Dire Rhinoceros Lifting Strength Revision

[Antoniofer]

According the the Dire Rhinoceros' profile, the creature have a Lifting Strength of 49 tons due having a Strength score of 30; however, I made some calcs based in what the brule books says, and that number is not correct at all, so let me elaborate:

This is the Carrying Capability table along how the game define how much a character can lift or carry, if any of you want to see more about the subject, you can find it in the Player's Handbook v3.5 pg. 161-162. The table does not tell you how much a character with Str 30 can carry, instead, according to what it says in the Tremendous Strength's section every 10 points above certain Str score means it have its carrying capability increased by x4, so someone with an Str of 30 have 4 times the carrying capability of someone with 20; according to the table, the carrying capability of someone with Str 30 is 4*400 = 1600 lb.

But wait, there's more, according to the Bigger and Smaller Creatures' section a quadrupedal creature of huge size (such as the dire rhino), would have its carrying capability multiplied by x6, giving the creature a final carrying capability of 6*1600 = 9600 lb.

Now, according the what the Lifting and Dragging's section says: "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", that means that the rhino final's Lifting Strength would be 2*9600 = 19200 lb ~ 8.7 tons (Class 10).

Now, going from that vsthread with the rhino, you may have some questions, like, why not giving the creature a LS according to what can push that, according the the Lifting and Dragging' section, would be 5*9600 = 48000 lb? Simple, the rating is named Lifting Strength, not Pushing Strength, it indicates how much upward force a creature can produce, not how much it can push or drag. If you see other calcs that involve pushing large objects, you'll notice that the actual Lifting Strength is notable below the mass of the object itself; in order to emulate some realism in the game, the game development considered that someone would be able to push 2.5 more weight than what they can lift (that is not that farfetched considering that the friction coeficient in soil and rock varies between 0.3 and 0.6).

Even if for some reason one decides to use pushing/dragging as LS, the result would be ~21.8 tons or Class 25, and even if one decides to use pushing/dragging in favorable conditions, the final result would be ~43.6 tons or Class 50, that is the same Class that the profiles currently have, but the value is still lower.

So in short, the 49 tons LS comes from nowhere, the absulete maximum that the dire rhinoceros can push is 43.6 tons under favorable conditions such pushing a slick object), and in normal conditions would be 21.8 tons (Class 25); however, since LS indicate how much upward force a creature can generate and not how much it can push, the maximum carrying capability of the dire rhinoceros would be 8.7 tons (Class 10).

Alternatively, if the value for maximum lifting capability is given by the table is questionable for some reason, then we could use the dragging/pushing capability value for neutral conditions and then multiply it by the appropiated friction coefficient. So it would be, 48000*0.525 (coefficient value used in the Goku's calc, for pushing objects through rock, but if you find a more appropiated value, please let me known)= 25200 lb or ~11.44 tons (Class 25).

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Anton is still not understanding what the page is saying.

As mentioned in the edit, Anton is right here, though still wrong in how we assess D&D LS.

Here you are correct, Dire Rhino gets a flat 6x to this value due to size and its quadruped status.

As of 5th Edition, lifting is equated with push and drag. Lifting in this way mechanically has the same effects as drag or pull- you can only move 5 feet while doing it. This is a clarification added by 5e and should still be fine.

According to the section you're citing, under optimal conditions (e.g., a flat surface) a creature can in fact drag 10x their typical carrying capacity, not 5x. So the Rhino's final LS would be 10 times its typical without-breaking-a-sweat Carrying Capacity.

I apologize for being abrasive about this. I don't deal well with this shit. But between 5e changing it so push/drag/lift are all equated, and pushing generally being acceptable anyways (you've repeatedly mentioned friction coefficient in the past, I notice it is not here), this feels like a pointless thread.

EDIT: Anton is correct about one thing- Tremendous Strength. It appears I misunderstood, it does indeed suggest multiplying the score for 20 by 4 rather than trying to linearly scale. With that in mind the Rhino's correct LS would be 43.6 tons, still Class 50. I apologize for that point, though the rest of this has been discussed at length elsewhere.

 

[Antoniofer]

Firstly, it does not say that. It says that for every 10 points above 29 it is 4x. So for 30 it would be 130% of 29's total score (since 39 would be 400%). Tremendous strength would also typically come last but it's all just multiplication so who cares. This puts our Strength at 1820 pounds.

