PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] Ability Scores below 10 (for humans) ANSWERED



felinoel
2011-01-10, 11:10 PM
I have never played under a DM that has allowed starting ability scores to be below ten, as that is the common ability score for a human, straight tens. There are of course other humans with abilities below ten but why would they go out adventuring? Usually my DM says reroll anything below a ten, had this one DM say anything below an 11, this DM says that the rules say to just roll and not stop anything below a ten...

So I ended up with a strength score of 6, strength is the only ability my character will not be using... I looked up what creatures have strength scores this low and found that birds have a strength score of six...
I have the same strength... as a bird?!

Am I unable to carry my own self? Can I not walk? Can I at least crawl?

Nightmarenny
2011-01-10, 11:13 PM
Strength is... complicated. In truth a gnome with 18 str is probably not as strong as an Orc with 18 str.

Toliudar
2011-01-10, 11:16 PM
The 'below 10' thing is definitely a house rule, and I've played characters with one (or more) of the stats below 10.

A human with a strength of 6 can carry 60 pounds, although with a lower movement speed. Get a handy haversack as soon as you can afford it, and you'll be fine.

Oh, and before you go dissing birds' strength:
http://www.google.ca/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/903/903,1114015907,1/stock-photo-vintage-photo-of-a-man-riding-ostrich-291603.jpg&sa=X&ei=2tkrTYr0B4vanAfOkP3hCQ&ved=0CAQQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNG8Jenz5CXAfEJIS218RBUrQlK8DA

Scoot
2011-01-10, 11:16 PM
Strength is partialy relative to size. (Check those multipliers for carrying capacity, size makes a HUGE difference)

You can do much more than a bird, because your size is medium.

Compared to other members of your species, you are weak, but unless your STR is reduced to zero, you should be able to function normaly.

Thrice Dead Cat
2011-01-10, 11:41 PM
You never have to worry about your weight for carrying capacity, for one.

Also, considering the point-buy system, at lower totals, most characters will probably have at least one stat at the default 8.

Pink
2011-01-10, 11:47 PM
I have never played under a DM that has allowed starting ability scores to be below ten, as that is the common ability score for a human, straight tens.

Ten is not common, it's the average. And being the average, it needs scores not only above it, but below it as well.

Player characters, while they should be overall above average (has a total positive Modifier), will have areas where they are above average, but sometimes also have areas below average. Afterall, a character isn't just interesting in their strengths, but also in their weaknesses.

felinoel
2011-01-11, 12:12 AM
Strength is... complicated. In truth a gnome with 18 str is probably not as strong as an Orc with 18 str.But... this is not GURPS? This is 3.5 DnD where all base stats like these are based off of humans, that is why humans have no racial modifiers? A gnome with 18 strength would be the same as an orc?


The 'below 10' thing is definitely a house rule, and I've played characters with one (or more) of the stats below 10.

A human with a strength of 6 can carry 60 pounds, although with a lower movement speed. Get a handy haversack as soon as you can afford it, and you'll be fine.

Oh, and before you go dissing birds' strength:
http://www.google.ca/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/903/903,1114015907,1/stock-photo-vintage-photo-of-a-man-riding-ostrich-291603.jpg&sa=X&ei=2tkrTYr0B4vanAfOkP3hCQ&ved=0CAQQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNG8Jenz5CXAfEJIS218RBUrQlK8DAYes I know it is a house rule, I was just stating that the four previous DMs I have had have ruled out anything below ten but how can a human that has the strength of a hawk (sorry, I will clarify as to the bird spoken of in the book since you referenced that image) be able to life himself? If you put 150 pounds on a bird it will not be able to move? That is about how much I made the weight of my character and I cannot make him weigh as much as a hawk.


Strength is partialy relative to size. (Check those multipliers for carrying capacity, size makes a HUGE difference)

You can do much more than a bird, because your size is medium.

Compared to other members of your species, you are weak, but unless your STR is reduced to zero, you should be able to function normaly.Are you serious? Where is this in the books? I could have sworn that there were no strength tiers in DnD?


You never have to worry about your weight for carrying capacity, for one.

Also, considering the point-buy system, at lower totals, most characters will probably have at least one stat at the default 8.Eight I would have tolerated and not bothered to look up, eight is the lowest I can see any human who would actually go out on an adventure


Ten is not common, it's the average. And being the average, it needs scores not only above it, but below it as well.

Player characters, while they should be overall above average (has a total positive Modifier), will have areas where they are above average, but sometimes also have areas below average. Afterall, a character isn't just interesting in their strengths, but also in their weaknesses.Indeed, see my above response, but six?! That is just way too low?

Vladislav
2011-01-11, 12:16 AM
Six is just as much as outside the norm as is 15. And you wouldn't gush over how "incredibly powerful" that level 1 fighter with Str 15 is right? Then you should be equally unamazed at Joe the Commoner with Str 6.

felinoel
2011-01-11, 12:18 AM
Six is just as much as outside the norm as is 15. And you wouldn't gush over how "incredibly powerful" that level 1 fighter with Str 15 is right? Then you should be equally unamazed at Joe the Commoner with Str 6.But Joe the Commoner with a strength of six cannot carry his own body weight, while I can see that as possible, I don't see why Joe the Commoner would go out adventuring

Ajadea
2011-01-11, 12:22 AM
Body weight does not count against carrying capacity.

