Am I understanding this right? What do they mean by lifting?

[BoutsofInsanity]

I'm really concerned with Lifting here. It says 30 times your strength score.

What do they mean when they say lifting? Are they clean and jerks, deadlifting, or just picking something up over your head?

Because this definition matters a lot.

The world record for lifting something of your head is around 468 lbs. That's the strongest person alive, with effort, able to do that a couple of times.

The rules seem to state that when doing so, there isn't a check or effort involved outside of just stating "I lift it."

A 20 strength is 600 lbs of lifting capacity with no effort. If that's the definition, that's superhuman. By rules, the Strongest men alive today have only a 16 strength score.

Is this the read you all have on it?

[KorvinStarmast]

Yes a 20 STR is superhuman. (Ogres only have a 19 STR).
I don't see the problem. D&D 5e isn't a life simulation.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm really concerned with Lifting here. It says 30 times your strength score.

What do they mean when they say lifting? Are they clean and jerks, deadlifting, or just picking something up over your head?

None of the above. They mean lifting, in the sense that you'd say you lift a couch when helping someone move. Not in the specific weight-lifting-as-sport move sense. I'd imagine most of the time you're picking something up and putting it on your shoulder or carrying it propped against your waist.

And yes, that's a fair amount of weight. Heck, a STR 10 person can carry (without slowing down) 150 lbs. Which is a heck of a pack--most combat gear for modern militaries (which causes significant strain for those people who are stronger than average) aren't 150 lbs on a regular basis.

The standard encumbrance is basically a fail-safe, something to be invoked if the party says they're going to do something crazy like "lift that multi-ton statue" or "pick up the elephant to see what's underneath". Not something to be invoked on a regular basis.

As KorvinStarmast says, it's not a simulator.

[Demonslayer666]

Deadlifting would be the closest fit to this figure. It's not over your head, because, as you know, there is a big difference between the dead lift and military press. It's what you can lift and barely move (or push or pull).

If you really need to distinguish (they lift it over their head), just make up a DC and have them roll to see if they do it.

[Unoriginal]

I'm really concerned with Lifting here. It says 30 times your strength score.

What do they mean when they say lifting? Are they clean and jerks, deadlifting, or just picking something up over your head?

Because this definition matters a lot.

The world record for lifting something of your head is around 468 lbs. That's the strongest person alive, with effort, able to do that a couple of times.

The rules seem to state that when doing so, there isn't a check or effort involved outside of just stating "I lift it."

A 20 strength is 600 lbs of lifting capacity with no effort. If that's the definition, that's superhuman. By rules, the Strongest men alive today have only a 16 strength score.

Is this the read you all have on it?

To add to what KorvinStarmast and PhoenixPhyre said:

Lifting an exceptional weight a couple time over your head with effort would likely be a Strength check with Athleticism proficiency applying. So that's not an indicator of a real-life human having STR 16 or the like.

You can compare statblocks. A STR 16 Human is as strong as an Ape. A DEX 16 Human is more agile than a Tiger (or a Cat, for that matter). A CON 16 is more resilient in the face of effort than an Ox. All of those things are pretty superhuman.

Even more comparison: a human Commoner has 10 in all stats. A lvl 1 human adventurer can have 16 in a stat even with the generic stat line.


Real-life humans are not D&D humans, D&D humans are not real-life humans.

There is a reason why the "Guy at the Gym" (aka, asserting that RPG characters cannot do X because a real-life fit human couldn't do it) is a fallacy.

[Greywander]

It's also not necessarily no effort, but low effort. D&D isn't the type of game to make you roll a DEX check to walk up the stairs without tripping, even though on rare occasions people do trip on the stairs. Lifting a modest amount of weight is considered trivial, not worth rolling for. You don't want to slow the game down with unnecessary rolls, nor do you want to derail the game by having players fail these randomly called checks. Only call for a roll when there's a non-trivial chance of failure (or success) and when the consequences for failure are noteworthy. For example, if the rogue has all day to pick a simple lock, don't bother calling for a check. You only call for a check when the lock is difficult and there's a guard about a to round the corner and see the rogue.