This is the example from the same page of the PH v3.5: "a cloud giant with a 35 Strength can carry four times what a creature with a 25 Strength can carry, or 3,200 pounds × 4 because the cloud giant is Huge, for a total of 12,800 pounds". Going by the logic explained in the example, someone with Str 30 have 4 times the carrying capability of someone with Str 20, that then multiplies by the size modifier. If in the Cloud Giant case the final result is 800 (Carrying capability of someone with Str 25) * 4 (due being 10 points above Str 25) * 4 (Huge sized creature) = 12800 lb, then the same applies to the carrying capability of the rhino (or any other creature): 400 (Carrying capability of someone with Str 20) * 4 (due being 10 points above Str 20) * 4 (Huge sized creature) * 1.5 (Being quadrupedal) = 9600 lb, the math match with the book's example.

Not sure where you get that 130%, is not mentioned nowhere in those pages.

As of 5th Edition, lifting is equated with push and drag. Lifting in this way mechanically has the same effects as drag or pull- you can only move 5 feet while doing it. This is a clarification added by 5e and should still be fine.

According to the section you're citing, under optimal conditions (e.g., a flat surface) a creature can in fact drag 10x their typical carrying capacity, not 5x. So the Rhino's final LS would be 10 * 10,920 pounds = 109,200 lbs, or 49,532 kgs, or Class 50. At the top of it, even.

Convenient, you multiply the pushing factor and then you say both pushing and lifting are the same, why not multiply it by 2, the lifting factor, and then equals lifting to pushing (that would be 21840 pounds in your calc)? Making that 5*lifting = pushing and then saying lifting = pushing is an mathematical inconsistency.

5e possesses different methodology of how to calculate these things, you can't nitpick methods of calculation from one edition and another and mix them together: you one one method, or the other, not elements from both. If you're going to use the lifting strength from 5e, then use the score from 5e, but the dire rhino does not exist there. Plus, it says favorable conditions is pushing through smooth surface or a slick object, not pushing through flat surface.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I adjusted my comment and spoke to you over Discord, aye. You're still misrepresenting things but I can accept that I misread one thing.

As for your second bit, this is, again, you just outright not understanding what I'm saying. 5e equates pushing to dragging. We are looking at a 3.5e creature. In 3.5e, you calculate drag/push as 10x normal lift under good conditions (e.g., a flat surface, rather than uneven terrain or uphill). The books themselves state this. You're literally suggesting going against what the book itself says is their Lifting Strength. Which I cannot, for obvious reasons, accept.

Aye, and if a creature solely existed in 5e, we would solely use that methodology. But we're not borrowing 5e's methodology for an older creature, we're simply using the most up-to-date statement regarding push/drag/lift, Anton. This isn't even a significant point given you have at multiple times during this pointless debate stated that the LS should be even higher, due to the friction coefficient. Which would make the mass what it is now (43.6 metric tons) times whatever the friction coefficient is.

I cannot believe I have to tell you the definition of smooth, Anton.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Yeah, agree 100% with Bambu on this one. It's honestly quite straightforward.

Also, regarding the rating being called "lifting" instead of "pushing"... Might want to read the page again.

Lifting Strength

Lifting Strength is defined as the mass that an individual can lift on Earth. In other words it measures the amount of upwards force a character can produce. As such pushing and pulling feats are also considered a part of this statistic, granted they are properly calculated to account for the...

vsbattles.fandom.com

"As such appropriate pushing and pulling feats are also considered a part of this statistic."

 

[Antoniofer]

As for your second bit, this is, again, you just outright not understanding what I'm saying. 5e equates pushing to dragging. We are looking at a 3.5e creature. In 3.5e, you calculate drag/push as 10x normal lift under good conditions (e.g., a flat surface, rather than uneven terrain or uphill). The books themselves state this. You're literally suggesting going against what the book itself says is their Lifting Strength. Which I cannot, for obvious reasons, accept.