BossMuro
2011-01-11, 12:25 AM
Joe the commoner would go out adventureing the same reason Doug the fighter does. Because he wants to, and because he has skills that make him a good adventurer. It doesn't matter how bad he is at arm wrestling when he can throw fireballs at people.

felinoel
2011-01-11, 12:26 AM
Body weight does not count against carrying capacity.Regardless, realistically speaking, if a human were to have the same strength as a hawk, they would not be able to stand? Where is the rules for what happens when a person's ability score is reduced to one or below? I believe I remember the rule for strength stating that they fall under the weight of their own body... is this correct? I may be misremembering...


Joe the commoner would go out adventureing the same reason Doug the fighter does. Because he wants to, and because he has skills that make him a good adventurer. It doesn't matter how bad he is at arm wrestling when he can throw fireballs at people.This is not a problem with arm wrestling, this is a problem with being unable to move

Frog Dragon
2011-01-11, 12:32 AM
But there is no strength score, other than 0 which would be too low for you to move with. Only the weight of gear is an issue. Even normal clothes don't count when worn.

BossMuro
2011-01-11, 12:34 AM
Six is a larger number than one, so your argument is invalid. I would, however, agree that a guy with zero strength should not go adventuring, except under extraordinary circumstances.

felinoel
2011-01-11, 12:35 AM
But there is no strength score, other than 0 which would be too low for you to move with. Only the weight of gear is an issue. Even normal clothes don't count when worn.But that doesn't make any sense?

turkishproverb
2011-01-11, 12:35 AM
I have never played under a DM that has allowed starting ability scores to be below ten, as that is the common ability score for a human, straight tens. There are of course other humans with abilities below ten but why would they go out adventuring? Usually my DM says reroll anything below a ten, had this one DM say anything below an 11, this DM says that the rules say to just roll and not stop anything below a ten...


I hate DM's like this. They coddle players so much that when a player actually has to use a character with anything resembling a weak point they panic.

So I ended up with a strength score of 6, strength is the only ability my character will not be using... I looked up what creatures have strength scores this low and found that birds have a strength score of six...
I have the same strength... as a bird?!

Am I unable to carry my own self? Can I not walk? Can I at least crawl?

As has been said before, strength is relative to size.


But Joe the Commoner with a strength of six cannot carry his own body weight, while I can see that as possible, I don't see why Joe the Commoner would go out adventuring

Yes, he can carry his own body weight. What he cannot carry is a clone of himself. And frankly, I don't see that as a problem unless he's going all platemail fighter


Regardless, realistically speaking, if a human were to have the same strength as a hawk, they would not be able to stand? Where is the rules for what happens when a person's ability score is reduced to one or below? I believe I remember the rule for strength stating that they fall under the weight of their own body... is this correct? I may be misremembering...

Once again.
1. Size effects strength regardless of stats.
2. Your own weight does not count as encumbrance. I don't know why you seem so desperate to believe that, but it doesn't
3. No, that is not correct. The only piece of writing that might (might) have inspired that was the notices on what happens at 0 strength.


This is not a problem with arm wrestling, this is a problem with being unable to move


No, it is not.

AslanCross
2011-01-11, 12:36 AM
Regardless, realistically speaking, if a human were to have the same strength as a hawk, they would not be able to stand? Where is the rules for what happens when a person's ability score is reduced to one or below? I believe I remember the rule for strength stating that they fall under the weight of their own body... is this correct? I may be misremembering...

This is not a problem with arm wrestling, this is a problem with being unable to move

Here you go. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#abilityDamaged)
Your strength has to be reduced to 0 for you to collapse.
For sanity's sake, being unable to move due to low strength has been abstracted. "Realism" is not a good thing to always have in RPGs. (Consider HP, for example)

Keep in mind that the average Venerable human has 4 Strength. While they might find many things difficult, they can still definitely walk around.

Weasel of Doom
2011-01-11, 12:37 AM
This is not a problem with arm wrestling, this is a problem with being unable to move

But he can move because, as has been said, body weight does not count against encumbrance.

"If you want to determine whether your character’s gear is heavy enough to slow him or her down more than the armor already does, total the weight of all the character’s items, including armor, weapons, and gear. Compare this total to the character’s Strength on Table: Carrying Capacity." [from srd]

Note that it does not mention your character's weight.


I would, however, agree that a guy with zero strength should not go adventuring, except under extraordinary circumstances.

Damn, now I want to play a str 0 psion.

WarKitty
2011-01-11, 12:39 AM
Might I suggest this might make more sense if you had some sleep?

felinoel
2011-01-11, 12:47 AM
Six is a larger number than one, so your argument is invalid. I would, however, agree that a guy with zero strength should not go adventuring, except under extraordinary circumstances.My argument was based under the assumption that a person's own weight would be taken into consideration when strength is involved. A kick is a strength based attack, walking means you have to be able to support your own self and since you use your legs makes it a strength check, or so one would think...

I hate DM's like this. They coddle players so much that when a player actually has to use a character with anything resembling a weak point they panic.No no, I was totally prepared to play a character unable to move, I was going to have my animal companion drag me, I was just surprised that it was actually ruled to be possible...


As has been said before, strength is relative to size.Yet no one responded to my response about this, I think I said something about how all abilities are based off of the average human being at ten for each?


Once again.
1. Size effects strength regardless of stats.
2. Your own weight does not count as encumbrance. I don't know why you seem so desperate to believe that, but it doesn'tI have yet to mention encumbrance, only that logic would tell me that if a human was as strong as a bird, they would be unable to support their own weight, my issue was the fact that I used logic it seems


3. No, that is not correct. The only piece of writing that might (might) have inspired that was the notices on what happens at 0 strengthBut... that was what I said? Granted I said, "One or zero" but the 'or' gives me leeway in that statement?


