Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Kobold Stew" data-source="post: 2622073" data-attributes="member: 23484">I doubt you mean the first sentence of the post; even if you do, though, the second sentence is an assumption, nothing more. You believe you discern from the rules (the wording of which, you tell us, matters not) that moronic humans should be twice as skilled as average intelligence non-humans, when both are fighters. I trust you will accept that such an &quot;INTENT&quot; does not obviously follow and is the subject of legitimate debate. I'll concede that the rules probably support your position; you, however are uninterested in the rules as written. The (ever nebulous) intent is much more likely to suggest that intelligence-penalized humans are more skillful than equally intelligence-penalized non-humans, and that if you need help tying your own shoes you are unlikely able to aquire the average number of skillpoints for fighters, clerics, wizards, and sorcerers (three of the four archetypical classes).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Kobold Stew, post: 2622073, member: 23484"] I doubt you mean the first sentence of the post; even if you do, though, the second sentence is an assumption, nothing more. You believe you discern from the rules (the wording of which, you tell us, matters not) that moronic humans should be twice as skilled as average intelligence non-humans, when both are fighters. I trust you will accept that such an "INTENT" does not obviously follow and is the subject of legitimate debate. I'll concede that the rules probably support your position; you, however are uninterested in the rules as written. The (ever nebulous) intent is much more likely to suggest that intelligence-penalized humans are more skillful than equally intelligence-penalized non-humans, and that if you need help tying your own shoes you are unlikely able to aquire the average number of skillpoints for fighters, clerics, wizards, and sorcerers (three of the four archetypical classes). [/QUOTE]

Verification