D&D 5E What Does a Strength 20 Look Like (In Real Life)?

[ad_hoc]

Yeah, nah. Dude is a commoner with a Strength of 18 or so.

Clearly not.

 

[Oofta]

Which still is way less than one would expect. You'd think a dragon turtle could easily carry an elephant. But no it can't. Stone giant can lift about the twice the than Hafthor can. You'd think they would be massively powerful, being able to hurl big boulders, but no. The strength math is just broken.

Stone giants being huge creatures can carry 460 (23 * 25 * 2 *2) pounds without being encumbered. They can carry up to 1,380 pounds. A human with 20 strength can carry 100 pounds before being encumbered, or carry a max load of 300 pounds. Hafthor is not carrying that weight around, they're doing a dead lift and holding it for a second or two which is not what the rules on how much you can carry is even attempting to model.

Size and Strength. Larger creatures can bear more weight, whereas Tiny creatures can carry less. For each size category above Medium, double the creature’s carrying capacity and the amount it can push, drag, or lift. For a Tiny creature, halve these weights.​

​

Now, whether or not that's particularly accurate is another issue, nobody ever claimed D&D was particularly good at simulation. I think it's good enough for purposes of the game.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Stone giants being huge creatures can carry 460 (23 * 25 * 2 *2) pounds without being encumbered. They can carry up to 1,380 pounds. A human with 20 strength can carry 100 pounds before being encumbered, or carry a max load of 300 pounds. Hafthor is not carrying that weight around, they're doing a dead lift and holding it for a second or two which is not what the rules on how much you can carry is even attempting to model.

Size and Strength. Larger creatures can bear more weight, whereas Tiny creatures can carry less. For each size category above Medium, double the creature’s carrying capacity and the amount it can push, drag, or lift. For a Tiny creature, halve these weights.​

​

Now, whether or not that's particularly accurate is another issue, nobody ever claimed D&D was particularly good at simulation. I think it's good enough for purposes of the game.

Yes, I know huge creatures have x4 multiplier. Doesn't change what I said, they're still pathetically weak.

 

[Oofta]

Yes, I know huge creatures have x4 multiplier. Doesn't change what I said, they're still pathetically weak.

Do you know how much Hafthor could carry around all day? I don't. I do know it's a fraction of what he can deadlift. Stone giants on the other hand can lug around more than he can deadlift all day long.

To get more accurate you'd have to do studies, have charts, discuss load balance and item bulk, take into consideration stamina, training and a host of other factors I'm probably not thinking of. The math for 5E is simple and easy to grasp. More to the point it's roughly in the ballpark for how much people can lift and carry. It's a big ballpark, but it's close enough for a game. To get more accurate you would have to have dozens of stats that can change based on dozens of environmental, situational and other factors. It would be unworkable.

It's the terrible system, but it's still better than most of the alternatives.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Ignoring encumbrance entirely and moving lifting to an Athletics check would solve this.

Removing the 20 limit that just exists for bounded accuracy would help too.

 

[Vaalingrade]

You keep saying that I'm doing these things...looking at certain things, assuming other things, but I'm not. I promise, I'm only looking at the rules for a long jump, as they are written on page 182 of the Player's Handbook. Those rules are pretty clear.

"Protect the Queen!"

"Who's the Queen?"

"I'm the Queen!"

"No you're not!"

 

[Bill Zebub]

You keep saying that I'm doing these things...

Some people like to argue that way. Makes me not want to engage with them. Or support them, even when I happen to agree with what they are saying.

 

[Scott Christian]

Strength is so odd, in part, because it houses so many different perceptions. I still think the best bell curve (albeit asymmetrical) is the old % attached to strength. From a population standpoint, it seemed a little more accurate. It still did nothing for creatures like giants, and heck, even a normal grizzly bear. But it did do something for PCs.

 

[CleverNickName]

You're assuming the feats you see athletes do are down to ability scores alone. Why on earth would you think that? They literally have dedicated, specialized training in what they do (feats etc),

Well, I'll try to explain why. (But buckle up, I'm a scientist, engineer, and a statistics nerd in real life. I can go on about this stuff for days...I'm often paid to do exactly that!)