No, it is not.Yes actually it is, but the problem is apparently just overthinking about reality


But he can move because, as has been said, body weight does not count against encumbrance. See above


"If you want to determine whether your character’s gear is heavy enough to slow him or her down more than the armor already does, total the weight of all the character’s items, including armor, weapons, and gear. Compare this total to the character’s Strength on Table: Carrying Capacity." [from srd]

Note that it does not mention your character's weight.Note that I never mentioned encumbrance


Might I suggest this might make more sense if you had some sleep?Ha, no this has been an issue on my mind for a while, and as stated by others, this will never make any sense, one just has to roll with it

tyckspoon
2011-01-11, 12:53 AM
Yet no one responded to my response about this, I think I said something about how all abilities are based off of the average human being at ten for each?


Your problem is assuming D&D stats make any kind of sense or are based on any kind of rational assumptions. They do not, and they are not. 10 is the average human score because it's roughly halfway between the two endpoints chosen for the scale. Don't be mislead by the seemingly-'realistic' charts for carrying capacity; pretty much anything related to stats outside maybe the 8-12 range only has functional meaning as a strict game construct. And as a game construct, creatures are not required to 'carry' their own body mass.

Gorgondantess
2011-01-11, 12:53 AM
But Joe the Commoner with a strength of six cannot carry his own body weight, while I can see that as possible, I don't see why Joe the Commoner would go out adventuring

Joe the Commoner wouldn't. But Joeythimus the Wizard who doesn't need strength because he uses his mind to do far more than a 22 strength water orc will? Hell yes he'll go adventuring. Actually, it would be reasonable for Joeythimus to have 6-8 strength- he lived a sedentary lifestyle.
Myself, I almost always make a character with a score below 10. Never intelligence, though, because I don't like playing stupid characters.
Also: I cannot benchpress my own body weight. Not even close. I do not consider this a problem. In fact, I think I'm pretty strong. A character with strength 15 who weighs over 200 lbs cannot lift his own body weight. Again, not a problem.

WarKitty
2011-01-11, 12:56 AM
I have yet to mention encumbrance, only that logic would tell me that if a human was as strong as a bird, they would be unable to support their own weight, my issue was the fact that I used logic it seems

It's an abstraction, yes. And probably one of the easier ones. If you want to bring actual physics into it...a huge monstrous spider shouldn't even be able to breathe, the body structure is wrong. It's best to ignore such things.

Greenish
2011-01-11, 12:59 AM
I would, however, agree that a guy with zero strength should not go adventuring, except under extraordinary circumstances.
Damn, now I want to play a str 0 psion.Occurred to me too.

Hmm, a telepath 5 for Telepathy (and Mindsight!), then Thrallherd to have people carry you around. :smalltongue:

Needs either Ring of Sustenance or the power (or the elan racial), since being spoon-fed by your thrall is a bit demeaning, not to mention the rest…

[Edit]: Or a kineticist with Control Body (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/controlBody.htm).

Hadessniper
2011-01-11, 12:59 AM
Yet no one responded to my response about this, I think I said something about how all abilities are based off of the average human being at ten for each?

From the SRD

Bigger and Smaller Creatures
The figures on Table: Carrying Capacity are for Medium bipedal creatures. A larger bipedal creature can carry more weight depending on its size category, as follows: Large ×2, Huge ×4, Gargantuan ×8, Colossal ×16. A smaller creature can carry less weight depending on its size category, as follows: Small ×¾, Tiny ×½, Diminutive ×¼, Fine ×1/8.

Quadrupeds can carry heavier loads than characters can. Instead of the multipliers given above, multiply the value corresponding to the creature’s Strength score from Table: Carrying Capacity by the appropriate modifier, as follows: Fine ×¼, Diminutive ×½, Tiny ×¾, Small ×1, Medium ×1½, Large ×3, Huge ×6, Gargantuan ×12, Colossal ×24.

AslanCross
2011-01-11, 12:59 AM
Your problem is assuming D&D stats make any kind of sense or are based on any kind of rational assumptions. They do not, and they are not. 10 is the average human score because it's roughly halfway between the two endpoints chosen for the scale. Don't be mislead by the seemingly-'realistic' charts for carrying capacity; pretty much anything related to stats outside maybe the 8-12 range only has functional meaning as a strict game construct. And as a game construct, creatures are not required to 'carry' their own body mass.

Truth.

In fact, Joe the Commoner with 10 Strength can lift 200 lbs off the ground and still move with it, albeit slowly staggering. I'm not sure how realistic that is, but I definitely couldn't do that.

felinoel
2011-01-11, 01:01 AM
Your problem is assuming D&D stats make any kind of sense or are based on any kind of rational assumptions. They do not, and they are not. 10 is the average human score because it's roughly halfway between the two endpoints chosen for the scale. Don't be mislead by the seemingly-'realistic' charts for carrying capacity; pretty much anything related to stats outside maybe the 8-12 range only has functional meaning as a strict game construct. And as a game construct, creatures are not required to 'carry' their own body mass.Already noted, thank you for your information


Joe the Commoner wouldn't. But Joeythimus the Wizard who doesn't need strength because he uses his mind to do far more than a 22 strength water orc will? Hell yes he'll go adventuring. Actually, it would be reasonable for Joeythimus to have 6-8 strength- he lived a sedentary lifestyle.
Myself, I almost always make a character with a score below 10. Never intelligence, though, because I don't like playing stupid characters.
Also: I cannot benchpress my own body weight. Not even close. I do not consider this a problem. In fact, I think I'm pretty strong. A character with strength 15 who weighs over 200 lbs cannot lift his own body weight. Again, not a problem.I built him as a Druid to have an animal companion drag him so he could move


It's an abstraction, yes. And probably one of the easier ones. If you want to bring actual physics into it...a huge monstrous spider shouldn't even be able to breathe, the body structure is wrong. It's best to ignore such things.What? I always figured that monstrous spiders had different internal anatomy then regular spiders?

