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: 8199480" data-attributes="member: 6801228">No, I'm not. But if you want to claim that a goliath being stronger than a halfling is as physiologically inevitable as a wolf being stronger than a fox, then how do we justify the 3'9" 45 lbs famously weak and easily killed goblin being just as tough as the 6'8" 260 lb famously hardy as stone Goliath? In fact, Stout Halflings are just as tough as Goliaths too, as are Rock Gnomes. So, a Goliath, an Orc and a half-orc are clearly and obviously much stronger than a goblin, a rock gnome and a stout halfling, but all six of them are just as clearly and obviously equally tough and hardy? To paraphrase an earlier contention on this thread, since when is a mouse as tough as an elephant? I mean this is the debate being put forth, that ASIs are obvious and biological and perfectly clear. And yet, three of the biggest and toughest races are being matched in toughness by three of the smallest? And Dragonborn, who are a +2 strength race, so just as strong, and just as huge at 6'2" 225 lbs are less tough than halflings, gnomes and goblins. Is it because of their lizard biology not allowing sweating? Oh, wait, nope, because the Lizardfolk 5'9" and 175 lbs don't have the strength of a dragonborn, but they beat all of these races for toughness with their +2 Con. So if it was because of lizard-like features, the Lizardfolk would also have a lower con, but they have a higher con. They are the toughest and hardiest race, alongside dwarves and Genasi.  Which leads us to a potential conclusion. Actually, these stats are not so obvious and biological as people want them to be.</blockquote>

Verification