Strength and Size question

[Cthulhudrew]

I don't know if this topic's been dealt with before or not, but it's been bugging me for quite a while now.

I think someone dropped the ball when it comes to Strength in 3rd Edition. I like the fact that ability scores can scale infinitely, personally, but it doesn't seem to me that the infinite scaling of Strength jibes with the differing carrying capacities of different sized creatures.

To illustrate, it seems to me that an Ogre- a Large (9ft) tall creature- already gets quite a benefit to his Strength from his size, without adding an additional +10 to his Strength score. IE, a 10 Strength Ogre will have double the carrying capacity of a 10 Strength Human- which seems about right for me. Maybe the Ogre should have a, say, +2 or +4 to Strength (possibly), making it even stronger than an equally average Human (10 Str for Human, 12 or 14 for your average Ogre), but giving a +10 is excessive, IMO.

Similarly, why should Small and smaller creatures have Strength penalties as a matter of course (as seems to be the situation in most cases). Halflings and Gnomes, for example, are already penalized by having only 3/4 the carrying capacity of a Human (or other Medium-sized creature); why the additional -2 to Strength?

IMO, the Strength/Size issue should scale between size categories- for example in the Medium size category

Human is the average example (10 Strength, or +0).
Half-Orcs are somewhat stronger than that (+2 Strength).
Orcs, Bugbears, and Gnolls are even stronger (+4 Strength).
Dwarves are about the same strength (due to physical makeup) as Humans.
More slightly built and frail Medium-size creatures would have Strength penalties (no examples come to mind offhand, though).

In the Large category, we'll use the Ogre as our baseline average example (no Strength penalty or Bonus). His Strength is still twice a 10 Strength human (increased carrying capacity) and roughly equal to that of an Orc, Bugbear, or Gnoll. Optionally (as above) the Ogre may be a +2 Strength creature, in which case a different "baseline" Large creature would need to be found (perhaps a Half-ogre?).
Hill Giants and Trolls would be on the scale above Ogres, with a +2 or +4 to Strength.

In Small categories, Halflings and/or Gnomes would probably be the baseline, with +0 to their adjustments (yes- I realize this throws off the ability score balancing of the races, but some alternative might be found).
Kobolds would probably be -2, etc.

It seems to me that this sort of inter-size scaling makes more logical sense, and avoids the (IMO) difficulties of massively overpowering Strength ratings for larger creatures. It might also make it more feasible to balance some of these races for use as PCs as well.

Any one else have an opinion?

 

[AGGEMAM]

It seems to me that you are missing one of the reasons why large sized creatures can carry more load than medium sized creatures which in turn can carry more load than small sized creatures even if they had the same strength score.

One of the main reasons for this, IMO, is that the larger creatures simply have more space to put the load in, ie they can carry larger backpacks, have wider belts, etc.

It is not only a question of actual weight of the load but also the emcumberance of the load that determines the load listed in the PHB.

 

[Don21584]

"Similarly, why should Small and smaller creatures have Strength penalties as a matter of course. Halflings and Gnomes, for example, are already penalized by having only 3/4 the carrying capacity of a Human (or other Medium-sized creature); why the additional -2 to Strength? "

To balance the races.

 

[Crothian]

I think the system actually works better then expected. I haven't seen any problem with it yet.

 

[whatisitgoodfor]

I completely agree with you Drew.

The double neutering of the small races is very annoying. It's almost as bad as the whole rogue/rouge issue.

Once a race has been given a bonus/penalty for something (size in this case) they shouldn't be given another bonus/penalty for the same thing.

 

[Crothian]

Well, first they are smaller and have less mass to which to carry things.

Then they have less muscle which equates to the negative str score. Minus two is not that bad at all.

So, which would you have it? A halfling with a 16 strength that can carry up to 230lb, about six times his body weight. Or would you like to see Halflings with a different attribute with -2.

 

[CRGreathouse]

This is the first complaint I've seen on alflings being too weak - I've seen plenty of people complain that they can carry too much.

Humans can carry 30 to 300 pounds; halflings can carry from 7 to 172 pounds. Where's the problem?

 

[Caliber]

So you think that, for example, Fairies (Mythic Races) aren't able to carry enough? Even though they can carry around 10 times (or even more) thier body weight?