WarKitty
2011-01-11, 01:04 AM
What? I always figured that monstrous spiders had different internal anatomy then regular spiders?

From what I understand, exoskeletons on terrestrial creatures past a certain size simply aren't physically possible. You could try "it's magic" or just handwave it. But with current physics, the amount of weight and thickness required to support the creature increases at a faster weight than the available space for muscle.

Hadessniper
2011-01-11, 01:05 AM
From the SRD

Bigger and Smaller Creatures
The figures on Table: Carrying Capacity are for Medium bipedal creatures. A larger bipedal creature can carry more weight depending on its size category, as follows: Large ×2, Huge ×4, Gargantuan ×8, Colossal ×16. A smaller creature can carry less weight depending on its size category, as follows: Small ×¾, Tiny ×½, Diminutive ×¼, Fine ×1/8.

Quadrupeds can carry heavier loads than characters can. Instead of the multipliers given above, multiply the value corresponding to the creature’s Strength score from Table: Carrying Capacity by the appropriate modifier, as follows: Fine ×¼, Diminutive ×½, Tiny ×¾, Small ×1, Medium ×1½, Large ×3, Huge ×6, Gargantuan ×12, Colossal ×24.

Quickly to add to this and to respond to your assertion that a bird has a strength of 6. A raven is tiny and has a strength of 1 meaning it's heavy load according to RAW is 5 pounds, but they are unable to fly past a light load which would be 1.5 lbs.

felinoel
2011-01-11, 01:07 AM
From the SRD

Bigger and Smaller Creatures
The figures on Table: Carrying Capacity are for Medium bipedal creatures. A larger bipedal creature can carry more weight depending on its size category, as follows: Large ×2, Huge ×4, Gargantuan ×8, Colossal ×16. A smaller creature can carry less weight depending on its size category, as follows: Small ×¾, Tiny ×½, Diminutive ×¼, Fine ×1/8.

Quadrupeds can carry heavier loads than characters can. Instead of the multipliers given above, multiply the value corresponding to the creature’s Strength score from Table: Carrying Capacity by the appropriate modifier, as follows: Fine ×¼, Diminutive ×½, Tiny ×¾, Small ×1, Medium ×1½, Large ×3, Huge ×6, Gargantuan ×12, Colossal ×24.I wasn't speaking of encumbrance
Truth.

In fact, Joe the Commoner with 10 Strength can lift 200 lbs off the ground and still move with it, albeit slowly staggering. I'm not sure how realistic that is, but I definitely couldn't do that.Have you checked your strength score? A couple years back someone showed me a site for converting yourself into a character sheet... sadly it was for GURPS though...


From what I understand, exoskeletons on terrestrial creatures past a certain size simply aren't physically possible. You could try "it's magic" or just handwave it. But with current physics, the amount of weight and thickness required to support the creature increases at a faster weight than the available space for muscle.I also assumed it was just magic, because how else did the spider get that big?


Quickly to add to this and to respond to your assertion that a bird has a strength of 6. A raven is tiny and has a strength of 1 meaning it's heavy load according to RAW is 5 pounds, but they are unable to fly past a light load which would be 1.5 lbs.It is not my assertion but the assertion of the players handbook in the area where it explains ability scores near the front

Hadessniper
2011-01-11, 01:18 AM
I wasn't speaking of encumbrance

Encumbrance is where it shows strength is relative to size category.


It is not my assertion but the assertion of the players handbook in the area where it explains ability scores near the front

It says hawk has a strength of six not a bird. A hawk is a rather powerful bird of prey.

Elfin
2011-01-11, 01:27 AM
Quickly to add to this and to respond to your assertion that a bird has a strength of 6. A raven is tiny and has a strength of 1 meaning it's heavy load according to RAW is 5 pounds, but they are unable to fly past a light load which would be 1.5 lbs.

Hm...so what would be the carrying capacity of a swallow?

Hadessniper
2011-01-11, 01:28 AM
Hm...so what would be the carrying capacity of a swallow?

Unfortunately the SRD does not include the swallow so we shall never know.

AslanCross
2011-01-11, 01:30 AM
I take most online tests with a grain of salt, especially ones that supposedly convert my real-life capabilities to an abstraction for use in games.

I suppose I could try lifting that much in the gym, sometime, but again I'd like to stress that this matter is taking "realism" too far and expecting "realistic" results from a game mechanic that isn't really meant to accurately model reality as it is meant to work as a game mechanic. It's why we have debates over Charisma vs attractiveness, Wisdom vs Intelligence, and even alignment debates.

To the point: By my calculations, a Great Wyrm Gold Dragon (47 Strength, weighing 1,280,000 lbs according to Draconomicon) can only carry 399,360 lbs. It shouldn't even be able to move, let alone fly. Let's not even get into what kind of wingspan and chest musculature it should have to be able to fly, or how insects are incredibly strong proportionate to their body size.

