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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Recidivism" data-source="post: 5850282" data-attributes="member: 51740">I don't see that the numbers in the game need to correspond with any real  world measurements of Strength, Dexterity, etc, the numbers themselves  provide differentiation without reference to the setting. Therefore I'm fine with ability scores being within a certain defined range if it improves the overall game experience.If my campaign is based on the Brian Jacques stories I can define the average strength of a mouse as 10 without going into paroxysms that rats and mice are generally not as strong as a human. Similarly in a superhero campaign, I think it's fine to assume that everyone is automatically physically superior to non-superheroes, even if they've only got a 10 in a stat.Kinda curious what the numbers on real world lifting capacities you're citing are.Unfortunately this is an area that D&D rules model poorly, so it's unlikely that we can really say, "The maximum score for a human in reality is X."I doubt, for example, that a weightlifter would retain a "Dexterity Bonus to AC" when lifting their maximum weight. In fact walking at all seems to be virtually impossible when lifting that much weight. So it's arguable this scenario would be covered under the clause that allows creatures to lift up to double their heavy load value (<a href="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/carryingCapacity.htm" target="_blank">Ref</a>). Thus a Strength 18 human would be able to lift up to 600lbs but is effectively immobilized by doing so.Not too surprising that it would work out this way, since it's more than likely that the designers of the encumbrance chart used actual weightlifting records in the real world (rounded off) to benchmark what an 18 Strength would be in D&D.</blockquote>

Verification