That said, 600 lbs isn't exactly "trivial". But that's the benefit of having superhuman strength. And as PhoenixPhyre said, it's probably just meant as a failsafe in case the players try to do something stupid like picking up an object that weighs thousands of pounds. D&D doesn't seem to be heavy on inventory management, they just want a rule on the books so you can't literally walk off with the entire dungeon.

[Willie the Duck]

Is this the read you all have on it?

My take is this: -- D&D used to have more rigorous rules for encumbrance and lifting, including encumbrance (what you can carry and keep carrying), lifting over head, max press, max drag, as well as hyper-specific rules for things like bending prison bars and lifting castle gates/portcullises. This shows what the designers thought was going to come up in a standard game*.
*including that the earliest games had encumbrance bands in terms of 'coins'

5e has just the barest rules about carrying and lifting, which tells me that it isn't a primary concern for the rules. Further, the game hews pretty far away from defining consistently exactly how realistic/cinematic/ridiculous the physical limits of magic-unaided physical acts. 3e nailed that down with specific DCs for jumping specific distances and things like that and 5e rather notable (and to the chagrin of some gamers) chose not to do this again. To me this means they really don't want to bother with answering the question of at what strength is a PC stronger than the strongest men alive today.

[KorvinStarmast]

My take is this:

A much more eloquent answer than mine, and a useful one. +1.

[BoutsofInsanity]

My take is this: -- D&D used to have more rigorous rules for encumbrance and lifting, including encumbrance (what you can carry and keep carrying), lifting over head, max press, max drag, as well as hyper-specific rules for things like bending prison bars and lifting castle gates/portcullises. This shows what the designers thought was going to come up in a standard game*.
*including that the earliest games had encumbrance bands in terms of 'coins'

5e has just the barest rules about carrying and lifting, which tells me that it isn't a primary concern for the rules. Further, the game hews pretty far away from defining consistently exactly how realistic/cinematic/ridiculous the physical limits of magic-unaided physical acts. 3e nailed that down with specific DCs for jumping specific distances and things like that and 5e rather notable (and to the chagrin of some gamers) chose not to do this again. To me this means they really don't want to bother with answering the question of at what strength is a PC stronger than the strongest men alive today.

See and the reason I want to have this question answered is that if my read on it, which is just to grab something 600 lbs, and lift it above the head with little effort (IE not requiring a skill check) is true, it really helps define what strength can do in the game.

The strongest men alive today, cannot do that. And that has serious implications on what a 20 strength character means in the game and game world.

It allows for easy extrapolation for what's allowed at the table based on design. Someone that strong can just, do things. It's not out of the question at that point. I was hoping someone had found somewhere them talking about what Lifting meant. A deadlift isn't the same as a straight overhead press. Further, a deadlift is a pull strength which is different than a push strength.

I again agree, they should have put some damn examples for what some of this stuff can do. Oh well.

[CMCC]

Yes a 20 STR is superhuman. (Ogres only have a 19 STR).
I don't see the problem. D&D 5e isn't a life simulation.

There should be some level of realism and frames of reference to the real world. Ideally.

[KorvinStarmast]

See and the reason I want to have this question answered is that if my read on it, which is just to grab something 600 lbs, and lift it above the head with little effort (IE not requiring a skill check) is true, it really helps define what strength can do in the game.

Check out the Goliath Player race, and the Totem Barbarian Bear Totem 6th level feature. The both have features that can double what can be lifted, dragged, etc.

The strongest men alive today, cannot do that.

Doesn't matter at all. You are falling prey to the guy at the gym fallacy.

And that has serious implications on what a 20 strength character means in the game and game world.

Stronger than an ogre, which is a small giant.

My suggestion: stop over thinking this. Overthinking is a trap that all of us can fall into - goodness knows that I have many times.

Lastly: D&D PC's are "a little larger than life" in any case.

@CMCC: rough equivalence is a far more game friendly approach than hard simulation. As Dave Wesley pointed out, as regards to game features versus reality/realism, you need to find a balance point such that the game is playable. Too much realism clogs it up and detracts from playability.

I've been down the overemphasis-on-simulationism path: D&D 5e is not the right vehicle for that. Playability matters.

