Brapnor
voted in the poll, "In earlier editions, dinosaurs were just called “dinosaurs.” In 4th Edition, dinosaurs were called “behemoths.” Which do you prefer in your game?".
Brapnor
voted in the poll, "Can the holy damage and radiant damage types exist in the same game?".
TediBehr
voted in the poll, "Does DR belong in the game?".
The mechanics and the story/flavor should be deeply connected. To say, for example, that "Dwarves are excellent craftsman, especially when working with stone or metal" can only be true if they are actually good at it. If humans, elves, and even orcs are every bit as good at crafting (mechanically) as a Dwarf is, then it would be false to say that Dwarves are better at it. If, on the other hand, Dwarves are supposed to be better at it, then make them actually better at it. I mean,...
View full commentThe mechanics and the story/flavor should be deeply connected. To say, for example, that "Dwarves are excellent craftsman, especially when working with stone or metal" can only be true if they are actually good at it.
If humans, elves, and even orcs are every bit as good at crafting (mechanically) as a Dwarf is, then it would be false to say that Dwarves are better at it. If, on the other hand, Dwarves are supposed to be better at it, then make them actually better at it.
I mean, what's next? A strong character doesn't need a high strength score to be strong? A giant doesn't have to be any bigger than a halfling to be a giant? C'mon.
The mechanics and flavor should go hand in hand.
That being said, I see no reason why the book can't give rules/guidelines for altering a race's mechanical facts, based on the nature of individual campaigns. So, if Elves don't use Bows in the Land of Nolegolasia, then maybe the book should provide some means of replacing that benefit with another.
I am on board with the idea of a neutral option. I think that having flavor represented in the rules - like the dwarven Stonecunning racial trait - is a cool feature. As for weapon-favoring and favored enemies, I'd be okay with having tohe option of bypassing these. What if my gnome was orphaned and raised in a monastery far from the ongoing mutual disdain between his kin and kobold. What it my dwarf was raised in a city and joined the city guard, favoring a broadsword? If he runs across his...
View full commentI am on board with the idea of a neutral option. I think that having flavor represented in the rules - like the dwarven Stonecunning racial trait - is a cool feature. As for weapon-favoring and favored enemies, I'd be okay with having tohe option of bypassing these. What if my gnome was orphaned and raised in a monastery far from the ongoing mutual disdain between his kin and kobold. What it my dwarf was raised in a city and joined the city guard, favoring a broadsword? If he runs across his "favored weapon" in a dungeon would he suddenly feel generations of axe-wielding prowess coursing through his body? Likely not. But at the same time, I don't mind abstractions such as these effects. They still define something broad about the race, the world, and the game on a general level. I don't think that something based on your physical racial qualities can be as easily passed over though. Maybe you play a halfling that is on the chubby side and isn't the best climber, but it's assumed that it's not the case and that your physical build is allowing you this improved climbing. I see things like the halfing's prowess at a certain ability based off of their stature and physical nature - or how dwarves are sturdy and hard to push around or knock over - to be more embedded than something like favoring a specific arm or knowing a certain foe's weaknesses.
If humans, elves, and even orcs are every bit as good at crafting (mechanically) as a Dwarf is, then it would be false to say that Dwarves are better at it. If, on the other hand, Dwarves are supposed to be better at it, then make them actually better at it.
I mean,...
View full comment
View full comment