Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Derren" data-source="post: 8064995" data-attributes="member: 2518">Thats nonsense. Do you really think a Medici or Fugger knew how to farm?Medieval society was very class based without much social mobility at all. Farmers tended to stay farmers (if they were serfs they were basically required to, craftsmen stayed craftsmen or at least remained in a city, etc.)&quot;Growing up on a farm&quot; has nothing to do with culture. If that alone would define culture every pre-modern society would be agrarian simply because of how many people it took to feed the nation. Romans would be an agrarian society, yet would roman senators be automatically be stronger than Hun priest? That would be the case if you assign Strength through culture.Thats the problem with the removal of ability penalties in 4E+ and why I think penalties should come back.And no, putting an human against an orc does not make it look sillier. The same thing would apply to them. Because of biology a trained orc will be stronger than a trained human, but a trained human can match or surpass an untrained orc.The very same thing also applies to Int, etc. to. We know that intelligence is in part genetic, so different species can have a different base intelligence. Wis and Cha is a bit undefined, but why would genetics have no factor in it? According to its wikipedia article people being extrovert or introvert is also partly genetic. (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraversion_and_introversion" target="_blank">Extraversion and introversion - Wikipedia</a>). So again, different species would have different aptitudes because of their biology.So? That explains why they level or why they have so high stats overall. But they are still limited (and empowered) by their biology. They do not shed their species once they decide to become adventurer.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Derren, post: 8064995, member: 2518"] Thats nonsense. Do you really think a Medici or Fugger knew how to farm? Medieval society was very class based without much social mobility at all. Farmers tended to stay farmers (if they were serfs they were basically required to, craftsmen stayed craftsmen or at least remained in a city, etc.) "Growing up on a farm" has nothing to do with culture. If that alone would define culture every pre-modern society would be agrarian simply because of how many people it took to feed the nation. Romans would be an agrarian society, yet would roman senators be automatically be stronger than Hun priest? That would be the case if you assign Strength through culture. Thats the problem with the removal of ability penalties in 4E+ and why I think penalties should come back. And no, putting an human against an orc does not make it look sillier. The same thing would apply to them. Because of biology a trained orc will be stronger than a trained human, but a trained human can match or surpass an untrained orc. The very same thing also applies to Int, etc. to. We know that intelligence is in part genetic, so different species can have a different base intelligence. Wis and Cha is a bit undefined, but why would genetics have no factor in it? According to its wikipedia article people being extrovert or introvert is also partly genetic. ([URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraversion_and_introversion']Extraversion and introversion - Wikipedia[/URL]). So again, different species would have different aptitudes because of their biology. So? That explains why they level or why they have so high stats overall. But they are still limited (and empowered) by their biology. They do not shed their species once they decide to become adventurer. [/QUOTE]

Verification