[CMCC]

Check out the Goliath Player race, and the Totem Barbarian Bear Totem 6th level feature. The both have features that can double what can be lifted, dragged, etc.
Doesn't matter at all. You are falling prey to the guy at the gym fallacy.
Stronger than an ogre, which is a small giant.

My suggestion: stop over thinking this. Overthinking is a trap that all of us can fall into - goodness knows that I have many times.

Lastly: D&D PC's are "a little larger than life" in any case.

@CMCC: rough equivalence is a far more game friendly approach than hard simulation. As Dave Wesley pointed out, as regards to game features versus reality/realism, you need to find a balance point such that the game is playable. Too much realism clogs it up and detracts from playability.

I've been down the overemphasis-on-simulationism path: D&D 5e is not the right vehicle for that. Playability matters.

I don't think I disagree with anything you're saying here.

[Greywander]

D&D is heroic fantasy. A commoner is just straight 10s across the board, completely average. But adventurers, the BBEG, monsters, and even stock NPCs are a bit larger than life. For a big overhaul I've been tinkering with, I split the levels into five tiers (instead of the normal four tiers, since I wanted each tier to be exactly four levels), with those tiers being Novice, Veteran, Elite, Heroic, and Legendary. Part of the idea here is that Novice NPCs are pretty common, Veteran NPCs are uncommon but can still be found pretty easily (e.g. if you need their services), Elite NPCs are basically the peak of what you can normally find, and there are generally only a few of them per major city. Heroic and Legendary NPCs are reserved for major plot characters, as they expressly transcend normal human limits. Elite is meant to correspond to the peak of what a normal person is physically capable of, but the players aren't supposed to be bound by that limit.

The same logic applies to ability scores. 10 is average, 12/13 is great, and 15 or 16 is probably about the peak of what a normal human could achieve. But the PCs aren't normal people, so they're allowed to push the boundaries further, up to 20 for superhuman ability. PCs generally start with a 16 in one stat, meaning they're already a prodigy.

TBH, I don't really like how ability scores scale as you level up, I think it would work better to either (a) start with your scores a bit lower, and get regular +1 bumps as you level, (b) alternatively, the maximum for point buy at character creation is reduced, but as you level you get more points to spend with point buy going up to 20, or (c) ability scores don't increase at all as you level.

[Devils_Advocate]

A commoner is just straight 10s across the board

Do you not even give the poor bastards racial stat bonuses? If so, harsh.

For a big overhaul I've been tinkering with, I split the levels into five tiers (instead of the normal four tiers, since I wanted each tier to be exactly four levels)

That seems more intuitive to me. Tier would correspond to proficiency bonus, then.

10 is average, 12/13 is great, and 15 or 16 is probably about the peak of what a normal human could achieve. But the PCs aren't normal people, so they're allowed to push the boundaries further, up to 20 for superhuman ability. PCs generally start with a 16 in one stat, meaning they're already a prodigy.

The issue is that, even without automatic successes and failures, there's a difference of 19 between the best and worst rolls on a d20. And there's a linear distribution of results; you're as likely to get a 1 or a 20 as a 10 or an 11! Meanwhile, the difference between the modifiers for scores of 1 and 20 (-5 and +5 respectively) is 10. So even if the distribution of Ability scores were also linear, luck would about twice as much of a factor for anything modeled by a d20 roll. Putting Abilities on a bell curve tilts things even further towards luck being the main factor!

You can avoid stuff like the puny wizard knocking down a door that the huge barbarian just bounced off of by saying that, for a lot of things, luck isn't a factor. That can prevent Int and Wis from being devalued for large parties (because with enough characters rolling, one will probably do well, and having more than one party member remember or perceive something is often redundant). But that gives a fairly stark binary contrast where for anything where luck does matter, difference in Ability scores don't have much relative impact.

Which is to say that if you want to change things so that differences in Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, and Cha significantly impact rolls, you've got your work cut out for you. I'm skeptical that 5th Edition is a good starting point, because it's a system where "larger than life" status is generally conferred by other things like class levels. As someone once put it, a PC needs to be a rogue or a bard to specialize in anything other than combat or magic in 5E.

