Dire Rhinoceros Lifting Strength Revision

[Antoniofer]

In all honestly, people hasn't addressed why we shouldn't use the maximum lifting capability given by the book's table, take into account this is the maximum that a character can lift, and while lifting such loads a character is unable to dodge and can barely move. Plus, now we agree to not mix systems from two different editions, no one has given a reason to equate lifting to pushing, as I already showed proof all why they aren't the same, both from real physics and from the book, and that if someone can push m mass is factible to being able to push five times as much (see pushing rock through wood and cement for example, that is a multiplier of 3.333 to 5).

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Anton, if we were not working with the maximum a character could lift, what would be the point of documenting it? This is something I can't really understand with you. You see a list that definitively tells you the peak weight that character can handle and you say "no".

 

[Antoniofer]

We look for how much a character can lift, no how much it can push. This is what a our LS says: "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"; so we evaluate based in lifting, not in pushing. For pushing feats we multiply the mass of the object by the appropiated coefficient, just as we do with our calcs. For example, if someone pushes 6 tons through ground, it actually using the equivalent strength of uplifting roundly half as much (like 3 tons), as such, the character is rated as Class 5 instead of Class 10, even though its pushing something that weights more than 5 tons.

 

[DaReaperMan]

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

 

[Antoniofer]

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

Did you take a look at the accepted calcs in OP? Or the link with the equation for calculating the amount of force needed to push things?

Also, the page says pushing and dragging are appropiated, not that pushing/dragging are the same are lifting; if the page would suggests such a thing it means its wrong and needs to be corrected.

 

[DaReaperMan]

Did you take a look at the accepted calcs in OP? Or the link with the equation for calculating the amount of force needed to push things?

Did you read your own arguments? You quite literally directly implied that we apsolutely don't use pushing or pulling feats. Drop the shit.

 

[Antoniofer]

Going back to badmouthering, eh? I do not recall suggesting such a thing, I only suggested to use the appropiated friction coefficient when pushing/dragging, If any. Men, even an alternative method is suggested in OP, where I use the pushing capability and then I multiplied by a fair coefficient (the same one used in the Goku's calc).

 

[Mr. Bambu]

We look for how much a character can lift, no how much it can push. This is what a our LS says: "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"; so we evaluate based in lifting, not in pushing. For pushing feats we multiply the mass of the object by the appropiated coefficient, just as we do with our calcs. For example, if someone pushes 6 tons through ground, it actually using the equivalent strength of uplifting roundly half as much (like 3 tons), as such, the character is rated as Class 5 instead of Class 10, even though its pushing something that weights more than 5 tons.

Nono, I'm not arguing about these points. I'm under the impression that this will be easier if I can segment it for you.

Your claim is that we shouldn't use the highest values in the book, even though they are simply statements of what a character can do. Why? It makes no damn sense and seems to be for the express purpose of downplaying the characters. I dislike the logic that we keep track of people not based on their peak but on their median.

The rest of your points are wrong but for other reasons, so I'll get to them later.

 

[Antoniofer]

My claim is to not use the pushing capability, as we rate LS based in that a character lifts, not what it pushes. If you see a character have a LS of 3 tons one can logically claim than that character can push around 6 tons in the ground (it can be more, it can be less, it ultimately depends of the condition and material of both the object and the surface), a character does not need feats to validate this claim in the same way one does not need to validate that a character can lift more than 3 tons if they are in a planet with lower gravity than Earth's, is basic physic. It also works at the inverse, if someone lifts up to 6 tons in moon, one logically comes to the conclusion that it can lift less than 1 ton in the Earth, so character is rated Class 1 (actually below, but I'm rounding up) even tho it lifted 6 tons; so logically, if you push 6 tons, you aren't exherting the force to lift 6, but like half as much (maybe more, maybe less).

My claim is to use the maximum lifting capability that the book give us, that in this case, 19200 lb, why? Its officially supported, there's no real issue to ignore it (unless you want to bring scaling that does not involve the game), and its not a low-end, its the absolute maximum a character can lift, meaning it can't lift more than that. Even if you decide to ignore it for some reason, and decide to use the pushing values, they need to be multiplied by the appropiated coefficient, just as our calcs and physics dictates. But has I already showed you, is possible to lift m mass and being able to push five times as much (with no hitting into slick surface), as friction coefficient has a value of at least 0.2 (such wood on rock, and those materials aren't precisely slippery).

