By raw, a 1 STR frog will beat a 19 STR ogre 27% of the time in a contest of Strength

>I'm going to do an art critique instead.

I think the key to designing a good ogre is to incorporate three qualities:

-Fatness.

-Orcishness.

-Roundness.

I think without all of these qualities you produce a 'bad' ogre design as if: an ogre lacks fatness it becomes too much like an orc, but if it lacks orcishness it becomes too much like a giant.. And if it lacks "roundness" it becomes troll-like in appearance.

Rule Zero negates all design flaws

Checkmate

If they're trying to grapple each other, the frog auto loses.

>Rule Zero negates all design flaws

>Checkmate

I used Rule Zero to remove checkmate.

Yahtzee!

Ran it through anydice and it gave it 0.25%, not 27%

bait thread

PHB outright states that you cant grapple things that are significantly larger than you

>will beat a 19STR ogre
At what? At lifting things? Carrying capacity is unrelated to rolls and based off strength score so you are objectively wrong there, the frog auto loses grapples too. Jump distance is relative to strength score, so the ogre wins on jumping, both standing and running start even with the frog's bonus unrelated to its stats. The ogre wins a foot race as well. And obviously wins a straight fight, too. I appreciate that D&D touched you, and that this is probably a "5e is shit because bounded accuracy is shit in a way I am unable to actually quantify" thing, hence why I used 5e rules, but at least put some effort in. The only time a lucky roll is going to be relevant is some kind of contested strength check but there is no reason for that to occur, so the fact that a frog can roll higher on a d20 is not relevant.

Every frog has its day.

>Boardgame rules dont make sense if taken to the logical extreme

well thanks for pointing that out Captain Obvious, in other news: rain is wet and OP is a faggot.

Ran it through anydice? Dude. It's 0.05x0.05. You should need a program to figure that out

>ogre
A. if we are using pf stats the lowest premade ogre is str 25, not 19. If 3.5 it is still Str 21.
B. Size bonus for Combat Maneuver Bonus should also be factored. That would mean a -8 for the frog and a +1 for the ogre

End math: frog has a -13 and the ogre has a +8. Rolling a 20 only auto pass or auto fail for attacks rolls. The frog can not win and would need a change of math of at lest 2 points to get a 5% chance.

Ogre STR is 18/00 not 19 you pleb.

I assumed by the percentage he gave that we were using attribute modifiers and not raw attributes. Though assuming each rolls 1d20 + strength mod, I get a 13.75% chance the frog comes out with a higher score (and a 16.5% it at least ties).

How are you guys doing your math? I got 27.5%, but I think I'm doing it wrong.
>frog has a 50% chance of rolling 5 or higher
>ogre has a 55%chance of rolling 15 or lower
Help?

>A 19 Str 20 ft Giant can throw a 2 ton boulder causing 4d10+Str damage
>A 24 Str 8 ft Barbarian can throw a 3 ton boulder causing 1d4+Str damage
Gotta love 5e

>Is easier to hit a dude moving at the speed of light with an arrow that travels at a fraction of the speed of sound than a dude standing still

>Monsters and Players use different rules
HOLD THE FUCK PHONE

It makes no sense, does the PC has magic powers to reduce the damage? if a PC throws at you a castle you receive the same damage as a dager? but if a weaker Ogre throws you a pebble you receive the same damage as a cannon ball? makes no sense.

I think you mean
>it's easier to hit a guy moving in a predictable pattern than a guy who is able to actively respond to the arrow

No, I can understand that at low speed, but not a speed faster than human perception which is pretty easy to achieve, currently playing in 3.PF a PC that moves at mach 3 at 12th level

I had to pick the run feat because I was tired of getting hit, still get tons of AoOs two because

10/10

You're treating a boulder as a standard improvised weapon when that rule isn't at all intended to be used for such a thing. A normal ass rock would be an improvised weapon, not a giant boulder.

The rule is that any thrown improvised weapon deals 1d4+Str raw, 5e is specifically designed to make alterations for individual cases. Otherwise they'd have to print an entire encyclopedia of thrown improvised weapons and their damage. ANY DM that isn't a total cuntfaggot will allow you to deal the same damage as a giant if you have equal strength and throw the same boulder.