My friend, the point really is that D&D stats are abstractions. View them broadly, and don't expect them to make any sense. If you want to play a quadriplegic character, you need to have 0 Strength for you to be truly unable to move. With 6 Strength, maybe you could just stay in your bed and prefer not to move. I'm not saying it can't be done.

Btw: Vampire Hunter D has a bedridden character who uses astral projection to blow stuff up, which admittedly is an awesome character concept. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78kXtCH8oD0)

turkishproverb
2011-01-11, 01:34 AM
Hm...so what would be the carrying capacity of a swallow?

What do you mean? An African or a European swallow?

Toliudar
2011-01-11, 01:49 AM
I wasn't speaking of encumbrance

To be absolutely clear on this:


Encumbrance is what determines what you can and can't carry.

You do not include your own weight when calculating encumbrance.

Your first post asks for clarification about whether you can move with a strength of 6. This is determined by encumbrance. Several posts have confirmed this.


Since I'm currently playing a druid with a strength of six, I can absolutely confirm that is no significant impediment to her success.

Jsuelieta
2011-01-11, 02:00 AM
Consider your average guy on the street. Gets regular exercise but doesn't strength train. This guy is your str 8.

Consider a (for lack of a better example) unloader for a store, the guys who have to lift relatively large and cumbersome boxes regularly and can still move around with them. These are your str 10+ guys.

Consider your stereotypical computer gamer. The potentially out of shape, perhaps heavier than they'd like, sits for 80% of their waking day people. These people have scores of 6 or less.

Consider octogenarians, the ones with a bad back, using a cane to get around, need help getting in and out of bed occasionally. These are your people with scores of four or less, potentially clear down to 1 where they do good to move and hold the television remote or book.

What do all these people have in common? Well, aside from the octogenarian who might have brittle bones and bad balance, they can all support their own body weight and walk. The ones without the strength to actually stand up and move are the ones who are extremely unhealthy (the half-ton man for example), are ill (if you've EVER had the flu, you know what I mean), poisoned or have had bodily damage beyond what can be recovered with any non-magical speed.

The short version: Barring being crippled by design, a strength of six will still hold someone up under their own weight and still allow them to carry a little stuff. Gotta keep in mind that just in the act of walking you build your leg strength to hold yourself up, but not necessarily to hold other things. Now, if you have pitiful str, dex AND con, you might just have an excuse to not move much.

Sillycomic
2011-01-11, 04:12 AM
I'm not sure if your legitimately asking if your character is able to walk in the game, or if this is just sarcasm grumbles because your DM won't let you reroll a 6.

Meh, I'll just assume you looked at your STR score and were legitimately worried about how you're going to get around in the game.

Well, how about this?


Strength (Str)

Strength measures your character’s muscle and physical power. This ability is especially important for fighters, barbarians, paladins, rangers, and monks because it helps them prevail in combat. Strength also limits the amount of equipment your character can carry.

You apply your character’s Strength modifier to:

* Melee attack rolls.
* Damage rolls when using a melee weapon or a thrown weapon (including a sling). (Exceptions: Off-hand attacks receive only one-half the character’s Strength bonus, while two-handed attacks receive one and a half times the Strength bonus. A Strength penalty, but not a bonus, applies to attacks made with a bow that is not a composite bow.)
* Climb, Jump, and Swim checks. These are the skills that have Strength as their key ability.
* Strength checks (for breaking down doors and the like).

Strength helps when you're fighting, for attack and damage.
Strength helps when you are carrying gear around.
Strength helps certain skills such as jumping, swimming and climbing.
Strength helps for breaking down doors.

A person with a 6 strength won't be able to do any of those things very well... HOWEVER, he is still able to walk.

There's no walking skill. There's no walking check. There's no rules about walking specifically, aside from spells or abilities that help with speed or hinder you altogether.

The fact that you have the strength of a hawk doesn't tell you how weak you are, it tells you how strong hawks are. Seriously, those things weigh 2 pounds, and they're able to fly... FLY with a 4 pound jackrabbit in their talons. Seriously! That's a bad ass strength check right there.

I wouldn't mess with a hawk if I saw him do that.

Edit: Actually the SRD does have rules on walking:


Local Movement

Characters exploring an area use local movement, measured in feet per minute.

Walk
A character can walk without a problem on the local scale.

Hustle
A character can hustle without a problem on the local scale. See Overland Movement, below, for movement measured in miles per hour.

Run
A character with a Constitution score of 9 or higher can run for a minute without a problem. Generally, a character can run for a minute or two before having to rest for a minute.


Overland Movement

Characters covering long distances cross-country use overland movement. Overland movement is measured in miles per hour or miles per day. A day represents 8 hours of actual travel time. For rowed watercraft, a day represents 10 hours of rowing. For a sailing ship, it represents 24 hours.

Walk
A character can walk 8 hours in a day of travel without a problem. Walking for longer than that can wear him or her out (see Forced March, below).


This states that any character can walk around, regardless of their low Strength score (apart from the 0 or 1 that was mentioned earlier)

This also says that CON would be the score that determines walking around, not STR. When it comes to running (you know... fast walking) you need a decent CON score in order to do it for more than a minute.

felinoel
2011-01-11, 11:51 AM
Encumbrance is where it shows strength is relative to size category.


