Not quite. Those of us who argue against the restriction do so for a couple of reasons.
a. We don't like silly stuff like this being in the stat block. Leave it in the fluff text so that it's the default assumption, but not RAW for every setting, and we dont' have to houserule for something as inane as character sex.
2. We shouldn't have to houserule this anymore than we should have to houserule if we want elves with beards, or dwarves without them.
A pointless restriction just shouldn't be there.
It all is subjected to the group and the DM. Books only give guidelines and nothing more. If "houseruling" is such a dishonnor to you as a player or DM then it is all up to you as it is to any who play with you. If playing as a female satyr generates disconfort to any player or the DM, it is probably best that you just adapt your idea to another one that doesn't bother your group, in the end, it serves only to create pointless conflicts and discussions between groups. As far as it is "official" however, satyrs are male only and this is a fact, just live with it.
The books are the rules. Deviation from them is houseruling. I have no problem houseruling. You're making bad assumptions. What I have a problem with is the system requiring houserules to do things that should just be a group by group decision, with the system staying neutral. Like a fluff restriction that's made a mechanical restriction because some people just can't conceptualize something different. I've played the bearded elf. He wasn't an anomoly, that group just didn't care at all about elves being beardless. No one, anywhere in the world, was harmed in the slightest.
I also don't know a single person IRL who thinks Satyrs and Dryads should be sex restricted, or who has any problem conceptualizing female Satyrs. Oddly enough, some of them have trouble conceptualizing male dryads, but even they are fine with them being in the group. They cause no more trouble than Devas or some other race that a given player has never really given much thought to. The shardmind race is a bigger conceptual issue than male dryads or female satyrs.
And no, I will never just accept things that are the case, in spite of disagreeing with them. If I believe that something should be other than it is, I am going to voice that disagreement. Always. The "that's the way it is" line of reasoning is pathetic, and weak. It's the same reasoning that allows people to be aholes to eachother, and then shrug and say, "life isn't fair, get over it." when someone calls them on it. It's bull, and requires a reprehensible level of intellectual dishonesty to use in an argument.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
It all is subjected to the group and the DM. Books only give guidelines and nothing more. If "houseruling" is such a dishonnor to you as a player or DM then it is all up to you as it is to any who play with you. If playing as a female satyr generates disconfort to any player or the DM, it is probably best that you just adapt your idea to another one that doesn't bother your group, in the end, it serves only to create pointless conflicts and discussions between groups. As far as it is "official" however, satyrs are male only and this is a fact, just live with it.
The books are the rules. Deviation from them is houseruling. I have no problem houseruling. You're making bad assumptions. What I have a problem with is the system requiring houserules to do things that should just be a group by group decision, with the system staying neutral. Like a fluff restriction that's made a mechanical restriction because some people just can't conceptualize something different. I've played the bearded elf. He wasn't an anomoly, that group just didn't care at all about elves being beardless. No one, anywhere in the world, was harmed in the slightest.
I also don't know a single person IRL who thinks Satyrs and Dryads should be sex restricted, or who has any problem conceptualizing female Satyrs. Oddly enough, some of them have trouble conceptualizing male dryads, but even they are fine with them being in the group. They cause no more trouble than Devas or some other race that a given player has never really given much thought to. The shardmind race is a bigger conceptual issue than male dryads or female satyrs.
And no, I will never just accept things that are the case, in spite of disagreeing with them. If I believe that something should be other than it is, I am going to voice that disagreement. Always. The "that's the way it is" line of reasoning is pathetic, and weak. It's the same reasoning that allows people to be aholes to eachother, and then shrug and say, "life isn't fair, get over it." when someone calls them on it. It's bull, and requires a reprehensible level of intellectual dishonesty to use in an argument.
I always wanted to play a male Drow that has Spiderman powers and calls himself a Drider. Something on the rules still prevents me from that...wonder what it is... Anyway this whole point doesn't explain why female satyrs are such a concern.