OP just hates the fact that not every single instance of a thing is documented and the system is open ended, because he lacks creativity.

Ogres gotta be chunky boys

1d4 damage is for a Medium sized improvised weapon
a 3 ton boulder is not medium sized
also, are you sure you can hurl a 3 ton rock with only 24 str? that seems off

Also this.
A boulder is a thrown weapon, not an improvised weapon. An improvised weapon would be a chair or a fist-sized rock you found.

gotta play a race that has 2x lifting capacity

AL (official games with supposedly acredited GMs) forces you to 1d4+Str, so I assume that's the possition devs have with 3 tons boulders and PCs. I know because I played in three different groups.

As for "any DM" so far didn't meet one, even /5eg/ the vast majority go with "nope, 1d4 because the book says so, read the book, faggot", so with lots of other fora out there.

Let's see here.
>1 STR
-5 modifier
>19 STR
+4 modifier
Difference of 9.
The odds of beating the average of a d20 roll by 9 is a mere 5%, thus only 5% of the time should the frog manage to win by sheer averages.

Goliath
20th level Bearbarian
Feat that rises once again your lifting capacity in UA
That's 24x30x2x2x2 = 5760 lbs (not 3 tons but close)

As a DM my ruling would probably be
>There's no possible way you can get your arms around a 3 ton boulder and throw it with any kind of force, so no you can't use it as an improvised weapon
>Maybe if someone casts Enlarge on you and you are a Totem Barbarian with double carrying capacity or some shit
>Roll Strength vs. his acrobatics save
>If it's not a boss monster it's dead, if it is I'll roll a bunch of dice behind the screen and knock it's health down by 2/3rds

And this without magic items, you could have one of those belts that rise your Str up to 29, or those books that rise it +2

I'm sorry, but I don't believe you.

Every single DM I've had for 5e (and under whom we encountered giants) allowed the martial to loot a boulder if he could carry it, and use it as a thrown weapon in the same way as a giant.
It was usually me who was the martial that could.

And besides this, only one DM was not in favour of using environmental stuff so the fights weren't just "I attack with sword. 2d6+Str" combat. One such instance was a prisoner room in a bandit fort, where the bandits kept a pile of discarded clothing for the prisoners to wash. Our bard was not engaged in melee combat and grabbed a few knickers and robes and proceeded to pull them over the enemies' heads to give them disadvantage.

AL also doesn't let you loot most things, and forbids creativity and randomness.
It's unfair, you see.

>I'm sorry, but I don't believe you.
In what? in that AL don't allow you? In that I didn't find a GM that allowed me? in that /5eg/ on average wouldn't allow you? in that other fora on average wouldn't allow you? Last two are pretty easy to check. You could also sign for AL, wouldn't recommend because their games are pretty toxic, but you could try.

... and people wonder why caster supremacy is a thing.
Of course casters are superior when they have essentially an entire book dedicated to the cool stuff they can do, while the martial cool things are intentionally left to the imagination and discretion of DM and group.

AL is dumb for rules-lawyering this hard, they could just play a video game in that case.

Not in the good edition of D&D.

user, even if you allow creativity casters would still be on top, because they now not only have the book on their side, they can also use creativity.

B+C > C

Somebody needs to learn multiplication. The correct frequency of that event is 2.5%.

AL games are basically board games, it fucking blows

>Casters using Creativity

Backwoods new-age nazi wizards when?

Honestly, it's the kind of thing that shouldn't even have a chance of happening.

Why not? i remember picking this small lizard when I was a kid, barely fit in my hand, and the fucker just overpowered my grip and escaped, I was like thousand of times bigger and heavier but the lizard still won. A 1% or 2% chance is ok.

Exactly.
A system is just a flavor. The DM is supposed to use it as a base and not just blindly compute the rules exactly as they are when that means something retarded is going to happen.

It needs to be tall too, or it would be just a fat goblin.

That's a much smaller difference than the OP's example.

>overpowered my grip and escaped
So he forcibly pried your fingers open? Or did he just slip through your grip (which you kept intentionally at a fraction of what you could do as to not harm the lizard)?

>>There's no possible way you can get your arms around a 3 ton boulder and throw it with any kind of force, so no you can't use it as an improvised weapon
You just need a thicker boulder.

That's fucking retarded and you should feel bad.