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I'm desperately trying to reel you back in to manage a single problem at a time and you continue to argue points I am not currently trying to argue. Please read my comment, man.

 

[Antoniofer]

OK, this is how I see it: this is no longer a discussion about the verse, but rather about we define LS; the last comments is more me trying to explain why pushing is not the same as lifting.

So far the opposing party has failed to: a) Elaborate on why is wrong to use the maximum lifting capability written in the book, this is not a low-end, is literally the maximum a character can lift, and lifting that amount will leave the character practically immobilized and is unable to lift more; and b) explain why, in the case of the first point being discarded for some reason, we shouldn't multiply the pushing values the an appropriated coefficient, like, I already showed proof to why is the case, this case is not really different from the calcs posted in the OP, yet people refuses to elaborate why this is a different case.

So if you can address these two points at least we can walk through the same road. And @Antvasima, given that DDM and Starter Pack are no longer interested in this thread and do not want to deliverate a conclusion, care to ping a member knowledgeable in the entire subject of pushing/lifting to give its opinion?

 

[Antvasima]

Can each side write an easy to understand explanation of their arguments here please? Afterwards I can probably ask a few other calc group members to help you out with evaluations.

Also, DaReaperMan, you still need to make an ongoing effort to be polite and respectful.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Can each side write an easy to understand explanation of their arguments here please? Afterwards I can probably ask a few other calc group members to help you out with evaluations.

Also, DaReaperMan, you still need to make an ongoing effort to be polite and respectful.

I will try to summarize.

How we currently measure Lifting Strength in Dungeons and Dragons is by using the math set up for it in 3rd edition/3.5e (3.5e being an updated version of 3rd edition, it has the same rules for our purposes). These rules give a graph that shows the "heavy load" of a character, meaning how much the character can lift without straining much (no impeded movement penalties or anything). It then goes a step further to lay down things like what a character could, say, push or pull, and also lays down rules regarding difficult terrain and larger sized creatures. It is because of these more advanced rules that we use the older rules for calculating Lifting Strength, which as far as I can tell is unanimously agreed upon, even by Anton.

The primary disagreements herein are threefold, I think. Firstly, we have whether to use 5e's rule clarification regarding carrying under strain being equal to pushing or pulling. Secondly, we have whether we should use their maximum values listed on the table, or take lesser values instead. Thirdly, we have whether pushing and pulling are even valid. The last point has largely been dropped by Anton by this junction, currently I was attempting to discuss the second point before the first. Forgive me if I am forgetting something.

I will explain the issues each in their own section.

The first issue is 5e's rule clarifications. As I mentioned prior, we do not use editions other than 3.5e to calculate carrying capacity of a character- we have agreed multiple times that it is the most accurate to the real world and the most detailed insofar as taking various issues into account. However, 5th edition makes a singular rule clarification that does not alter these calculations- in that you can somewhat lift the same weight you can push or pull. This lift is the maximum duress a character can take, and mechanically functions the same as pushing or pulling- it is purely a visual change in-game. You suffer a colossal movement penalty while struggling to carry such a mass, but it is possible.

The second issue is the maximum values thing. Anton feels we should avoid using the highest values stated that a character can lift, and instead choose their middle ground values. This is in part due to some argument over what "optimal conditions" are for the purposes of achieving the highest values. It has since been clarified that these conditions include smooth stone floors, making most agree that these are fair to use. The other issue Anton mentioned was a perceived tendency on VSBW to take "averages" rather than "peaks".

The final issue is essentially nullified as of right now but since it does get continuously brought up, I will elaborate regardless. Near the outset of this thread, there was disagreement over whether or not pushing or pulling could be used to get Lifting Strength. As has been mentioned by others, our rules clarify that they can indeed do that. The only discourse still surrounding this is the exact methodology of getting said LS. This point can be irrelevant depending on the outcome of point one. I will also note, though this isn't something I've spoken on, some have posited the notion that the 3.5e LS has already accounted for the friction coefficient (how Anton proposes we put this to math, should we go with his propositions) in the math, as it generally equates to the same values being used. That is to say, normal conditions achieving half of the LS of peak conditions (implying a drop in friction coefficient between the two) and yet further lowering it for worse conditions.

This is the argument as far as I understand it. I don't really think this is a Calc Group issue, since again, it comes down to interpreting rules of this specific verse rather than applying math- we have the math laid out for us.

