• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Dire Rhinoceros Lifting Strength Revision

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pretty neutral for now as both are technically considered game mechanic methods, but it sounds like 3e is the version that's trying to be more realistic. I cannot say that "Being more realistic" always equates to being more accurate, but it's usually the safer practice unless characters have other reasons to be stronger outside their own feats such as powerscaling and what not. This includes him upscaling from 5e characters who otherwise have lower strength stats than him in 3a.

I'm no D&D expert, but Qawsed mentioned something about having "A stronger Prince" which not sure how he means by that. Though I kind of do agree with Bambu's point about the same game treating steel and stone as having the same durability on the destruction table with being capable of destroying a cubic meter of steel in the first is more than enough reason to just use that feat above the other examples.
 
Yeah, game mechanics is everything available to find up the lifting strength, although I rather stick to one edition, be 3e or 5e, than mix the methodology from both editions. I personally would avoid using 5e due being more abstract and bland than 3e, and due bounded accuracy, the ability scores of several creatures were capped at 30 with no reason, that means that, as for 3e, the strength scaling was ancient dragon < tarrasque < Tiamat, but as for 5e is ancient dragon = tarrasque = Tiamat, as no creature can pass the score value of 30.

Not sure about the bone = steel, for 3e the bone had Hardness 6 and iron/steel had 10 (HP varies depending of the size/thickness of the material); mienwhile in 5e, bone and steel has AC 15 and 19 respectively (Hardness does not exist in 5e, instead being represented by Armor Class).
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
I'm no D&D expert, but Qawsed mentioned something about having "A stronger Prince" which not sure how he means by that.
Click to expand...
In 5e the Elemental Princes have a Tier 6 feat and are CR 15-ish. In earlier editions they're CR 22 to 34. We used to scale people in 3e to the 5e feat with their 3e CR, which is just incorrect scaling. The Rhino comes from 3e so we can't use 5e to justify its stats.
 
Hey, my internet has prevented me from doing much wiki stuff lately. The 5e elemental lords are actually 18-20, though I'm not certain why they're being brought up. We adjusted that scaling recently and even before we were using their 3e stats, just not the right ones.

I should clarify that 3e appears to attempt to consider friction coefficient, it just doesn't tell you the exact real-world math, because that would be insane. It just tries to offer its own system of resolving difficult terrain vs your lifting strength. Flat, smooth terrain is considered optimal, and broken, choppy ground is considered bad, and everything in between has no modifier. Based on this, pulling/pushing should absolutely be fine, even ignoring the 5e stuff. I stand by this opinion.
 
I do not expect to be that much accurate with respect with real life, but the principle is simple, pushing something equals to like x2.5 times the lifting capability of the character, x1.25 or even less times if the terrain is broken, and x5 if the conditions are favorable (not optimal, optimal is the best possible conditions, such moving metal through ice, but that is not the case here). We still need to account for friction, as all of our calculation do, so if someone can push/drag X amount of mass through soil then it only need roundly ~X/2 the amount of force to do so, or in any case, X multiplied by 0.35-0.7, as that are the numbers that the NAVAC DM 7.02 give us (pg 63).

After this, perhaps we should try to find a more fixxed value to use in our calcs that require to known the friction coefficient.
 
It does not say "metal through ice". It says a smooth surface. I've repeated this several times now, I think, and I wish for once you'd read it.
 
I said that metal through ice was not the case, not that the book referred to it; basically, optimal =/= favorable, smooth surface or slick object are favorable, but not optimal.
 
Welp, given that the opposing party refuses to use the lifting capability given by: the 3e table, the pushing capability giving by the 3e table multiplied by the appropiated friction coefficient, the lifting capability given by 5e (I known it does not have a statblock there, but in any case, and the lifting capability of a huge creature is at most 30*30*4 = 3600 lb; I personally do not consider the weight values for 5e appropiated tho); and Qawsed and me already elaborated in why mixing the mechanics from two different editions is a bad idea, the last I can offer is multiply the pushing capability given by the 3e table by pushing/dragging in favorable conditions and then multiply it by the appropiated friction coefficient.

Since it seems people no longer trust my judgement, I let you decide what is the most appropiated friction coefficient for smooth surface or slick object. If the opposing party still refuses to accept the result, well, is up to @DarkDragonMedeus, @Qawsedf234 and @Starter_Pack to decide now.
 
Anton, I need to make something clear

What you offer is not the purpose of this discussion

It is not the only way

You have repeatedly ignored the 3.5e table (the one that says 10x multiplier for smooth ground). This is what I aim to use. You simply won't accept what the text itself says. The whole "5e merging mechanics thing" (while I disagree with it) is irrelevant as our site permits pulling to be used. You're making me out to seem unreasonable and I dislike it. I'm advocating for using the rules in the damn book.
 
