# Random Height and Weight



## Water Bob (Jun 5, 2011)

Is there a good random height and weight chart for characters that considers the character's stats?  I see the one in the 3.5 PHB, but it's a straight random roll.  I am looking for a random chart that would provide modifiers to the throws based on the character's STR, CON, and DEX scores.


----------



## xigbar (Jun 5, 2011)

I would make STR have a higher modifier than CON. STR could be like muscle, and CON just general bulkiness, like fat, which weight less than muscle. I would actually make DEX lighten a character, as it implies nimbleness and agility, which heftiness does not. As for height, I don't know. Personally, I always decide how much my character weighs irregardless of stats, because I see how they look in my head, but I want them to have the abilities that meet the prerequisites for my chosen character path.

I don't know of any official chart, though.


----------



## Jimlock (Jun 5, 2011)

In the games I play we never roll for height and weight. We pick whatever we like within the limits of the PHB table.

If a player wants to emphasize on something related to those, we might even allow some numbers that go slightly beyond those limits.

Honestly, i don't think it's worth breaking your head over it.


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Jun 5, 2011)

Here's a system apparently adapted from an article in Dragon #91, _[edit: Umm... 1984, so it's AD&D, not d20.  D'oh!]_ that ties height to STR, & weight to that, in an attempt to be somewhat realistic.  CON and DEX don't figure into this system, however, afaict.

I'm guessing this ultimately came from realworld medical measures like BMI, but I don't know that for sure.  Might be interesting to dig up the Drgaon mag and see what its rationale is.


----------



## Water Bob (Jun 5, 2011)

Jimlock said:


> Honestly, i don't think it's worth breaking your head over it.




I agree.  I'm just trying to see if there's a nifty chart out there.

I'm giving my players a choice of random roll, whatever they want, or random roll then adjust.


----------



## xigbar (Jun 5, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> I agree.  I'm just trying to see if there's a nifty chart out there.
> 
> I'm giving my players a choice of random roll, whatever they want, or random roll then adjust.




If you took the example Theo R Cwithin gave, and add my idea of making CON slightly less of an impact, and DEX a detractor, it could work.


----------



## frankthedm (Jun 6, 2011)

Jimlock said:


> Honestly, i don't think it's worth breaking your head over it.



It's worth it since mounts have weight limits that cost a good chunk of movement to go over. Also Besides the barding restrictions on flying mounts, flying mounts can only fly "if carrying no more than a light load. If you just let Players pick their weights, you'll be punishing players who pick reasonable weights for their high STR characters and rewarding conniving players who claim their 18 str 95lb. toothpick has chimp-like muscles.


----------



## lordxaviar (Jun 6, 2011)

Theo R Cwithin said:


> Here's a system apparently adapted from an article in Dragon #91, _[edit: Umm... 1984, so it's AD&D, not d20.  D'oh!]_ that ties height to STR, & weight to that, in an attempt to be somewhat realistic.  CON and DEX don't figure into this system, however, afaict.
> 
> I'm guessing this ultimately came from realworld medical measures like BMI, but I don't know that for sure.  Might be interesting to dig up the Drgaon mag and see what its rationale is.




good post...would xp if it would let me...


----------



## Jimlock (Jun 6, 2011)

frankthedm said:


> It's worth it since mounts have weight limits that cost a good chunk of movement to go over. Also Besides the barding restrictions on flying mounts, flying mounts can only fly "if carrying no more than a light load. If you just let Players pick their weights, you'll be punishing players who pick reasonable weights for their high STR characters and rewarding conniving players who claim their 18 str 95lb. toothpick has chimp-like muscles.




There are different types of strengths as there are different types of everything. High Str characters are not always bouncer like.

A guy can lift Xlbs three times in a row and stop, while another can lift X/4lbs 50 times in a row and then stop.

Different types of strengths, different body/muscle mass, different weights.

Players should pick height and weight according to how they want their characters, not so as to make their 4 member party ride a single light horse! 

The DM is there, he can provide advice and correct anything that isn't consistent  in respect to player choice.

Rolling for height and weight is not only useless but it can also create problems:

Player: "I want my character to be a skinny, short little fellow..."

DM: "Uuuum sorry for that,you just rolled maximum height and weight!... You might as well start imagining/describing your character according to that from now on!"


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jun 6, 2011)

Jimlock said:


> Rolling for height and weight is not only useless but it can also create problems:
> 
> Player: "I want my character to be a skinny, short little fellow..."
> 
> DM: "Uuuum sorry for that,you just rolled maximum height and weight!... You might as well start imagining/describing your character according to that from now on!"




