want to go all reductio ad absurdum with this...)
Actually, I don't think even that would break anything. Someone wants to play "small" but call themselves an orc, I see no problem.
We can keep going. Every PC can have all the same options. We can do a pure point buy of everything, like Hero Games. I mean, why not?
Unfortunately, that is precisely where the "new. enlightened, woke D&D" is going. There are no species. Every char is a blob that you can then bolt stuff onto from a buffet of feats, innate abilities, and backgrounds. The people stamping their feet screaming for this have no interest in playing D&D. They want something else, that I assume is not available in the gaming market.
We saw this “people want something different” thing in defense of 4e when it came out. Which makes this a repeat of a bad idea.
I mean, that's just nonsense.
Change is what keeps anything, even and especially a table-top game competing for space and attention in an increasing stuffed media landscape, alive and thriving. Not every change will be for the better but that doesn't mean that they stop trying. Or just following the money, whichever you prefer.
Not every change is good and I believe getting rid of those things which make DND a brand is a bad change.
Whether YOU think doing so is important is irrelevant to me.
Lucky for D&D as a whole your opinion about the changes carries no more weight than anyone else's. The change is here like it or not.
As for the "New Coke" argument, D&D has had 2nd, 3rd, 3.5, 4th and 5th edition since "New Coke" made it's debut in 1985. I don't think that comparison is as relevant as you think.
It's not like the game actually takes into account physics, chemistry, biology, biomechanics, thermodynamics...trying to explain basically any mechanic in D&D in terms of real-world logic is a shell game.
It's magic. It's fantasy. "A wizard did it." If people stressed as much about, say, carry limits as they do "race" mechanics, no one would bother playing. In the grand scheme of things, ST 20 halflings and CHA 20 half-orcs aren't going to ruin anything.
Sure, I mean, while we’re at it, let’s make 1/2 Orcs 3ft tall, living pastoral lives, loving to cook and eat, having great dental hygiene, civilized, and neighborly. Why not? It is all just fantasy anyway.
(I mean, if you want to go all reductio ad absurdum with this...)
Actually, I don't think even that would break anything. Someone wants to play "small" but call themselves an orc, I see no problem.
We can keep going. Every PC can have all the same options. We can do a pure point buy of everything, like Hero Games. I mean, why not?
Unfortunately, that is precisely where the "new. enlightened, woke D&D" is going. There are no species. Every char is a blob that you can then bolt stuff onto from a buffet of feats, innate abilities, and backgrounds. The people stamping their feet screaming for this have no interest in playing D&D. They want something else, that I assume is not available in the gaming market.
We saw this “people want something different” thing in defense of 4e when it came out. Which makes this a repeat of a bad idea.
I mean, that's just nonsense.
Change is what keeps anything, even and especially a table-top game competing for space and attention in an increasing stuffed media landscape, alive and thriving. Not every change will be for the better but that doesn't mean that they stop trying. Or just following the money, whichever you prefer.
Not every change is good and I believe getting rid of those things which make DND a brand is a bad change.
Whether YOU think doing so is important is irrelevant to me.
Lucky for D&D as a whole your opinion about the changes carries no more weight than anyone else's. The change is here like it or not.
As for the "New Coke" argument, D&D has had 2nd, 3rd, 3.5, 4th and 5th edition since "New Coke" made it's debut in 1985. I don't think that comparison is as relevant as you think.
I guess what it comes down to is this. I am not trapped since I don't run AL. So when players show up at my table and state they are building their chars using this new stuff, I can politely direct them to the original PHB, and state "make you char using this system, or leave".
It's not like the game actually takes into account physics, chemistry, biology, biomechanics, thermodynamics...trying to explain basically any mechanic in D&D in terms of real-world logic is a shell game.
It's magic. It's fantasy. "A wizard did it." If people stressed as much about, say, carry limits as they do "race" mechanics, no one would bother playing. In the grand scheme of things, ST 20 halflings and CHA 20 half-orcs aren't going to ruin anything.
