| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
the average weight spectrum for a small creature is around 8 - 60 pounds. the ratfolk average weight is a scale-busting 71 - 89 pounds. The BASE NUMBER you add the 2d4x3 to is 65, which is already over the average small creature.
Dayum, ratfolk. you fat.
| 22 people marked this as a favorite. |
More liek FATfolk, m i rite or wut?
|
The base height/weight numbers really don't mean anything, except for those times where one player wants to carry another player. I suspect this was the motivation behind it, so that people would be less tempted to throw ratfolk.
Actually, I suspect they just made up whatever number sounded good and ran with it. The picture of the ratfolk in the ARG did look kinda chubby.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All the extra weight is carried in the tail, reservoirs of fatty tissue that when metabolized yield water.
| 22 people marked this as a favorite. |
My apologies Lamontius....Is this what your wrote "More like "fat folk." am I right or what?" I haven't quite mastered my "textese" yet.
It's okay, you haven't mastered 'you' and 'your' yet, either!
But yes, I would be happy to translate...In Textese, it roughly translates to:
"Oh, jolly good, let us find mirth in the girth of this fat rat."
Do Ratfolk have a negative STR mod? Musclemass is denser/heavier than almost any other body-tissue.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aren't they also a bit taller than the other short races?
I think ratfolk are actually short for their build, kind of hunched and stuff.
Wha, I's plump and I'm still a player. Who knows when there'll be another allyway disposal, then I'll need the fat. Ratgirls think it sexy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Assuming the creature was standing upright at 4'0 and 89 lbs, their bmi would only be 27.2 which is mildly overweight (especially compared to our current averages).
That could easily be buffness and fur...or maybe its all teeth. Either way I'm sure there are fatter creatures...I'm looking at you gelatinous cube
I believe you must quite racist. What did the poor Gelatinous Cube ever do to you? lol, Just because it is a little round in the mid-section doesn't mean anything. Maybe he is just a perfectly good dude, just has a problem with its glands. lol
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Assuming the creature was standing upright at 4'0 and 89 lbs, their bmi would only be 27.2 which is mildly overweight (especially compared to our current averages).
That could easily be buffness and fur...or maybe its all teeth. Either way I'm sure there are fatter creatures...I'm looking at you gelatinous cube
Leave the Gelatinous Sphere alone, it's just water weight.
More liek FATfolk, m i rite or wut?
The war against the fatfolk would continue for many a generation.
I think Boggards are pretty fat, from what I remember.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Owning a pair of domestic pet Rats I can say that even for their size, they surely weigh a lot more than they seem like they should. Of course they are fed well, but being little longer than a foot from head to tail, my male rat weighs about 4 pounds already.
I can see a Ratfolk at small size easily weighing up to 100 lbs, due to how they thick they are around their legs and midsection. I can see Ratfolk looking more on average having the kind of Friar Tuck spare-tire around their middle.
Also fun fact, they can squeeze between areas that are big enough to fit their head so that's fun.
Leave the Gelatinous Sphere alone, it's just water weight.Assuming the creature was standing upright at 4'0 and 89 lbs, their bmi would only be 27.2 which is mildly overweight (especially compared to our current averages).
That could easily be buffness and fur...or maybe its all teeth. Either way I'm sure there are fatter creatures...I'm looking at you gelatinous cube
I remember the last time our ultra buff centaur charged an ooze. His might was nothing in the face (d6 faces?) of the gel cube.
Taken in, paralysed, water weight beat muscle.
Its all the cheese
Actually, rodents are universally lactose intolerant. The More You Know...
Actually, its more rare for someone to be lactose tolerent than it is for them to be intolerant.Its all the cheeseActually, rodents are universally lactose intolerant. The More You Know...
Only in Asia.
Only in Asia.Actually, its more rare for someone to be lactose tolerent than it is for them to be intolerant.Its all the cheeseActually, rodents are universally lactose intolerant. The More You Know...