The formula for pushing/dragging is μ*m*a, since μ is varies between 0-4 to 0-6 in most dry places, that means that if someone pushes m mass is actually using 2/5 to 3/5 the necessary force to lift it from the ground (this is backed by other calcs made by the wiki), but apparently, over 10 years in the continuity (real time), friction stopped being a thing for no reason, and insist that pushing m equals to lifting m, be pushing through ice, grass, stone or mud, something not physically true. The values that I'm giving also advocate for the book's rules.

I would hate to offend someone, and I really appologize if I made you appear bad, although to be fair the first comments from this thread were you accusing me of lier; even when trying to find more values to have different ends, you still reject them with little elaboration.
 
I say just use like a 5x thing rather than the 10x one, since that's likely more indicative of average surface friction coefficient.
 
Qawsedf234 said:
I say just use like a 5x thing rather than the 10x one, since that's likely more indicative of average surface friction coefficient.
Click to expand...
Except it isn't, though. Like it clearly does refer to the friction of the surface, sure, but 10x is just for flat ground. Ignoring it is ignoring this fact. I don't see how you can justify that.
 
Antoniofer said:
The formula for pushing/dragging is μ*m*a, since μ is varies between 0-4 to 0-6 in most dry places, that means that if someone pushes m mass is actually using 2/5 to 3/5 the necessary force to lift it from the ground (this is backed by other calcs made by the wiki), but apparently, over 10 years in the continuity (real time), friction stopped being a thing for no reason, and insist that pushing m equals to lifting m, be pushing through ice, grass, stone or mud, something not physically true. The values that I'm giving also advocate for the book's rules.

I would hate to offend someone, and I really appologize if I made you appear bad, although to be fair the first comments from this thread were you accusing me of lier; even when trying to find more values to have different ends, you still reject them with little elaboration.
Click to expand...
My issue isn't with this, though. My issue is that every time you mention the 3.5e method, you ignore the 10x stuff and just state it as fact that this is not what we would use. It is. The book states clearly that optimal conditions include smooth terrain, which is a trait it refers to for things like stone just as much as ice. This isn't a 5e thing, this is a 3.5e thing. This is what has been offending me, Anton, is that you keep ignoring this fact for some reason. I need no elaboration when you just objectively do not listen to what the actual game says. Qawsed at least gave a reason for his opinion- from you I've heard little other than hollow dismissal with, ironically, little elaboration.

10x should be used. That is my point. Thanks.
 
I didn't ignored it tho, not completely at least, I gave you an alternative method for the lifting strength, that is using the pushing/dragging capability and multiplied by the appropiated coefficient, the result was 25200 lb (Class 25). You disagree with the friction coefficient used? Welp, I gave you several list, the last being the NAVAC DM 7.02, you agree what is the more appropiated there and I'll apply it. This was with neutral conditions, if we use the favorable conditions mass, then the coefficient will logically change.
 
I agree with the 10x value being used. As I've been saying. The favorable conditions is a flat surface, and reasonable materials. This includes a stone floor, as per the rules. Anything flat.
 
Mr._Bambu said:
Like it clearly does refer to the friction of the surface, sure, but 10x is just for flat ground. Ignoring it is ignoring this fact. I don't see how you can justify that.
Click to expand...
10x is for good ground conditions, with 5x being something you'll presumably commonly encounter and 2.5x is for rough/broken terrain. 5x may be the more average rating to go with rather than 10x, but I guess it really doesn't matter since the difference is only 2x.
 
Good ground conditions are stated to be smooth terrain. As Lephyr pointed out in the D&D discord, this refers to normal ass stone floors in commonly dungeons, in the very same book, no more than a couple pages later. Based on this, the implication for typical terrain becomes that it is not-smooth terrain; rugged, possibly hilly dirt, seeded with rocks and the like (as an example), or uneven, ****** up cave systems. I fail to see how we can justify ignoring the 10x rule based on this.
 
Last edited:
Yah if dungeon floors are the metric here I don’t think we can really ignore the x10 end
 
All right, if you are fine with considering stone as smooth, then the coefficient would be like 0.45, as that is the low-end in the Goku's calc, it seems reasonable considering the coefficient does not consider the surface to be smooth. That being said, the result would be 96000*0.45 = 43200 lb or 19.6 tons (Class 25).
 
Antoniofer said:
as smooth, then the coefficient would be like 0.45, as that is the low-end in the Goku's calc
Click to expand...
Well in this case we wouldn't use the friction coefficient since the source material gives us the in-universe metric to use for the measurement.
 
Mass =/= weight, if someone pushing X mass does not means it can lift the same amount. See the calcs from OP: Arle pushes 3.7-4.3 tons but she only exhert the equivalent of 2-2.4 tons, Gyomei pushes 81 tons but that is the equivalent of lifting 53 tons, and for Goku only requires producing 572 tons to move a 1100 tons rock.

This is what the opposing party do not seems to understand, what is something worrisome considering that one of that party's users is a calculation member.
 
The jab at me is noted and duly ignored as I've actually stated awareness of the friction coefficient, as opposed to the false awareness you gave to the existence of the 10x value, which is equally worrisome given the opposition was previously a mod meant to handle such things.
 