Sure, I mean, while we’re at it, let’s make 1/2 Orcs 3ft tall, living pastoral lives, loving to cook and eat, having great dental hygiene, civilized, and neighborly. Why not? It is all just fantasy anyway.
(I mean, if you want to go all reductio ad absurdum with this...)
Actually, I don't think even that would break anything. Someone wants to play "small" but call themselves an orc, I see no problem.
We can keep going. Every PC can have all the same options. We can do a pure point buy of everything, like Hero Games. I mean, why not?
Unfortunately, that is precisely where the "new. enlightened, woke D&D" is going. There are no species. Every char is a blob that you can then bolt stuff onto from a buffet of feats, innate abilities, and backgrounds. The people stamping their feet screaming for this have no interest in playing D&D. They want something else, that I assume is not available in the gaming market.
We saw this “people want something different” thing in defense of 4e when it came out. Which makes this a repeat of a bad idea.
I mean, that's just nonsense.
Change is what keeps anything, even and especially a table-top game competing for space and attention in an increasing stuffed media landscape, alive and thriving. Not every change will be for the better but that doesn't mean that they stop trying. Or just following the money, whichever you prefer.
Not every change is good and I believe getting rid of those things which make DND a brand is a bad change.
Whether YOU think doing so is important is irrelevant to me.
Lucky for D&D as a whole your opinion about the changes carries no more weight than anyone else's. The change is here like it or not.
As for the "New Coke" argument, D&D has had 2nd, 3rd, 3.5, 4th and 5th edition since "New Coke" made it's debut in 1985. I don't think that comparison is as relevant as you think.
DND. didn’t change things that were part of its brand when it went to new editions except when they went to 4.0 WHICH FAILED.
After 40 years of playing this game I can say with certainty that D&D today has only a superficial resemblance to the game I learned when I first started. What exactly do YOU think the D&D Brand is?
Races, Classes, Spells, Skills, Mechanics, none of it is the same, other than meaningless things like names. Heck, most of the Lore has even changed so much between editions that it is ridiculous.
According to the surveys, back when 5e was called the NEXT playtest...
Spell slots (something akin to vancian magic) and the alignment chart are part of the "sacred cows" of D&D. The four roles, embodied by Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric. The d20 and the different dice uses. Leveling + class system. The six stats and saving throws.
After 40 years of playing this game I can say with certainty that D&D today has only a superficial resemblance to the game I learned when I first started. What exactly do YOU think the D&D Brand is?
Races, Classes, Spells, Skills, Mechanics, none of it is the same, other than meaningless things like names. Heck, most of the Lore has even changed so much between editions that it is ridiculous.
I don't know what game you've been playing, but there's quite a lot of stuff that has stayed pretty consistent since the 70s; Divine vs. Arcane magic (with Arcane doing more damage and healing being much easier with Divine magic), Magic Missile / Fireball / Lightning Bolt spells, Druid shapeshiting, Cleric turning / channel divinity, weapon profs as part of class, race ability score adjustments, psionics as an optional rule, the four core classes (Fighter, Magic User / Wizard, Cleric, Thief / Rogue), etc. have all been part of the game since 1e.
Sure, there have been changes. Cleric turning has become channel divinity is a change. Magic Users became Wizards, Illusionists became a subclass under Wizards and other specialists were created, demihumans stopped being their own class, bards became a proper class, etc. But, the things which _brand_ DnD have remained generally the same (forex. Fireball has always let the user role a handful of dice).
how are you going to deal when large lineages are allowed.
Alas, we aren't going to have any Large lineages. Apparently, the game breaks in strange and interesting ways when they make a PC creature Large. For instance, a paladin's aura quadruples in size. A large character acting as a meat shield can cover more ground than a Medium or Small creature can. Weapons start acting differently.
Either way, that's why we have the Powerful Build trait that lets them have the physical strength as if they were Large size. Its a way to have Large without being Large.
