4E Drow in chainmail bikinis should get a +5 damage bonus.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:21 am

Bigode wrote: Playable non-humanoids?

We've been there and had that discussion. But I really don't think we are quite up to that level right now, do you?

Lets stick with the kiddy pool level stuff until we can get everyone to agree not to keep trying to breath underwater because it's their choice and choice is justification.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:21 am

PhoneLobster wrote:If you were telling a complete noob to roleplaying what an orc looked like those are the damn words you would use "ugly green human".

Edited for clarity...

I got the word "big" in my description when I asked what an orc was.

Elennsar wrote:Since I don't agree that orc equals human with funny skin, and you think it does, the reasons why the stats need to show the benefits and penalties if they're given different benefits and penalties won't convince you to do orcs with them.

As far as I can tell, you think an orc is a strong but stupid human with funny skin.

So what's an orc?

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:28 am

What? 19 pages of reasons why you can't give enforced mechanical traits that favor certain class race combos over others and you can't right now remember even one point to make you hesitate in claiming it is "perfectly playable".

Oh noes, you can't have a race that makes good rogues, or even good archers, or good anything. Or bad anything. No, all races must do is alter cosmetic differences!

Bull. Hell, by that logic, you shouldn't let anyone be a better archer than anyone else without being a higher level. WHATEVER "better archer" means. Bull again.

So as long as you define orcs differently to everyone and include a need for mechanical difference in your description...

If orcs are "stronger than humans", that should show up in their Strength score.

And as we know since they are fictional this means that anything justified by referring to them being fictional cannot possibly hurt game play and since they are fictional they are also totally uniform and never vary!

Apes all have more in common with each other than with canines.

And being fictional could mean that. There is no reason that they must all vary significantly from each other. Now, if "all orcs have Intelligence 8" was what I was saying, then that is probably too uniform but possible to do with a fictional race.

It isn't what I'm saying, however.

Every single green orc in war craft has Int penalty...

If orcs are cursed with lesser intelligence than humans, then saying "But I'm special." doesn't mean that you're not less intelligent as an orc than would otherwise be the case.

Now, you might not want orcs cursed with that, but that doesn't mean that an orc species that is defined in part as "less intelligent than humans are, all things being even" should have that penalty removed for PCs.

It needs to be balanced with something else if they're playable PCs at anything, but it doesn't have to be removed.

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:33 am

PhoneLobster wrote:
Bigode wrote: Playable non-humanoids?
We've been there and had that discussion. But I really don't think we are quite up to that level right now, do you?

Lets stick with the kiddy pool level stuff until we can get everyone to agree not to keep trying to breath underwater because it's their choice and choice is justification.

The problem is: if it can be shown that anything playable needs to be unavoidably different mechanically, there goes some of your argument.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:37 am

So, I can't have an elf that has an advantage in archery over your dwarf?

I can understand and I agree with "can't be a more viable character" because of that or any other bonus, but that's where you get an equally important bonus to something else, which may or may not favor the same classes as my archery bonus.

After all, how much do wizards use bows?

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:38 am

Elennsar wrote:So, I can't have an elf that has an advantage in archery over your dwarf?

I can understand and I agree with "can't be a more viable character" because of that or any other bonus, but that's where you get an equally important bonus to something else, which may or may not favor the same classes as my archery bonus.

After all, how much do wizards use bows?

Where's the "there must be sucky choices" crap?

Elennsar wrote:Do you have any ability to recognize that some races may be designed so that they have fewer playable options or different playable options (with no one having "all classes") without making being a half elf or an orc or whatever "just plain suck"?

Actually, I've been telling you to restrict choices for a long time ...

Yeah, it's in the "wrong" place. Very intentionally. The reasons should be evident.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:41 am

Dwarves make bad rangers, for instance. Does that mean that "Dwarves are unplayable"? NO.

If you have any penalty at any point for your race, some choices will be less viable and the things that compensate for it may help some classes more than others.

Not all ability scores, skills, and other bonuses are equally useful for all classes, not all penalties are equally hindering to all classes.

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:44 am

If dwarves make bad rangers, then dwarven rangers are unplayable. You can negate the premise easily, and should if you don't wanna make dwarven rangers off-limits. Leveled system.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:46 am

What I find truly fascinating about this debatacle is that 3e dwarves can function pretty well as Rangers, thanks to having a Charisma penalty and not a Dex penalty. They're just as stealthy as humans are, albeit with a slower movement rate.

Can't say anything about 4e dwarves, though, because I haven't shelled out for the core books, and honestly, I won't. Nor will I find 'online copies'.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:49 am

Just to add to the lols, as stated more than once, "dwarf= bad ranger" is a hypothetical example.