You'll notice, in this scenario, something that Water Bob (the original poster) has already responded to you with:



			
				Water Bob said:
			
		

> I agree. I'm just trying to see if there's a nifty chart out there.
> 
> I'm giving my players a choice of random roll, whatever they want, or random roll then adjust.




It's the player's call. He's looking for a more in-depth random roll chart for those who want to use it.

I don't think that's unreasonable, nor do I think the notion is useless, as the large majority of people realistically do follow certain guidelines is real life, which a random chart that incorporates physical stats would reflect. Making it optional also accepts the possibility of exceptions to the rule, which Water Bob has already made clear he plans to allow.


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Jun 6, 2011)

For humans at least, I think one could use real world BMI as a baseline for healthy folk-- assuming, of course, that BMI maps roughly into CON (eg, "healthiness").  If you assume that DEX roughly correlates with "skinniness" and STR with "bulkiness" (and therefore weight), you might be able to figure out some upper- and lower-limit values for someone with a "average or better CON". Then just stretch that out to include the less healthy folks in the population.

The tough part would be coming up "real world" BMIs for non-existent races like elves and dwarves.   But even that's somewhat guessable, at least from stereotypes: elves average out to lower BMIs (because they're thinner) while dwarves have higher healthy BMIs (shorter, but much denser).

Aargh, if I wasn't going out of town tomorrow, I'd try to do djinn up a table or three....  Maybe in a few days....


----------



## Jimlock (Jun 6, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> You'll notice, in this scenario, something that Water Bob (the original poster) has already responded to you with:




You'll notice, that i was answering to frankthedm, and specifically to the: _"If you just let Players pick their weights..."_



JamesonCourage said:


> It's the player's call. He's looking for a more in-depth random roll chart for those who want to use it.
> 
> I don't think that's unreasonable, nor do I think the notion is useless, as the large majority of people realistically do follow certain guidelines is real life, which a random chart that incorporates physical stats would reflect. Making it optional also accepts the possibility of exceptions to the rule, which Water Bob has already made clear he plans to allow.




It's useless because the combinations between physical abilities and body mass/height/weight are so many and varied that it is impossible to portray them by a chart with a + for Str and a - for Dex. That would probably require complicated algorithms to achieve.

Why not let players choose..? Its accurate in respect to players' needs, and the DM has always the final word.


----------



## Jimlock (Jun 6, 2011)

Theo R Cwithin said:


> STR with "bulkiness"




This is not always the case. 

A Tennis player has a pretty strong swing, but he's not bulky.

Swartzeneger could never serve as strongly as Federer, and Arnie is three times bigger than Federer.


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Jun 6, 2011)

Jimlock said:


> This is not always the case.
> 
> A Tennis player has a pretty strong swing, but he's not bulky.
> 
> Swartzeneger could never serve as strongly as Federer, and Arnie is three times bigger than Federer.



Yup.   And Federer's Dex is likely a lot higher than Ahnold's, too.

I've seen plenty of tennis matches and cage fights.  That's why I said "roughly correlates with" rather than "is".  These are _game stats_ we're discussing here, not reality.  There will be some slop in the figures.


----------



## Jimlock (Jun 6, 2011)

Theo R Cwithin said:


> Yup.   And Federer's Dex is likely a lot higher than Ahnold's, too.




Not too difficult to imagine! I think most ppl on this world are more dexterous than Arnie 

On the other hand that doesn't mean that a guy more heavy than Federer, is necessarily less dexterous...



Theo R Cwithin said:


> That's why I said "roughly correlates with" rather than "is".




Correct. I missed that.



...yet is this "roughly" so important so as to somehow incorporate it  in a weight table?


... don't know...IMHO its not all that important in the game.......


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Jun 6, 2011)

Jimlock said:


> ...yet is this "roughly" so important so as to somehow incorporate it  in a weight table?
> 
> ... don't know...IMHO its not all that important in the game.......



But in the OP's game?  Yes, it is.  That's why he's asking here!  And that's why it's stilll an interesting thing to ponder, even though it's not something I'm likely to get my own players to agree to.  

But, if it helps him or someone else who plays a gritty game,  then extra XP all around!  On me!


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jun 6, 2011)

Jimlock said:
			
		

> You'll notice, that i was answering to frankthedm, and specifically to the: _"If you just let Players pick their weights..."_




That's true. However, in the situation where both is allowed (picking and rolling randomly), how can you still be against that? Optional rules like this are literally tailored to help people play their preference, not to kill options.



> It's useless because the combinations between physical abilities and body mass/height/weight are so many and varied that it is impossible to portray them by a chart with a + for Str and a - for Dex. That would probably require complicated algorithms to achieve.
> 
> Why not let players choose..? Its accurate in respect to players' needs, and the DM has always the final word.




