What value to limit additional Strength only for lifting and determining Encumbrance?

[Ryhope Wood]

If you wanted to allow additional Strength but only for lifting and determining whether a character is encumbered, what value limitation would you allow? I'm thinking -2. This would make it consistent with GURPS where normal ST is 10 points and Lift ST is 3 points.

 

Any thoughts?

 

Ian

[Legendsmiths]

Re: What value to limit additional Strength only for lifting and determining Encumbra

 

I would think closer to -1. Lift is a big part of STR, about half of its utility I would think. I don't know as making it consistent with GURPS, especially since the strength scales are so different, is really all that meaningful. Using the standard Encumbrance rules, most characters usually have enough STR. What problem are you trying to solve?

[Talon]

Re: What value to limit additional Strength only for lifting and determining Encumbra

 

Does lifting include throwing large objects or otherwise causing damage with them? If so, -1 would be an upper limit. If it's just out of combat lifting, I would say -2 might be appropriate for a supers game (where encumbrance doesn't come up much) and -1 for a heroic game where encumbrance comes into play a lot.

[Ryhope Wood]

Re: What value to limit additional Strength only for lifting and determining Encumbra

 

Thanks for the feedback.

 

I'm converting stuff over from a D20 campaign setting for a Fantasy Hero game.

 

The racial description states "Dwarf base land speed is 20 feet. However, dwarves can move at this speed even when wearing medium or heavy armour or when carrying a medium or heavy load (unlike other creatures whose speed is reduced in such situations)."

 

More generally the problem is one of the cart horse that can carry heavy loads but not necessarily pack such a kick in combat. I'll go with -1.

[IndianaJoe3]

Re: What value to limit additional Strength only for lifting and determining Encumbra

 

I would think closer to -1. Lift is a big part of STR' date=' about half of its utility I would think.[/quote']

 

I disagree. STR is (generally) only used for lifting and damage. "Damage Only" is only a -1/4 Limitation. (That's how HtH Attack is built.) So, "Lifting Only" should be a -2.

[Legendsmiths]

Re: What value to limit additional Strength only for lifting and determining Encumbra

 

Those values don't necessarily correlate. Also, what do you define as damage? Anything covered by the exert element? I can't use an HA attack to break out of a grab, and that is a primary use of STR. Is that grouped with lifting by extension of your example? My point is, and this is where you and I agree, is that it is a relative assessment based on how STR is used in the campaign. -2 is limiting almost all of its usefulness, and that is just not the case, especially in a Heroic game. As with any limited power, there are situations that we can create that make the limitation almost useless, whether out of creativity or bad design.

 

I'll give a different example: PRE, only for fear/intimidation (-1). Published examples of this exist. Take it to the next step: Only to RESIST fear/intimidation... -2. Or PRE, only to turn undead -2. Only for lifting is not nearly as limiting as either of those 2 conditions.

 

You may disagree, and in your campaign a -2 may be appropriate, but I think -1 is a pretty fair guideline. Hopefully our discussion will give Ryhope something to think about.

[Ice9]

Re: What value to limit additional Strength only for lifting and determining Encumbra

 

-2 is limiting almost all of its usefulness, and that is just not the case, especially in a Heroic game.

-2 is limiting 2/3 of its usefulness. If Lifting more than 1/3 of the value of Strength? Certainly not, even in a Heroic game.

 

Strength gives you:

* Damage

* Grab / Throw / Shove

* Ability to resist Grab / Throw / Shove

* Casual Strength - this should not be underestimated, as casual-ing out of a Grab/Entangle is like a free phase.

* Lifting

 

Consider that Damage alone is considered to be well over half the value of Strength (Source: Hand to Hand Attack). Being able to apply and resist grabs is certainly not irrelevant, at least the equal of lifting strength. Therefore, I don't see how just Lifting is more than a quarter of the value of Strength. The real question is whether the improved lifting Strength gives you the ability to throw heavy things at people for the corresponding damage. If so, then it encompasses aspects of damage, and is probably worth around -1. If not, then I would put it at 1/4 the total value, which is a -3 limitation.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: What value to limit additional Strength only for lifting and determining Encumbra

 

Technically, the game values it at -1.

 

For practical purposes, in 5e I defined Only For Encumbrance as a -1 1/2, with No Figured for a further -1/2 and a total lim of -2:

 

2 Load Bearing: +6 STR; No Figured (-1/2), Only for Encumbrance Purposes (-1 1/2)

 

3e Fighters

 

In 6e No Figured wouldn't apply...

