>Don't be silly. I'm not asking
by what process someone becomes stronger. I'm asking why it >makes sense for these people:
>to be stronger than these people:
>Edit: well, apparently the image embed script isn't working or something. The first one was a >picture of peasants, the second one was of modern soldiers with packs on.
>Do you seriously not understand why this breaks verisimilitude for a lot of people?
Why is it so hard to be understood? Do you understand the concept of "average"? Do you not realize that military are at the upper end of the scale of human fitness, not the average? When I said the average human in D&D land is stronger than the average human in modern times, it is based on that average being largely computed from the billions and billions of people who work at desk jobs, don't work at all, sit at a desk in school, or at best stand in retail or sales job but ultimately never do any real strength work day to day. That is the majority, and while some are more or less strong than the majority, the majority has the largest effect on the average.
>Yeah, 8 str wizards that can carry more pack weight without slowing than almost anyone alive >today.
And they live in the same world where they don't have cars and physical labor is a daily requirement. Besides that, "almost anyone alive" is a bit of an exaggeration.
>As you aptly said to another poster, it's not about my character. It's about the average human, >the human commoner that the Bestiary lists as having a Strength of 10, which means, under >current encumberance rules, that he can carry twice what a trained soldier in the modern military >can carry without becoming fatigued.
Actually that is false, I know the claim was made earlier but it's simply incorrect.
news.medill.northwestern.edu/washington/...American soldiers sometimes carry as much as 130 lbs.
>So for this to be a reasonable rule, you have to say that (i) D&D characters -- even the >commoners -- are superhuman, (ii) D&D Commoners are modeled on the average medieval man, >who could carry 100 lbs. all day without being encumbered, or (iii) the encumberance rules need >to be changed.
What are your criteria for the magic rules to be reasonable? How about your "reasonabilty" analysis for the ability of a dragon to support itself in flight with it's wings? The encumberance numbers are plausible and very much in the realm of reality, your complaints nonwithstanding.
>You have appeared to be suggesting number 2, that the average medieval man can carry 100 lbs. >of gear all day without fatigue, even though the modern soldier can only carry half that. Your >evidence of this has been an historian claiming mediavl man "was very strong" with no indication >of what that means.
Nope, I said they were stronger on average than people of today. It's you who keeps insisting on the 10 strength figure, because D&D commoners have 10 strength. It's time for you realize there is a dfifference between the game and reality. Just because a D&D commoner has a given strength doesn't mean that a real life medieval commoner had the same.
However, I do still claim that thewy were stronger than the average person today, given the sedentary life of most people.
>No, we're not talking about adventurers. The encumberance rules apply to all characters, >including the human commoner found in the Bestiary, who has a Strength of 10 and can thus carry >100 lbs. all day long without fatigue.
Really? Do you really spend hours calculating the total weight carried by each and every NPC in your campaign just to make sure the encumberance rules fit? Tip: don't bother, just use it for PCs and even then don't worry too hard unless you have reason to beleive they are near the limit.
>Karnos: I never claimed that 10 strength was average in the real world
>I never claimed you did. What you claimed is that the current encumberance rules make sense for >characters based on the average medieval man. And the encumberance rules state that the >human commoner can carry 100 lbs. all day without fatigue. So what evidence do you have that >the average medieval human can carry twice as much as a modern-day soldier all day long >without fatigue?
Ah, the second person to take my "average" and apply it military soldiers. The military are not average. They are, for the most part, near the top end of the scale. As such, while I am suggesting a medieval commoner is stronger than the average human of today, I never once said they are stronger than a typical US marine, for example. Also your numbers are screwed up, military sometimes have to carry as much as 130 lbs. 100 lbs is NOT double 130, no matter how you try to do the math.
>Karnos: 10-11 strength is average in D&D.
>This is what you said. What evidence do you have that medieval man can carry
twice as much >weight as a modern soldier (who is more fit than the average modern person) without fatigue? It >is truly an extraordinary claim you are making, that a human commoner is twice as strong as a >modern G.I.
See above. 100 lbs isn't double 130 lbs. Also, the military has medical concerns, logistics to worry about, as well as a great variety of individuals to cater to. Just because the upper limit for the US military is 130 lbs that doesn't mean a person couldn't carry more. That 130 lb number is limited by the weakest members of the service.