I'm advocated doing what Water Bob proposed... letting people choose if they want to, roll if they want to, or roll and modify. Direct me to where I said otherwise, if you think I did.

Additionally, no complex algorithm is necessary once you allow all three options (pick, roll, or roll and modify). As long as it's roughly accurate for what you want in your game (in terms of average ranges), than the three proposed methods allow for what you're looking for, and for what someone else might be looking for.



Jimlock said:


> Not too difficult to imagine! I think most ppl on this world are more dexterous than Arnie
> 
> On the other hand that doesn't mean that a guy more heavy than Federer, is necessarily less dexterous...




No one is saying that. You have the rolling table, for averages. You have roll and modify, for customization within or slightly out of the average. Then, you have pick and choose, which allows you to be as far as out the average as the GM allows. Why you'd oppose this is beyond me.



> ...yet is this "roughly" so important so as to somehow incorporate it  in a weight table?
> 
> ... don't know...IMHO its not all that important in the game.......




As a completely optional rule that makes people happy? I think the small amount of work that would go into such a table that would make someone else happy in the game is not a bad thing. Is happiness important? I think so. Is the table necessary for that? Nope, but why you'd advocate against it is, again, somewhat baffling to me.


----------



## Jimlock (Jun 6, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> Additionally, no complex algorithm is necessary once you allow all three options (pick, roll, or roll and modify). As long as it's roughly accurate for what you want in your game (in terms of average ranges), than the three proposed methods allow for what you're looking for, and for what someone else might be looking for.




What is the point of rolling and then modifying the roll when you can actually set the numbers as you like?



JamesonCourage said:


> No one is saying that. You have the rolling table, for averages. You have roll and modify, for customization within or slightly out of the average. Then, you have pick and choose, which allows you to be as far as out the average as the GM allows. Why you'd oppose this is beyond me.
> 
> As a completely optional rule that makes people happy? I think the small amount of work that would go into such a table that would make someone else happy in the game is not a bad thing. Is happiness important? I think so. Is the table necessary for that? Nope, but why you'd advocate against it is, again, somewhat baffling to me.




The way i see it, rolling for Height/Weight is like rolling to see in which ability each ability score will go... Like having rolled... say 16,8,11,6,13,12 and THEN roll to see which ability takes what...randomly.

Players should be concerned about how tall or how much their characters weight. It's part of what their characters are.

When i create a character i like to know/imagine how he looks like. From head to toe. What his hair looks like, what his clothes look like, how tall he is etc. etc. There is now way I'm leaving this to luck. Just as I decide if my character is smarter than he is strong, I also decide if he is short or tall.
It's all part of character creation.

Even when I DM, my players do the same. That's how we play.

That's not to say that people who roll are not interested in their characters, or that they play the game badly because of it.

I was merely trying to point out the following facts:

1-Str does not necessarily mean "stocky", nor does Dex necessarily means "skinny". Therefore by applying modifiers based on ability scores is misleading.

2-Weight/Height numbers do not affect the mechanics of the game. Even if  what frankthedm said makes some cense, it's hardly something that can break the game. If the players are such munchkins that are willing to pick the lowest weight possible so as to profit from weight limits and mounts' carrying capacities, I bet that the DM will have bigger problems with his players than this...

3-Weight/Height are part of what a character is. Such ineffectual numbers should be left on the players to define, so that they create characters as they picture them. Rolling can bring numbers that go against a player's will. Even if a player does not care, and is willing to roll, he should be impelled to decide on his own so as to get a better idea of the character he is making.

Again: That's not to say that people who roll are not interested in their characters, or that they play the game badly because of it.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jun 6, 2011)

Jimlock said:


> What is the point of rolling and then modifying the roll when you can actually set the numbers as you like?




Because you don't have an exact idea on how you want to look, or because you aren't feeling too particular about it currently, or because you aren't good with a height to weight ratio based on stats, or because you want to, etc.



> The way i see it, rolling for Height/Weight is like rolling to see in which ability each ability score will go... Like having rolled... say 16,8,11,6,13,12 and THEN roll to see which ability takes what...randomly.




You see it differently from me (and probably everyone in my group, and likely other people in this thread). It's not the same, as the ramifications are much, much less than stat allocation.



> Players should be concerned about how tall or how much their characters weight. It's part of what their characters are.




I think players should have fun. To this end, if they will have fun rolling on a chart, even if you don't think they "should" than more power to them.



> When i create a character i like to know/imagine how he looks like. From head to toe. What his hair looks like, what his clothes look like, how tall he is etc. etc. There is now way I'm leaving this to luck. Just as I decide if my character is smarter than he is strong, I also decide if he is short or tall.
> It's all part of character creation.




