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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8117975" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Right, it isn't the only one. In fact, as I have argued these cases again and again, it seems that this one is a poor example of making the races different So why is there so much anger about it? Why is this something people cannot possibly accept? You don't need to answer that, but this conversation has just hit the same notes over and over and over again.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Except, from the core book we have Dwarves, Orcs, and Dragonborn who are all not strong because they are big. How many exceptions do we need before they are the rule? Because I bet if I go down that list I mind, I'll find few races taller than a orc/half-orcRight, so they are weak because we are told they are weak. Too bad they are such prolific miners, guess being a miner is no indication of being strong.You are literally restating the premise, and some of this could be easily swapped. Orcs have a strength bonus because strength is a virtue for Orcs? Well, the human city of Sparta also had strength as a virtue. So they would be just as strong as orcs right? What if Teiflings founded a city and valued strength, would they all get a strength bonus too? Dragonborn get a strength bonus because they are born of dragons... well, so are Kobolds and so are Draconic Sorcerers. So, Draconic Sorcerers should get a strength bonus right? Because they are born of dragons too? And then you just restate what I said, that you said was wrong. Elves are graceful because they are graceful.Kobolds are weak because they are small and weak.Dwarves are tough because they are tough. You literally said it. I said "Dwarves are tough because they are tough" and your response was that I was wrong, because dwarves " are short, stocky, tough and of the earth"So, Seems like I wasn't wrong. You said the exact same thing as I did, you just hold it up as a virtue. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------We are, what I've said applies to DnD and classes just as easily as it does anything else. Our archetypal Fighter is a soldier, but the perceptions and thoughts about soldiers are always shifting. The archetypal Barbarian is from a tribal culture, how we picture and integrate that has shifted drastically since the game was made. And yes, even Archetypal races have changed. Dwarves make the best arms and armor right? But in the Tolkien version of Fantasy, dwarves mined for gold and gems, and Elves were the makers of the best armor and weapons. Dwarves were fine of course, but nothing like elven quality. And we've had a million discussions about the changes to orcs over the years. Archetypes shift and change with the times and with what we are trying to emulate.  And sure, you can say that. But then we start getting into the attributes being genetic. And it is rather hard to justify mental stats based on genetics. And most attempts to try end up going to bad places, in addition to igoring the fact that if it is genetic, then people might be born in a way that does not match the expectations of their "species"---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Exactly. We can assume that a fully grown kobold has the same muscle strength as an infant with under-developed muscles... but we can also assume any dozen of explanations for why they are not that weak. Especially considering that we have a fair number of examples of just that. If Max says that Dragonborn are strong because they are born of Dragons, and Kobolds are also born of dragons, then we have plenty of justification for them being strong.</blockquote>

Verification