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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GreenTengu" data-source="post: 8116401" data-attributes="member: 6777454">Bugbears are naturally so big and thick that you know their muscles have developed to the point of restricting movement.Furthermore, do I really need to explain the inverse square law to you? Being huge absolutely restricts one's physical agility, reflexes, balance and poise. Because the additional muscle mass you pack on hardly makes up for the extra weight of those muscles. Someone who is very small but strong has little trouble moving their body around. You make that person twice as big and their strength may double, but their weight quadruples.You are arguing that rhinos and elephants can bound about like squirrels-- if such a creature were remotely possible, it would already exist.We don't even need to go to such extreme spectrums of the scale-- look at the reflexes and agility of a leopard compared to a lion. Compare a fox bounding through the underbrush to the comparatively clumsy wolf. And these are very closely related species that show you what a drag being twice the size does to one's abilities to scamper up trees.Although the fact that you think a lion is more dexterous than an equally fit human suggests to me that you haven't actually seen a lion much less watched video of one in action. You literally think lions are master archers and good at pickpocketing and can dodge arrows. You throw an attack at a lion, it just will not dodge-- far too much body mass to be able to move it out of the way quickly. And the only reason they are more stealthy is because their fur blends in with the savannah. Which is exactly what I am arguing would be why the Bugbear could be stealthy despite size.It isn't a matter of /who/ is saying it but rather /what/. And that is basic physics and common sense.</blockquote>

Verification