(07-29-2014, 06:49 PM)Zyrusticae Wrote: Well, yeah, of course they're not as weak (misleading word - toddlers are, pound for pound, not actually that weak, just uncoordinated), because Lalafells are actually adults who just happen to be tiny and consequently have fully-developed brains and the neurological and motor systems to accompany that.I'm over 6 feet tall, with big gorilla arms. I used to do classical fencing, and one of my favorite opponents was a young woman who was well under five feet tall. My foil easily had a good foot on the length of hers. By all "size matters" criteria, I should be able to easily spank her without fear of reprisal.
But come on, you know that they'd be screwed without aether to back them up. Those tiny little arms and legs, even if they packed much more power than an equivalent human's, are still too much of a disadvantage to just ignore without something to compensate for it.
However, real life doesn't necessarily respect those criteria. While my reach with the foil was greater than hers (and the length of my lunge, length of my step, etc), my "minimum distance" was also greater. If I could keep her at foil length, I was okay. But if she could close on me when I lunged, I wouldn't be able to retreat fast enough. We ended up pretty evenly matched, and had a blast.
I think you're looking at the same thing with the Lalafell. Especially if they're armed. If they can close on a bigger opponent, then they're at an advantage.
We might want to split this off into a different thread about racial differences in combat. This is veering pretty far off from gender roles.