What 5e says is irrelevant, you use 3e score to justify the stats, then use 3e methodology; you can't borrow the methodology from one edition to another and mix them together (A rhino wouldn't even have a Str score of 30 in 5e, but rather 22-25, giving it a maximum LS of 1500 lb) . And x10 carrying capability is not normal condition, those are favorable conditions, and since the book compares smoothness to a slick object, it clearly does not refer to a stone or concrete street. And even if normal conditions refer to push/drag through concrete or stone, where friction coeficient varies from 0.3 to 0.7, that would means thatif the pushing strength of the creature is 48000 lb, then the lifting strength would be 14400 to 33600 lb, the book tell us that the lifting strength is 19200 lb, so is withing the range.

you have at multiple times during this pointless debate stated that the LS should be even higher, due to the friction coefficient. Which would make the mass what it is now (43.6 metric tons) times whatever the friction coefficient is

Eh, no? In the OP I write that LS tend to be significally lower than to the mass someone can push/drag, there's three examples of calcs applying friction coeficient. And even is smooth surface refer to stone or concrete (that I doubt, it most likely refer to ice, snow or waxed floorl), the higher that can you get its 43.6*0.7 = 30.5 tons, and that is highballing and using the methods of calculating carrying capability that you used, something that is not written anywhere in the book, that giant example debunk you. EDIT: Nevermind, didn't notice this is the value given by the book itself, so I apologyze.

@LephyrTheRevanchist, checks the accepted calcs from OP, they all use friction coeficient to find the final LS. That statement in the LS page refer that one can find LS from pushing or dragging, but no one scale directly to the moved mass. However, I statement cause confusion, so it may be altered is this mistake turns common.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

1. Once again. 3.5e's value is from 10x base value, which is their push/drag/lift. This isn't the developers saying it is 10x harder to push or drag something, this is the developers saying you can push or drag 10x as much. This literally is stated in the text.

2. We are not talking about a Rhino, Anton. We are talking about a Dire Rhino. The rhino discussed in the original thread was purely to prove a point, as it's in the SRD and easily reference-able.

2. What 5e says is absolutely relevant, but ultimately makes little difference and just serves as another layer of certainty that the calculation is right.

 

[Antoniofer]

Once again. 3.5e's value is from 10x base value, which is their push/drag/lift. This isn't the developers saying it is 10x harder to push or drag something, this is the developers saying you can push or drag 10x as much. This literally is stated in the text.

Correction, x10 the base is pushing/dragging in favorable conditions, according ti the book (you have the link above, and if yoi don't believe the screenshot you can check yourself in the pages I gave you) lifting is x2 the base value, there's a difference between lifting and pushing of x2.5 (normal conditions).

Plus, lifting being 2.5 times harder than pushing and one capable of pushing 2.5 times more than what one can lift are in principle the same thing, see the calcs from above, they are dragging up twice the amount if mass that their LS suggests.

We are not talking about a Rhino, Anton. We are talking about a Dire Rhino. The rhino discussed in the original thread was purely to prove a point, as it's in the SRD and easily reference-able.

I was talking about the woolly rhinoceros, I just said rhino to shorten the amount of words, sorry for the confusion.

What 5e says is absolutely relevant, but ultimately makes little difference and just serves as another layer of certainty that the calculation is right.

It is irrelevant: the table in the OP and the multiplier value such being a quadrupedal only applies to 3e, not 5e. In the 5e, the relationship between carrying capability and lifting capability is x2 as well, not x5 and even less x10, and the lifiting strength is calculated differently in 5e.

If you want to say 5e redconned the str of the beast, then use the lifting capability of the beast in that edition (that even tho it has no official stat block, I asure you, it would be 2640-2880), but instead you: a) use the str score of the creature in 3e (only applicable to 3e), b) use the load table from 3e, c) use the the multiplier factor to push a load instead of directly using the lifting multiplier factor from 3e (whose difference between the two is x2.5, x5 since you insist of assuming dragging an slick object indicates the strength of someone when in reality is far more easier to move something like that), b) and then you use the relationship between pushing and lifting from 5e and says that dragging an slick object equals to lifting it, after applying the multiplier factor from an editions that explicity says both pushing and lifting are different, and ignores the table from 3e that says the creature would be unable to lift more than 19200 lb.