Because early Europeans really went into a phase where they shoved anything into their mouths. They also have higher tolerance for alcohol, which originally would have come from them leaving a jar of juice laying around to go bad. Cheese is the same for milk, isn't it? They sound like your average college student rummaging through the fridge.
Also, fun fact: peanut butter is a much better lure for rodents. Nice, easy energy and protein.
|
Only in Asia.Actually, its more rare for someone to be lactose tolerent than it is for them to be intolerant.Its all the cheeseActually, rodents are universally lactose intolerant. The More You Know...
75% of someone being lactose intolerant if they are an adult.
Thing is, some people are Lactose intolerant tolerant. In otherwords they are like "Finklenstine that!" like people who get heart burn.
75% of someone being lactose intolerant if they are an adult.
To quote Wikipedia, the infallible source of all knowledge,
Most mammals normally cease to produce lactase, becoming lactose intolerant, after weaning, but some human populations have developed lactase persistence, in which lactase production continues into adulthood. It is estimated that 75% of adults worldwide show some decrease in lactase activity during adulthood. The frequency of decreased lactase activity ranges from 5% in northern Europe through 71% for Sicily to more than 90% in some African and Asian countries.
I don't know if "some decrease is lactase activity" is equivalent to full-blown lactose intolerance. And notice that nice, low 5% for northern Europe.
(The Wikipedia article actually does offer sources for the statistics, if one wants to get closer to the data.)
It seems necessary to point out that the BMI scale is only really precise when you are dealing with people of average human height. It breaks down pretty soon the farther you go from there. Already at 5'5", it's pretty useless. Same for taller than average people. A 4-foot-tall ratperson would be massively overweight at BMI 27.
So, just set your character's weight to a more appropriate number. It's pretty much just a flavor/appearance thing.
4 feet tall and 80 lbs doesn't seem fat to me. These are children but adults. A child at 4 feet is usually half that weight but they lack muscle mass. Compare that to a dwarf at just over 4 feet tall and 185 lbs. They are over double the weight of a Rat Folk yet almost the same height.
You really can't apply real world human standards of weight/height to fictional races that don't exist.
It seems necessary to point out that the BMI scale is only really precise when you are dealing with people of average human height. It breaks down pretty soon the farther you go from there. Already at 5'5", it's pretty useless. Same for taller than average people. A 4-foot-tall ratperson would be massively overweight at BMI 27.
That's why pediatricians use the Ponderal Index, which divides by height a third time (kg/m^3 vs kg/m^2) to properly account for the square-cube law.
Avg. female ratfolk: 1.143m, 29.48kg, PI = 19.74
Avg. male ratfolk: 1.219m, 36.29kg, PI = 20.03
Now, with a healthy human range of 10.3 to 13.9, one might think that these are somewhat high, but infants and toddlers have even higher PIs, and the reason is their comparatively short limbs. Note that ratfolk are almost always depicted as rather low-set, and that this also does not account for fur or tail.
Dwarves, on the other hand, have no excuse for their bulk, with a PI of anywhere from 36.7 to 43.7. Where does it all go !?
Dwarves, on the other hand, have no excuse for their bulk, with a PI of anywhere from 36.7 to 43.7. Where does it all go !?
The Body Mass Index is crap anyhow. At 17 I would have been considered overweight (with a 25.0 BMI). However, I had a lot of muscle and very low body fat.
20+ years later I could not be lower than a BMI of 31.2 due to my muscle mass. I'd have to lose muscle to get below that (according to my doctor).
- Gauss
|
Its all the cheeseActually, rodents are universally lactose intolerant. The More You Know...
IIRC, the bacteria that produce (or at least assist in the production of) cheese convert some fraction of the lactose to lactic acid, which assists in the curdling. So most cheese is low in lactose...or at least lower than the milk it came from.
IIRC, the bacteria that produce (or at least assist in the production of) cheese convert some fraction of the lactose to lactic acid, which assists in the curdling. So most cheese is low in lactose...or at least lower than the milk it came from.Its all the cheeseActually, rodents are universally lactose intolerant. The More You Know...
