59 replies to this topic

[NiGHTMARE]

Just think about it for a minute, from a purely logical point of view, ignoring D&D game rules and whatnot.

What you're describing would mean that there are exactly the same number of people with 3 or 18 strength as there are with 10. One answer to this: no .

The vast majority of people are not born overly weak or overly strong, they're born with an average strength. Of course there are people born naturally strong or naturally weak, but it's pretty much the same number of people for both.

Anyway, lets fast forward everyone to adulthood. Some people will start tobecome stronger through a physically demanding job, exercise, or whatever. Those who have a job with low physical requirements and don't exercise much would not begin to lose strength, it would just stay as it is naturally.

So there will be many more people with higher than average strength than there are with lower than average strength - this fits well with the mode, but not the mean.


No-one ever said the majority of humans have above average strength - (that would make the average higher, meaning they no longer had above average strength . However as I said above, in terms of the mode, more humans would have above average strength than below average strength.

Edited by NiGHTMARE, 31 July 2004 - 04:03 PM.

[kirkjobsluder]

Does anyone have the hard numbers in terms of Deadlift / Carrying capacity that STR refers to? 25% of adults at a STR of 8 or less seems reasonable to me if we're talking about the elderly and people in sedentary professions. I know that a bodyweight deadlift is a real acomplishment for sedentary trainees new to weight lifting, that a 2.25 times bodyweight deadlift is a reasonable entry level for powerlifting competitions, and that the world records are right around 7 times bodyweight (give or take). Some people have claimed more.

Of course, in a psuedo medieval world, how many sedentary people are there?

A hah! Found it:
http://www.gamebansh...rength.php#null

So a person with an 8 strength can press 90 lbs and carry 35 lbs comfortably.

The range is defined as 18/00 being equivalent to a world record holder, and 3 as someone who can just get out of bed.

[BobTokyo]

A hah!  Found it:
http://www.gamebansh...rength.php#null

So a person with an 8 strength can press 90 lbs and carry 35 lbs comfortably.

The range is defined as 18/00 being equivalent to a world record holder, and 3 as someone who can just get out of bed.

Well, if that's a standing overhead press or push-press then the chart looks fairly good. Most healthy, active adult men can mange a 3/4 bodyweight overhead press easilly enough even without training. If that's meant to be a bench press it's a bit off; 1.5 times bodyweight bench presses are more common than that chart suggests.

[kirkjobsluder]

Just think about it for a minute, from a purely logical point of view, ignoring D&D game rules and whatnot.

What you're describing would mean that there are exactly the same number of people with 3 or 18 strength as there are with 10.  One answer to this: no .

(Edited because I got a little bit too snarky.)

No I'm not. What I'm pointing out is that a 3d6 distribution is approximately normal and certainly symmetric, with the lower quatrile around 8, and the upper quatrile around 13.

Or better yet, just read my post in which I generated those statistics. 12% of the population will have a STR of 10. 0.5% will have an STR of 18, and 0.5% will have an STR of 3. (More or less. 5 out of 1,000 is easier to remember than 4.something out of 1,000.)

The vast majority of people are not born overly weak or overly strong, they're born with an average strength. Of course there are people born naturally strong or naturally weak, but it's pretty much the same number of people for both.

Actually, the majority of people are born with 1 STR in D&D terms. The 3d6 rule for ability scores assumes that we are talking about adults. There are in fact modifiers within the D&D rules for youth and age. (Strength and Constitution take hits while Intelligence and Wisdom increase.)

Anyway, lets fast forward everyone to adulthood. Some people will start tobecome stronger through a physically demanding job, exercise, or whatever. Those who have a job with low physical requirements and don't exercise much would not begin to lose strength, it would just stay as it is naturally.

Not true. With strength especially it is a matter of use it or loose it. (The same is true with dexterity and intelligence to lesser degrees.) But why is it hard to fathom that 25% of a population can't deadlift more than 90lbs without assistance? 6-7 strength (55lbs max lift) is not that horrible in real-life terms.

So there will be many more people with higher than average strength than there are with lower than average strength - this fits well with the mode, but not the mean.

No-one ever said the majority of humans have above average strength - (that would make the average higher, meaning they no longer had above average strength . However as I said above, in terms of the mode, more humans would have above average strength than below average strength.

Contradicting yourself in the same post?

The mode is pretty flawed as a measurement of central tendency which is why it is not taken seriously except for categorical data. If you are going to talk about the average, the only two meaningful definitions here are the mean, or the median. The median is slightly better than the mean for this particular case, which is why I'm using quatriles rather than standard deviations to describe variance.

Edited by kirkjobsluder, 31 July 2004 - 05:24 PM.