You sunk my Jengaship.

UNO!

I thought Divinity Original Sin's 'trolls' actually make perfect ogres

>ANY DM that isn't a total cuntfaggot will allow you to deal the same damage as a giant if you have equal strength and throw the same boulder.

Not so, a giant is a giant, and therefore by dint of size alone will find holding and throwing a giant-ass rock easier than a regular sized person, even if their strength is the same

That was a Dex check, not Str

Is it? the lizard in question is way smaller than the frogs in my country, like 3 times smaller, an ogre is 3 meters tall, and I was probably 1 meter tall back then, so I think its pretty similar.

Probably, I dont exactly remember if he slipped through my hand of he actually coiled and opened my hand using its whole body and then escaped

But still, is not something far-fetched

Yes, and we're criticising how well it works as a base. Is that a hard concept to understand?

>he doesn't know there is a weapon size/damage chart

The feat doesn't stack with the goliath ability, they both say you count as 1 size larger which goes from medium to large, but neither changes your size so they're redundant

Arguable, both say you count as one category size larger, none state you go from medium to large is basically
>You count as one category size larger
>You count as one category size larger
That's it
Good question for Sageadvice (devs), though taking into accounter that for them literally means nothing they will say sure, they stack, because even if you could lift planet Earth, you will still deal 1d4+Str according to them

There's nothing to argue. Neither of those abilities increase your actual size. You're still medium. The next size category is large. It's pretty damn clear cut.

>Neither of those abilities increase your actual size
Inconsecuential for the stacking
>You're still medium
Still inconsecuential for the stacking
>The next size category is large
That's nice and all, but still inconsecuential for the stacking

Just because you don't want to argue doesn't mean there isn't anything to argue

>There's nothing to argue
True, look in the archives, 99.99% of people say it stacks, so you're right, nothing to argue there.

How is it "Inconsecuential"? Both abilities reference your size, so size seems pretty damn relevant to the argument.
Really? Because everywhere I've looked people are saying that they don't stack.

The fact that your size remains the same is inconsecuential, the fact that your current size is medium is inconsecuential, the fact that the next size is large is still inconsecuential for the argument in place. The argument is: do "you count as one category size larger" twice stack or not, you say no, I say is arguable.

I only looked in Veeky Forums (specially /5eg/), Reddit, Giantitp and sageadvice (not even a mention in this one though), you're free to ask in sageadvice, taking into account I never faced a problem with these features stacking (I did with the 1d4+Str meme though) I don't feel like asking.

I asked about the holding/wielding when old kensai was released because it affected me and turned out I was right, holding and wielding count as the same for restrictions

>inconsecuential
Okay, different user here. It's fucking inconsequential you numpty

Sorry, I was using my language's inconsequential which is with a c.

How does size not matter when we are arguing specifically about mechanics which are based off of your size? What don't you get about that? They don't stack because they both reference your size. Your actual size. How is this so hard to comprehend?

When picking up the lizard, were you squeezing with your full strength and trying to crush it? If not, it didn't beat you in a strength competition.
An ogre grabbing a frog or lizard would not do so with the same gentleness a curious child might.

I want to be bros with that troll.

>incredibly underrated

>Reading comprehension
Your size, not "size", you being medium is inconsequential because if someone casts enlarge at you you still benefit of powerful build or brawny. It isn't not very important for the argument in question that's it does two features that up one feature stack or not.

Back in 3.5 they stacked, monk damage for example using superior unarmed strike, monk's belt and other magic item I dont' remember, all three increased your monk's damage as if you were a monk 5 levels higher and it wasn't mentioned in the rules the do indeed stack, it was mentioned in the Q&A that of course they did. Does in 5e stack? nothing says it doesn't. Again, ask sageadvice if you want, so far you seem to be the only one that explicity says they don't stack.

Revisiting the subject: we have some set ideas about what makes certain creatures what they are.
>Goblins: short, toothy pranksters with a penchant for wickedness
>Orcs: muscular bruisers with a love for violence and destruction
>Ogres: big, fat, hungry jerks with low IQs and short tempers
>Trolls: like ogres, but lanky and possibly even less intelligent
>Dragons: big, scaly badasses with bad breath and worse attitudes
>Demons: literally anything from the DOOM franchise