Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 8529710" data-attributes="member: 22779">See, but, therein lies the rub.&nbsp; As was mentioned, these associations never existed.&nbsp; Here's the 1e ability table:[ATTACH=full]150952[/ATTACH]Note, other than elven Dex or dwarven Con, nothing could be better than a human.&nbsp;&nbsp; Note that Halflings got a max of 19 Con but didn't actually get a bonus to the stat.&nbsp; <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/erm.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":erm:" title="Erm&nbsp; &nbsp; :erm:" data-shortname=":erm:" />&nbsp; But, since we're focused on Strength here, look at that.&nbsp; Yup, a halfling had 1 less strength than a dwarf.&nbsp; But, note, unless you were fighter, the difference between 17 and 18 was pretty much nothing.&nbsp; And a gnome was just as strong as anything else, including the half-orc.My point is, you're talking about &quot;disassociation tolerance&quot; for something that never existed in the game.&nbsp; It just wasn't there.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 8529710, member: 22779"] See, but, therein lies the rub. As was mentioned, these associations never existed. Here's the 1e ability table: [ATTACH type="full"]150952[/ATTACH] Note, other than elven Dex or dwarven Con, nothing could be better than a human. Note that Halflings got a max of 19 Con but didn't actually get a bonus to the stat. :erm: But, since we're focused on Strength here, look at that. Yup, a halfling had 1 less strength than a dwarf. But, note, unless you were fighter, the difference between 17 and 18 was pretty much nothing. And a gnome was just as strong as anything else, including the half-orc. My point is, you're talking about "disassociation tolerance" for something that never existed in the game. It just wasn't there. [/QUOTE]

Verification