Half-orcs don't get any useful bonuses period, so "half orc wizard" wouldn't work as an example of a playable race in most areas being unplayable in one class.

Minotaurs are not playable as written because ECL fails at the present, so minotaur wizard is also something that wouldn't work as an example.

Bigode: Which should not mean "YOU ARE FORBIDDEN ON PAIN OF DEATH (PLAYER DEATH) FROM TAKING RANGER LEVELS AS A DWARF".

If you want to play in Gelare's Campaign of the Gimped, you should permited to do so.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:53 am

Elennsar wrote:Hell, by that logic, you shouldn't let anyone be a better archer than anyone else without being a higher level. WHATEVER "better archer" means.

Everything.

Anything.

These are two separate and different things.

I really REALLY don't want to have to point that out again. This really isn't negotiable.

Learn it. Write it on a memo marked "urgent" and have it circulate amongst all the Elennsars writing your next and all future posts.

If orcs are "stronger than humans", that should show up in their Strength score.

I'm going to suddenly accept this fact without question or analysis.

Wait, what's this, it looks like someone left a crudely manufacture and blatantly obvious scenario lying around.

Giants are stronger than humans.
Betty The Giant is a Giant. So her strength score is better than a human's
Strong Bob is stronger than Betty. He kills her by tying her in a Knot.
Strong Bob's strength score must be better than Betty's.
Strong Bob is a Human.
(Head explodes)

Now I'm no longer accepting this claim of yours as fact. I also point out that the small slip where you effectively talk about orcs as if they had a single strength score really underlines one of the most basic flaws in your logic here.

Apes all have more in common with each other than with canines.

When all else fails... Look Over There! The Animal Kingdom.

No but really, you are going to describe an orc that is as different from a human as a Chihuahua is from a Orang-outang?

Well get back to the animal kingdom when you do that.

And NO saying "My orcs are as different to humans as Chihuahuas are from Orang-outangs" really ISN'T an adequate description you kind of need an actual description. (I actually needed to point that out? Probably.)

Now, if "all orcs have Intelligence 8" was what I was saying, then that is probably too uniform but possible to do with a fictional race.

It isn't what I'm saying, however.

OK five minutes ago I was reading that in the tea leaves of "accidentally" dropped plurals when suddenly you actually say as much?

But then hilariously say you aren't saying it.

Next time add "It was all a dream!"

If orcs are cursed with lesser intelligence than humans, then saying "But I'm special." doesn't mean that you're not less intelligent as an orc than would otherwise be the case.

Only an orc (or is it every orc?) would put that many negatives into a broken sentence and make it that incomprehensible. Everyone in the universe that remotely resembles Ellensar must now take a grammar penalty.

It needs to be balanced with something else if they're playable PCs at anything, but it doesn't have to be removed.

Quick, the occasionally remotely lucid Ellinsar is on shift this paragraph!

I mean he is wrong about the intelligence penalty being OK but he at least seems to briefly comprehend this Every/All conundrum...

"Hey, you, quick..."

Damn he's gone again. Apparently still hasn't read what his collective has been posting.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:55 am

PhoneLobster wrote: Unfounded insults and misreading of someone else's position.

Fixed.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 5:06 am

Bigode wrote:The problem is: if it can be shown that anything playable needs to be unavoidably different mechanically, there goes some of your argument.

Well actually it still holds for anything that doesn't need to be mechanically different.

It also still holds for anything that doesn't need to be mechanically different in the same way as everything else with the same fluff.

It also retains a certain degree of compatibility with a lot of other suggestions and arguments like the whole "Race X cannot be Class Y at all" line and others.

Now we can talk about smart ways to deal with winged or multi limbed or otherwise even more excitingly non human races and junk like that.

And heck, wouldn't it be cool to do so because aren't those a lot of fun.

But really we can't have a sane discussion on strategies to represent a funny coloured human without forcing him mechanically into a career of hitting things with sticks and saying "Dhur! Dhur!" a lot.

If anyone were to name drop something like a "Centaur" the universe might have to collapse on itself due to the ensuing Ellensarallocalypse.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 5:10 am

Elennsar wrote:
PhoneLobster wrote: But then hilariously say you aren't saying it.

Next time add "It was all a dream!"
Did Not Infinity!
Fixed!
It was all a dream!

More fixed.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 5:13 am

But really we can't have a sane discussion on strategies to represent a funny coloured human without forcing him mechanically into a career of hitting things with sticks and saying "Dhur! Dhur!" a lot.

If orcs DO do that, then being a PC should not magically make you able to pursue a career in wizardry just fine even though every other orc before you and after you will hit things with sticks and let you speak in with an upper class British accent.

Personally, I'd be annoyed if "orc" only meant "guy who hits things with sticks" and that was it. But having "orc" mean "whatever you want it to" means that it doesn't really mean anything to be a member of the orc race.

