Genders - What's the difference?

[Celebrim]

First off, a full grown chimpanzee is a heck of a lot bigger than 60 pounds.

Sure. I don't deny that, nor are you informing me of anything I don't know. I'm just pointing out that a 88lb chimpanzee is roughly as strong as 250 lb NFL linebacker. And a large chimpanzee with weight equivalent to human norms is stronger than the strongest possible human. Therefore, it's not unreasonable to conclude that a simian weighing 60lb or even 40lb could have nearly human strength depending on whether its build was more like a chimpanzee than a human. Obviously, with a human build, a 40lb humanoid is going to have much more than than a -2 STR penalty. Ergo, it must be the case that the Halfling, if we accept the -2 STR penalty as realistic, has a build more similar to a chimpanzee than a human.

Seriously, Hussar, I know you are intelligent enough to understand that line of reasoning. Why in the world are you making such a spurious objection as to point out that chimpanzees weigh more than 60lb?

That's about TWICE the size of a halfling at least. That's actually really, really close to normal human sized. It would help if people's view of what is "realistic" was actually backed by facts.

Exactly what part of my point isn't backed up by facts or is unrealistic? Are you suggesting that there aren't 60lb animals with strength roughly equivalent to human norms? Are you suggesting that regardless of the body build, any 60lb animal is going to have the same physical characteristics?

 

[JamesonCourage]

First off, a full grown chimpanzee is a heck of a lot bigger than 60 pounds.

That's about TWICE the size of a halfling at least. That's actually really, really close to normal human sized. It would help if people's view of what is "realistic" was actually backed by facts.

I'm pretty certain the actual point was not the height or weight of the chimpanzee. It was the strength of the chimpanzee compared to the height and weight of a comparable race (say, humans?).

Since you used the source:

The male common chimp is up to 1.7 metres (5.6 ft) high when standing, and weighs as much as 70 kilograms (150 lb)

Considering chimpanzees are anywhere from twice to five times as strong as humans (sources and scientific opinion varies in my quick google search), and they are very close in height and weight to humans, I can only assume that similar musculature could conceivably be found in halflings, if one was so inclined to flavor them that way.

If you don't like the flavor, don't use it. But, it's clear that chimpanzees, which are similar in height and weight to that of humans, are much stronger. You could easily apply the same idea to halflings.

I'd rather get back to the much more productive discussion on optional character traits or free semi-stackable feats (or anything else someone had in mind).

As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

Sure. I don't deny that, nor are you informing me of anything I don't know. I'm just pointing out that a 88lb chimpanzee is roughly as strong as 250 lb NFL linebacker. And a large chimpanzee with weight equivalent to human norms is stronger than the strongest possible human. Therefore, it's not unreasonable to conclude that a simian weighing 60lb or even 40lb could have nearly human strength depending on whether its build was more like a chimpanzee than a human. Obviously, with a human build, a 40lb humanoid is going to have much more than than a -2 STR penalty. Ergo, it must be the case that the Halfling, if we accept the -2 STR penalty as realistic, has a build more similar to a chimpanzee than a human.

Seriously, Hussar, I know you are intelligent enough to understand that line of reasoning. Why in the world are you making such a spurious objection as to point out that chimpanzees weigh more than 60lb?



Exactly what part of my point isn't backed up by facts or is unrealistic? Are you suggesting that there aren't 60lb animals with strength roughly equivalent to human norms? Are you suggesting that regardless of the body build, any 60lb animal is going to have the same physical characteristics?

Yes, I am saying that there are 60 lb animals that by and large do not have the strength of a 180 pound human.

You cannot simply scale up or down and apply strength. That doesn't work. It's that whole square cube thing. A 100 pound human isn't half as strong as a 200 pound one, nor is a 50 pound human 1/4 as strong. There's an awful lot more to it than that.

Or, put it another way. A fairly decent benchmark would say that a normal human should be able to lift at the very least, his own bodyweight onto his shoulders. So, a normal human can, by and large, lift about 150 pounds onto his shoulders, fireman carry style, and walk some distance.

Let's see a 60 pound animal lift 150 pounds and move.

Strength is not relative in games - it's absolute. Just because a creature can lift its own bodyweight (or even more) is irrelavent. It's all about totals.

There are way too many reasons why you cannot just scale up or down - biology just doesn't work that way.

And, again, we're talking about a system where there is very, very little gradation from normal to strongest - in 3e, we're only talking 4 steps - person you can be without magical augmentation.

 

[Mark CMG]

How strong is a chimpanzee, really? - By John Hawks - Slate Magazine

 

[Celebrim]

Yes, I am saying that there are 60 lb animals that by and large do not have the strength of a 180 pound human.

Except that isn't what I asked you. I didn't ask you if there were 60lb animals weaker than humans, that question is uninteresting and the answer is intuitive. No, I asked you if you wanted to insist that there weren't 60lb animals as a strong as humans.

Apparantly you don't think that there are.

Let's see a 60 pound animal lift 150 pounds and move.