We are talking about a magical fantasy realm with magic
its simple creation has made most races matching in capacity
there is no standard evolution, there is vast amounts of intervention cosmic or godly or by wishes.
and saying a 24 str halfling barb outmatches any 20 str midclass has not paid attention to grappling mechanics and carrying capacity.
overencumbered is easy on a halfling thust allowing exhaustion because they are small and cannot carry the same load.
overencumbering is a technique any large class can do at advantage with grappling and they can cause exhaustion easily causing rapid disadvantages on all your rolls or checks.
and you forget small classes cannot get advantage on heavy weapons
bonus you can mount medium creatures so dungeon mounts and your mount can carry your stuff
and you get movement benefit that you can pass thru anothers area under or over if they are 2 sizes larger than you.
cover of 3/4 or half cover is easy and you can use a pc or npc as cover, there is a feat that lets you hide behind another player, so bonus you sneak attack and crit hit more.
NOW IF YOU STILL HAVE A ISSUE RPING THIS THEN TRY
DUAL LINEAGE
ADD A SECONDARY HUMANOID PLAYER RACE LINEAGE WITH NO TRAITS PASSED
NOW YOUR MIND CAN ACCEPT YOUR STRENGTH AND POWER COMES FROM A STRONG MEDIUM SIZED LINEAGE.
Its weird to me how easy & common discrimination comes to some, they cant help but force it on fantasy or fiction.
races where omitted now sizes are the new issue.
how are you going to deal when large lineages are allowed.
OK, I will bite. In your words, please define "discrimination", and how real world versions of this are being applied to D&D by "some".
Hey, that's what the D&D devs said about having a Large PC. So, while they might change that with an entirely new edition, with 5e, its pretty much set in stone that we're not going to have anything beyond a Small or Medium PC option. There's no way around it.
After 40 years of playing this game I can say with certainty that D&D today has only a superficial resemblance to the game I learned when I first started. What exactly do YOU think the D&D Brand is?
Races, Classes, Spells, Skills, Mechanics, none of it is the same, other than meaningless things like names. Heck, most of the Lore has even changed so much between editions that it is ridiculous.
There are actually a surprising number of elements including many spell descriptions, monster descriptions, monster abilities, and the like, that, if not identical, are strongly similar between 5th and 1st edition D&D. Obviously things like the save-or-die mechanic are very different and advantage/disadvantage on rolls... but if you dig into the text descriptions and stat blocks of monsters and the descriptions of spells, some of them are quite similar and many are word-for-word. Indeed many have argued that 5th edition is the closest edition to 1e that WOTC has produced - certainly far more so than 4th and arguably more so than 3rd/3.5th.
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.
After 40 years of playing this game I can say with certainty that D&D today has only a superficial resemblance to the game I learned when I first started. What exactly do YOU think the D&D Brand is?
Races, Classes, Spells, Skills, Mechanics, none of it is the same, other than meaningless things like names. Heck, most of the Lore has even changed so much between editions that it is ridiculous.
There are actually a surprising number of elements including many spell descriptions, monster descriptions, monster abilities, and the like, that, if not identical, are strongly similar between 5th and 1st edition D&D. Obviously things like the save-or-die mechanic are very different and advantage/disadvantage on rolls... but if you dig into the text descriptions and stat blocks of monsters and the descriptions of spells, some of them are quite similar and many are word-for-word. Indeed many have argued that 5th edition is the closest edition to 1e that WOTC has produced - certainly far more so than 4th and arguably more so than 3rd/3.5th.
The descriptions of things are superficial. The mechanical differences between 1e and 5e are extremely different. Strength is still a stat, but the mechanics of how stats work are not the same. It just has the same name. Race no longer has stat requirements, stat maximums, level maximums, class restrictions. A Dwarf for example couldn't even be a Wizard. It wasn't allowed. Only Lawful Good Humans could be Paladins and they had to have super stats to do it and without a single stat adjustment for race. Infravison, Weapons Speeds, Only Thieves could pick a lock and so much more.
If racial stat adjustments going the way of racial stat requirements, class restrictions and level caps is too much for you, then I am sorry.
After 40 years of playing this game I can say with certainty that D&D today has only a superficial resemblance to the game I learned when I first started. What exactly do YOU think the D&D Brand is?
