Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8064990" data-attributes="member: 18">I just want to say, I find this argument deeply disingenuous, because you're using a halfling, when in fact any race without a STR bonus is in an equal position. An orc and a human would be a better comparison. And indeed, a human cannot train to be stronger than a halfling, despite being twice the height, several times the weight, and possessing much longer limbs. It's just biology I guess (the dreaded "chimp strength").As soon as you put a human and an orc in the same frame though, suddenly it looks a lot sillier.And any other stat than STR and it looks increasingly ridiculous. Like almost literally in stat order. DEX is plausible. CON, yeah, maybe but meh. INT is hard to justify, especially given what it means (it's easy to justify specific things, like a better memory, but does that mean a higher INT?). WIS Nah. CHA? No.Frequently even the nobles were less built than their hunter-gatherer ancestors from a few hundred/thousand years before, based on archaeological evidence. But yes, early farmers were nearly always small/underdeveloped compared to hunter-gatherers (though as you say eventually the nobles etc. start getting as big later). This continued to be the case up into the 1900s for goodness sake. And yes protein is more the issue than calories - calories they did okay on, frequently. So yeah, to say farm strength is a "modern idea" is an understatement. It's been "a thing" for a shockingly brief period of time.</blockquote>

Verification