Let's look at a few animals that have average weights below that of average humans:

"In search of safety, leopards often stash their young or recent kills high up in a tree. They were observed hauling carcasses of young giraffe, estimated to weigh up to 125 kg (280 lb), 2–3 times the weight of the leopard, up to 5.7 m (19 ft) into trees." - wikipedia

Granted there is overlap between humans and leopards in terms of size, but I think that it is well established that pound for pound leopards are stronger than humans.

Caracals are much smaller animals than leopards but they are capable of proportionally similar feats. On the opposite end, jagaurs are a bit heavier than a leapord but also capable of proportionally similar feat (climbing while lifting three times there own body weight).

And then there is the chimpanzee I've previously mentioned. Chimps tend to be smaller than humans. A big male chimp is right around the weight of an average male human, while atheletic humans often reach 270lbs or more. But for whatever number you select as reasonable for a human to lift and move with, chimpanzees of the same weight can lift and move twice that.

Definitively answering your challenge is difficult mainly because the strengths of likely 40-60 lb animals (lynx, caracal, wolverine) have been poorly studied. The one that has been well studied (the dog) is not one I would have picked for being exceptionally strong because like humans it is an endurance predator, and in any event it was hard to come up with data for humans performing the same tasks dogs are normally measured at. However, I think it is clear that 40-60 lb dogs are much stronger than 40-60 lb human children, so comparing halflings to human 5 year olds is far from a valid comparison.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I find the currently debated topic amusing. "Can small creatures be strong for their size?" is pretty funny to me when it's obviously applicable in real life, and in a game where we don't question how a giant is capable of walking, much less fighting.

Can we get back to interesting implementations of gender differences, such as the optional character traits or semi-stackable free feats?

 

[pawsplay]

However, I think it is clear that 40-60 lb dogs are much stronger than 40-60 lb human children, so comparing halflings to human 5 year olds is far from a valid comparison.

Five year old humans are not mature beings. Halflings are. Just because a middle schooler might be 5'3" doesn't mean he's as strong as the guy who does the landscaping. The 5 year old human to halfling comparison would not be my choice.

Now, if you are modeling bull rushes, or some kind of knockdown/knockback mechanic....

 

[pawsplay]

Except 3e-3.5e Orcs, who get a ridiculous +4 STR mod. I'm guessing because half-Orcs got +2 and the weak-minded designer thought Orcs then needed to have double. This one mistake caused me a lot of trouble, with 3e Orcs massacring low-level PCs and outshining supposedly much bigger & more fearsome critters like gnolls. 3.5 made it even worse by raising the default Orc mook's STR from 15 to 17.

That was clearly a violation of the principle I stated, with the consequences following predictably.

 

[pawsplay]

Can dragons be killed by women?

That, like so many of your questions to me, is a fundamentally dishonest and uncharitable one. I tire of addressing your insinuations and snears in a fashion better than they deserve.

On the contrary, it is an honest question, and my curiosity is pretty charitible. I would really like to know how you address this question. Sadly, it appears you are refusing to do so.

 

[pawsplay]

Can we get back to interesting implementations of gender differences, such as the optional character traits or semi-stackable free feats?

I call this the Wal-Mart problem.

Imagine you want to buy canned peaches and toilet seat lids. If Wal-Mart charges more than Home Depot, you'll buy the toilet seat lid at Home Depot. If they charge less, you'll obviously buy it at Wal-Mart (all other things being equal, of course). But what if you want peaches, too? You can't buy peaches at Home Depot. So unless the price difference of the peaches at Wal-Mart exceeds the price difference of the toilet seat lids, you go to Wal-Mart and save yourself a trip to the grocery store. Not only are you shopping at Wal-Mart, but pretty soon, they are the only place in town selling peaches, and the price of peaches has gone up.

So let's imagine you define sex-linked feats or options. If a male-specific feat is worse than feats in general, no one will take it. If it's better, you're going to see a lot more male (for instance) warriors, as you might expect. But let's imagine the male-specific feat is well-balanced against other feats, in general. So you have the choice of playing a male, with the choice of all feats in general, plus the sex-linked feat, or a female, who has only the choice of all feats in general, plus a different, unrelated female-linked feat. If you decide you want the male-linked feat, you will (all other things being equal) play the male.

Assuming the intention is to give males options to be particularly strong, powerful, and intimidating, and for women to be, oh, alluring, high stamina, and smaller-but-nimble... the buying options for a warrior favor being male. You can get toilet seats AND peaches. It's likely, as well, that swashbucklers and face characters will skew female (which could be weird, if swashbuckling females are a social aberration in your setting).

These options are better than flat-out modifiers simply because they are smaller. Opportunity costs are real costs, but the compensation is sufficient that other options are considerable. But, for instance, even a small cost can skew results such that (for instance) two-handed Power Attack fighters skew male, while dual-wielding tumbling fighters skew female. They are also better because someone can choose not to exercise their options, which means they are not forcibly pigeonholed into a stereotype. But the advantages and disadvantages will remain. Only character options which are favored by neither set of optional traits will be unaffected. And for the affected options, which will be many if not most, the options will only be optional if they are truly competitive with a different set of options which are favored by neither set of optional modifiers.

And ultimately, if one option is simply better, the nerf hammer is not far behind, unless you simply choose to live with the bias.