In the campaign I currently play in, one character is a Fairy. Even with the -4 Str that Fairy's get, she still can carry about 11 pounds and not be encumbered. She weighs a small bit over a pound I believe.

Just food for thought.

(In case you were wondering, she explained it that Fairies are like ants. Advanced musclulature and all, ya know?)

 

[whatisitgoodfor]

IIRC, the listed size for a fairy is Tiny. Looking in the PHB at the examples for creature size, and thinking back on what I remeber of the race, they have faries listed as being too large.

Again, IIRC (sorry, I didn't like my copy of MR too much) the fairy was described as being less than a foot tall, and weighing a couple of pounds. Going by the PHB, that would make them Diminutive rather than fine.

So, there the problem lies in FFG's application of the rules rather than the rules themselves.

***********
CRGreathouse:

The argument isn't that Halflings are too weak, its that small races in general get the shaft.

Personally, I think that Halflings should keep their -2 to Str, since (according to the picture, and my mental image) they are a very light and gracile race. However, Gnomes should not have that -2 to Str.

The only reason I can see that they got it is that they are small. IMO, that is not a suitable justification for giving a race a penalty to Str.

**********
The justifications I can imagine for giving races a bonus/penalty based on their size are thus:

1) carrying capacity: Smaller races shouldn't be able to carry as much, and should therefore have a lower Str.

1r) This is wrong because there is already a multiplier that changes carrying capacity based on Str. Fixing a problem twice is never a good idea.

2) Damage dealing: Smaller races can't bring as much leverage and body mass into a blow, and should therefore deal less damage on every attack.

2r) This is moot because smaller races are already required to use smaller weapons. Since smaller weapons deal less damage, this problem has already been adressed, and should not be "fixed" again.

3) Skills: Smaller races should be inherently worse at skills that require raw strength.

3r) The skills that require Str are Climb, Jump, and Swim. Each one of these skills deal with moving your own body somehow, and should have the character's body weight factored in. Therefore, either smaller races should get a bonus to these skills similar to their bonus to hide, or the Str penalty should be removed from the general description of smaller races.

4) Psionic Powers: Everyone knows that the most feared Psions are those that are larger.

4r) Using the Optional Core Psionic rules, along with the MM, the larger the base creature, the better it is at using Psychometabolism and Psychokinetic powers. I'm fairly certain that this was never intended.

****************
All together, I think it would make the scalability of 3e much, much better. While the current system works, a few minor changes like this could make it work a lot more seamlessly. (The wheel may roll, but who says its round )

 

[Caliber]

IIRC, the listed size for a fairy is Tiny. Looking in the PHB at the examples for creature size, and thinking back on what I remeber of the race, they have faries listed as being too large.

Again, IIRC (sorry, I didn't like my copy of MR too much) the fairy was described as being less than a foot tall, and weighing a couple of pounds. Going by the PHB, that would make them Diminutive rather than fine.

So, there the problem lies in FFG's application of the rules rather than the rules themselves.

I admit that the suggested height and weight of a Fairy would make them Diminuative rather than Tiny, but it is pretty close to borderline. Either way, even if she weighed as much as a Tiny creature should, she would still be able to lift close to 5 or 6 times her body weight, if not even more. I weigh 170 and if I ever manage to lift 1400 pounds, I plan on quitting my job to take my act on the road.

The argument isn't that Halflings are too weak, its that small races in general get the shaft.

Personally, I think that Halflings should keep their -2 to Str, since (according to the picture, and my mental image) they are a very light and gracile race. However, Gnomes should not have that -2 to Str.

The only reason I can see that they got it is that they are small. IMO, that is not a suitable justification for giving a race a penalty to Str.

Who says Gnomes aren't just weaker than Humans? Personally I always pictured Gnomes as being about equal to Halflings in Strength. Think of it this way. Smaller creatures cannot carry as much equipment as a larger creature because they are simply smaller, ie. not as much room. It so happens that most small creatures are also weaker than those that are bigger. I am pretty sure there are some small races somewhere that actually get bonuses to Strength, I just don't have time to look (much less own Mythic Races)

But YMMV.