 

[Antoniofer]

I think we already get rid of the hybridazion of both systems as Qawsed already clarified.

I considered the table from 3e that says a character can lift as much as m amount of mass, it was pretty straight forward; while lifting such amount of weight a character can barely move, so is not a low-end, it marks the limit of the character's LS. As an alternative, I suggested to use the pushing/dragging capabilities, I used the pushing/dragging in normal conditions, that we agree it would be loose soil, just as the Goku's calc uses, a friction coefficient of 0.525, with a result not far behind of what the tables says.

I do not opposes to use the value for pushing in favorable conditions, but just as in neutral conditions, it needs to be multiplied by the appropiated firction coefficient, and if in neutral conditions the value was 0.525 (it can actually vary between 0.4 to 0.6, more or less depending of the material), you would guess that the coefficient in smooth surface is below that (cement on rock is 0.3, rock on wood vary from 0.2 to 0.4). This is a general rule, for pushing feats we need to multiply the mass of the object by the appropiated coefficient, that is what we do with our calcs (men, one of the OP calcs is a recalculation cuz the former version didn't accoutn for friction) and that is what physic dictates: if someone pushes something, we scale the object to find weight and then multiply by the coefficient, or if its stated to push m amount of mass we simply skip the scaling part and simply multiply by the coefficient.

But people seems the misunderstand what is writted in our Lifting Strength page, and they think that the page saying pushing/dragging are appropiated to obtain LS means pushing = lifting, but it does not really says pushing and lifting are the same, even if it did, it would obviously be incorrect (I would even suggest to edit that part as it generates confusion), pushing m mass generally requires less strength than lifting m mass (unless the surface is absurdly broken or too specific materials are used, such aluminium on aluminium, that has a friction coefficient above 1).

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Qawsed agreed with you on that point, yes.

I'm not looking to bury the summary in debate so I'll refrain from doing so further. I'd appreciate if you did the same.

 

[Antoniofer]

Honestly, I'm waiting for DDM, Qawsed or any other staff to deliberate (I messaged DontTalkDT and Wokistan, but they simply aren't interested), although you'll notice that if we equalize pushing to lifting several calculations would need to be revised.

 

[Antvasima]

I will try to summarize.

How we currently measure Lifting Strength in Dungeons and Dragons is by using the math set up for it in 3rd edition/3.5e (3.5e being an updated version of 3rd edition, it has the same rules for our purposes). These rules give a graph that shows the "heavy load" of a character, meaning how much the character can lift without straining much (no impeded movement penalties or anything). It then goes a step further to lay down things like what a character could, say, push or pull, and also lays down rules regarding difficult terrain and larger sized creatures. It is because of these more advanced rules that we use the older rules for calculating Lifting Strength, which as far as I can tell is unanimously agreed upon, even by Anton.

The primary disagreements herein are threefold, I think. Firstly, we have whether to use 5e's rule clarification regarding carrying under strain being equal to pushing or pulling. Secondly, we have whether we should use their maximum values listed on the table, or take lesser values instead. Thirdly, we have whether pushing and pulling are even valid. The last point has largely been dropped by Anton by this junction, currently I was attempting to discuss the second point before the first. Forgive me if I am forgetting something.

I will explain the issues each in their own section.

The first issue is 5e's rule clarifications. As I mentioned prior, we do not use editions other than 3.5e to calculate carrying capacity of a character- we have agreed multiple times that it is the most accurate to the real world and the most detailed insofar as taking various issues into account. However, 5th edition makes a singular rule clarification that does not alter these calculations- in that you can somewhat lift the same weight you can push or pull. This lift is the maximum duress a character can take, and mechanically functions the same as pushing or pulling- it is purely a visual change in-game. You suffer a colossal movement penalty while struggling to carry such a mass, but it is possible.

The second issue is the maximum values thing. Anton feels we should avoid using the highest values stated that a character can lift, and instead choose their middle ground values. This is in part due to some argument over what "optimal conditions" are for the purposes of achieving the highest values. It has since been clarified that these conditions include smooth stone floors, making most agree that these are fair to use. The other issue Anton mentioned was a perceived tendency on VSBW to take "averages" rather than "peaks".