As for the relationship between pushing and lifting in 5e, have you considered that push = lift is just an arbitrary relationship used to simply the mechanics of the game? Or perhaps you have statements that the says that the laws of friction no longer work properly in the universe if 5e? As, you may have not noticed it, but push = lift it actually makes character weaker: in normal conditions, if someone can lift a maximum of M mass, that means they would be able to push 1.5*M to 3*M mass, but going with what you suggest, no one would be able to push more mass of what they can lift.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

This has been explained to you numerous times by this point. Either you're not able to understand or refusing to, I don't really care. The argument has been going in the same bloody circle for the past few comments. You are wrong, Anton. I'm sorry.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

We will adjust ratings based on the corrected 3.5e method- I don't expect this to cause any rating changes but may decrease ratings, likely in the ballpark of 10% change for those affected. Tllm is gathering a list for that now. Cheers.

 

[Starter_Pack]

Can you two please summarize your arguments about this topic? I tried reading through multiple times, but I'm still not 100% confident about the arguments being made here from each side, apart from the fact that there are seeming issues regarding the hybridization of both the 3e LS formula and the 5e LS formula.

Forgive me for my lack of understanding.

 

[Antoniofer]

Ok, from my part, I'm using the method to determinate the maximum amount of mass that a character can lift described in the pages 161-162 of the Player Handbook v3.5 (see here), as its what the current profile use to justify its LS, that according to how I broke up in OP, a huge sized quadrupedal creature would with Str score of 30 would have a carrying capability of 9600 lb, that means a maximum lfiting capability of 19200 lb and a pushing/dragging capability of 48000 lb.

Now, we evaluate how much a character can lift, not how much it can drag/push, as pushing/dragging is considerable easier than lifting, you can notice the calcs linked in OP, that even a character pushed something with certain mass, it ended up having a LS below that due accounting by friction.

That I understand that Bambu wants to apply, is using the the pushing-lifting relationship from 5e, where both are the same, however, he is dragging the methodology of calculating pushing strength from 3e to do so, that means, he is using the Str score of the beast in that edition, the table to determinate carrying capability, and using the multiplier factor of pushing from that edition (x2.5 times higher than what one can lift), and in top of that he is assuming someone is dragging an slick object (x10 times higher than the carrying capability by 3e). This is incorrect by several reasons, like the Str score of the rhino wouldn't be the same in 5e (it does not have an statblock, but compare it with a mammoth, that in 3e have a Str of 34, and in 5e have a Str of 24, and the mammoth is stronger than a woolly rhino), hybridazing the methodolgy from both editions to have the higher lifting strength possible, and not accounting by friction.

 

[Starter_Pack]

Okay. @Mr._Bambu, what do you say? Is this accurate to your arguments up to this point?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

30 Strength: 1,600 lbs
Huge Creature, Quadruped: x6, so 9,600 lbs
Push/Lift/Drag under Optimal Conditions: x10, so 96,000 lbs

5e's clarification is that slightly carrying is the same as pushing and pulling- the three all provide the same "debuff" to movement. This isn't me taking mechanics as I see fit, it is simply a clarification of the visuals of a mechanic that has existed in the game since (at least) 3rd edition. I could look at older modes too, but they're not relevant for this particular conversation.

We're not assuming slick, we're assuming generally good conditions. Because that would be their maximum lifting strength. The book states this is slick or smooth terrain. So a flat floor would be optimal conditions. This is another point that has been ignored ever since I had to define the word to Anton.

If a creature exists in 5e and 3e, we accommodate. Here we cannot. Creature stats fluctuate all the time, though. This isn't relevant.

So no, I would not say Anton is validly representing my arguments.

 

[Antoniofer]

Is not that different from my version.

A) Once again, you ignore the book saying that a character lift a maximum of twice its carrying capability.

B) Once again, you decide to go for favorable (not optimal) conditions. Tell me, if broken ground ground is bad conditions, and smooth ground is favorable conditions, according to you what is neutral conditions?

C) And once again, you jump from 3e methodology to 5e's for no reason, and conveniently, after multiplying the 3e by 10. Why not grabbing the lifting strength from 3e (19200 lb) and equaling it to pushing strength? 5e do not even account for the surface conditions, does that means that in 5e pushing stuff in ice is as difficult as pushing it on broken ground? Does the rules of friction works differently in 5e? You'll understand this is not logical, and that 5e is simply too abstracts and simplistic.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

A) Even ignoring 5e's clarification, Lephyr makes the point that pushing works for LS. We can use the friction coefficient or what have you but even using the optimal argument from your camp, the feats are still the same, just with adjusted values.