It all is subjected to the group and the DM. Books only give guidelines and nothing more. If "houseruling" is such a dishonnor to you as a player or DM then it is all up to you as it is to any who play with you. If playing as a female satyr generates disconfort to any player or the DM, it is probably best that you just adapt your idea to another one that doesn't bother your group, in the end, it serves only to create pointless conflicts and discussions between groups. As far as it is "official" however, satyrs are male only and this is a fact, just live with it.
The books are the rules. Deviation from them is houseruling. I have no problem houseruling. You're making bad assumptions. What I have a problem with is the system requiring houserules to do things that should just be a group by group decision, with the system staying neutral. Like a fluff restriction that's made a mechanical restriction because some people just can't conceptualize something different. I've played the bearded elf. He wasn't an anomoly, that group just didn't care at all about elves being beardless. No one, anywhere in the world, was harmed in the slightest.
I also don't know a single person IRL who thinks Satyrs and Dryads should be sex restricted, or who has any problem conceptualizing female Satyrs. Oddly enough, some of them have trouble conceptualizing male dryads, but even they are fine with them being in the group. They cause no more trouble than Devas or some other race that a given player has never really given much thought to. The shardmind race is a bigger conceptual issue than male dryads or female satyrs.
And no, I will never just accept things that are the case, in spite of disagreeing with them. If I believe that something should be other than it is, I am going to voice that disagreement. Always. The "that's the way it is" line of reasoning is pathetic, and weak. It's the same reasoning that allows people to be aholes to eachother, and then shrug and say, "life isn't fair, get over it." when someone calls them on it. It's bull, and requires a reprehensible level of intellectual dishonesty to use in an argument.
I always wanted to play a male Drow that has Spiderman powers and calls himself a Drider. Something on the rules still prevents me from that...wonder what it is... Anyway this whole point doesn't explain why female satyrs are such a concern.
The main reason is that before the Satyr and Hamadryad, races never had fluff "hard-coded" into their statblocks. Sure, the fluff of an elf says that they're beardless, but they don't actually have a "beardless" racial trait. Several posters on the forums feel that having fluff that could vary from world to world dictacted in a race's statistics is a bad precedent.
A more extreme example could be, say, making Dwarves have an "anti-magic" trait that prevents them from taking arcane classes, because they're traditionally suspicious of magic/resistant to it in many settings.
I always wanted to play a male Drow that has Spiderman powers and calls himself a Drider. Something on the rules still prevents me from that...wonder what it is...
A fluff mechanic (satyr/dryad sex) isn't the same as normal game mechanic (adding Spiderman powers). Fluff should be mutable and changed without worry. Game mechanics shouldn't be without good reason.
There are so many flaws in the 4.0 system in regards to originality, like playing a Warforged that doesn't feel like one at all, instead this whole thread discusses about female satyrs!? Is it part of some ground breaking class/race combo or something? Please someone care to explain why this discussion is so important?
It has 0% to do with 'ground breaking class/race combo or something'. It isn't even really about female satyrs pre se. It's that I don't want WOTC to make a habit of tossing fluff mechanics into thier products. I don't want race/gender/alignment restrictions to be the norm. It requires houserules and makes using a character generator much harder. It also wastes time (for me and the DM) that we could use elsewhere.
I'm curious how 'playing a Warforged that doesn't feel like one at all'. I haven't seen any issues, unless you're upset they aren't immune to a few dozen things like 3.5.
It all is subjected to the group and the DM. Books only give guidelines and nothing more. If "houseruling" is such a dishonnor to you as a player or DM then it is all up to you as it is to any who play with you. If playing as a female satyr generates disconfort to any player or the DM, it is probably best that you just adapt your idea to another one that doesn't bother your group, in the end, it serves only to create pointless conflicts and discussions between groups. As far as it is "official" however, satyrs are male only and this is a fact, just live with it.
I'm someone that plays alot online. It's not that '"houseruling" is such a dishonnor to [me] as a player' as much as a pain in the butt to have to take the time (from me and the DM) to do something that I should be able to do without the effort (like picking my characters sex). I also can't make up the chatacter and submit it 'as is' because I can't houserule the character generator. Fluff should be fluff and mechanics should be mechanics. Fluff mechanics are just bad.