As it is, a 20 Str human can carry, push, drag, and lift significantly less than a 19 Str ogre, because the ogre is Large while the human is only Medium. Also, an ogre's weapons do double normal damage (presumably at least in part because ogres can use bigger greatclubs and javelins). That's right, Gauntlets of Ogre Power don't really give you the strength of an ogre, which an ogre's Strength score only models roughly half of. Claims that they do are exaggerated marketing at best, sad to say.

[Chronos]

A Str 16 in-game human is as strong as a Str 16 in-game ape, but an in-game ape isn't anywhere remotely near as strong as a real-world ape. Even a Str 30 deity isn't as strong as a real-world ape.

[KorvinStarmast]

I don't think I disagree with anything you're saying here.

Hurrah, we have an accord.

Do you not even give the poor bastards racial stat bonuses? If so, harsh.

I always turn them up to 11. Yes, it's all Christopher Guest's fault.

As it is, a 20 Str human can carry, push, drag, and lift significantly less than a 19 Str ogre, because the ogre is Large while the human is only Medium. Also, an ogre's weapons do double normal damage (presumably at least in part because ogres can use bigger greatclubs and javelins). That's right, Gauntlets of Ogre Power don't really give you the strength of an ogre, which an ogre's Strength score only models roughly half of. Claims that they do are exaggerated marketing at best, sad to say.

Interesting point.

[stoutstien]

If I was looking for a real life comparison I would say natural Stone shouldering/pressing. Not only is it heavy they tend to be extremely awkward which is a better representation of the act than any particular movement pattern.

[MoiMagnus]

The issue is that, even without automatic successes and failures, there's a difference of 19 between the best and worst rolls on a d20. And there's a linear distribution of results; you're as likely to get a 1 or a 20 as a 10 or an 11! Meanwhile, the difference between the modifiers for scores of 1 and 20 (-5 and +5 respectively) is 10. So even if the distribution of Ability scores were also linear, luck would about twice as much of a factor for anything modeled by a d20 roll. Putting Abilities on a bell curve tilts things even further towards luck being the main factor!

There is a way to reduce randomness while remaining within the 5e ruleset: rolling more than once.
"Having to succeed 2 out of 3 rolls" is a simple way to reduce randomness for tasks that are fundamentally skill-based. And it's not absurd for long tasks to require multiple checks in a row (and if the GM feels a little creative, they can ask for multiple different skill checks rather than 3 checks of the same skill). You could push it further if you have computer help, like "having to succeed 7 times out of 10 rolls". And if you push it to the limit, it becomes equivalent to the "take 10" rule (or using 5e terminology, it become a passive check).

[Leon]

5e has just the barest rules about carrying and lifting

It has the barest rules for many things at best and has no rules for others (like crafting)

[Unoriginal]

It has the barest rules for many things at best and has no rules for others (like crafting)

The PHB and the Xanathar's have rules for crafting.

[KorvinStarmast]

The PHB and the Xanathar's have rules for crafting.

And I think the DMG does also.

[BoutsofInsanity]

Fun fact I did some research on the old versions of D&D.

1st and 2nd edition explicitly call out an overhead press for strength in terms of lifting.

3.5 is a bit more complicated but states below...

A character can lift as much as his or her maximum load over his or her head.

A character can lift as much as double his or her maximum load off the ground, but he or she can only stagger around with it. While overloaded in this way, the character loses any Dexterity bonus to AC and can move only 5 feet per round (as a full-round action).

A character can generally push or drag along the ground as much as five times his or her maximum load. Favorable conditions can double these numbers, and bad circumstances can reduce them to one-half or less.

4e doesn't specify and instead focuses on just saying lifting. And 5e also doesn't define lifting like older editions.

Personally I think for 5e it's more interesting for the game to go for lifting over the head in a press based off of older editions intentions. It makes 20 strength really impressive and puts the characters who invest into strength leaps and bounds ahead of other people. Closing a little bit of the gap between the "martial vs caster" debate. It also stands to reason to make it more exciting because having characters be that strong allows for feats of strength that fit within the fantasy mythos.

But that's some D&D history.

[Leon]

The PHB and the Xanathar's have rules for crafting.

Well there you go the beholder saves the day because the PHB is just rudimentary at best.

[Chronos]

There are lots of things the PHB doesn't have rules for, because there are two other core rulebooks. Crafting isn't in the PHB because it's in the DMG instead.