I didn't ignore it, I'm suggested to use it and then multiplied by the appropiated coefficient long ago, I did it with the x5 value for pushing in normal conditions, obtaining the result of 25200 lb, and now I used it for the the x10 value, with a result of 43200 lb (if you disagree with the coefficient used this time, you can suggest a more reasonable value). Notice that all the values, 19200 lb, 25200 lb and 43200 lb, aren't more correct than each other, as all derivate from the same table, although the last too are indirect values.
 
I suppose I should clarify your actions to you- you did indeed repeatedly refer explicitly to the 5x value for no actual reason other than a perceived VSBW-based reason to go with lower values. The highest one is absolutely the most correct, as we are talking about their maximum actual capabilities, Anton. If I kick a rock and blow up a planet you would not say "well he might be 10-B or 5-B, both are equally as correct as they both derive from the same character!" That's silly. You should know it is silly.
 
Case is a little different here, tho, as the book says the creature wouldn't be capable to lift more than its lifting capability (19200 lb in this case). Following your example, if someone pushes a planet, but then fails to lift a rock, is not a high-end and a low-end respectively, is an inconsistency (assuming that in both cases the character was at its peak and didn't receive any kind of [de]buff).

Now, is not unreasonable that if someone can lift a maximum of m mass then it can push x1.25 (or below), x2.5 or x5 as the book comments, inverse friction values varies from 0.3 to 0.7 (not counting slippy surfaces), so it can easily push 3.333*m to 1.43*m; so, hey, the book not may be exact, but its values are pretty close to the range of friction, I didn't expect for a game that isn't GURPS-like to account for every possible material, but is somethng. Basically, if someone can lift a maximum of 6 tons, one can say that can push up to 20 tons in smooth conditions.
 
Aaaaaaah. Strawman. I don't care, anymore, I really don't. Read the words or don't, I've decided I don't care, Anton. Say one thing propose another, do as you like. You are wrong in this CRT. That is the end of it.
 
I not sure what I did wrong tho... all my arguments has been the same through the entire thread, only proposing alternatives methods when the former were rejected. I was not my intention to insult anyone (reprimend most likely yes, but not insult) if I actually did, so I apologize.

I do not really want to make Bambu more upset, so @DarkDragonMedeus or @Qawsedf234, if you agree with any of my proposed value, or want to stick with Bambu's methodology, say it now, please. I do not have anything more to add, but if you have a doubt you want me to answer, I could do it if you wish.
 
I was more so talking to Bambu. And he didn't quite insult either, but his accusations were getting moderately heated.

But as for the points in the thread. I can see some points from your side as well as what Qawsed said. Usually, calculation methods for individual feats are fairly important. But Bambu seems to be the one most familiar with the generally agreed scaling methods and has elaborated why friction methods aren't the most consistent assumptions for the D&D cast. And appears to have elaborated why the high ends are things noted as the cast members of all D&D generations are capable of.
 
Scaling was never accounted in the stat's justification or in this thread, if the woolly rhino could have scaled to someone else that would have saved us a bunch of discussion; although, a jnew reasoning for that is needed.
 
Mr._Bambu said:
Good ground conditions are stated to be smooth terrain. As Lephyr pointed out in the D&D discord, this refers to normal ass stone floors in commonly dungeons, in the very same book, no more than a couple pages later. Based on this, the implication for typical terrain becomes that it is not-smooth terrain; rugged, possibly hilly dirt, seeded with rocks and the like (as an example), or uneven, ****** up cave systems. I fail to see how we can justify ignoring the 10x rule based on this.
Click to expand...
you're welcome sir
 
Should I ask some additional calc group members to help evaluate this thread, or is it better to just let the profile page be as it is currently?
 
The main points of contention aren't really calc related issues, it is about interpreting the work, in which case most of the relevant parties are here, even if there is disagreement between them. Outside of myself and Anton, the primary parties of interest are Tllm, Lephyr, Qawsed, and maybe individuals like Xulrev.
 
I’m with Bambu
I’m fairly sure I stated it somewhere here but if not then I’ll say it again
 
Okay. Which members have agreed with what so far here?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Demigod Lifting Strength Changes (Removal of Class T from the weaker members of the Seven)
Replies
2
Views
427
Cheesecakemaster2
Tllmbrg
  • Locked
Another Random Batch CRT (Dire Rat, Tayellah, Giant Eagle, Giant Owl, Merrow)
Replies
3
Views
330
Tllmbrg
Tllmbrg
REX9097
Ninjago Lifting Strength Update
Replies
19
Views
1K
REX9097
REX9097
Baken384
Massive Lifting Strength Revision for JJBA High Tiers
2
Replies
46
Views
3K
DRW001
DRW001
BruhMomento0260
Lisa - Class 25 (maybe Class 50) lifting strength upgrade for top tiers
Replies
3
Views
813
Sinpokefan
Sinpokefan
Back
Top