Peak D&D 6e
Peak D&D 6e
Transcription:
A picture of a skinny female orc with the side of her head shaved. She wears an armless red dress and a black shawl, as well as matching red bracelets and a black choker with a gold heart at the front.
At the top of the image is the text "You may not like it, but this is what" in large bubble font
At the bottom of the image is a screenshot from the new D&D changelog, reading "• Orcs no longer have the Powerful Build feature."
And below that, the text "Peak 2024 D&D orc performance looks like" continues the bubble font from the top.
You're viewing a single thread.
That's no orc that's a fucking goblin. Orcs are massive. You're on some delusional shit if you believe otherwise and that there are no species defining traits.
Did you read the text in the image?
A trait, as in an ability, doesn't define the characteristics of a species. That's incredibly stupid and asinine.
- Post 1: You're delusional if you believe that there are no species defining traits.
- Post 2: Traits don't define the characteristics of a species. That's stupid.
...
So... you're calling yourself both delusional AND stupid?
Your reading comprehension defies reality. Clearly rock bottom isn't the limit anymore. Which part of "as in an ability" tells you I'm talking about species defining traits?
Hey, you're the one who said the opposite thing in subsequent posts...
- In your first post you said that you're delusional if you think there aren't any species defining traits - implying you think there ARE species defining traits.
- In your second post you said that you're stupid if you think there are species defining traits.
...
The only thing consistent between your posts is that you're really angry about a joke.
Additionally, it seems you're really struggling to find the thing where "powerful build" is a "species defining trait". So here it is:
It's in the same rules block as "you are a humanoid".
According to your logic, "you are a humanoid" is also an ability, and not a species defining trait. Do you think it's teachable? can I train for 90 days to become an abberation?
They're not conflicting. I said there are species defining traits that don't depend on there being abilities. Because, once again, you're glossing over what I specified in my second comment about abilities, and not species defining traits.
5e does use "racial traits" to define most of the characteristics of a species other than age, height and weight though, but... since this is about height and weight, let's work through what the rules actually say:
In current 5e, the current orc stats have this text under Height and Weight:
"Player characters, regardless of race, typically fall into the same ranges of height and weight that humans have in our world. "
There isn't really anything, anywhere, in the orc kit that suggests they can't be skinny or lithe. In fact, the key art for the Orc race depicts quite a skinny orc.
Now, despite this, someone might want to use the rules text to say "orcs are massive" regardless. If you do want to make this argument, the only thing there that supports the statement is a racial trait. Specifically: the Powerful Build feature, which implies that orcs are bulky.
If you argue "traits don't define the characteristics of a species" then there's nothing at all to suggest orcs should be big. If you do accept "traits" as being able to define the characteristics of a species, then you can point to the powerful build trait as evidence, but that's all there is.
The joke in this post here is thus: If you were to take that feature out, you're just left describing human builds.
Now you can have any mental image you like, run your games how you want, use whatever interpretation you want... You can say "I know what orcs are like from other media experiences, and they're large." That's all fine. You can do whatever you want.
Just remember that this post is just a joke. It's saying "look! they removed the only thing that says orcs are big, so here's what happens." That's all.