If two humanoids have same Strenght and different size...

[Conradine]

Sure, the bigger one is heavier and can easily push / trip / pin the smaller but, if the Strenght is more or less the same and the size difference is great ( two or more sizes ) shouldn't the small creature be able to rend and crush easily bit of flesh from the bigger one?

For example, if I fought with a 2 feet pixie that somehow is as Strong as me, I would have many advantages like reach and weight but if he happens to grab my skin he would lacerate it, because it would be all the strenght of a man concentrated in 1 centimeter of flesh.

[InvisibleBison]

Isn't this reflected in the creature applying its Strength bonus to its unarmed strike damage?

[Darg]

Larger creatures have a size bonus to strength and smaller creatures have a penalty. If they have equal strength then they are just as strong. One's ability to rip flesh has nothing to do with size. The most important ability of having force focused on a smaller area is it's increased penetration. Mass is also just as important as it increases the inertia as well. Less mass means more easily slowed or stopped.

I agree that this is portrayed as the strength bonus to damage and I can't think of any other way to portray it properly without complex physics calculations (each weapon is made differently, even between those of the same type).

[Khedrac]

It's also portrayed as the to-hit bonus/penalty from size.

Remember, doing hit point damage does not automatically mean drawing blood; but neither does drawing blood automatically mean doing hit point damage.

[hamishspence]

Lifting capacity will be lower, and base damage from natural weapons lower, all other things being equal.

A cat that has its strength boosted (maybe by magic or by being an advanced familiar, is still not going to do as much damage as a leopard with the same Strength, nor will it be able to lift as much.

Similar principles apply to humanoids.

[Fitz10019]

You have a point, but it lands in one of D&D's grey areas.

So imagine a pixie and a human of equal strength (even after size adjustments) punching an ogre...

I think the damage from a pixie punch would go deeper than the human's punch, due to the smaller surface impact area. It would do more internal damage than the human's punch, like bone cracking or organ bruising. However, D&D does not distinguish between internal and external damage, as it does not even define where on the body a strike lands.

I suggest you color your narration with this concept, but not make house rules around it.

[AntiAuthority]

Thinking on it for a bit... I'd lean towards no, myself. I'm all for Strength letting you do incredible things like that, especially in a fantasy game, but the game implies that size matters more. The larger you are, the higher your damage dice and the more mass you can throw around. While I'm against realism in a fantasy game, there's a reason weight divisions exist in real life, because a heavyweight is throwing around a lot more mass than a featherweight and their punches do more damage as a result. That said... The game rules seem to imply that Strength mostly matters in being proportionate to your size, as opposed to the number being the end all be all.

Reminds me of something I read a while ago in regards to the stats in the game. I think the issue lies with how Strength isn't a static value like Intelligence, Charisma or Wisdom, there's always a but involved. Slight rambling coming up ahead.

A human and some other creature like an Ancient Red Dragon for example can both have an Intelligence of 30, meaning they get +10 to rolls regarding intelligence, they both get 10 extra skill points, etc... Doesn't matter how much older the Ancient Red Dragon is compared to the human and likely has more experience from age, they both get the same benefits from the same number. Sure, the dragon's a dragon and naturally more intelligent, but if it and the human tried the same things, assuming similar skill sets, HD, etc. should be capable of comparable stunts.

Meanwhile, you have Strength and you can have a Medium Sized creature with a Strength of 30 and a Colossal Creature with a Strength of 30. You both get +10 to hit and to deal extra damage, but the larger creature has a higher carrying capacity, but it has a higher set of damage dice from its size, but it has an easier time grappling the same targets, but quadrupeds have an even higher carrying capacity than bipeds, but you can't use weapons of this size category (even if your score is higher than the thing swinging them around, this especially is what I mean) etc.

Even with other physical stats like Dexterity, which are modified by your size category... It doesn't come with the same buts as Strength for example. It's pretty much a static number for what you can do across the board after it's modified for your size category. For a very rough example, a lion has a higher dexterity score than a mouse after the size modifier is taken into account, so it's more stealthy despite being hundreds of pounds heavier. Two wildly different animals can have the same Dexterity score and do comparable things with it, not the same score and a bunch of buts setting apart what it can and can't do with it from other beings with the same score.