Awesome. Some people don't do this. The idea that they're doing it wrong because they aren't doing it the way they "should" is baffling to me on something like this.



> Even when I DM, my players do the same. That's how we play.




And I wouldn't recommend otherwise for you, because there's no way you "should" go about this.



> That's not to say that people who roll are not interested in their characters, or that they play the game badly because of it.




But it is saying they're not doing it the way they "should" and I think that's a bad thing to say.



> I was merely trying to point out the following facts:
> 
> 1-Str does not necessarily mean "stocky", nor does Dex necessarily means "skinny". Therefore by applying modifiers based on ability scores is misleading.




No, but lithe builds tend to be more agile than bulky builds. Strong builds tend to be more bulky than skinny in nature. These are theoretical optional guidelines, set within a game. They will produce something like elves living for 350-750 years, except the range will be smaller, stats will come into play, and above all,_ it will be optional._ Yes, there are exceptions to the rule, and they're allowed by the very nature of Water Bob's suggestion of implementation.



> 2-Weight/Height numbers do not affect the mechanics of the game. Even if  what frankthedm said makes some cense, it's hardly something that can break the game. If the players are such munchkins that are willing to pick the lowest weight possible so as to profit from weight limits and mounts' carrying capacities, I bet that the DM will have bigger problems with his players than this...




I agree. On something so unimportant, the idea that some groups adopt an individually optional rule (not even an optional rule that affects the entire group!) is somehow objectionable is ludicrous to me.



> 3-Weight/Height are part of what a character is. Such ineffectual numbers should be left on the players to define, so that they create characters as they picture them.




Not all players have a set mental image of their character. Your players do. My players put personality first, and create build that reflect that. Neither group is right. I think suggesting that other groups "should" do it the way your group does is wrong.



> Rolling can bring numbers that go against a player's will. Even if a player does not care, and is willing to roll, he should be impelled to decide on his own so as to get a better idea of the character he is making.




First of all, if it's optional to roll, and optional _to change it after you roll,_ then it cannot go against a player's will. Period. They have complete control and final say over it.

Secondly, some players have an idea of what they want, but they don't know the specifics yet. They should be allowed some help if they want it, since it's literally hurting nothing since it's something as admittedly mechanically unimportant as character appearance.

Do you know how many times I've played something like Oblivion and stayed at the character creation screen hitting the "random features" button or the like on appearance, just so I can see a potential theme I like and run with it? In basically every game that allows that option. _Especially in games that allow multiple races,_ such as in D&D.

You know what's more fun than spending ten minutes choosing my appearance? Actually playing the game when I'm done. Anything that makes that decision both fun and interesting is a good thing in my mind, and an individually optional rule that allows for this is nothing but a good thing.



> Again: That's not to say that people who roll are not interested in their characters, or that they play the game badly because of it.




I think you're still saying people "should" be doing it another way, which reeks of badwrongfun or One True Wayism to me. As much as I disagree with Dandu's idea of play on these boards, I've never said he should play differently, nor do I think I should say that. To his credit, he's never said I should play differently. I think that level of courtesy is vital to a constructive discussion.

As always, play what you like


----------



## Jimlock (Jun 6, 2011)

Forgive my "shoulds". Perhaps they sound more "heavy" than intended.

I stated that:



> That's not to say that people who roll are not interested in their characters, or that they play the game badly because of it.




...and I closed by:



> Again: That's not to say that people who roll are not interested in their characters, or that they play the game badly because of it.




In hopes of making it clear that this is not a factor that differentiates a good play from a bad play.

Either you read too much in those "shoulds" or I failed to express my self correctly. In case it's the latter,

I sincerely apologize.

(No sarcasm/irony intended)


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jun 6, 2011)

It's cool man. If you didn't mean it that way, I apologize for coming on so strongly about it. I just don't see any reason to speak out against such a harmless chart that's admittedly optional even to players for those people that want it. If you're just piping in that it's not your style, than it's all good.

Play what you like


----------



## El Mahdi (Jun 6, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> Is there a good random height and weight chart for characters that considers the character's stats? I see the one in the 3.5 PHB, but it's a straight random roll. I am looking for a random chart that would provide modifiers to the throws based on the character's STR, CON, and DEX scores.




I have a chart I started due to a previous thread.  It's not random generation, but it has charts loosely based on BMI comparing maximum Strength to minimum height/weight for Humans, Half-Elfs, Half-Orcs, Warforged, Dwarves, Gnomes, Halflings, Elves, Drow, and Goliaths.  It helps provide some realistic weight ranges based on a comparison of Strength to Height and Weight.  It also has some real world analysis and examples.