I always wanted to play a male Drow that has Spiderman powers and calls himself a Drider. Something on the rules still prevents me from that...wonder what it is...
A fluff mechanic (satyr/dryad sex) isn't the same as normal game mechanic (adding Spiderman powers). Fluff should be mutable and changed without worry. Game mechanics shouldn't be without good reason.
There are so many flaws in the 4.0 system in regards to originality, like playing a Warforged that doesn't feel like one at all, instead this whole thread discusses about female satyrs!? Is it part of some ground breaking class/race combo or something? Please someone care to explain why this discussion is so important?
It has 0% to do with 'ground breaking class/race combo or something'. It isn't even really about female satyrs pre se. It's that I don't want WOTC to make a habit of tossing fluff mechanics into thier products. I don't want race/gender/alignment restrictions to be the norm. It requires houserules and makes using a character generator much harder. It also wastes time (for me and the DM) that we could use elsewhere.
I'm curious how 'playing a Warforged that doesn't feel like one at all'. I haven't seen any issues, unless you're upset they aren't immune to a few dozen things like 3.5.
It all is subjected to the group and the DM. Books only give guidelines and nothing more. If "houseruling" is such a dishonnor to you as a player or DM then it is all up to you as it is to any who play with you. If playing as a female satyr generates disconfort to any player or the DM, it is probably best that you just adapt your idea to another one that doesn't bother your group, in the end, it serves only to create pointless conflicts and discussions between groups. As far as it is "official" however, satyrs are male only and this is a fact, just live with it.
I'm someone that plays alot online. It's not that '"houseruling" is such a dishonnor to [me] as a player' as much as a pain in the butt to have to take the time (from me and the DM) to do something that I should be able to do without the effort (like picking my characters sex). I also can't make up the chatacter and submit it 'as is' because I can't houserule the character generator. Fluff should be fluff and mechanics should be mechanics. Fluff mechanics are just bad.
This.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I always wanted to play a male Drow that has Spiderman powers and calls himself a Drider. Something on the rules still prevents me from that...wonder what it is...
A fluff mechanic (satyr/dryad sex) isn't the same as normal game mechanic (adding Spiderman powers). Fluff should be mutable and changed without worry. Game mechanics shouldn't be without good reason.
There are so many flaws in the 4.0 system in regards to originality, like playing a Warforged that doesn't feel like one at all, instead this whole thread discusses about female satyrs!? Is it part of some ground breaking class/race combo or something? Please someone care to explain why this discussion is so important?
It has 0% to do with 'ground breaking class/race combo or something'. It isn't even really about female satyrs pre se. It's that I don't want WOTC to make a habit of tossing fluff mechanics into thier products. I don't want race/gender/alignment restrictions to be the norm. It requires houserules and makes using a character generator much harder. It also wastes time (for me and the DM) that we could use elsewhere.
I'm curious how 'playing a Warforged that doesn't feel like one at all'. I haven't seen any issues, unless you're upset they aren't immune to a few dozen things like 3.5.
It all is subjected to the group and the DM. Books only give guidelines and nothing more. If "houseruling" is such a dishonnor to you as a player or DM then it is all up to you as it is to any who play with you. If playing as a female satyr generates disconfort to any player or the DM, it is probably best that you just adapt your idea to another one that doesn't bother your group, in the end, it serves only to create pointless conflicts and discussions between groups. As far as it is "official" however, satyrs are male only and this is a fact, just live with it.
I'm someone that plays alot online. It's not that '"houseruling" is such a dishonnor to [me] as a player' as much as a pain in the butt to have to take the time (from me and the DM) to do something that I should be able to do without the effort (like picking my characters sex). I also can't make up the chatacter and submit it 'as is' because I can't houserule the character generator. Fluff should be fluff and mechanics should be mechanics. Fluff mechanics are just bad.
