The Gaming Den

Elennsar wrote:And of course, we should allow people to play anything they want, from any race they want, no matter how hindered that race is in every time we can recall, at something.

You finally got it! If a race/class is allowed, then it should be allowed, not stealth-banned/nerfed.

In your (narrow and limited) world. Where you basically said "I don't want you to play a viable orc wizard".

Or to use an example E might understand: Just because Drizzt is not chaotic evil doesn't mean he is not affected by most drow being chaotic evil. He has to deal with them, and with the world's view of all drow. Drizzt doesn't get to ignore that drow trait, he just gets to be the one drow that doesn'...

Are you unable to imagine how such fluff gets meaning through interaction between the non-conforming PC and the conforming NPC?

Do you even understand the difference between a PC being able not to follow a trait, and being able to avoid dealing with those who do follow that trait in a culture?

The way Tome of Battle sets the special moves up seems to work fine for my group.

So instead of rewarding someone for coming from a race with certain advantages, you make it so that anyone can have any numbers they like and it doesn't matter if you call the result an elf. Remind me how "elf" suddenly means something when you get nothing distinct from it other than fluf...

E doesn't get that you can say "almost all orcs have low intelligence" (and even make it a -2 modifier), and can say "orc PCs can choose not to have low int", and yet have the exact same setting as "All orcs have low int".

"As things stand" meaning "As I see them in my own, very biased and narrow vision".

Elennsar wrote:Because Legolas has "better than a nonelf" from being an elf OR personally better statistics than Grok was built with (or both).

But both would have Fighter (or whatever) levels.

If it's an elf it has to be better in E's world.

I still think making racial bonuses available to all PCs regardless of race would be the easiest and best option. Those by definition are not racial bonuses. Make them NPC-only racial bonuses then, and PC options. Or just call them character traits, and add "NPC generally have those traits per...

E., the thing you simply do not want to get is that when a player makes an orc with 18 int, the majority here will not say "No you can't" but "Ok, you'll be the "Yao Ming of Orcs", and (maybe retroactively) adjust the allowed "orc int range" so the new PC fits in -...

I still think making racial bonuses available to all PCs regardless of race would be the easiest and best option.

In our D&D campaigns, we allow redoing your character as long as it's not too drastic - meaning, as long as it stays within the general power level of the party, and the core concept doesn't get changed too much. The level 16 barbarian changed to a rogue/barbarian without a fuss. Later, the whol...

That's why I vote for race "traits" only for NPCs, with all PCs able to pick what traits they want. So, while all elf NPCs might have the "archery package", every PC, regardless of race, can pick that at chargen. It keeps the game world flavor, backs it up with mechanical consequ...

And again Elennsar fails to see that almost no one agrees with his opinion that "If elves are strong at X, then elf PCs are strong at X and no other PC can be as strong at X as an elf PC" or "If orcs are bad at X, then Orc Pcs have to be bad at X as well". He's basically going fr...

Elennsar, your failure is your inability to see past your bias. You want elves to be the best arches, and orcs to be stupid, and you even want that to count for all PCs, and then construct your arguments around that. But it all comes down to " I want orcs to be stupid - all orcs, PCs too!"...

And that's where we differ. You won't accept smart orcs as PCs. (And of course, you won't acept humans that are as good with the bow as elves.) Others do not really see any point in having a race defined by stats and modifiers when it concerns a PC. Some people just like more freedom with regards to...

I think you should understand that not everyone shares your defintion of what makes an orc an orc. A big part considers an orc defined as "ugly green humanoid", not as "bad wizard". And once we are talking about Orc PCs, even less go with "bad wizard". It usually is &qu...

The whole point is that many here are fed up with "racial weaknesses" crippling otherwise fun character concepts for no reason at all.

Reminds me of the time my group started a "take 3,75M exp, and build your character as you want" mini-campaign, back in the days of AD&D 2E. Nothing like the druid player forgetting his level 23ish character has cure spells, and the PC taking out his herbal kit to create some bandages ...

All other races? Maybe, depends on the setting. Every PC? No. I don't see a problem with a human PC getting tremorsense as the result of some out of the norm ancestor somewhere up the family tree, a freak magical side effect of his/her mother wandering into some chaos magic zone, the result of his u...

PCs do not need to be special. But neither do they need to average. Why wouldn't there be room for the smart orc, who pulled his weight by pointing out better plans? Or the charismatic orc, who rode the coattails of the big dumb brute, manipulating him until it became second nature? What does a game...

Would you prefer me arguing that someone else should be the best something else? If elves are superior in talent and equal in training, they will be better archers. Doesn't mean that they'll be better at adventuring, because your to-hit rolls with a longbow are a small part of what you do, but its ...

I bought the 3 core books of 4E to make an informed decision, and bought the FR campaign guide in the (disappointed) hope that it could be mined for ideas.
My 3E/3.5E stuff (I tend to use them all in my house ruled game) takes up a lot more room.