The final issue is essentially nullified as of right now but since it does get continuously brought up, I will elaborate regardless. Near the outset of this thread, there was disagreement over whether or not pushing or pulling could be used to get Lifting Strength. As has been mentioned by others, our rules clarify that they can indeed do that. The only discourse still surrounding this is the exact methodology of getting said LS. This point can be irrelevant depending on the outcome of point one. I will also note, though this isn't something I've spoken on, some have posited the notion that the 3.5e LS has already accounted for the friction coefficient (how Anton proposes we put this to math, should we go with his propositions) in the math, as it generally equates to the same values being used. That is to say, normal conditions achieving half of the LS of peak conditions (implying a drop in friction coefficient between the two) and yet further lowering it for worse conditions.

This is the argument as far as I understand it. I don't really think this is a Calc Group issue, since again, it comes down to interpreting rules of this specific verse rather than applying math- we have the math laid out for us.

I think we already get rid of the hybridazion of both systems as Qawsed already clarified.

I considered the table from 3e that says a character can lift as much as m amount of mass, it was pretty straight forward; while lifting such amount of weight a character can barely move, so is not a low-end, it marks the limit of the character's LS. As an alternative, I suggested to use the pushing/dragging capabilities, I used the pushing/dragging in normal conditions, that we agree it would be loose soil, just as the Goku's calc uses, a friction coefficient of 0.525, with a result not far behind of what the tables says.

I do not opposes to use the value for pushing in favorable conditions, but just as in neutral conditions, it needs to be multiplied by the appropiated firction coefficient, and if in neutral conditions the value was 0.525 (it can actually vary between 0.4 to 0.6, more or less depending of the material), you would guess that the coefficient in smooth surface is below that (cement on rock is 0.3, rock on wood vary from 0.2 to 0.4). This is a general rule, for pushing feats we need to multiply the mass of the object by the appropiated coefficient, that is what we do with our calcs (men, one of the OP calcs is a recalculation cuz the former version didn't accoutn for friction) and that is what physic dictates: if someone pushes something, we scale the object to find weight and then multiply by the coefficient, or if its stated to push m amount of mass we simply skip the scaling part and simply multiply by the coefficient.

But people seems the misunderstand what is writted in our Lifting Strength page, and they think that the page saying pushing/dragging are appropiated to obtain LS means pushing = lifting, but it does not really says pushing and lifting are the same, even if it did, it would obviously be incorrect (I would even suggest to edit that part as it generates confusion), pushing m mass generally requires less strength than lifting m mass (unless the surface is absurdly broken or too specific materials are used, such aluminium on aluminium, that has a friction coefficient above 1).

@DarkDragonMedeus @SomebodyData @Celestial_Pegasus @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens

Would any of you be willing to help evaluate this please?

I personally think that Mr. Bambu seems to make more sense above.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I understand where both sides are coming from, and I do agree that pushing/pulling doesn't always 100% equal lifting since acceleration and friction may need to be taken into account. However, Bambu knows the consistency of D&D and that most characters are consistently just as capable of lifting/carrying as they are pushing that other wise overrides the other topic about friction needing to be taken into account. And acceleration is otherwise full speed from the beginning via 3e.

But I'm leaning towards agreeing more with Bambu.

 

[Antoniofer]

The part of pushing = lifting was already discard when we stop mixing both systems tho, there's nothing suggesting such a thing beyond of the rules from 5e. The absolute maximum that a character can lift/push in 5e is ~6.5 tons in any case (maybe there's few powers that can increase this number, but I'm not sure), a value that is not accurate at all.

Other thing, I known Bambu is the most well known member that known about the verse, but you just can't take his word at face value without some proof to back it up; is kind of frustrating that I have to gather several links and scans to back up my claims, but the knowledgeable member does not have the need to do so. Do not misunderstand me, I do not suggests he is hiding something, but he may be mistaken in the same way he was convinced that the creature can lift/push was 49 tons when it was later proven be wrong. I would be grateful if people is more strict in this regard.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Would any of you be willing to help evaluate this please?

The game accounts for friction with the system and common battle grounds like dungeons are qualified for a x10 factor. So it's probably fine as is. Though personally i wouldn't be against moving the standard from x10 to x5 since that likely applies to just about everywhere relevant to a page.

Though only for 3e.

 

[Antoniofer]

Btw, if still relevant, and now that DDM touched the consistence issue, I believe is could be useful to pay attention to other editions of DnD. 4th Edition for instance also acknowledge the fact that pushing is easier than lifting, although it does not consider ground conditions except by stating that is not possible to push stuff through difficult terrain; the lifting-dragging relationship here is x2.5, the same as for 3e in neutral conditions.