It's true, and rodents are known to eat cheese...if there are no other options available. The fact that cheese is one of the few things that would keep for very long in a dank cellar is the origin of the myth that it's their favorite thing ever.
Fruit and Peanut Butter. Rodents love that stuff.
|
Every time I've looked at the charts for height and weight I've always thought they produced overweight characters. The baseline for a male human is 4'10/120lbs which is a BMI of 25. First two randomly generated I get are 6'1/195lbs (again BMI of over 25) and 5'11/185lbs (25.8). So yeah, skewed into the "Slightly overweight" category.
It seems necessary to point out that the BMI scale is only really precise when you are dealing with people of average human height. It breaks down pretty soon the farther you go from there. Already at 5'5", it's pretty useless. Same for taller than average people. A 4-foot-tall ratperson would be massively overweight at BMI 27.
What's the average, exactly?
minoritarian, the BMI chart is mostly crap anyhow. Even the medical field is pulling away from it since it is such a poor gauge of health.
It is almost a 200 year old technique for determining if you are overweight or not and even then it was flawed from the start. Here is an article showing its flaws BMI article
It does not even take into account racial variations. What is an acceptable BMI score for your so called "average" white american may be overweight for an "average" asian.
There are other, more accurate gauges of health and what is overweight or not.
BTW: At 17 my height was 6'3 and my weight was 200 (BMI was 25) but I was extremely thin and had very little fat on me. My weight was due to muscle in the legs, chest, and arms.
Over 20 years later my doctor has told me the absolute best weight (without losing muscle mass) that I can attain is 250lbs. My doc is happy if I am around 275. Why? Because I have a lot of muscle mass. He is more concerned with my poor cardio than my actual weight. I do weights without doing much cardio (yeah, I gotta fix that).
- Gauss
minoritarian, the BMI chart is mostly crap anyhow. Even the medical field is pulling away from it since it is such a poor gauge of health.
It is almost a 200 year old technique for determining if you are overweight or not and even then it was flawed from the start. Here is an article showing its flaws BMI article
It does not even take into account racial variations. What is an acceptable BMI score for your so called "average" white american may be overweight for an "average" asian.
There are other, more accurate gauges of health and what is overweight or not.
BTW: At 17 my height was 6'3 and my weight was 200 (BMI was 25) but I was extremely thin and had very little fat on me. My weight was due to muscle in the legs, chest, and arms.
Over 20 years later my doctor has told me the absolute best weight (without losing muscle mass) that I can attain is 250lbs. My doc is happy if I am around 275. Why? Because I have a lot of muscle mass. He is more concerned with my poor cardio than my actual weight. I do weights without doing much cardio (yeah, I gotta fix that).
- Gauss
according the my BMI chart I should be at $160 lbs. I used to weigh that before bulking up with muscle. I don't want to be that skinny ever again. I looked anorexic. My wife's says she should be 120lbs, she got to 150lb when she was sick with mono. Much too skinny. Seem BMI is aimed at making people too skinny to the point of being unhealthy.
according the my BMI chart I should be at $160 lbs. I used to weigh that before bulking up with muscle. I don't want to be that skinny ever again. I looked anorexic. My wife's says she should be 120lbs, she got to 150lb when she was sick with mono. Much too skinny. Seem BMI is aimed at making people too skinny to the point of being unhealthy.
It's for a specific body type and bone structure. If you have broad shoulders, or any number of other variations that can change your shape without added fat, it'll skew way off base.
Poldaran, the BMI was done ~200 years ago by mathematician who had no experience in biology or the medical field.
He based it on statistics of people who were pretty short compared to today and who were trim but had very little muscle due to a sedentary life. Even he said it is not an accurate statement of how someone is overweight or not.
In short, the BMI should never be used but it allows the government and the insurance companies to have a very quick and cheap way of categorizing people, even if it is very wrong.
A slightly more expensive body fat % check would be way more accurate.
- Gauss
If I remember correctly all BMI was meant to do was to allow a baseline measurement calculation for that. It was meant to be modified for various different body types and have a little bit of wiggle room for Racial Differences. Unfortunately no one took the time to make it a usable system.