B) Anton, the book says smooth ground is optimal conditions. There is a middle ground between smooth and broken- for example, outside terrain.

C) We use 3.5e methodology because it is the most in-depth of the editions. We still aren't just grabbing 5e rules and running, it is a clarification of the rules that affects, from a gameplay point of view, literally only the visuals of what is happening. It is mechanically no different than pulling or pushing. 5e not accounting for surface conditions is one of the reasons we don't use its mechanics much for LS- 3.5e had a more thought-out process and is equally as canon. Literally the only thing used for 5e is the lifting rule, because it is not mechanical- it is an aesthetic of the game, nothing more.

 

[Antoniofer]

Well, yes, we can use pushing/dragging feats to find LS, but if one pushes/drags X mass that does not means one can lift X mass, it needs to be multiplied by the friction coeficient.

If you really want to ignore the lifting capability given in 3e and stick to pushing/dragging (Although I do not see a real reason to do such a thing), you can grab the the pushing capability of the creature, 5*9600 = 48000 lb, and then multiply it by 0.525 (that is the friction coeficient that the Goku calc uses, and its fine as neutral conditions as is just dry soil, being neither rocky, broken, smooth or slick), giving you a lifting strength of 25200 lb or ~11.4 tons, Class 25 (about 31% higher than the LS given by the book, if you take the lower end of coeficient then it would be 12%, or 50% if you use the high end).

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Yes, Anton, I am fully aware of that. The point remains that the 5e context makes this unnecessary but our pushing feats are still absolutely valid.

10x, Anton. You keep ignoring that. I'd rather look into good conditions and see if it is higher, as both a re e legit per the book. I really wish you'd stop ignoring that.

All that said, I still don't agree with just ignoring 5e's clarifying note.

 

[Antoniofer]

5e does not clarify anything, it says dragging, pushing and lifting equal to twice the carrying capability, then it does not elaborate any further, it does not consider consider environmental conditions, is just that simplistic to make the game smoother, you may known that since you play 5e with the entire advantage/disadvantage system, meanwhile 3e acknowledge that not all penalties are equaly as harmful and few of them may even stack (something not possible in 5e because reasons).

Choosing x10 is nitpicking, I can chose the x2.5 multiplier due being pushed in bad condition, or even a lower number as the book suggests, and it would be as valid as pushing a lisk object since 5e system does not have the intend of be logical; basically, by 5e's logic, pushing a solid stone block through gravel is as difficult as pushing a carriage of the same mass through grass, or a boulder through thin snow; you'll understand this is not logical unless this is actually acknowledge in the 5e's universe where suddely the rules of friction does not work, in which you need to show proof.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

It clarifies that those actions are equatable. It is a more up-to-date source and it is a purely aesthetic change in regards to the game. If I did a push-up for each time this was elaborated on, I'd have a twelve-pack in a week. I'm aware of the flaws with 5e, which is why we don't consider it a more valid method than 3.5e- but the purely aesthetic change is fine. I'm aware of the mechanics of 5e, yes. 3.5e however has its own system to represent negative conditions, so I don't know what you're getting at.

It literally isn't though lmao. LS is their maximum LS. Their best feat. x10 is (probably) their best feat. I don't even know how you come to the conclusion that I'm nitpicking with the very math you're defending. You're nitpicking by choosing the lowest possible interpretation beyond reason. Again, I'm aware of the flaws with 5e's logic which is why we use 3.5e's math instead, it is more accurate. Literally the only thing we use from 5e is the comparison between (barely) lifting, pulling, and pushing, since in-game this is purely an aesthetic change. One step closer to a twelve pack, by the way.

 

[Antoniofer]

Yeah, convenient, you use the part from 5e to say pushing something slick equals to lifting it, but ignore the part when it has a different method of calculating the lifting strength: 30*Strength*size modifier. Changing how the laws of friction works is not asthetic, both system contradict each other, they aren't compatible, you use one or you the other, is already questionable using game mechanics going by the rules of this site, now hybridating both systems by nitpicking elements from both is definitively against the rules (at least without a valid justification, that you haven't bothered in showing during the entire debate).