If the only traits being an orc requires you to have is a funny skin color and tusks (which have only a cosmetic effect), I'm left wondering how you have a different species.

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 5:14 am

The campaign of the gimped can have actual gimped characters. You know, built worse? No need to feature bad design.

PhoneLobster wrote:
Bigode wrote:The problem is: if it can be shown that anything playable needs to be unavoidably different mechanically, there goes some of your argument.
Well actually it still holds for anything that doesn't need to be mechanically different.

It also still holds for anything that doesn't need to be mechanically different in the same way as everything else with the same fluff.

It also retains a certain degree of compatibility with a lot of other suggestions and arguments like the whole "Race X cannot be Class Y at all" line and others.

Now we can talk about smart ways to deal with winged or multi limbed or otherwise even more excitingly non human races and junk like that.

And heck, wouldn't it be cool to do so because aren't those a lot of fun.

But really we can't have a sane discussion on strategies to represent a funny coloured human without forcing him mechanically into a career of hitting things with sticks and saying "Dhur! Dhur!" a lot.

If anyone were to name drop something like a "Centaur" the universe might have to collapse on itself due to the ensuing Ellensarallocalypse.

OK. Now I can proudly say "Fair enough."

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 5:17 am

"I want to be an orc! I don't want the Strength bonus, the Intelligence penalty, the funny sounds, the bonus to movement speed, the Scent feature, I don't want anything on the list of orc traits! But I want to call myself an orc despite that!"

How do you get an "orc" from that?

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 5:25 am

Elennsar wrote:I'm left wondering how you have a different species.

This...

...is a different species to this...

You probably need to learn more about what makes something a species.

Admittedly those two items both make very poor rangers. Even Aquatic ones. It's all in the mobility.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 5:31 am

http://www.answers.com/topic/species

Either way, the traits of orcs are not the same as the traits of humans, or orcs would be humans (or vice-versa, it doesn't matter).

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 5:36 am

Either way, the traits of orcs are not the same as the traits of humans, or orcs would be humans (or vice-versa, it doesn't matter).

Once again a complete ignorance and discounting of fluff, individual variation, and now what makes a species.

I even had pretty pictures for the species thing.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 5:44 am

Once again ignoring that fluff that has no effect other than text that will probably not be read might as well not exist, and that individual variation only applies within the species's limits.

No whale is going to grow legs and walk on land.

It is entirely possible that orcs are stronger than humans as a racial characteristic, odds being even, and less intelligent, odds being even.

So either orcs are human or they are not human, and if they are not human, it is perfectly reasonable and not unplayable for them to have different strengths and different weaknesses.

"Green and ugly" doesn't make a species. Its at most a mutation of an existing species.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 5:54 am

Elennsar wrote:"Green and ugly" doesn't make a species. Its at most a mutation of an existing species.

You saw the flowers right? The two nearly identical white flowers? On the two nearly identical water lilies? Right?

I can't even begin to deal with this level of insanity. Does ANYTHING no matter how obvious, incontrovertible and quiet frankly unimportant to your core arguments EVER sink in?

I mean you are going to remain confident in just offhandedly defining the term species any way you like no matter what information you encounter?

If that's the way you are then... wow. That's just. Wow.

Surgo · Post by **Surgo** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 5:58 am

As someone who has played races all the time for merely the flavor and got pissed because the mechanics were different, I'm left wondering why the serial numbers just can't be filed off and swapped around.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 5:59 am

I am defining the word species as follows:
2) Logic. A class of individuals or objects grouped by virtue of their common attributes and assigned a common name; a division subordinate to a genus.

and to a lesser extent: The most widely accepted definition of species is the one put forward by the Germanborn American evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr (1904-) in the 1940s. Mayr's idea, known as the biological species concept, defines a species as a population of individual organisms capable of mating with one another and producing fertile offspring in a natural setting. Members of two different, but closely related species in some cases can mate with one another to produce infertile offspring, the most well-known example being the mule, a sterile hybrid produced by the union of a male donkey and a female horse.

Since half-elves are presumably not sterile, they are not like mules or ligers, so elves and humans are apparently cheating biology's requirement in some way. Magic, perhaps.

Orcs share traits in common with each other that they do not share in common with humans or dwarves, thusly orcs are different from humans or dwarves and those "orc traits" do not go away without "being an orc" also going away.

Surgo · Post by **Surgo** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 6:04 am

It was probably a crosspost but I seriously don't care in game mechanics what logic or lack thereof, or definition or lack thereof anyone is using. All I know is that I want to play a orc wizard that looks like an orc, quacks like an orc, smells like an orc, and isn't strictly worse than an elf at being a wizard.