[PhoenixPhyre]

There are lots of things the PHB doesn't have rules for, because there are two other core rulebooks. Crafting isn't in the PHB because it's in the DMG instead.

Right. Crafting is not a player side entitlement in 5e. Magic items are gated behind DM choice. And I think that's a good thing.

[Sigreid]

I actually kind of wish the game had a more mythic view in it's rules. Mythology is full of warriors that can wrestle giants and win and such without resorting to size changing magic. That would be kind of a nice thing to be built into something like a champion fighter.

[quindraco]

I'm really concerned with Lifting here. It says 30 times your strength score.

What do they mean when they say lifting? Are they clean and jerks, deadlifting, or just picking something up over your head?

Because this definition matters a lot.

The world record for lifting something of your head is around 468 lbs. That's the strongest person alive, with effort, able to do that a couple of times.

The rules seem to state that when doing so, there isn't a check or effort involved outside of just stating "I lift it."

A 20 strength is 600 lbs of lifting capacity with no effort. If that's the definition, that's superhuman. By rules, the Strongest men alive today have only a 16 strength score.

Is this the read you all have on it?

Lasha Talakhadze holds the record at 588.634 pounds. Clean and Jerk, which is over the head.

[Willie the Duck]

I actually kind of wish the game had a more mythic view in it's rules. Mythology is full of warriors that can wrestle giants and win and such without resorting to size changing magic. That would be kind of a nice thing to be built into something like a champion fighter.

Fundamentally I wish that, back in the day when Gary and team realized that a huge number of people weren't going to have their characters settle down to run keeps and armies at name level, they split the game there. There after, if warriors stuck to relatively realistic capabilities, then you used ruleset X where they did so and wizards stopped at the 4th or 5th level spells and stuck to puttering about mage towers researching rainmaking and troop-housing spells and the like. Conversely, if wizards kept advancing to L9 spells and the group continued on with extraplanar adventures or whatnot, then the martials went full-on Fionn mac Cumhaill/Achilles(or Orpheus)/Gilgamesh.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Fundamentally I wish that, back in the day when Gary and team realized that a huge number of people weren't going to have their characters settle down to run keeps and armies at name level, they split the game there. There after, if warriors stuck to relatively realistic capabilities, then you used ruleset X where they did so and wizards stopped at the 4th or 5th level spells and stuck to puttering about mage towers researching rainmaking and troop-housing spells and the like. Conversely, if wizards kept advancing to L9 spells and the group continued on with extraplanar adventures or whatnot, then the martials went full-on Fionn mac Cumhaill/Achilles(or Orpheus)/Gilgamesh.

There's a huge range between "realistic capabilities" and "gonzo mythic heroes." Could 5e martials be more heroic? Sure. Do they need to go full gonzo? No.

Instead, a judicious trimming of the wizard (and yes, it is almost entirely a wizard problem due to their spells) capabilities would keep things in the "hey, we're superheroes but not slicing mountains up by missing" range. Which makes a whole lot more sense and allows settings to actually function.

Because mythic gonzo heroes and functional settings don't match. And I, for one, care about having a setting that actually has internal logic and isn't just one bard trying to top the previous one. Which is what most of those myths ended up being after decades/centuries of evolution.

[Willie the Duck]

There's a huge range between "realistic capabilities" and "gonzo mythic heroes." Could 5e martials be more heroic? Sure. Do they need to go full gonzo? No.

Instead, a judicious trimming of the wizard (and yes, it is almost entirely a wizard problem due to their spells) capabilities would keep things in the "hey, we're superheroes but not slicing mountains up by missing" range. Which makes a whole lot more sense and allows settings to actually function.

Because mythic gonzo heroes and functional settings don't match. And I, for one, care about having a setting that actually has internal logic and isn't just one bard trying to top the previous one. Which is what most of those myths ended up being after decades/centuries of evolution.

Fine, three settings, one with Xerxes and Alexander, one with Theseus and some of the more muted King Arthur tales, and a third for Gilgamesh and the Heracles. Or an infinitely variable framing if we trust this theoretical version of Gary. I was using the extremes to showcase the spectrum, not require a one or the other mindset.