[kirkjobsluder]

Which, BTW, IQ tests are built assuming that intelligence characteristics are normally distributed. Your IQ score divided by 100 is the number of standard deviations you are away from the average. (With the caveat that the minimum and maximum score cutoffs are 20 and 180.)

ETA: In fact, looking over the table, it seems that strength scores are standardized and normal like IQ scores. It is not quite the case that STR 6 is twice as strong as STR 3. Or STR 12 twice as strong as STR 6. Your strength score reveals your ranking in strength compared to the range of human strengths.

Edited by kirkjobsluder, 31 July 2004 - 08:31 PM.

[Jerdol]

Bioware decided on 14. No reason to fight them on everything, especially when that's not what the thread was supposed to be about. Argue about it later, or make an optional component in the mod making it 16 instead of 14. Either way, this thread is about allowing a wizard to weild a greatsword if he has "enough strength". The precise definition of enough strength is irrelevant at this time.

[Chevar]

If 10 is average, then we should be seeing NPC's with a value of 2 just as often as NPC's with a valu of 16, 17, 18...

Keep in mind there are more peasants than adventurers.. the average for adventurers would be higher in theory.

[NiGHTMARE]

Actually, the majority of people are born with 1 STR in D&D terms. The 3d6 rule for ability scores assumes that we are talking about adults. There are in fact modifiers within the D&D rules for youth and age. (Strength and Constitution take hits while Intelligence and Wisdom increase.)

I was pretty obviously talking about the average strength for a baby.

Not true. With strength especially it is a matter of use it or loose it.

Wrong. I'm 22 and have hardly ever done any physical labor or exercise involving my upper body (cycling is what I usually do) in my entire lift, yet I can lift 115lbs quite easily. The same is true of several other people I know.

(The same is true with dexterity and intelligence to lesser degrees.) But why is it hard to fathom that 25% of a population can't deadlift more than 90lbs without assistance? 6-7 strength (55lbs max lift) is not that horrible in real-life terms.

I still maintain it's less than 25%.

So there will be many more people with higher than average strength than there are with lower than average strength - this fits well with the mode, but not the mean.

No-one ever said the majority of humans have above average strength - (that would make the average higher, meaning they no longer had above average strength . However as I said above, in terms of the mode, more humans would have above average strength than below average strength.

Contradicting yourself in the same post?

No, that is not contradictory at all.

If you would perhaps try reading a little bit more carefully, you'd see that I'm saying there are more people with above average strength than there are with below average strength. I am in no way saying there are more people with above average strength than there are with average strength.

Lets try some numbers:

1 billion people with 10 strength
1 million people with above 10 strength
1 thousand people with below 10 strength

Clearly 10 strength is the most common strength here, and hence it's the level of strength possessed by the average person (i.e. you pick a random person, and the likelihood is his strength will be 10). Equally, there are obviously far more people with above 10 strength/average then there are with below 10 strength/average.

Edited by NiGHTMARE, 01 August 2004 - 01:52 AM.

[kirkjobsluder]

I was pretty obviously talking about the average strength for a baby.

Babies in D&D terms have 0 strength.

Wrong.  I'm 22 and have hardly ever done any physical labor or exercise involving my upper body (cycling is what I usually do) in my entire lift, yet I can lift 115lbs quite easily.  The same is true of several other people I know.

Remind me to tell every nurse, doctor and physical therapist I've known. Wow, centuries of knowledge of human physiology is wrong! But the flaw to your claim is the sentence. You do use it on a regular basis (you cycle). Now come back after surgery and 3 months worth of bedrest and test your strength. A bit of trivia about this. Lance Armstrong became a powerhouse because he lost everything during his illness, including a fair ammount of upper-body deadweight. He was forced to learn technique because just to gain back the power he had previously.

http://www.nlm.nih.g...icle/003188.htm

"The majority of muscle atrophy in the general population results from disuse. People with sedentary jobs and senior citizens with decreased activity can lose muscle tone and develop significant atrophy."

I still maintain it's less than 25%.

I think 25% is quite reasonable, and perhaps even a bit conservative. After all, with the baby boom getting older, we are looking at a huge number of people over the age of 55. Thinking about my family, and the people I work with, 25% seems quite reasonable.

If you would perhaps try reading a little bit more carefully, you'd see that I'm saying there are more people with above average strength than there are with below average strength.  I am in no way saying there are more people with above average strength than there are with average strength.

Who made the latter claim? Try reading a bit more carefully.

Lets try some numbers:

1 billion people with 10 strength
1 million people with above 10 strength
1 thousand people with below 10 strength

Clearly 10 strength is the most common strength here, and hence it's the level of strength possessed by the average person (i.e. you pick a random person, and the likelihood is his strength will be 10).  Equally, there are obviously far more people with above 10 strength/average then there are with below 10 strength/average.