Races, Classes, Spells, Skills, Mechanics, none of it is the same, other than meaningless things like names. Heck, most of the Lore has even changed so much between editions that it is ridiculous.
There are actually a surprising number of elements including many spell descriptions, monster descriptions, monster abilities, and the like, that, if not identical, are strongly similar between 5th and 1st edition D&D. Obviously things like the save-or-die mechanic are very different and advantage/disadvantage on rolls... but if you dig into the text descriptions and stat blocks of monsters and the descriptions of spells, some of them are quite similar and many are word-for-word. Indeed many have argued that 5th edition is the closest edition to 1e that WOTC has produced - certainly far more so than 4th and arguably more so than 3rd/3.5th.
The descriptions of things are superficial. The mechanical differences between 1e and 5e are extremely different. Strength is still a stat, but the mechanics of how stats work are not the same. It just has the same name. Race no longer has stat requirements, stat maximums, level maximums, class restrictions. A Dwarf for example couldn't even be a Wizard. It wasn't allowed. Only Lawful Good Humans could be Paladins and they had to have super stats to do it and without a single stat adjustment for race. Infravison, Weapons Speeds, Only Thieves could pick a lock and so much more.
If racial stat adjustments going the way of racial stat requirements, class restrictions and level caps is too much for you, then I am sorry.
Look, we get it. "The past is evil, any connection to it must be eradicated from all memory." But there are many many of us who liked, even loved, all the features of the original game. It is entirely logical in D&D for female humanoids would be smaller and weaker than male humanoids. It is entire logical for D&D that various species are inherently stronger, faster, or more intelligent than other species. It is entirely logical that as chars aged, they lost strength and constitution. The game was designed, to some extent, around real world science, as far as it can be taken in a fantasy game with giant flying fire-breathing reptiles.
It would be a total lie to not admit that most of the D&D changes being driven are a reflection of real world societal changes being driven by a particular segment of the population. Are these changes something that the bulk of the player base will enjoy, as opposed to those on a web forum? (and web forum participants are a tiny percentage of the player base). Only time, and future sales, will tell.
You believe that these changes are for the improvement of the game. I, and others, do not. We think they wreck the game, destroying the original integrity of the game. We will only know when these changes are forced on the entire player base and they react, one way or another.
After 40 years of playing this game I can say with certainty that D&D today has only a superficial resemblance to the game I learned when I first started. What exactly do YOU think the D&D Brand is?
Races, Classes, Spells, Skills, Mechanics, none of it is the same, other than meaningless things like names. Heck, most of the Lore has even changed so much between editions that it is ridiculous.
There are actually a surprising number of elements including many spell descriptions, monster descriptions, monster abilities, and the like, that, if not identical, are strongly similar between 5th and 1st edition D&D. Obviously things like the save-or-die mechanic are very different and advantage/disadvantage on rolls... but if you dig into the text descriptions and stat blocks of monsters and the descriptions of spells, some of them are quite similar and many are word-for-word. Indeed many have argued that 5th edition is the closest edition to 1e that WOTC has produced - certainly far more so than 4th and arguably more so than 3rd/3.5th.
The descriptions of things are superficial. The mechanical differences between 1e and 5e are extremely different. Strength is still a stat, but the mechanics of how stats work are not the same. It just has the same name. Race no longer has stat requirements, stat maximums, level maximums, class restrictions. A Dwarf for example couldn't even be a Wizard. It wasn't allowed. Only Lawful Good Humans could be Paladins and they had to have super stats to do it and without a single stat adjustment for race. Infravison, Weapons Speeds, Only Thieves could pick a lock and so much more.
If racial stat adjustments going the way of racial stat requirements, class restrictions and level caps is too much for you, then I am sorry.
Look, we get it. "The past is evil, any connection to it must be eradicated from all memory." But there are many many of us who liked, even loved, all the features of the original game. It is entirely logical in D&D for female humanoids would be smaller and weaker than male humanoids. It is entire logical for D&D that various species are inherently stronger, faster, or more intelligent than other species. It is entirely logical that as chars aged, they lost strength and constitution. The game was designed, to some extent, around real world science, as far as it can be taken in a fantasy game with giant flying fire-breathing reptiles.
