Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pawsplay" data-source="post: 5556278" data-attributes="member: 15538">Actually, I have offered a pretty clear definition. I want to see as many meausres as possible that relate to the things D&D Strength actually does. You have provided three credible measures: power lifting, swimming, and running long jumps. As the running long jumps also includes stride, which D&D acknowledges to an extent, it is suspect, although it remains still useful. You've given about 2 1/2 dimensions out of a very wide-ranging ability score. Now, there are big reasons to be suspicious of those self-selecting samples, though at worst we can adventurers may self-select in the same way, but at least it's something.But it's not enough.All the things D&D Strength does. Lifting, jumping, climing, swimming, grappling, punching, kicking, breaking objects, striking telling blows, qualifying for feats, etc. Relative size has been addressed; you seem to think that it was addressed in favor of your arguments but I it seems clear to me that the rules tilt toward assuming carrying capacity includes size as well as strength. Unless you want to assume that feat from the Planar Handbook doubles a character's real world strength in every way, of course.It's not a question of tangible versus intangible. It's a question of performance at actual tasks versus performance on tests. The more muscle groups are involved, the more it looks like a D&D Strength check.Also, I said punching was more similar, not that it was "similar," in every way you choose to define similar. I thought it was far more important to look at kicking power, at which men and women are very similar. If you penalize women for punching power at X rate, you punish their kicking to the same degree, which is wildly inaccurate.Men's muscles are structurally different, yes. But it is not a given that fiber-dense fast muscle translates into a linear increase in dynamic power. Dynamic power depends greatly on motor coordination, which in turn depends hugely on practice and development. You didn't cover my objections to the punching power metric you used (very different comparison groups). You didn't cover kicking power or climbing. You didn't cover any measures at which average man and average men are benchmarked. You also didn't cover (unless I missed it) high jump and throwing (although those two measures favor men). You also didn't cover anything that wasn't an athletic contest. If you really want to know how people perform at tasks, you need to look at real world outcomes. Outside of the high school to semi pro professional culture, outside athletic events that focus on a very specific muscle movement, outside very controlled tasks. You need to look at actual things done by actual people and asks, "Are men so much better at this that I would be concerned about a woman doing this job?"Are women worse lifeguards? Are they worse at putting drunks in arm locks? as far as I know, women are not worse at either of those things.Hence, it makes more sense to set a similar level of Strength, and assume bonus to those tasks at which men typically excel. Give men a +1, or +2, or whatever to Climb, Jump, and Swim checks, if you want. But I think it's very questionable to posit a large difference in such an abstract measure as Strength.It means +1 Strength to all tasks at which Strength applies. It means +1/2 bonus. So your "no" is an equivocation. It's much easier to simply give men the equivalent of the Athletic feat.Because adventurers are fairly likely to kick, or to wrestle in a non-sports context. Because women can open jars just fine.See, that's the thing. It's yours to prove there is a large difference. It is relevant if women warriors constitute the top 10% of women in strength, and warriors represent barely more than the median in an agrarian-based feudal economy. Then it is the most relevant thing I can possibly imagine.Why would see that? Wouldn't we see even the most minor differences mangified by self-selection?I question your assertion.Football players are big, not strong. I would consider football players better candidates for improved stability in humans than high Strength characters. They are built to maximize running and slamming power; even if the selection process were somehow made sex-fair, a small advantage in each would translate into a huge advantage in the composite.Just as in parallel bars, women's advantages in smaller size and greater flexibility, when combined, become an unassailable advantage in gynmastics. Yet I'm not going to claim women should have a +2 relative Dex based on that measure.So you are saying there are no, zero, other reasons female linebackers aren't currently represented?Here's the bottom line for me: If Joe has a 16 Strength and Jenny has a 14, that implies that in Joe's hands, a shortsword does as much damage as a longsword does in Jenny's. That is a pretty strong claim. I think it completely flies in the face of what you said about boxers, above; I think it would be extraordinary rare for a boxer to do +1 relative damage to other top-level boxers in his own class.</blockquote>

Verification