D&D (2024) Size = Strength-Constitution?

[Yaarel]

I think its absurd.

Size should instead be driving Strength, or at the very least applying a modifier.

It is more like the old school minimum ability prereqs to qualify the character to be a particular species. But here the prereqs are to be a particular size.

 

[Scribe]

It is more like the old school minimum ability prereqs to qualify the character to be a particular species. But here the prereqs are to be a particular size.

Sounds like a pretty questionable line of thinking.

Want to set species min/max values? By all means.

You change size, when size is tied to species?

Hard no.

 

[Stalker0]

Which is a racist sterotype. Little people can be very strong and healthy. There is no sound biological argument behind what you're stating, it's just a racist trope.

Weeeeeeelll, in the context of physics, size does matter when it comes to strength. Now proportional strength, I mean ants and spiders are amazingly strong for their size, but the strongest ant in the world can't lift what a little human baby could easily lift.

So if your talking about "do bigger creatures have an advantage at lifting X amount of weight".... biology says unequivocally yes.

So yeah there is a sound biological argument. That said, this is a fantasy game with crazy fantasy races, so do I care about "accurate biology"....no, no I do not.

 

[Mistwell]

Weeeeeeelll, in the context of physics, size does matter when it comes to strength. Now proportional strength, I mean ants and spiders are amazingly strong for their size, but the strongest ant in the world can't lift what a little human baby could easily lift.

So if your talking about "do bigger creatures have an advantage at lifting X amount of weight".... biology says unequivocally yes.

So yeah there is a sound biological argument. That said, this is a fantasy game with crazy fantasy races, so do I care about "accurate biology"....no, no I do not.

No, that's not sound. We're talking about humans. There are lots of little people, and people with dwarfism, who are weight lifters and body builders. Some hold records (and don't cut this sentence and reply to just this portion because the remainder is relevant to what I just said). It's not some anomaly, there is no height to strength connection for humans aside from width, muscle mass and weight, all of which can vary regardless of height. A taller lifter may be better at certain lifts while a shorter lifter may be better at other lifts, but there is no overall connection between being short and lifting less weight in itself. In fact in terms of actual physical ease for lifting weight, a taller lifter has to work harder because they have longer levers which is a disadvantage in lifting because they don't get to use as much leverage to help with the lift.

 

[Yaarel]

No, that's not sound. We're talking about humans. There are lots of little people, and people with dwarfism, who are weight lifters and body builders. Some hold records (and don't cut this sentence and reply to just this portion because the remainder is relevant to what I just said). It's not some anomaly, there is no height to strength connection for humans aside from width, muscle mass and weight, all of which can vary regardless of height. A taller lifter may be better at certain lifts while a shorter lifter may be better at other lifts, but there is no overall connection between being short and lifting less weight in itself. In fact in terms of actual physical ease for lifting weight, a taller lifter has to work harder because they have longer levers which is a disadvantage in lifting because they don't get to use as much leverage to help with the lift.

These factors − width, muscle mass, and weight − are factors that determine D&D Size.

They are why a strong Halfling wouldnt be D&D Small, regardless of height.

 

[Mistwell]

These factors − width, muscle mass, and weight − are factors that determine D&D Size.

They are why a strong Halfling wouldnt be D&D Small, regardless of height.

No, they're not. A highly dense creature (weight) with great muscle mass is not a larger size. And width isn't "5 feet wider" we're talking inches here. This is sheer nonsense you're using to justify bigotry you spewed and have yet to even make an attempt to apologize for. I don't get it Yaarel, these are nasty stereotypes you're peddling. Are you trying to undue everything you've been saying for weeks on end?

This is...gross. I think you think it's all a joke or something. Do you even know any little people? Do you know anything about this issue?

 

[Scribe]

They are why a strong Halfling wouldnt be D&D Small, regardless of height.

Nah, thats not how this works.

 

[dave2008]

No, that's not sound. We're talking about humans. There are lots of little people, and people with dwarfism, who are weight lifters and body builders. Some hold records (and don't cut this sentence and reply to just this portion because the remainder is relevant to what I just said). It's not some anomaly, there is no height to strength connection for humans aside from width, muscle mass and weight, all of which can vary regardless of height. A taller lifter may be better at certain lifts while a shorter lifter may be better at other lifts, but there is no overall connection between being short and lifting less weight in itself. In fact in terms of actual physical ease for lifting weight, a taller lifter has to work harder because they have longer levers which is a disadvantage in lifting because they don't get to use as much leverage to help with the lift.

It has been a while since I study this (and most of my study was actually regarding dinosaurs), but size does matter as @Stalker0 mentioned. However, it is it not simple and it has less importance to things that are roughly the same size (like one human to another). Though lift capacity can be helped by lever size as you note; larger bones allow larger muscles and, more importantly, tendons to work. There is a reason for weight classes in power lifting.

However, I also agree with Stalker that in a fantasy setting anything goes. Heck, you can just look at the strength difference of chimps and humans of the same size to understand you don't need "magic" biology to account for incredible strength.

 

[ECMO3]

I think this is unecessary and don't understand the why of it. That said, "little people" are not a race and while denigrating them is abhorrent and bigoted it is not "racist".

IRL we do not have different intelligent, civilized species like we do in DND, so it is difficult to make a real life comparison. However I will point out that humans closest relative - Chimpanzees - are in general smaller than humans and in general MUCH stronger than humans.

 

[dave2008]

No, they're not. A highly dense creature (weight) with great muscle mass is not a larger size. And width isn't "5 feet wider" we're talking inches here. This is sheer nonsense you're using to justify bigotry you spewed and have yet to even make an attempt to apologize for. I don't get it Yaarel, these are nasty stereotypes you're peddling. Are you trying to undue everything you've been saying for weeks on end?

This is...gross. I think you think it's all a joke or something. Do you even know any little people? Do you know anything about this issue?

I think you are misunderstanding whay @Yaarel is saying (please correct me if I am wrong Yaarel). You will notice that Yaarel said:
"They are why a strong Halfling wouldnt be D&D Small, regardless of height."

I think they are proposing that the game mechanic of size (Small, Medium, Large, etc.) be somewhat divorced from the physical representation of their height? So a strong halfing might be 3' tall but "Large" in size? At least that is what I get from the part I quoted. I didn't catch that from the OP though. So I could be completely wrong!

PS - I don't agree with either approach BTW