It would be a total lie to not admit that most of the D&D changes being driven are a reflection of real world societal changes being driven by a particular segment of the population. Are these changes something that the bulk of the player base will enjoy, as opposed to those on a web forum? (and web forum participants are a tiny percentage of the player base). Only time, and future sales, will tell.
You believe that these changes are for the improvement of the game. I, and others, do not. We think they wreck the game, destroying the original integrity of the game. We will only know when these changes are forced on the entire player base and they react, one way or another.
I guess I'm a hypocrite by posting now, but okay.
You know something, Vince? 1e still exists. If you want to play that type of game, go do that. Now one will stop. Rabid millennials will not break down your door.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
After 40 years of playing this game I can say with certainty that D&D today has only a superficial resemblance to the game I learned when I first started. What exactly do YOU think the D&D Brand is?
Races, Classes, Spells, Skills, Mechanics, none of it is the same, other than meaningless things like names. Heck, most of the Lore has even changed so much between editions that it is ridiculous.
There are actually a surprising number of elements including many spell descriptions, monster descriptions, monster abilities, and the like, that, if not identical, are strongly similar between 5th and 1st edition D&D. Obviously things like the save-or-die mechanic are very different and advantage/disadvantage on rolls... but if you dig into the text descriptions and stat blocks of monsters and the descriptions of spells, some of them are quite similar and many are word-for-word. Indeed many have argued that 5th edition is the closest edition to 1e that WOTC has produced - certainly far more so than 4th and arguably more so than 3rd/3.5th.
The descriptions of things are superficial. The mechanical differences between 1e and 5e are extremely different. Strength is still a stat, but the mechanics of how stats work are not the same. It just has the same name. Race no longer has stat requirements, stat maximums, level maximums, class restrictions. A Dwarf for example couldn't even be a Wizard. It wasn't allowed. Only Lawful Good Humans could be Paladins and they had to have super stats to do it and without a single stat adjustment for race. Infravison, Weapons Speeds, Only Thieves could pick a lock and so much more.
If racial stat adjustments going the way of racial stat requirements, class restrictions and level caps is too much for you, then I am sorry.
Look, we get it. "The past is evil, any connection to it must be eradicated from all memory." But there are many many of us who liked, even loved, all the features of the original game. It is entirely logical in D&D for female humanoids would be smaller and weaker than male humanoids. It is entire logical for D&D that various species are inherently stronger, faster, or more intelligent than other species. It is entirely logical that as chars aged, they lost strength and constitution. The game was designed, to some extent, around real world science, as far as it can be taken in a fantasy game with giant flying fire-breathing reptiles.
It would be a total lie to not admit that most of the D&D changes being driven are a reflection of real world societal changes being driven by a particular segment of the population. Are these changes something that the bulk of the player base will enjoy, as opposed to those on a web forum? (and web forum participants are a tiny percentage of the player base). Only time, and future sales, will tell.
You believe that these changes are for the improvement of the game. I, and others, do not. We think they wreck the game, destroying the original integrity of the game. We will only know when these changes are forced on the entire player base and they react, one way or another.
I guess I'm a hypocrite by posting now, but okay.
You know something, Vince? 1e still exists. If you want to play that type of game, go do that. Now one will stop. Rabid millennials will not break down your door.
Look, we get it. "The past is evil, any connection to it must be eradicated from all memory."
What nonsense strawman is this? No one said that.
But there are many many of us who liked, even loved, all the features of the original game. It is entirely logical in D&D for female humanoids would be smaller and weaker than male humanoids. It is entire logical for D&D that various species are inherently stronger, faster, or more intelligent than other species. It is entirely logical that as chars aged, they lost strength and constitution. The game was designed, to some extent, around real world science, as far as it can be taken in a fantasy game with giant flying fire-breathing reptiles.
Most of that is psuedoscience and bias. Not science.
