Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8373387" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Ah, so we can only have DnD elves. DnD elves being what? Would they be the incredibly skilled scholars who report to their Deathless councilors on the changing of the world? Maybe the savage and brutal people who tear apart intruders into their forest? Are they the elves who sing songs that can make the stones weep? Or the ones who can navigate the oceans by ancestral memories? Which exactly are the DnD elves? Because where I am sitting, that is a very very broad category.You know Max, conversations go faster if you follow "I'm not arguing that" with a "What I am arguing is..." and then tell the other person. Because otherwise that person has to then turn around and ask you to clarify. Which you generally respond to with a "I already said, so I'm not going to repeat what you clearly don't understand" which generally just leaves the other person shrugging and saying "well, I said what I understood, so if you don't feel like clarifying, I'm just going to go with what I understand" So, if a +2 dex doesn't define elves, what does it do?No, you said people don't like change. Which is obvious. But not liking anything changing ever doesn't mean that they are right in what is harder to do.The fact that a human can be as graceful as an elf, or as strong as an orc, or as tough as a dwarf, or as intelligent as a gnome... says nothing about humanity? But orcs being strong says things about orcs. And elves being graceful says things about elves. And Dwarves being tough says things about dwarves.... How does this work out? Only a people who are mildly exceptional have a personality?Variant human, +1 strength, +1 con, use my racially given feat to take heavy armor master for a +1 strength. Or are you going to say that using my racial ability to take a feat doesn't count, but the goliath's racial Powerful Build does? Because that smells of a double standard.So, an ASI gained from a racial ability at character creation doesn't count, simply because it is tied in with a feat? Why not?But they have kept talking about goliaths and elves getting +2 and therefore being stronger or more graceful than humans... without recognizing that the humans got a +1 at least, meaning that in reality, those elves anf goliaths are effectively +1 over the human, not +2.But they don't inform each other. See Loxodon and see Mountain Dwarves. Loxodon have powerful build and no bonus, mountain dwarves have a bonus and no powerful build.So... a creature larger than human that isn't stronger than a human (and is actually weaker with no strength bonus) does nothing to refute your assertion that being larger than a human means you automatically have to be stronger?Human average is 5'8" and 165 lbs. Mountain Dwarves are 4'5 and 165 lbs. Goliaths are 6'1" and 277 lbs. And just for giggles, Hill Dwarf 4'1" and 150 lbsSo, the Mountain Dwarf gets a +2 strength while being a foot and quarter shorter, while weighing the same. Hill Dwarves get no bonus while being only a quarter of a foot shorter and 15 lbs lighter. Golaiths are a quarter of foot taller and 112 lbs heaver, and have the +2 strength... So, Dwarves are significantly shorter than humans, far bigger of difference than the difference between goliaths and humans. And they have exactly the same weight, while Goliaths are over one hundred pounds heavier than mountain dwarves. Meanwhile, the difference between hill dwarves and mountain dwarves are closer to the difference between goliaths and humans.  Well, it was a bit different, you just decided to hyper focus on the most pointless part of it. I mean, after all, how many medieval knights do you think are using modern diets and training regimes in DnD land? Seems that DnD adventurers would be far closer to the standards of the 1920's wouldn't it?</blockquote>

Verification