Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8373844" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Which A) is a +4 from the average, not a +2 and B) is a terribly imprecise measure of a racial average. I did this the last time the conversation came up, but let us look at the Lizardfolk. In Volo's we are told the Lizardfolk have +2 Con and +1 Wisdom. The Lizardfolk Commoner statblock from Ghosts of Saltmarch has a 15 strength, 12 con and 12 wisdom. (along with a 7 INT and 7 CHA) making them a strength based race. With minor bonuses to con and wisdom. And the MM Lizardfolk is nearly identical except for a 13 Con. So, why are they a con and wisdom race when strength is their defining feature in nearly every single Monster Entry? (Only the Subchief with their 14 strength has a stat higher than their strength score, which is their 16 Wis for their druidic magic. And it is still their second highest score) So, looking to the MM is only vaguely accurate for what the race &quot;should&quot; be.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 8373844, member: 6801228"] Which A) is a +4 from the average, not a +2 and B) is a terribly imprecise measure of a racial average. I did this the last time the conversation came up, but let us look at the Lizardfolk. In Volo's we are told the Lizardfolk have +2 Con and +1 Wisdom. The Lizardfolk Commoner statblock from Ghosts of Saltmarch has a 15 strength, 12 con and 12 wisdom. (along with a 7 INT and 7 CHA) making them a strength based race. With minor bonuses to con and wisdom. And the MM Lizardfolk is nearly identical except for a 13 Con. So, why are they a con and wisdom race when strength is their defining feature in nearly every single Monster Entry? (Only the Subchief with their 14 strength has a stat higher than their strength score, which is their 16 Wis for their druidic magic. And it is still their second highest score) So, looking to the MM is only vaguely accurate for what the race "should" be. [/QUOTE]

Verification