[prestidigitator]

Re: What value to limit additional Strength only for lifting and determining Encumbra

 

In a superheroic campaign I'd probably make it -2. In a heroic campaign (or some heroic campaigns anyway) where Encumberance plays an important role and you don't want characters carrying a mountain of equipment on their backs for a couple of points (and often want more realism to boot; no scrawny wizards carrying big loads for people because they've decided to limit all of their Str...), I'd make it -1 or less. I probably wouldn't allow it without some kind of magical enchantment/item or a really good racial justification either (or some kind of cyberware in a sci-fi campaign, etc.), myself, and then only in limited amounts. Like in the stated case of dwarves I'd probably limit it to +3-5 Str.

[Ice9]

Re: What value to limit additional Strength only for lifting and determining Encumbra

 

I find "less than -1" a little hard to imagine. Or even -1. I mean, are these two characters really even with each-other?

 

Axel the Dwarf: Strength 15 (25 for encumberance)

Bob the Orc: Strength 20

 

Also, I seriously doubt anyone would give Strength "Not for Lifting" a -1 limitation. -1/4 is the most I've ever seen for that, and some people advocate -0. Now while you can say that sometimes the parts are worth more than the whole, there's something off about saying that lifting is both "at least half of Strength's value" and "less than a quarter of Strength's value".

[Narf the Mouse]

Re: What value to limit additional Strength only for lifting and determining Encumbra

 

Lifting strength has no more than half the value of full strength.

Combat strength has most of the value of full strength.

 

...Yeah, it does seem off. But I don't know how else to factor it.

[dsatow]

Re: What value to limit additional Strength only for lifting and determining Encumbra

 

I'd value it as a -1 Limitation. My reasons would be below.

 

In Heroic level:

Carry more equipment is very useful. You can carry more guns, armor, etc. You would not get the strength for strength minima of weapons, its a -1 limitation. If you do, its would be -1/2.

 

In Superheroic level:

You can still lift heavy weights off people or move objects around (ex: superman towing planets with this limitation). If you could throw said heavy weights, the limitation would drop to -1/2 as heroes throw automobiles all the time.

[dmjalund]

Re: What value to limit additional Strength only for lifting and determining Encumbra

 

humans (characters) are adaptable individuals, some limitations can be adapted to better than others, and are thus worth less as a limitation that you might think

 

so the function 'X' = A hence 'NOT X' = (1 - A)

 

does not always hold

[Ice9]

Re: What value to limit additional Strength only for lifting and determining Encumbra

 

Does not always hold, sure. But it's not something you can just dismiss either. And more importantly, you have to consider whether the limitation is worth it, compared to not taking the limitation.

Since we're talking -1/2 in Champions now:

 

Android Axel: Strength 20 (65 for Lifting),

Biomorph Bill: Strength 50

 

Are these two characters balanced, if they are otherwise identical? Because if not, then -1/2 is not the right limitation value.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: What value to limit additional Strength only for lifting and determining Encumbra

 

humans (characters) are adaptable individuals, some limitations can be adapted to better than others, and are thus worth less as a limitation that you might think

 

so the function 'X' = A hence 'NOT X' = (1 - A)

 

does not always hold

 

Yet it is how the game is played. No Range is a lot more limiting if you have base movement only than if you have 60 meters of movement, but it is a -1/2 limitation in either case. The abilities some characters have that make the limitation more or less relevant are also paid for with points, mitigating the effect somewhat.

[Talon]

Re: What value to limit additional Strength only for lifting and determining Encumbra

 

(Lifting weight = carrying noncombat, for encumbrance, ignoring lifting something and dropping it on someone to do STR damage)

 

A lot of this depends on the campaign. If your GM doesn't care about encumbrance (the characters can always go back to their horses/truck/base, etc.), then lifting weight is probably not that important. If the GM enforces encumbrance closely, it can make a very, very big difference on how a character plays out. In that circumstance, the extra lifting STR could improve DCV and movement rate, both of which are pretty important.

[Narf the Mouse]

Re: What value to limit additional Strength only for lifting and determining Encumbra

 

Use encumbrance penalties, long-term endurance and plenty of travel and "Only to do Damage" on STR could easily be -1.

[Ice9]

Re: What value to limit additional Strength only for lifting and determining Encumbra

 

Not for Lifting would also allow using the Strength to resist grabs and shoves. But sure, if you actually put "Only for Damage" at -1, then -1 for "Only for Lifting" isn't out of line. That would definitely be the exception to most campaigns though, and it would make Hand to Hand Attack pretty much obsolete.