I wouldn't use Dex or Con to influence weight.  Strength is the one that increases body mass most significantly.  One could easily have increases or decreases in Dexterity or Constitution with absolutely no corresponding weight change.  With Strength, there would almost always be a corresponding weight change.


About D&D Ability scores and real world correlations:

D&D Stength is mostly about the lifting capacity of muscles. In the real world, we accomplish this with Fast Twitch muscles. The "Strength" of a muscle is determined by it's cross-sectional density (Mass) and how efficient the muscle fibers "pull" together (like members of a team in a tug-of-war contest).  This "efficiency" is determined by the neural connection with the brain and metabolic processes (energy). Increasing Strength will usually have a related increase in mass (and by extension: weight), but not always. Fast twitch muscles are those used for power and speed. A powerlifter and a sprinter are both concentrating on increasing the strength of their fast twitch muscles, just in different ways and with different isolation exercises - but it's still the same type of muscle. Unlike D&D ability scores, in the real world an improvement in strength always provides at least some increase in dexterity and flexibility. The stereotype of the muscle bound weightlifter just isn't true.  Unlike D&D, running speed is more a product of Strength (and muscle coordination), and not Dexterity.

D&D Dexterity is a combination of two things: Muscle Coordination and Manual Dexterity (two seperate things combined for ease of play).  Muscle Coordination is a combination of improved muscle strength in concert with increased neural pathways (or more dedicated processing in the brain) for improved brain-muscle coordination. Using a muscle in repetitive exercise both strengthens it and improves coordination with it.  Unlike D&D, Dexterity and Strength are intrinsically linked in the real world.  Manual dexterity (Hand-Eye coordination) is less linked with Strength - though repetitive hand exercises probably will improve the strength of hand muscles.  But what we are usually talking about with manual dexterity is the ability to do fine detail work with your hands, or quick actions (playing an instrument, typing, playing video games, etc.).  Manual Dexterity can be improved without a corresponding increase in overall body muscle coordination, and vice-versa.

Constitution in D&D is a combination of endurance and ability to resist things like disease, poison, etc.  In the real world these are completely different things (though one may affect the other - but not always).  Endurance is completely about the strength and efficiency of your slow twitch muscles.  Someone with a naturally higher concentration of slow twitch muscle would naturally have more endurance.  (The heart is 100% slow twitch muscle.)  The ability to resist disease is completely different (your immune system), and resisting poison is also completely different (resistance depends upon weight, overall health, and the immune system a small amount).  An increase in "structural" strength (provided by Constitution in the form of bonus Hit Points), is actually more to do with Strength.  The Stronger you are, the harder your muscles can contract and the stronger your bones are.  But, also for game play, D&D combines all of this into Constitution.  In the real world, increasing your Strength and Dexterity would also impart an increase in overall health - meaning an increase in Constitution.  Someone who concentrates only on endurance training (long distance runners) would likely be lighter, but that's because they are improving their slow twitch muscle strength at the sacrifice of their fast twitch muscle strength/density (which has the most impact on overall body mass) and reducing their overall body fat percentage.


----------



## Water Bob (Jun 7, 2011)

El Mahdi said:


> I have a chart I started due to a previous thread.




Hey, that's pretty doggone cool.  I can tell you put a lot of thought and effort into it.  I'm going to spend some time looking over your work.

Thanks for sharing.


----------



## frankthedm (Jun 7, 2011)

Jimlock said:


> Rolling for height and weight is not only useless but it can also create problems:
> 
> Player: "I want my character to be a skinny, short little fellow..."
> 
> DM: "Uuuum sorry for that,you just rolled maximum height and weight!... You might as well start imagining/describing your character according to that from now on!"



IMHO that is good thing if incredibly strong character HAS to be heavier. A 16 str human can lift 460 lb. above their head and cover 5' per round at a stagger, on a human being that's going to take noticeable muscle mass.

Water Bob, for humans, maybe something like this...

_*Height And Weight*
The dice roll given in the Height Modifier column determines the character’s extra height beyond the base height. That same number The creatures strength score multiplied by the dice roll or quantity given in the Weight Modifier column determines the character’s extra weight beyond the base weight. 

Human, male; Base Height  4' 10" +2d10, Base Weight 120 lb.+ ( Str x 2d4 ) _

Or, maybe just change the human BASE WEIGHT to Str score x 10 lb. This has the added benefit of removing the only difference between the genders left in the ruleset.


----------



## Jimlock (Jun 7, 2011)

El Mahdi said:


> D&D Stength is mostly about the lifting capacity of muscles.




I disagree.