But well, is obvious that you and me wouldn't agree with each other, so it depends of Starter Pack or any other admin to decide.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Convenient that you continuously ignore the bit from 3.5e that would raise results and suggest we take the lowest possible end, too, isn't it. Our use of 5e isn't mechanical and is purely an updated aesthetic choice within the game. Nothing more, nothing less. However, suggesting taking the lowest possible value from 3.5e cannot be argued the same way- it's just literally done to lower the result. I really don't want to hear the irony of "game mechanics bad" from the Anima man. Also it's cherry picking, Anton, for the record. I've displayed my argument fine, I just don't think you're particularly willing to listen, given the aforementioned stance of "take the lowest possible value in existence".

Very epic and le great.

 

[Antoniofer]

If the game tells you "creature can lift a maximum mass of X" then is not nitpicking, is a clear and valid statement; I even suggested an alternative, and is using the dragging strength and then multiply it by friction coefficient in soil ground, the result deviates a little bit from the number that the book tells you, but it is more reasonable and I can accept it if the staff agree, but for some reason, you refuse to use both results. And for the record, in this wiki we almost always take the lowest end.

But or points were already made, and neither of us can conclude this thread alone, it's time for Starter Pack and the staff to decide, I may even call other admins if you two wish to.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Anton I've been on this wiki for a very long time, never before have I heard the advice "Ignore consistent high ends in favor of random arbitrarily chosen low ends". This has literally never been suggested or any variant thereof. I'd love to know where you've been getting your advice.

 

[Antoniofer]

We generally choose the lower end, or in other cases (such the Goku calc from above), the average end; it the unlikely case of using the highest end, and only if there's a real reason to consider it, we write stuff such "At least [lowest end], at most [highest end]". Also, "consistent high end"? There's only three values suggested through this thread: the lifting capability suggested by the very book (19200 lb, Class 10), the pushing capability suggested by the book multiplied by the friction coeficient of soil (25200 lb, Class 25), and the lifting strength determinated by hybridizing the system (96000 lb, Class 50); if any, the last result is out of place.

I can obtain more ends if you wish, by multiplying the pushing capabilities in rock and clean and smooth ground and multiplying it by the appropiated friction coeficient, and then find the hypotetical lifting capability in 5e (the woolly rhino does not have a statblock, but I can use the Str score of a mammoth, its the strongest huge sized non-supernatural quadrupedal beast in 5e, plus it has more Str back then in 3e than the rhino's, so is reasonable as a high end); but I really recommend waiting for Starter Pack or any other admin or content mod to give us his opinion and possible suggestions.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Anton this isn't a case where the high end is a theoretical- the high end is objectively as valid as any other. There is no arguing that. It cannot be compared to a calc where the high end takes some leap to justify a high end. If the statement exists "This character could shatter a cubic meter of straw, a cubic meter of stone, or even a cubic meter of steel", it would not make sense to take the stone value when the steel value is presented as equally as viable. That's arbitrary.

I don't particularly care what ends you invent, Anton, because you don't care enough about the verse to see the point. This is not the first funky idea you've had in regards to DnD or other tabletops like Anima. I will hope ot is the last.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Well after reading here's my views on it

• If the value comes from a certain edition, we need to use that editions mechanics not others. Its the same principle as our Elemental Princes CRT and how people were being incorrectly scaled to high because they came from an edition with a much stronger prince. The 3e version is very clear in all of its measurements in how strength works, 5e simplifies things because it makes the game generally more user family since the math is much simpler. We can't use a 5e mechanic to justify a 3e one, when the 3e one goes far more indepth about how all of that works.
• The lifting page says pushing is completely valid as a statistic. Though I do agree the assumption would be under optimal conditions, so the Class 25 thing may be a better representation of what it can consistently do.

So I say either the best thing to do is just use the coefficient of soil to get a strength score. Assuming they don't already scale to a present feat in the series.

 

[DaReaperMan]

Yeah I fully agree with Bambu here, doesn't even take much of an understanding of DnD to understand.

 

[Tllmbrg]

I’m with Bambu personally

 

[Antoniofer]

@Qawsedf234, so I understand you are against cross scaling methods of calculating carryong/lifting/pushing capability, but the lasts parts your comment confuse me a little: do you want to use the dragging capability obtained through 3e and then use soil coefficient to have the final result (that is the way I obtained the second result of 25200 lb), you want to use the favorable conditions pushing capability and then find an appropriated coefficient, or use the pushing capability of neutral conditions and not multiplying by any coefficient?