It says hawk has a strength of six not a bird. A hawk is a rather powerful bird of prey.My second post I clarified that because someone showed a picture of a bird carrying a human, my apologies that you did not see that


I take most online tests with a grain of salt, especially ones that supposedly convert my real-life capabilities to an abstraction for use in games.The GURPS one was pretty fun?


I suppose I could try lifting that much in the gym, sometime, but again I'd like to stress that this matter is taking "realism" too far and expecting "realistic" results from a game mechanic that isn't really meant to accurately model reality as it is meant to work as a game mechanic. It's why we have debates over Charisma vs attractiveness, Wisdom vs Intelligence, and even alignment debates.It was a combination of weight and reps for strength. I always took Charisma to be a combination of physical beauty and mental aptitude? To make one less ability it was just easier to combine two things that go by the same name? Alignment I can understand debates on, certain alignments aren't played as they should be...


To the point: By my calculations, a Great Wyrm Gold Dragon (47 Strength, weighing 1,280,000 lbs according to Draconomicon) can only carry 399,360 lbs. It shouldn't even be able to move, let alone fly. Let's not even get into what kind of wingspan and chest musculature it should have to be able to fly, or how insects are incredibly strong proportionate to their body size. I always figured that since dragons were beings of magic... that they used magic for that?


My friend, the point really is that D&D stats are abstractions. View them broadly, and don't expect them to make any sense. If you want to play a quadriplegic character, you need to have 0 Strength for you to be truly unable to move. With 6 Strength, maybe you could just stay in your bed and prefer not to move. I'm not saying it can't be done.Upon noting of my inability to move and the fact that I was going to my animal companion to drag me, the DM declared that my animal companion is now a field mouse... I don't know if I am going to play this campaign anymore


Btw: Vampire Hunter D has a bedridden character who uses astral projection to blow stuff up, which admittedly is an awesome character concept. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78kXtCH8oD0)Yes, totally awesome character concept


To be absolutely clear on this:


Encumbrance is what determines what you can and can't carry.

You do not include your own weight when calculating encumbrance.

Your first post asks for clarification about whether you can move with a strength of 6. This is determined by encumbrance. Several posts have confirmed this.


Since I'm currently playing a druid with a strength of six, I can absolutely confirm that is no significant impediment to her success.You quoted me saying I wasn't speaking of encumbrance and then you reply to it about encumbrance? Yes I know encumbrance determines whether or not you can carry something, but you don't carry yourself?


Consider your average guy on the street. Gets regular exercise but doesn't strength train. This guy is your str 8.

Consider a (for lack of a better example) unloader for a store, the guys who have to lift relatively large and cumbersome boxes regularly and can still move around with them. These are your str 10+ guys. You sure? I would have thought the average guy was a strength of 10, since the strength score is based off of the average human?


Consider your stereotypical computer gamer. The potentially out of shape, perhaps heavier than they'd like, sits for 80% of their waking day people. These people have scores of 6 or less.Hey no fair, I may sit for 80% of my waking day, but 15% I spend at the gym to compensate and to not get unhealthy! =b


Consider octogenarians, the ones with a bad back, using a cane to get around, need help getting in and out of bed occasionally. These are your people with scores of four or less, potentially clear down to 1 where they do good to move and hold the television remote or book.

What do all these people have in common? Well, aside from the octogenarian who might have brittle bones and bad balance, they can all support their own body weight and walk. The ones without the strength to actually stand up and move are the ones who are extremely unhealthy (the half-ton man for example), are ill (if you've EVER had the flu, you know what I mean), poisoned or have had bodily damage beyond what can be recovered with any non-magical speed.

The short version: Barring being crippled by design, a strength of six will still hold someone up under their own weight and still allow them to carry a little stuff. Gotta keep in mind that just in the act of walking you build your leg strength to hold yourself up, but not necessarily to hold other things. Now, if you have pitiful str, dex AND con, you might just have an excuse to not move much.The problem is that while walking, my character's leg strength is determined by his overall strength, which brings me back to someone else's point that this game is abstract, and in that their leg strength is that of six, it is six because of the walking, walking is training for building up your strength... kinda


I'm not sure if your legitimately asking if your character is able to walk in the game, or if this is just sarcasm grumbles because your DM won't let you reroll a 6. I was legitimately asking because such a thing could not register in my mind as something that should be allowed in the rules


Meh, I'll just assume you looked at your STR score and were legitimately worried about how you're going to get around in the game.

Well, how about this?



Strength helps when you're fighting, for attack and damage.
Strength helps when you are carrying gear around.
Strength helps certain skills such as jumping, swimming and climbing.
Strength helps for breaking down doors.

A person with a 6 strength won't be able to do any of those things very well... HOWEVER, he is still able to walk.

There's no walking skill. There's no walking check. There's no rules about walking specifically, aside from spells or abilities that help with speed or hinder you altogether. My problem was that I approached the issue logically


The fact that you have the strength of a hawk doesn't tell you how weak you are, it tells you how strong hawks are. Seriously, those things weigh 2 pounds, and they're able to fly... FLY with a 4 pound jackrabbit in their talons. Seriously! That's a bad ass strength check right there.

I wouldn't mess with a hawk if I saw him do that.Four pounds is not much when you weigh 150 pounds...



Edit: Actually the SRD does have rules on walking:




This states that any character can walk around, regardless of their low Strength score (apart from the 0 or 1 that was mentioned earlier)

This also says that CON would be the score that determines walking around, not STR. When it comes to running (you know... fast walking) you need a decent CON score in order to do it for more than a minute.Where does it state this? I guess that kind of makes sense...