Seeing how the Str modifier is the primary modifier to affect weapon use, I'd say it's more about swinging a sword effectively, just like a tennis players swings he racket affectively. This is a paradox since 1e. I could never understand how str can affect swordplay that much.
Real life swordsmen are everything but muscular.
So even though the ability is named STRENGTH, its actual use in the game suggests other things as well.

Other than that, I think your post was great.


----------



## frankthedm (Jun 7, 2011)

Jimlock said:


> I disagree.
> 
> Seeing how the Str modifier is the primary modifier to affect weapon use, I'd say it's more about swinging a sword effectively, just like a tennis players swings he racket affectively. This is a paradox since 1e. I could never understand how str can affect swordplay that much.



 Some rulesets set Melee to hit on dexterity / agility, D&D keys melee off of STR barring special capabilities since it also uses armor as a damage _preventer_ rather than damage _absorber_.

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).


----------



## El Mahdi (Jun 7, 2011)

Jimlock said:


> I disagree.
> 
> Seeing how the Str modifier is the primary modifier to affect weapon use, I'd say it's more about swinging a sword effectively, just like a tennis players swings he racket affectively. This is a paradox since 1e. I could never understand how str can affect swordplay that much.
> Real life swordsmen are everything but muscular.
> ...




Yeah. Mechanically, the biggest impact Strength has is in combat - though it does determine lifting capacity and is used for Strength checks.  I should have said, like Frank the DM excerpted from the books, that Strength is about the _power_ of your muscles (in D&D), where dexterity is a combination of muscle coordination and manual dexterity (also in D&D).

Real life swordsmen are actually pretty strong though.  They aren't _big_, which is what we usually think of when we envision _"muscular"_.  But, talk to any fencer and they'll tell you, successfully pulling off moves with the necessary speed requires significant strength.  Hands, forearms, upper arm, shoulders, chest and back for weapon positioning; hips, abs, and legs for thrusting and movement.  Fencers have scary strong hands and forearms.  They remind me of the grip old dairy farmers have (from manual milking).  In the real world, muscle coordination, speed, and strength are intimately interconnected.  Look at sprinters today.  In the past it was always assumed that strength training would just bulk you up and was counterproductive to speed - turns it out that's not correct.  Look at Usain Bolt - he's 6'5" and about 210 lbs.  He looks more like an NFL corner back or wide reciever, than anything sprinters looked like even just 30 years ago.  One can, through isolation exercises, significantly increase strength with minimal increase in dexterity - but just about any other exercise that increases strength is going to also increase dexterity - and vice versa (and flexibility also).

We tend to instinctively equate power with size.  We assume that the bigger, more muscular person is objectively stronger - but that's not true.

The most striking example I found is this:

Le Maosheng (China) 
Height: 5’ 4" 
Weight: 136 lbs. (probably about 10% to 15% body fat)
Men’s Olympic Weightlifting World Record 
(Clean & Jerk) – 62 kg. weight category – 401.2 lbs. 
D&D Strength: *21* 















Arnold Schwarzenegger (Austria/USA) 
Height: 6’ 2" 
Weight: 260 lbs. (235 lbs. competition, pictured – 5%-10% body fat) 
6-Time Champion – Mr. Olympia 
Top Lifts: 605 lbs. deadlift, 300 lbs. Clean & Jerk, 265 lbs. standing press 
D&D Strength: 18/19 













Even though Arnold's muscles are significantly bigger, and at his peak of strength outweighed Le Maosheng by 100 to 125 pounds, Le Maosheng is significantly stronger.  Maosheng could probably have outlifted Arnie in every exercise (whether bench, standing press, dead lifts, squats, and especially clean & jerk) by 30% to 40% - and that's comparing him to Arnie at his peak.

Bodybuilders specifically do exercises that are designed to increase muscle _size_ by maximizing tears in the muscles and then flushing the muscles with blood.  It does increase strength, as Arnie is obviously not a weakling, but it emphasizes size over strength.  Powerlifters like Maosheng don't care a whit about how their muscles look - they only care about how strong they are, and exercise accordingly.

5'4" - 136 lbs.: 21 Stength.  That just goes against all of our instincts as to what strength looks like.  But there he is.  And he's really not unique among powerlifters.  Look at pictures of powerlifters in the lower weight categories (like Maosheng), and they are quite similiar.  And almost all of them, regardless of weight category, would be stronger than Arnie at his peak (the rest would be at least as strong as Arnie).

Size isn't necessarily Power or Strength.


----------



## Jimlock (Jun 7, 2011)

El Mahdi said:


> Size isn't necessarily Power or Strength.
> 
> We tend to instinctively equate power with size.  We assume that the bigger, more muscular person is objectively stronger - but that's not true.