 

[Qawsedf234]

I'm saying that if we can't use the optimal conditions for the rating, then using either soil or the times 5x thing should be fine.

 

[Antoniofer]

Not that favorable (not optimal) conditions couldn't be used, but we would need to find the appropiated friction coefficient for that; since we have the friction coefficient for soil, that would qualify as neutral conditions, then we simply multiply the pushing capability (48000 lb) for 0.525 (the coefficient used in the Goku's calc), obtaining a result of 25200 lb. If you want to, I could find other end for the pushing something a slick object, but naturally, it would be lower than pushing stuff in soil (with a friction coefficient below 0.45, the lower cap used in the Goku's calc).

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

So what is being proposed and what are the counter arguments in simplified terms?

 

[Antoniofer]

The rhino's LS value came from a misunderstanding of the lifting capability method stated in the book, and although this was fixed, Bambu still insists in equalling pushing an slick object to lifting it based in what the last edition of the game states; so even if the former edition (the one used to find the lifting strength going for the justification) says that the rhino could lift a maximum of 19200 lb, push a maximum of 48000 lb, and twice as much if pushing a slick object or moving it through smooth terrain, he wants to use the methodology from the lastest edition to say that pushing 96000 lb equals to lifting 96000 lb. Alternativelly, I suggested to use the pushing capability (48000 lb) and then multiply it by the respective friction coefficient if the number given by the book is unaccurate, giving a final lifting capability of 25200 lb, value that seems to be value accepted by Qawsed (although I'm still waiting confirmation for this).

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Well, the standard lifting strength rating assumes deadlifting is the method. But if people can lift more via other methods such as pushing, pulling, back-lifting ect. We sometimes lift things such as Class 5 via back-lifting and what not.

Actually, for pushing/pulling feats, we also take the force = mass * acceleration formula. For example, Kevin Fast pulled an airplane, which looked like Class K pulling feat at first glance. But I noted the speed in which he pulled and it took roughly a second for him to build up that speed. And when taking acceleration into account, I ended up with something barely above baseline Class 5 iirc. So I think the 48000 or 96000 lb pushing methods may need an acceleration to take into account which may or may not lower then end results.

 

[KLOL506]

Actually, for pushing/pulling feats, we also take the force = mass * acceleration formula. For example, Kevin Fast pulled an airplane, which looked like Class K pulling feat at first glance. But I noted the speed in which he pulled and it took roughly a second for him to build up that speed. And when taking acceleration into account, I ended up with something barely above baseline Class 5 iirc. So I think the 48000 or 96000 lb pushing methods may need an acceleration to take into account which may or may not lower then end results.

Based on what Bambu says, it seems that D&D doesn't work like that, its LS doesn't acknowledge friction coefficient to be a thing.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I mean, if it specifically says he pushes or pulls with X pounds/tons of force, it's all good. But specifically saying "They can push or pull objects that weigh up to that much," then friction is pretty much vital unless their full speed also tends to be reached instantly.

 

[Antoniofer]

Yes, according to 5e there's no difference between lifting and pushing, but in 3e is acknowledge that pushing is actually easier than lifting, and even easier if its pushed an slick object or through smooth terrain (not sure what 3e would consider slick or smooth tho). This have more than anything with 5e being a pretty basic game and having simplified mechanics compared to 3e, like being restrained, blinded, exhausted and poisoned is as harmful as just being poisoned.

 

[Qawsedf234]

I mean, if it specifically says he pushes or pulls with X pounds/tons of force, it's all good. But specifically saying "They can push or pull objects that weigh up to that much," then friction is pretty much vital unless their full speed also tends to be reached

In 3e it stats that in good terrain they can move 10x their upper lifting limit. Average terrain is 3x and bad terrain is 2.5x.

If 5he Rhino was in 5e we'd just use 5e's system. But the Rhino is only in 3e so we're forced to use 3e's system.

 

[Antoniofer]

So, @DarkDragonMedeus, what do you think it should be done here? Using the maximum lifting capability given by the 3e table, using the dragging/pushing capability given in the 3e table and multiply it by the appropiated friction coefficient, or equalling pushing/dragging a slick object or an object through smooth terrain as actually lifting it (note that this last method involve hybridizing elements from both systems, as in 3e pushing and lifting are considered different, and in 5e does not use the table and the rhino would have a different Str score).