Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 8515906" data-attributes="member: 22779">But, again, the scale we are using just doesn't really cover that.&nbsp; If we're talking about 1st level characters (which we have to be, since all characters can equal all other characters in strength at higher levels - everyone caps at 20) - then there is zero difference between a halfling and a human and hasn't been in 5e at all - the halfling has a 16 str (presuming point buy) and the human has a 17 - effectively the same score.&nbsp; Same as the elf or the gnome or the half-elf or a hill dwarf.&nbsp; So, it's not like size has really mattered all that much.Now, as far as having a Str bonus, why is that 5 foot mountain dwarf&nbsp; as strong as the 7 foot Dragonborn or Half-orc?&nbsp; After all, that dwarf is considerably smaller than either, and isn't all that much bigger than a human.&nbsp; A dwarf averages at 150 pounds.&nbsp; 4 1/2 feet tall and 150 pounds isn't actually all that big.&nbsp; Bit on the portly side maybe, but, there are certainly humans who fit that description.&nbsp; And yet no one is clamoring about the &quot;verisimilitude&quot; of this.&nbsp; Why aren't people complaining about this?The point is, dwarves are &quot;supposed&quot; to be strong, so, it's fine because it fits with the archetype.&nbsp; Verisimilitude and simulation has ZERO to do with it.&nbsp; People just don't want the game to permit players to ignore archetypes.&nbsp; The question in my mind is simple - are players ignoring the archetypes often enough that we need to promote archetypes with mechanics?&nbsp; Have you seen a 20 strength halfling in your game?&nbsp; After many years of 5e being played, is this ACTUALLY an issue?&nbsp; Is there this massive push to play against the halfling &quot;type&quot;?&nbsp; If not, then who cares?&nbsp; It makes zero difference to have this rule.&nbsp; No one's actually doing it, so, why get bothered about the possibilities?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 8515906, member: 22779"] But, again, the scale we are using just doesn't really cover that. If we're talking about 1st level characters (which we have to be, since all characters can equal all other characters in strength at higher levels - everyone caps at 20) - then there is zero difference between a halfling and a human and hasn't been in 5e at all - the halfling has a 16 str (presuming point buy) and the human has a 17 - effectively the same score. Same as the elf or the gnome or the half-elf or a hill dwarf. So, it's not like size has really mattered all that much. Now, as far as having a Str bonus, why is that 5 foot mountain dwarf as strong as the 7 foot Dragonborn or Half-orc? After all, that dwarf is considerably smaller than either, and isn't all that much bigger than a human. A dwarf averages at 150 pounds. 4 1/2 feet tall and 150 pounds isn't actually all that big. Bit on the portly side maybe, but, there are certainly humans who fit that description. And yet no one is clamoring about the "verisimilitude" of this. Why aren't people complaining about this? The point is, dwarves are "supposed" to be strong, so, it's fine because it fits with the archetype. Verisimilitude and simulation has ZERO to do with it. People just don't want the game to permit players to ignore archetypes. The question in my mind is simple - are players ignoring the archetypes often enough that we need to promote archetypes with mechanics? Have you seen a 20 strength halfling in your game? After many years of 5e being played, is this ACTUALLY an issue? Is there this massive push to play against the halfling "type"? If not, then who cares? It makes zero difference to have this rule. No one's actually doing it, so, why get bothered about the possibilities? [/QUOTE]

Verification