Thanks a lot, you have explained your point and this really helped me understand why people in this thread are so hurt by not having female satyrs. Now I know that i really don't care at all to female satyrs but I understand the point of making Wizards understand not to mix pointless fluff with mechanics (which is a discussion in of itself). About the Warforged thing it's just that I never felt playing a Warforged when playing a Warforged in 4.0. Aside from the automatic 10 in saves vs death and the resistence to chocking damege I never felt like I'm using a construct. The immunities do make quite the difference but some other details, like having to use Repair and being able to use embedded weapons and armor actually makes it better in 3.0 at least for me, but THIS is actually a personal perspective and hardly proves a point in a discussion.
Thanks a lot, you have explained your point and this really helped me understand why people in this thread are so hurt by not having female satyrs. Now I know that i really don't care at all to female satyrs but I understand the point of making Wizards understand not to mix pointless fluff with mechanics (which is a discussion in of itself).
You're welcome. There ARE people that really do want to play a female satyr, but I don't at the moment. I'm just irked at needless fluff mechanics.
About the Warforged thing it's just that I never felt playing a Warforged when playing a Warforged in 4.0. Aside from the automatic 10 in saves vs death and the resistence to chocking damege I never felt like I'm using a construct. The immunities do make quite the difference but some other details, like having to use Repair and being able to use embedded weapons and armor actually makes it better in 3.0 at least for me, but THIS is actually a personal perspective and hardly proves a point in a discussion.
Cool, just curious. They do attach weapons and armor and small weapons/implements can be embedded. On the other reasons, I'll agree it's personal perspective. For me I like the 4.0 better than the 3.0 but to each their own.
I think the warforged could have been given a handful of resistences and still gotten the point across. So, on that, I can definately see your point. The components though, warforged still have. I wish they had more of them, but they are there. There's a light thing (head slot, WF only), arm crossbow, etc.
IDK, i think a list of resistences would have been cooler than whatever their racial power is.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
Please, care to explain why it is so blatantly important that if we don't have female satyrs this simple decision might ruin an entire D&D experience for someone?
Okay, you're being ridiculous. I mean, do you know where you are? This is a forum on the internet. Complaining is basically what it's for. It doesn't matter how "unimportant" a flaw happens to be. If it's still perceived to be a flaw, then it's still going to get called out and discussed as such. I could conversely ask you to explain why it's so blatantly important that if we do have female satyrs this simple decision might ruin an entire D&D experience for someone? If you don't want to discuss it, then get out of this thread.
There are so many flaws in the 4.0 system in regards to originality, like playing a Warforged that doesn't feel like one at all, instead this whole thread discusses about female satyrs!?
If you think that the way that Warforged were designed is a problem, then start a thread about that. That's how forums like this work.
Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha
Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further.
Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Please, care to explain why it is so blatantly important that if we don't have female satyrs this simple decision might ruin an entire D&D experience for someone?
Okay, you're being ridiculous. I mean, do you know where you are? This is a forum on the internet. Complaining is basically what it's for. It doesn't matter how "unimportant" a flaw happens to be. If it's still perceived to be a flaw, then it's still going to get called out and discussed as such. I could conversely ask you to explain why it's so blatantly important that if we do have female satyrs this simple decision might ruin an entire D&D experience for someone? If you don't want to discuss it, then get out of this thread.
There are so many flaws in the 4.0 system in regards to originality, like playing a Warforged that doesn't feel like one at all, instead this whole thread discusses about female satyrs!?
If you think that the way that Warforged were designed is a problem, then start a thread about that. That's how forums like this work.
Beside, originality and fantasy are getting oxymoronic.
You hardly can change the wheel when you are THE game who MADE fantasy gaming and rpgs, since decades. 40 years soon.
HOW 4th ed. can be so? The devs admitted it - and they wanted to make the game fun, not ubercreative. Besides Tropes and clichés aren't so bad, and remixing can be creative in itself - like POL at times show, the rap musical genres, RIP Manifesto documentary, etc...