For 2nd Edition, it does not seems to have a dragging capability within the statistic, it only has Maximum Press (Player Handbook pg. 20), definied as "heaviest weight a character can pick up and lift over his head"; however, going by the description of the Unseen Servant spell, it also acknowledge that pulling through smooth surface is easier than lifting, having a relationship of x2. Notice that the Wooly Rhino does also appear in 2e, but the book does not bother is listing how much is its Maximum Press, or at least, is not something I can pint-point (perhaps Bambu or Qawsed knows about that). Don't known how 1st Edition handle this issue.

Apparently, the only instance in all DnD saying that pushing equals to lifting is 5e, so I wouldn't say it is consistent.

 

[Qawsedf234]

but the book does not bother is listing how much is its Maximum Press, or at least, is not something I can pint-point (perhaps Bambu or Qawsed knows about that

Maximum press would just be a formula you plug in with strength, not something listed in the profile itself.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I would like to note that 5e is the current edition of D&D, e.g., the most recent. For slight changes such as these I feel it is fine to reference it, especially given each edition of D&D seems to have at least some slight variation. As I said, in game terms I don't feel 5e's wording change is significantly removed from 3.5e's. It is a aesthetic change in the terms of the game, little else- the fact that it has bearing upon our wiki is unfortunate but still.

 

[Antvasima]

The part of pushing = lifting was already discard when we stop mixing both systems tho, there's nothing suggesting such a thing beyond of the rules from 5e. The absolute maximum that a character can lift/push in 5e is ~6.5 tons in any case (maybe there's few powers that can increase this number, but I'm not sure), a value that is not accurate at all.

Other thing, I known Bambu is the most well known member that known about the verse, but you just can't take his word at face value without some proof to back it up; is kind of frustrating that I have to gather several links and scans to back up my claims, but the knowledgeable member does not have the need to do so. Do not misunderstand me, I do not suggests he is hiding something, but he may be mistaken in the same way he was convinced that the creature can lift/push was 49 tons when it was later proven be wrong. I would be grateful if people is more strict in this regard.

Sorry about that. I have a hard time focusing enough on every single thread to evaluate more complicated ones in-depth while quickly jumping between them over prolonged periods of time. I can just say that Bambu seemed to make more sense in the two posts that I quoted above.

 

[Antoniofer]

This still do not fix the issue of not mixing the system from both games, that we already agree in not doing; I wouldn't have opposed to use the lifting capability from 5e, but the issue is that the rhino does not have a statblock there, and even if it has one it wouldn't be above 300 lb or 1.36 tons (that is, the highest lifting/pushing capability of a huge sized non-supernatural beast in 5e, that is the T-Rex), so we are forced to use the last appearance of the creature, that was in 3e, where pushing and lifting are actually different. Either use the limit given by the table, or use the pushing capability in smooth ground and halve that result (as that is the relationship given in 2e between lifitng and smooth surface pushing), that is a result of 48000 lb. It may contradict itself within the own book, but is at least technically correct.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

We are not mixing the system of both games, though (also, this is semantics, but they are different editions of the same game, not entirely different systems). We are using a single visual alteration from the most recent edition of the game. It has no bearing on the math as presented in the game, I don't see this as a big deal.

 

[Antoniofer]

Limiting monsters capable to lift dozens of tons and push even more to merely being capable of pushing/lifting half dozen of tons at the very best is not merely a visual alteration. What would happen when a new edition of the game comes up and once again changes how carrying capability works? Are the numbers and methods from 3e and 5e be discarded and start using the new edition's, independently if the new values are lower or higher? Bounding the wiki statistic to the game needs does not sound like a good idea...

 

[Mr. Bambu]

It is for the purposes of the game, actually. For the purposes of the game the wording changes nothing- you remain capable of transporting the precise same amount at the precise same speed. In the context of the game this clarification means nothing, is the point. Hence why I don't refer to it as some colossal change of rules- it is no such thing. To present this as a question of math is wrong. If future editions of the game did again rule against 5e's clarification, I would be fine with changing it. Using the game's rules and phrasings hardly sounds like a bad idea to me.

 

[Antvasima]

So should we close this thread and keep Bambu's version of the profile page statistics then?

 

[Antoniofer]

Yeah, I guess I was unable to convince him and the staff.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. My apologies if you are disappointed.