First of all, I agree with you: he could have lots of things, game-wise. But we don't know any of that for certain. Sure, we can make assumptions and educated guesses, but even the best assumptions introduce a margin of error...possibly even compounding error, if we start making assumptions that rely on other assumptions. We assume proficiency, then assume a class level which modifies that proficiency bonus, then assume enough class levels to also assume feats that also adjust other things...we are multiplying error upon error. This isn't helpful, because the more guesswork we use, the more wrong we are likely to be.*

So for the lowest margin of error, we would use the rule that requires us to make the fewest assumptions for missing data--not what we "can safely assume," not stuff that "feels right," but data...things that have been measured and recorded.*

The only data we have is the distance he jumped. We have very good data, too: carefully-measured, verified, and reviewed data. We know that he jumped 8.95 meters, and that's really the only number we have here in the real world that is also in the Player's Handbook. All else would be conjecture and assumption, and therefore unreliable...and that's the long-winded answer to your question.*

Again, I do agree with you: he could have lots of things, game-wise. And if he were a D&D character, he certainly would. (Well, unless he's an NPC, in which case he might not have levels. And we don't know if our DM lets us use Feats and Multiclassing either, or...) But Mike Powell is not a D&D character, he's a human athlete...and a very impressive one! I'm not trying to create a Mike Powell 5E character sheet; I'm trying to picture what the D&D rules look like in real-life, and how incredible these athletes look through that lens. Imagine: there are humans walking among us who are stronger than the giants and dragons of D&D!

*Yes, this is a stretch. These are rules for a tabletop roleplaying game, not the Second Law of Thermodynamics. All of D&D 's rules are going to look absolutely absurd when compared to real life, and one moogle's absurdity is another's doctrine. It is laughable to think that the rules for Long Jump are somehow 'closer to real life' than the rules for a multiclassed Fighter/Monk. All I'm asking is that folks laugh with me here: you asked me why I wanted to use one ridiculous equation instead of a different equally-ridiculous equation, and I'm trying to give a serious and thoughtful answer.

Some people like to argue that way. Makes me not want to engage with them. Or support them, even when I happen to agree with what they are saying.

I don't mind, except that after a while it starts to feel like I'm being credited (blamed?) for what is written in the rules. I didn't create the rules for Long Jump, and I'm not adding or removing anything to them. Clearly the equation is problematic, but it's not my equation to fix.

 

[FarBeyondC]

Well, I'll try to explain why. (But buckle up, I'm a scientist, engineer, and a statistics nerd in real life. I can go on about this stuff for days...I'm often paid to do exactly that!)

First of all, I agree with you: he could have lots of things, game-wise. But we don't know any of that for certain. Sure, we can make assumptions and educated guesses, but even the best assumptions introduce a margin of error...possibly even compounding error, if we start making assumptions that rely on other assumptions. We assume proficiency, then assume a class level which modifies that proficiency bonus, then assume enough class levels to also assume feats that also adjust other things...we are multiplying error upon error. This isn't helpful, because the more guesswork we use, the more wrong we are likely to be.*

So for the lowest margin of error, we would use the rule that requires us to make the fewest assumptions for missing data--not what we "can safely assume," not stuff that "feels right," but data...things that have been measured and recorded.*

The only data we have is the distance he jumped. We have very good data, to: carefully-measured, verified, and reviewed data. We know that he jumped 8.95 meters, and that's really the only number we have here in the real world that is also in the Player's Handbook. All else would be conjecture and assumption, and therefore unreliable...and that's the long-winded answer to your question.*

Again, I do agree with you: he could have lots of things, game-wise. And if he were a D&D character, he certainly would. (Well, unless he's an NPC, in which case he might not have levels. And we don't know if our DM lets us use Feats and Multiclassing either, or...) But Mike Powell is not a D&D character, he's a human athlete...and a very impressive one! I'm not trying to create a Mike Powell 5E character sheet; I'm trying to picture what the D&D rules look like in real-life, and how incredible these athletes look through that lens. Imagine: there are humans walking among us who are stronger than the giants and dragons of D&D!

*Yes, this is a stretch. These are rules for a tabletop roleplaying game, not the Second Law of Thermodynamics. All of D&D 's rules are going to look absolutely absurd when compared to real life, and one moogle's absurdity is another's doctrine. It is laughable to think that the rules for Long Jump are somehow 'closer to real life' than the rules for a multiclassed Fighter/Monk. All I'm asking is that folks laugh with me here: you asked me why I wanted to use one ridiculous equation instead of a different equally-ridiculous equation, and I'm trying to give a serious and thoughtful answer.


I don't mind, except that after a while it starts to feel like I'm being credited (blamed?) for what is written in the rules. I didn't create the rules for Long Jump, and I'm not adding or removing anything to them. Clearly the equation is problematic, but it's not my equation to fix.

I don't know what type of science, engineering, or statistics you do in real life, but clearly it's not suited to the task of properly comparing or converting real world feats to a stat block under the 5th edition D&D rules system.