Those tweets about the beans were supposed to lead into a #dnd thoughts thread but it was 2AM and I got a bit distracted so bear with me while I do it now:
ABILITY SCORES- A THREAD

So, the general ruling in the 5e books is that a 10 represents the average for a human being, but I have to wonder why? After all, there's a lot of variation within human beings AND you compound that with 20 races of magical creatures so why is a human the baseline? I

I'll tell you why-- because game makers are boring. So what's my solution? The 10 represents the average ability of a [species] of that size. E

Example: My halfling rogue had 21 Strength for a lot of her run. But when using that STR I still tried to consider the fact that she was the size of a toddler and weighed as much as a sack of potatoes. Her 21 Strength WAS exceptional, for a halfling the size of a toddler.

Meanwhile the human barbarian had a STR of 22, and he could easily lift carts and men and pillars and shit. There's only 1 point of difference between them, so why the disparity? Because Jericho was strong for a human man of 6+ft while Daneel was strong for a halfling of 2.75ft.

And yet the PHB claims stats are based on the average for a commoner? I don't buy it.

This thread brought to you by: 5'1" and lifting 12.5kgs straight over my head while balanced on a tiny platform at work. Maybe compared to my male colleagues my STR score is a 9, but compared to other weedy midgets? I'd put me as a 14 easy.