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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kaodi" data-source="post: 5823328" data-attributes="member: 1231">Some good points, but I think some major caveats are warranted.For one, you can definitely reasonable argue that nobility would be, on average, stronger and healthier. But that only encompasses two stats in D&D. So if you were using point buy to model this, all the extra points from the commoner level vs. the noble level would have to go in strength and constitution.However... consider the arguments of Social Darwinists (generally a bad lot, but they might be good enough for this). If more peasant children die than noble children, it might stand to reason that the average peasant child is going to have a stronger inherent constitution because they are the ones that " made their fort saves " . This will be balanced out somewhat by later upbringing.Another thing to consider: if we are operating on the assumption that most commoners spend their days doing backbreaking labour, and that most nobles spend at least some of their days in leisure, does it not stand to reason that many of the commoners may in fact be stronger than many of the nobles? I had read, for instance, an interesting essay positing that the rise and fall of the English longbow had much to do with the society supporting it producing enough strong commoners who were actually capable of drawing it. Lastly, I am not sure what mud huts have to do with the constitution scores of commoners or nobles. If you stick a noble in a mud hut, they should not fare any better.</blockquote>

Verification