|
7 months ago ::
Nov 29, 2012 - 4:45PM
#131
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
Steely, Doc, go sit in opposite corners or something.
Humans have plenty of humanity, it's just not a natural trait it's something people have to learn.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 29, 2012 - 4:49PM
#132
|
Date Joined:
May 11, 2006
|
The irony is that, as a species, we humans suck at being humane. Humanity has no humanity...
Proposterous! Next you'll be trying to convince me that dwarves don't have dwarfity? Or elves elfity?
Puh-lease...
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 29, 2012 - 5:32PM
#133
|
|
|
I'm just making sure I'm clear on concerto's ascertaition that skill TRAINING is a bad idea.
Yup, you got it! I'm also all for alternative mechanical interpretations of the same basic thematic idea.
Why is skill training a bad idea? Are you implying it should be only genetic? One's culture has huge influence on one's skills, even things like perception. Not trying to be snarky, just wondering if I'm I misreading something here.
I'm pretty sure that I explained this before, but I'll explain it again if I can make it more clear.
See, the basic "racial traits" block is something that all members of a race are going to have in common, so what's represented within it also has to be aspects that all members of a race are going to have in common. Yes, culture plays a huge factor in what sorts of skills a person has, but the point is that not all members of a race will be a part of the same culture. Eberron's dino-riding halfling barbarians and Middle Earth's pudgy homebody hobbits, for example, are the same race expressed by entirely different cultures. Even within the same campaign setting, one race may be represented by many distinct cultures; even if a race is only represented by one culture in a particular campaign setting, there will still be the odd outsider that does not grow up in that culture (the whole "raised by another race" trope is not an uncommon one).
What this means is that, for all of these different things to make sense and still use the same basic racial traits block with no inconsistencies, culture has to stay out of that basic racial traits block; it can only feature traits which are truly universal, those which are commonly innate and immutable. Training is not such a trait. Training is a product of learning, whether conscious through study and practice or unconscious through socialization and enculturation. A bonus to a skill (+3 perception) makes sense in a racial trait block because it represents something innate (biologically superior senses); on the other hand, training in a skill (training in perception) makes no sense in a racial trait block because it represents something taught or learned (training one's senses).
I understand and you have explained yourself well in the past. Thank you for clarification though.
I think you're right how you about all of it, especially applying bonuses instead of training. I think the only reason I disagree with such a premise is I like mechanics attached to the campaign world. This includes races. If they wanna make two different versions of a halfling, based on environment, I think that's better. I would rather disregard all racial feats and simply have cultural bonuses. That way if a dwarf grew up in a halfling village, he'd be skilled like a halfling. 
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 29, 2012 - 5:44PM
#134
|
Date Joined:
Jun 28, 2006
|
So what do you want to see changed?
I want to see humans lose the +1 to all ability scores. It's not just overpowered its BORING. If they really can't think of anything else, give them a bonus feat and bonus skill.
As for the other races, I want to see subtypes go away. Instead, give each race a pool of "cultural" abilities to choose from. For example, all elves should get Low-Light Vision, Keen Senses, Free Spirit and Trance, since those are "biological" abilities. But then let Elves choose one or two "cultural traits" such as bow training, sword training, a free wizard cantrip, elf grace, and so on.
Doing it this way also gives tremendous flexibility in character concepts. Let's say I'm a human raised by elves. I could spend my bonus feat on an elf cultural trait. Likewise, a dwarf raised among halflings would have the dwarf biological traits but could choose from the halfling cultural traits. It also makes it very easy for DMs to customize the races for their campaigns by changing the cultural traits available to the various races.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 29, 2012 - 5:44PM
#135
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
Huh?
Do you mean that you prefer cultures to races?
What if everyone picked a race and a culture?
The race would be what CC's after, and then you could have culture mods on top of that?
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 29, 2012 - 5:57PM
#136
|
|
|
Huh?
Do you mean that you prefer cultures to races?
What if everyone picked a race and a culture?
The race would be what CC's after, and then you could have culture mods on top of that?
I think picking a race (purely for role playing aesthetics) and then choosing a culture (which would impart bonuses to skills, proficiencies, etc) would be the way to go. Obviously, if you play in a world where 95% of the dwarven population lives together, then you will still develop stereotypes which make your world familiar. This, in turn, will allow your players to apply past knowledge and feel comfortable in the setting. But, this way also allows you to take a race and apply different bonuses based on the environment they grew up in.
Just my two copper.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 01, 2012 - 3:20PM
#137
|
|
|
First I'll describe the kind of thing that I'd like to see, then I'll say why.
Non-humans should get a +2 ability adjustment for their race, and a +1 ability adjustment (to a different ability) for their subrace.
Humans can keep the ability adjustments that they have (I'd personally be fine if they didn't get the +2 on one stat), and gain the ability to take an extra action 1/day.
The reason being that I like having the non-humans keep their traditional areas of excellence. Traditionally, dwarves have higher Constitution than all the other races, including humans. Elves and halflings get Dex, etc. As it is now, humans equal or exceed the other races in the things that they are supposed to be better than the humans at. With changes such as the ones I mentioned, these races regain their superiority in their area of excellence (although with a +2 for humans, they can choose to be as good as any one particular race at one thing). The "action point" ability for a human means that the race is still very appealing to play, but the ability scores for the other races make them make sense.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 01, 2012 - 6:34PM
#138
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
I think that's too many stat bonuses: Class, race, sub-race.
ALso the action point power is totally unneeded if you keep the human's ubermensh scores because even with the additional +2 you'r ehanding out the other races are still down a total of 5 points and have less versatility in distribution.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 01, 2012 - 8:55PM
#139
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2012
|
I think people shouldn't forget that "training" in these race sections seem to often represent a racial innate ability. Elves are trained in listen, probably not because they ACTUALLY trained in listen, but because they have big ears and the game needs a clean way to represent that. Not to mention the shorter life cycle is actually an advantage numbers wise.
Elves and dwarves produce children slowly compared to humans who not only breed faster, but run the brats out of the house more quickly, this means increased casualties of course but not enough, especially in areas with a decent tech base. To let the slower breeding elves or dwarves catch up.
Now orcs take the same trick past the point of diminishing returns, and on top of that seem to lack the foresight to try to build a better future with the exception of King obould.
This would be true in the real world, but in D&D it opens the door for elves to study magic for 300 years longer than any human on earth. Numbers don't mean much against a culture like that.
A few guidelines for using the internet:
1. Mentally add "In my opinion" to the end of basically anything someone else says. Of course it's their opinion, they don't need to let you know. You're pretty smart.
2. Assume everyone means everything in the best manner they could mean it. Save yourself some stress and give people the benefit of the doubt. We'll all be happier if we type less emoticons.
3. Don't try to read people's minds. Sometimes people mean exactly what they say. You probably don't know them any better than they know themselves.
4. Let grammar slide. If you understood what they meant, you're good. It's better for your health.
5. Breath. It's just a dumb game.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 01, 2012 - 8:57PM
#140
|
|
|
The irony is that, as a species, we humans suck at being humane. Humanity has no humanity...
Proposterous! Next you'll be trying to convince me that dwarves don't have dwarfity? Or elves elfity?
Puh-lease...
If you can define those things for me, I'd be glad to engage in the intellectual activity of examining it.
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