100% with you on that one. This why i've been saying from the start that there shouldn't be a modifier on weight based on Str.




El Mahdi said:


> Real life swordsmen are actually pretty strong though.  They aren't _big_, which is what we usually think of when we envision _"muscular"_.  But, talk to any fencer and they'll tell you, successfully pulling off moves with the necessary speed requires significant strength.  Hands, forearms, upper arm, shoulders, chest and back for weapon positioning; hips, abs, and legs for thrusting and movement.  Fencers have scary strong hands and forearms.  They remind me of the grip old dairy farmers have (from manual milking).




Exactly. A fencer in the game with a Str of 16 could look like an average guy size-wise. 

Yet the paradox remains for this specific fencer can lift 460 lb. above his head and cover 5' per round at a stagger, as frankthedm has pointed out.



El Mahdi said:


> In the real world, muscle coordination, speed, and strength are intimately interconnected.  Look at sprinters today.  In the past it was always assumed that strength training would just bulk you up and was counterproductive to speed - turns it out that's not correct.




Actually this IS correct... in a different cense... I don't think the example of the sprinter is very good one... but let me explain.

A sprinter does not differ much from the bodybuilder/powerlifter type. The both work their muscles very hard for a short period of time.
Sure, a sprinter is super fast, ...alas for 100 meters, in a straight line, on a flat surface, and for less than 10 seconds.
A powerlifter, does this exact same thing with weights. He can lift 400lbs a couple of times in a row, and then he'll rest.
But when judging the speed of a person i think it's appropriate that we see this from a different perspective.

The sprinter runs in a straight line, and his body and muscles are "locked" in a given position. Outside of that, his size and big muscles will work against him. The lack of flexibility will prove to be an actual flaw if we compare him to... say with a parkour runner.
In a multitude of environments and time limits/frames the sprinter is useless, when compared to builds able for a wider range of "speed" feats.

We are all aware that in races, the bigger the distance, the less bulky and muscular the competitors are... Going to the extreme opposite of the 100m sprinter is the marathon runner... obviously a "skinny" athlete.
...Sure we now begin treading in the territory of Constitution D&D-wise, but despite that, can we say that a marathon runner lucks "Strength" when compared to the sprinter?
Is the Sprinter "faster" than the marathon racer?

Strength has many faces, and i believe that in D&D it is better to embrace all those types under the single Str score.

The more we do that the more it makes cense how Str makes 50% of the attack roll. 

And what if my 16str fence can lift 460 pounds overhead and walk with it? 

Personally, I can live with that paradox better, than imagining that my 16str fencer is Arnie with a rapier and a dagger.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jun 7, 2011)

Jimlock said:


> ...We are all aware that in races, the bigger the distance, the less bulky and muscular the competitors are... Going to the extreme opposite of the 100m sprinter is the marathon runner... obviously a "skinny" athlete.
> ...Sure we now begin treading in the territory of Constitution D&D-wise, but despite that, can we say that a marathon runner lucks "Strength" when compared to the sprinter?
> Is the Sprinter "faster" than the marathon racer?
> 
> ...




I agree with everything you're saying also.  But I just can't help commenting...

Technically, Yes - a sprinter is stronger than a marathon runner, if we define strength as power.  But in reality, you're right - they are apples and oranges.

A sprinter has a higher concentration (mass) of Fast Twitch muscle fibers than the marathon runner does, and those fast twitch muscles are more developed (more efficient due to exercise, better metabolic efficiency, more developed blood supply, more neural connections, etc.).  A marathon runner has a higher concentration of slow twitch muscle fibers than the sprinter and they are more developed than the slow twitch muscle fibers the sprinter has.  Put simply: the sprinter has stronger fast twitch muscles; the marathon runner has stronger slow twitch muscles.  And remember also, endurance is part and parcel of the cardiovascular system also.  A person with high endurance (meaning highly developed slow twitch muscles), has improved the effieciency (or Strength if you will) of the most important slow twitch muscles in the body: the heart and blood vessels.  Even though in the real world, a very strong athlete (high fast-twitch muscle developement) wouldn't be able to effectively compete against a dedicated marathon runner in a road race.  It doesn't mean they can't have high Endurance - just not as high as the marathon runner.  At the same time, if the high endurance marathon runner had to perform a lot of explosive moves over a significant period of time, like for instance: playing football - they'd likely run out of gas long before the actual football player would, who has a higher proportion of fast twitch muscles.

So yeah, Strength has different faces.