Maybe if Strength was only modified by your size category (along with being bipedal vs quadrupedal), but after that, you could grapple, deal the same damage, etc. as something else with the same score as something much bigger than you... Say you and a giant both have the same Strength score, despite being smaller, you can deal the same amount of damage, lift the same amount of weight, etc. as the giant because you're just that strong. Then it might fit in better with the other stats, but it's sort of the odd man out at the moment.

In general though, I'm personally supportive with how you interpreted the way the Strength stat to be the same strength, just focused down onto a narrower area.

[Sneak Dog]

Strength is messy in Pathfinder and 3.5. It doesn't represent strength on its own. One can measure strength with how much one can lift and how well one can crush objects. Size modifies both of the most obvious ways to measure strength.

So it's really hard to say when a pixie and a human are equally strong, when they've the same strength (strength) or when the pixie has 8 more strength (breaking objects), or when the pixie has 2 more strength (carry capacity).


Reminds me of something I read a while ago in regards to the stats in the game. I think the issue lies with how Strength isn't a static value like Intelligence, Charisma or Wisdom, there's always a but involved. Slight rambling coming up ahead.

[Gruftzwerg]

I would like to point out that in 3.5 equal STR score doesn't always result in the same strength..^^

e.g. carrying capacity is also modified by size. Which means, that a smaller creature needs a higher STR score, to have the same strength as a bigger one.

Same can be said for grappling and other special combat maneuvers where size makes a difference in strength.

You need to view the STR score always in context of the situation that occurs. Otherwise it will lead into logical dead ends like in your chase (no offense here ;)

[Conradine]

What I mean is that, to be able to muster so much strenght with such a little body mass without breaking himself, the smaller being must be way tougher and denser.

Yes, I can slap the pixie 10 feet away because he weights so little, but if I grabbed it in my hands he should be able to pierce them.

[AntiAuthority]

What I mean is that, to be able to muster so much strenght with such a little body mass without breaking himself, the smaller being must be way tougher and denser.

Yes, I can slap the pixie 10 feet away because he weights so little, but if I grabbed it in my hands he should be able to pierce them.

In general, if I can grab a Pixie and it has the strength to kill me in a single (or even several) blows from physical strength alone, yes, it probably does have insanely dense muscles and a body capable of supporting it without destroying itself. Reminds me of a tug o war match between an orangutan and a sumo wrestler... The sumo had way more weight, but the orangutan, like most great apes, had far stronger muscles, despite the weight and size difference.

I suppose this is a fairly long way of saying... Realistically, yes, if a pixie can hit a grown adult human hard enough to kill them in a single blow (Commoners have 6 HP, for example, and a Medium gun does 1d6 damage.... and if the Pixie has +6 from Strength damage alone...), they're definitely super strong for their size and their fingers/fists probably would be more akin to knives/bullets carving through flesh after a point.

[gijoemike]

The size category difference is what is so important in this distinction.

Say the 2 size categories are Diminutive and Small. Lets take the top height and weight for the Diminutive size. 1 ft tall and 1 lb. A 1 ft^3 cube.

A small creature is up to 4 ft tall and 60 lbs on the max values. But lets take the minimum values instead just to make a point. 2 ft and 8 lb.

That means a creature that is only 2 times as tall/wide and is 8 times heavier. Or 2ft x2ft x2ft cube or 8ft^3 cube. This means that the density of the small creature is the same Diminutive creature as it works out to be 1 unit of density per cubic foot. This disproves the entire premise of what you are proposing. The pixie punching something just as dense as another pixie. There is no bone crunching, organ stabbing.

And it only gets worse as the small creature goes up in weight. A 2 ft tall 32 lb creature would be 4 times as dense. Now the pixie is punching a concrete wall and is at an extreme disadvantage.


The pixie is just really really strong and the larger creature is just average strength. But the pixie is not a flying bullet of gore.