NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8183337" data-attributes="member: 18">Yes, I've done so already a couple of times, but one more won't hurt.The claim was that "You can't any longer describe a Dwarf as 'hardy', because as a race they are no hardier than any other."And that this was specifically an issue in 5E, and 5E's language needed to be changed as a result. This is not true. If we ignore non-ASI abilities, as the poster was doing at that point (and indeed has to do in order to make that argument), then as soon as stat minimums went out the window, it became, by that token, false to say that "Dwarves are hardy", because it became possible to have a CON 5 Dwarf or the like.When stat minimums existed, it was a valid argument - if a race had a minimum of 9 or more in a stat, for example, you could fairly say that none of them had less than average constitution, and necessarily because of the way minimums work, the vast majority would be above-average in that stat.Now, what you could say, and appreciate that this is a neat point, but still, is that "Dwarves tend to be hardy". But that can remain true with fixed ASIs gone. A tendency isn't the same as a hard modifier, or a fixed alignment or the like. Saying "Dwarves tend to be hardy" is absolutely compatible with the +CON mod situation, and with a no-fixed-mod situation.And further, my point was that minimums had been gone for a long time.[USER=6801845]@Oofta[/USER] see above. Also re: opinions, anyone can think what they want. It's when they make claims that something is factually the case that it goes outside opinion into argument.</blockquote>

Verification