And technically, Intelligence (IQ) isn't just one thing either. It can be broken down into: logical, linguistic, spatial, musical, kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalist, and existential.  But as with Strength and Dexterity, even those are intricately interlinked with other things.  Linguistic and Musical would link more with certain skills in D&D.  Spatial would link up with skills like Spot and Listen, and of course Attack and Defense.  Kinesthetic would be Dexterity.  Interpersonal and Intrapersonal would be more Charisma.  - And that would get just way too complicated.  Humans are very complex machines that are almost impossible to quantify so simply (with just six scores).

But in standard D&D even though the six Abilities aren't necessarily accurate as direct correlates of real world equivalents, limiting it to these six and combining like abilities makes for easier game play.  Which is fine with me too...most of the time.

For me, I'd envision the high strength but dextrous fencer as looking more like Le Maosheng.  But I don't see a paradox with a fencer looking like Arnie.  I just look at some of the incredibly dextrous things football players do (American Football), of which many have physiques very similar to Arnie, and then the visual doesn't seem so paradoxical to me anymore.  But, I like to envision D&D combat as more the combat prevalent in the Early and High Middle Ages, rather than the Late Middle Ages and Renaissance.  So lighter bladed, high dexterity fencing isn't really a factor for my visualisation.  But D&D kind of mashes together all kinds of things that never existed together, so allowances need to be made for ease of gameplay and compatibility.  In basic D&D, I'm cool with that.


----------



## Jimlock (Jun 7, 2011)

El Mahdi said:


> But, I like to envision D&D combat as more the combat prevalent in the Early and High Middle Ages, rather than the Late Middle Ages and Renaissance.  So lighter bladed, high dexterity fencing isn't really a factor for my visualisation.




I envision D&D the same way you describe it, ...I'd even say that my games yield more towards the Dark Ages than the Renaissance (which I actually hate...too many stockings for my tastes) on the spectrum of Middle Ages. I agree that during this period, fighting was more power/strength based than later times, but there are also plenty of examples (historical and fictional) that include lighter blades and more "Dexterity-based" weapons... a fine example being that of Little John's quarterstaff... Even the use of the germanic longsword, a weapon with roots deep in the Middle Ages, was based far more on technique and maneuverability than brute force (the Scottish Bastard Sword). Moreover the famous dagger was a secondary weapon throughout the entire human history, and was well known and used during the Dark Ages, the Middle ages and beyond...
Having said that... I must admit, that the first thing that springs to mind when i hear of Middle Ages-D&D fighting, is a great sword coming down with force upon a full plate.



El Mahdi said:


> But I don't see a paradox with a fencer looking like Arnie.




Now that i can't do. Not only i think his build is not appropriate for the style... but i also find it kind of funny.
Arnie with a two handed battle axe dressed in a wolf's skin... that i can do.




El Mahdi said:


> I just look at some of the incredibly dextrous things football players do (American Football), of which many have physiques very similar to Arnie, and then the visual doesn't seem so paradoxical to me anymore.




mmm... that's a good point... still it's very different from swordplay...

are you sure you don't get fooled by the bumpers?  (ohh well... in Europe they don't even wear those...)


----------



## Jimlock (Jun 7, 2011)

Here are some clips related to our talk...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsGU5KI1qJA&feature=related]YouTube - ‪Longsword Techniques‬‏[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmoSedeqrHo]YouTube - ‪ARMA-Longsword technique practice at IronDoor Studio (Jan 2009)‬‏[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8h3V_bM6nSs&feature=related]YouTube - ‪displacing diagonal cuts‬‏[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtNZQBc4RpE&feature=related]YouTube - ‪Longsword Techniques - Receiving Strikes on Flat‬‏[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3KEaGuVTho&feature=related]YouTube - ‪Training with short knives 1‬‏[/ame]


----------



## Water Bob (Jun 7, 2011)

In my games I envision the fight scenes to be dirty, gritty, and grimy, like this:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_b6got4G4Ys]YouTube - ‪Fight scene from the film Centurion 2010.‬‏[/ame]


----------



## Jimlock (Jun 7, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> In my games I envision the fight scenes to be dirty, gritty, and grimy, like this:




Me too...in a battle that's how it works...

Difference with your video is that what I posted above is perhaps (I'm not sure) more duel oriented.

...Also Arma (the school) has managed to actually practice the art of the longsword while staying as true as they can to the texts and references from Medieval times...


----------



## Jimlock (Jun 7, 2011)

...their references go back to 1200! And that's about the refs! ...As you can imagine, the actual techniques are much older than that.


At the end of the 4th video it says the following:

*These are genuine historical techniques of the Longsword.

These are not inferior static edge-to-edge bashing blocks.

These are NOT choreographed actions of movie and TV swordplay, stunt fencing performance,

pretend fighting games, or modern saber's post-Baroque style deteriorated from the

parrying methods of more sophisticated Renaissance fighting systems.*


----------