Pink
2011-01-11, 11:59 AM
You're not approaching this logically, you're approaching it stubbornly. You're assuming a rule that doesn't exist and ignoring all evidence to the contrary, for reasons I cannot fathom other than making a big issue about having a character with a low stat.

Again, 10 is average. Average itself is a number that doesn't necessarily appear as often as you'd think, it's made up of a wide range of numbers. In theory, the average person is rarer than the total below average people and the total above average people. That mean's you're more likely to find someone with a strength score below 10 than you are to find someone with a strength score at 10.

This isn't even covering the nonsense you just spouted about a person's ability to walk being intrinsically tied to their total strength. A person who can barely lift a sack of flour can walk just as good as a person who can bench press 200 lbs.

KillianHawkeye
2011-01-11, 12:30 PM
For the last time:

Only characters with a Strength score of 0 are too weak to move! At no time does body weight enter into the equation. Is this realistic or logical? No, because this a game. Just play the dang game!

Pentachoron
2011-01-11, 12:37 PM
If your character has a strength of six why the heck are you having them weigh 150lbs? Typically you should probably have the characters weight be relative to your strength and constitution scores.

That said, yeah back on encumbrance the fact that they even give a carrying capacity for a medium creature at strength six means you can walk around just fine normally (i.e. If you couldn't walk around with nothing you certainly couldn't also walk around holding things)

Also, you're basing this whole thread on the fact that they gave a hawk a strength score of 6? Well as it turns out WotC messed a lot of things up in 3.5, ignoring just the tier system they've got spells that are just plain broken, feats and skills that are broken, hell they have classes that are broken. Despite all that you really trust them to accurately represent the ability scores of real world animals?

Spiryt
2011-01-11, 12:43 PM
Also, you're basing this whole thread on the fact that they gave a hawk a strength score of 6? Well as it turns out WotC messed a lot of things up in 3.5, ignoring just the tier system they've got spells that are just plain broken, feats and skills that are broken, hell they have classes that are broken. Despite all that you really trust them to accurately represent the ability scores of real world animals?

There's not enough numbers from - 5 penalty to + 15 bonus to represent big range of animals and stuff if humans alone can easily be from - 1 to + 4.... And like that it absolutely fails at representing different humans too.

3.5 system is just bloody simple and abstract, it's not probably any fault anyway, as it's not supposed to be stimulation at all.

I don't really think they tried hard at representing different animals at all, as it's not even possible with few numbers that constitute "Monster stats".

It's just people think way too much about it. :smallwink:

Fiery Diamond
2011-01-11, 12:45 PM
You're not approaching this logically, you're approaching it stubbornly. You're assuming a rule that doesn't exist and ignoring all evidence to the contrary, for reasons I cannot fathom other than making a big issue about having a character with a low stat.

Again, 10 is average. Average itself is a number that doesn't necessarily appear as often as you'd think, it's made up of a wide range of numbers. In theory, the average person is rarer than the total below average people and the total above average people. That mean's you're more likely to find someone with a strength score below 10 than you are to find someone with a strength score at 10.

This isn't even covering the nonsense you just spouted about a person's ability to walk being intrinsically tied to their total strength. A person who can barely lift a sack of flour can walk just as good as a person who can bench press 200 lbs.

What this person said. Let me see if I can clear things up for you:

-Strength is relative to size. A tiny creature with 6 Str is weaker than a medium creature with 6 Str is weaker than a huge creature with 6 Str. The Encumbrance multipliers that someone listed are the place in the rules where is specifies this. You seem to not be able to grasp this, as you were like "but carrying four pounds as a medium creature is lame, not awesome like for the hawk!"

-Strength is used to determine a wide array of things. Melee attack rolls, melee damage, certain physical skills, anything where you "roll a Str check" such as breaking down a door, and for carrying capacity/encumbrance.
-Strength is NOT, however, used to determine anything at all about your physical ability outside of those things. It is NOT used to determine whether you can walk, or how fast you can walk, or how quick you can run. The only time where Str affects any of those things is when Str is 0, rendering you immobile. There is no middle ground.

-You continue to harp on how you're not talking about encumbrance. You ARE talking about encumbrance! ANYTHING related to weight that affects your movement (as opposed to, say, entanglement affecting your movement) IS ENCUMBRANCE. There is nothing related to weight or your strength, apart from encumbrance, that determines whether you can move/walk and how quickly you can move/walk.
-As others have said, your body weight and the weight of your clothing does not factor into encumbrance. Therefore, you could be 500000000000000000000000000 lbs and have a Str score of 1, by RAW (rules as written) and still be able to walk. While this extreme example is unrealistic, the situation that you are in is not.
-Using one of those score calculator things, I've determined that my Str is around 6 in real life. I'm the opposite of strong. Comparing the weight limits on the encumbrance table to what I think are my capabilities, I think it's fairly accurate to say that I have a Str of 6. Can I still walk and run? Yes. Would I strike you as being physically disabled? Absolutely not. I'm not disabled at all. In fact, I'm in better shape than a lot of people, due to the fact that my Con is fairly close to 10. (oh, and I weigh about 145 lbs.)

edit to add since people posted while I was typing:


If your character has a strength of six why the heck are you having them weigh 150lbs?

I have a Str of 6 and weigh about that much. (I'm also 6 feet tall.)

randomhero00
2011-01-11, 01:19 PM
Shrug, I've seen some very petite women who probably have str scores of 6ish. But if they could cast spells that go boom, I don't see why they wouldn't go adventuring.