That is OK. Gygax, Arneson, et al weren't scientists. They were gamers and hobbyists and writers. They created a new hobby by merging wargaming, lateral thinking puzzles, and improvisational roleplay. They thought about game design and sold books. They had no idea that, nearly 50 years later, it would be this rather large industry. Nor could they predict which of their dashed-off ideas and concepts would be old-fahioned or problematic to the modern eye.
If you think that it is bias to suggest that humans are not smarter than chimps, and as creatures age, they get physically weaker, and that female primates are physically weaker and smaller than the males of the species, then you may as well say gravity is bias and pseudoscience.
Recommend disengaging, Ken. Your heart's in the right place, but this is something like the thirtieth thread in which the same four or five guys hold the same stance that any modernization of the game is tantamount to brand murder and Ruining D&D Forever. People have been arguing with the same squad of nay-saying gatekeepers since Tasha's Cauldron was announced. All those threads end the same way - people *****ing about D&D they don't like, mods locking threads, and infraction points for everybody.
Nobody'll ever convince these people the sky isn't falling.
If you think that it is bias to suggest that humans are not smarter than chimps, and as creatures age, they get physically weaker, and that female primates are physically weaker and smaller than the males of the species, then you may as well say gravity is bias and pseudoscience.
In D&D, you're playing people. Not chimps, not dogs, not beasts, but people.
If you don't understand why people don't like being compared to, or reduced to, animals and beasts, then you should learn.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Nope, definitely was alive for that. But keep on flogging that horse, I'm sure they'll reverse aaalllll the decisions you don't like, any day now.
Lucky for D&D as a whole your opinion about the changes carries no more weight than anyone else's. The change is here like it or not.
As for the "New Coke" argument, D&D has had 2nd, 3rd, 3.5, 4th and 5th edition since "New Coke" made it's debut in 1985. I don't think that comparison is as relevant as you think.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I guess what it comes down to is this. I am not trapped since I don't run AL. So when players show up at my table and state they are building their chars using this new stuff, I can politely direct them to the original PHB, and state "make you char using this system, or leave".
DND. didn’t change things that were part of its brand when it went to new editions except when they went to 4.0 WHICH FAILED.
After 40 years of playing this game I can say with certainty that D&D today has only a superficial resemblance to the game I learned when I first started. What exactly do YOU think the D&D Brand is?
Races, Classes, Spells, Skills, Mechanics, none of it is the same, other than meaningless things like names. Heck, most of the Lore has even changed so much between editions that it is ridiculous.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Veering away from the fights.....
According to the surveys, back when 5e was called the NEXT playtest...
Spell slots (something akin to vancian magic) and the alignment chart are part of the "sacred cows" of D&D. The four roles, embodied by Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric. The d20 and the different dice uses. Leveling + class system. The six stats and saving throws.
Hmmm... that's all I can remember.
I don't know what game you've been playing, but there's quite a lot of stuff that has stayed pretty consistent since the 70s; Divine vs. Arcane magic (with Arcane doing more damage and healing being much easier with Divine magic), Magic Missile / Fireball / Lightning Bolt spells, Druid shapeshiting, Cleric turning / channel divinity, weapon profs as part of class, race ability score adjustments, psionics as an optional rule, the four core classes (Fighter, Magic User / Wizard, Cleric, Thief / Rogue), etc. have all been part of the game since 1e.
Sure, there have been changes. Cleric turning has become channel divinity is a change. Magic Users became Wizards, Illusionists became a subclass under Wizards and other specialists were created, demihumans stopped being their own class, bards became a proper class, etc. But, the things which _brand_ DnD have remained generally the same (forex. Fireball has always let the user role a handful of dice).
That kind of personal attack adds nothing to the discussion and takes much away from it.
Beyond that, I won't dignify your comment with any further reply.
Alas, we aren't going to have any Large lineages. Apparently, the game breaks in strange and interesting ways when they make a PC creature Large. For instance, a paladin's aura quadruples in size. A large character acting as a meat shield can cover more ground than a Medium or Small creature can. Weapons start acting differently.