Which again, you are using the weakest definition of "average" and a definition that is counter-intuitive. Don't expect to be taken seriously using the mode as your working definition of "average."

But this seems a bit odd in that usually you are so picky regarding lore, but you choose to throw out basic game mechanics for what I see as no good reason. Within the D&D game world, human abilities are defined around a 3d6 random number distribution that is symmetric about the mean. Roll 100 3d6 scores and let me know how many fall below 8.

[BobTokyo]

If the weights on that chart reflect a standing overhead press or push-press they are fairly reasonable. If they reflect a dead lift, then people with 18/00 strength in D&D are somewhat weaker than the average Masters class power-lifter and far weaker than world class athletes. http://www.apa-wpa.c...rldrecords.html

[Ellderon]

Strenght distribution is not even. There are more stronger people that weaker..

Really, how many adults do you know that can barely get out of bed? No one?
How many muscleboung gorrilaz do you know? A few?


But this is beside the point.
We should be descussing how to precisely balance weapons if everyone can carry anything...

[Feanor]

I say 15 or 16 STR (for a two-hander)...that thing is darn heavy... and only really strong people use it anyway.

Well, I agree that no other panalty is needed (simply sacrificing attribute points to STR makes you a weaker mage/thief ), but I'm not sure what other will think.

Well, I don't agree with that. I want to call your attention that wielding a sword does not mean just to pick it up. Why did I say they need such a THAC0 penalty ? Let's use en example. Let's suppose we have a character with 18 STR. He would be able to pick up every weapon, no matter how heavy it is, very easily. But, if he is not skilled in sword fighting, he would be easily hacked to pieces, despite his high STR, by an experienced samurai with 13 STR only, but expert with katana.

[kirkjobsluder]

Strenght distribution is not even. There are more stronger people that weaker..

Which explains why we employ so many home healthcare nurses. I actually see more people in motorized wheelchairs than Arnold Schwartzennegers running around.

[Ellderon]

@Feanor - normal penalties for non proficiency apply. Thus a mage would wield a broadsword but with a -4 penalty nad he CAN'T improve in it.

@kirkjobsluder - avarage human male adult ...not old folk from the retirement homes

[kirkjobsluder]

I think that it is relevant because the distribution of dice scores provide a good guideline for how rare a person who can wield a weapon might be. A weapon that requires a 14 strength can only be wielded by 25% of the human population within the gameworld. A weapon that requires 18 strength should be very rare because fewer than 5 out of a thousand can use it.

[Ellderon]

But the weapons must limit the PLAYER and parety NPC's and NOT all (since most NPS'c and PC's have high scores).
And STR distribution is not even..

Now..let's drop this STR thing and focus on how it shouldf be limited for mages/druids/clerics/thievs...

[BobTokyo]

All have poor to very poor THACOs compared to fighters and one max attack per round with a two handed sword, and they can't gain proficiency with the weapon. That is more than enough of a limit. The vast majority of people who want a two handed sword swinging Wizard are going to choose a fighter/mage anyway.

My opinion only; it is your mod.

[kirkjobsluder]

But the weapons must limit the PLAYER and parety NPC's and NOT all (since most NPS'c and PC's have high scores).
And STR distribution is not even..

Now..let's drop this STR thing and focus on how it shouldf be limited for mages/druids/clerics/thievs...

The fact that some level of "cheating" is written into the rules in order to create more playable characters, does not change the demographics of the rest of the game world. There rules are designed to give NPCs and PCs a skewed distribution. But the nameless masses of Amn, Suldanessalar and Tethyr, the people given delightful names like "Harlot", "Beggar," "Priest of Ilmater" and "Guard" are ruled by the 3d6 distribution.

So this plays into the economics of the game. A weapon that can only be used by your Baalspawn just passing through, should be rare, hard to come by and expensive as heck. (For that matter, mercenaries with 18 strength should be rare, hard to come by and expensive as heck.)

And my point is that the 3d6 ability score distribution is helpful in many ways for figuring out the question you are asking.

[Eclipse]

Such a productive topic... One arguing about strength in real-life terms, and other about in-game attributes...

In the game, everyone does seem to have above average abilities - Survival of the fitest? Adventuring is a dangerous life afterall.

So, for weapons are we trying to workout what attributes would be required to wield them in RL terms? And then adjusting this number for ballance reasons to fit with the above average attributes of the NPC's and PC's.

A composite longbow, It rquires 18 strength. That's allot, but have you ever tried using one of them? If you picutre a typical medieval archer with a longbow, easy mistake to think of them as weak unarmoured peasants. When in reality they were freakishly strong, with unproportionally strong upper bobies.

So 15-16 strength seems reasonable.

Anyway, Ashes of Embers does a nice job of this. A strong mage can use a two-handed sword, with the penalty coming from his lack of skill with it.