Sillycomic
2011-01-11, 01:26 PM
Here is a link to the SRD that specifically says you can walk around and there's no rule (or low score) that prevents you from doing so.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/movement.htm

In your D&D book, there is an entire section on Movement, Position and Distance that will tell you the exact same thing, it starts on page 146.

Also, the SRD has this to say, which I think sums up the argument quite nicely.


Moving Around In Squares

In general, when the characters aren’t engaged in round-by-round combat, they should be able to move anywhere and in any manner that you can imagine real people could. A 5-foot square, for instance, can hold several characters; they just can’t all fight effectively in that small space. The rules for movement are important for combat, but outside combat they can impose unnecessary hindrances on character activities.

As far as thinking of things logically? In D&D?

Goodness, first of all you're killing so many catgirls right now.

Secondly, you're playing a character that can talk to animals, make animals appear out of thin air and will be fighting random monsters for lewts and XP... not sure why you hit the logic button on the subject of walking.

Grelna the Blue
2011-01-11, 01:44 PM
My current character is converted to Pathfinder but made it from 1st to 13th level in 3.5 (wizard 11/rogue 2), despite starting out with two rolled stats of 7. Her current stat lineup:

STR: 7
DEX:12
CON:14 (level bumped at 4th level from 13)
INT: 23 (27 w/item, and 23 counts +2 inherent bonus from stat Tome, +2 Pathfinder racial bonus, and level bump at 12th level from 18)
WIS: 8 (level bumped at 8th level from 7)
CHA:14

Khefernatra would not be even close to the fun character she is if she had started with all her stats at 10 or over. Her low Wisdom has given me the excuse to play her as far more reckless and overconfident than any mage has a natural right to be. Her low strength gave me an excuse to make her extremely small and thin, which just makes it funnier and more dramatic when she fearlessly stands toe to toe with rampaging trolls and whatnot. She has gotten around her low Strength by creating items of holding and a Blessed Book and has taken other feats to allow her to actually survive the risks she takes (Insightful Reflexes, for one). No, she's not optimized, but she's very believably human and her flaws just make her triumphs more impressive.

I level boosted her Wisdom by one point at 8th level to reflect character growth. In retrospect, it made sense and I'd do it again, but from a min-max perspective it was completely unnecessary. She got a +1 on Wisdom based skills (her maxed Spot, mostly) and on Will saves. Nice, but I'd have gotten even more from putting it in Intelligence, her prime stat. The prime stat for any character and maybe Constitution are the only ones it's absolutely vital to have above average. The others are just gravy.

Foryn Gilnith
2011-01-11, 02:17 PM
My problem was that I approached the issue logically.

Your problem is that you have flawed premises or an inability to accept the logical conclusions. Most people approach most problems logically; if you have a problem with the results, the premises from which your logic is derived do not correspond to reality, or you have a problem with reality itself.

Sperging aside, based on 3d6 bell curves, a Strength 6 is anywhere from the 10th percentile to the 20th percentile. About the bottom sixth of humanity as far as strength goes. Looking at the weakest 1/6th of the people I know, I can safely say that they're functional in society, even with heavy student backpacks. :P

Frozen_Feet
2011-01-11, 02:55 PM
I've always approached this by presuming strenght always accounts for bodyweight, and strenght only plays part when it comes to extra burdens. Which is actually how it works in real life - a wiry, light guy can easily run, encumbered, as fast as a strong guy who's unecumbered. However, give both 30 kg backpack, and the strong guy will be bothered less.

It's about relative and absolute strenght. A fit gal weighing 50 kg and lifting 100 kg would be stronger in relation to her bodywieght than a guy weighing 80 kg and lifting 130 kg, even though his absolute strenght is greater. This is how I percieve the above example of the Great Wyrm, too - it's massive strenght score and ability to move its bulk indicate its absolute strength, even if it's pretty weak in relation to its own bodyweight. That's how it works for all big animals in reality too, due to square-cube law - of course, the Wyrm breaks that by being too large to begin with, but hey.

felinoel
2011-01-11, 03:47 PM
You're not approaching this logically, you're approaching it stubbornly. You're assuming a rule that doesn't exist and ignoring all evidence to the contrary, for reasons I cannot fathom other than making a big issue about having a character with a low stat.

Again, 10 is average. Average itself is a number that doesn't necessarily appear as often as you'd think, it's made up of a wide range of numbers. In theory, the average person is rarer than the total below average people and the total above average people. That mean's you're more likely to find someone with a strength score below 10 than you are to find someone with a strength score at 10.

This isn't even covering the nonsense you just spouted about a person's ability to walk being intrinsically tied to their total strength. A person who can barely lift a sack of flour can walk just as good as a person who can bench press 200 lbs.I don't see how I am being stubborn? Someone quoted the rules stating that walking is a con check not a str check and I accepted that? Why do people keep replying here? I already changed the title of the thread to ANSWERED last night yet people keep posting? How do I lock the thread?!

Mystic Muse
2011-01-11, 03:49 PM
I don't see how I am being stubborn? Someone quoted the rules stating that walking is a con check not a str check and I accepted that? Why do people keep replying here? I already changed the title of the thread to ANSWERED last night yet people keep posting? How do I lock the thread?!

look for the red triangle below your post and report it saying that you want the thread locked and why.

The Glyphstone
2011-01-11, 03:59 PM
Great Modthulhu: Question answered, thread closed.