Either way, that's why we have the Powerful Build trait that lets them have the physical strength as if they were Large size. Its a way to have Large without being Large.
OK, I will bite. In your words, please define "discrimination", and how real world versions of this are being applied to D&D by "some".
Hey, that's what the D&D devs said about having a Large PC. So, while they might change that with an entirely new edition, with 5e, its pretty much set in stone that we're not going to have anything beyond a Small or Medium PC option. There's no way around it.
There are actually a surprising number of elements including many spell descriptions, monster descriptions, monster abilities, and the like, that, if not identical, are strongly similar between 5th and 1st edition D&D. Obviously things like the save-or-die mechanic are very different and advantage/disadvantage on rolls... but if you dig into the text descriptions and stat blocks of monsters and the descriptions of spells, some of them are quite similar and many are word-for-word. Indeed many have argued that 5th edition is the closest edition to 1e that WOTC has produced - certainly far more so than 4th and arguably more so than 3rd/3.5th.
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.
The descriptions of things are superficial. The mechanical differences between 1e and 5e are extremely different. Strength is still a stat, but the mechanics of how stats work are not the same. It just has the same name. Race no longer has stat requirements, stat maximums, level maximums, class restrictions. A Dwarf for example couldn't even be a Wizard. It wasn't allowed. Only Lawful Good Humans could be Paladins and they had to have super stats to do it and without a single stat adjustment for race. Infravison, Weapons Speeds, Only Thieves could pick a lock and so much more.
If racial stat adjustments going the way of racial stat requirements, class restrictions and level caps is too much for you, then I am sorry.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Look, we get it. "The past is evil, any connection to it must be eradicated from all memory." But there are many many of us who liked, even loved, all the features of the original game. It is entirely logical in D&D for female humanoids would be smaller and weaker than male humanoids. It is entire logical for D&D that various species are inherently stronger, faster, or more intelligent than other species. It is entirely logical that as chars aged, they lost strength and constitution. The game was designed, to some extent, around real world science, as far as it can be taken in a fantasy game with giant flying fire-breathing reptiles.
It would be a total lie to not admit that most of the D&D changes being driven are a reflection of real world societal changes being driven by a particular segment of the population. Are these changes something that the bulk of the player base will enjoy, as opposed to those on a web forum? (and web forum participants are a tiny percentage of the player base). Only time, and future sales, will tell.
You believe that these changes are for the improvement of the game. I, and others, do not. We think they wreck the game, destroying the original integrity of the game. We will only know when these changes are forced on the entire player base and they react, one way or another.
I guess I'm a hypocrite by posting now, but okay.
You know something, Vince? 1e still exists. If you want to play that type of game, go do that. Now one will stop. Rabid millennials will not break down your door.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Uh huh....
What nonsense strawman is this? No one said that.
Most of that is psuedoscience and bias. Not science.
That is OK. Gygax, Arneson, et al weren't scientists. They were gamers and hobbyists and writers. They created a new hobby by merging wargaming, lateral thinking puzzles, and improvisational roleplay. They thought about game design and sold books. They had no idea that, nearly 50 years later, it would be this rather large industry. Nor could they predict which of their dashed-off ideas and concepts would be old-fahioned or problematic to the modern eye.
If you think that it is bias to suggest that humans are not smarter than chimps, and as creatures age, they get physically weaker, and that female primates are physically weaker and smaller than the males of the species, then you may as well say gravity is bias and pseudoscience.
Recommend disengaging, Ken. Your heart's in the right place, but this is something like the thirtieth thread in which the same four or five guys hold the same stance that any modernization of the game is tantamount to brand murder and Ruining D&D Forever. People have been arguing with the same squad of nay-saying gatekeepers since Tasha's Cauldron was announced. All those threads end the same way - people *****ing about D&D they don't like, mods locking threads, and infraction points for everybody.
Nobody'll ever convince these people the sky isn't falling.
Please do not contact or message me.
In D&D, you're playing people. Not chimps, not dogs, not beasts, but people.
If you don't understand why people don't like being compared to, or reduced to, animals and beasts, then you should learn.