|
Ofcause ignoring magic and monsters and the like.
I've a couple of times encountered game mechanics or fluff that didn't quite go as I initially expected, and was wondering which cases you've encountered?
Here's some samples:
Elasmosaurus, listed as a dinosaur(makes it easy to categorize though it's not a dinosaur)
Quetzalcoatlus, It's description mention a long thin tail, something pretty far from the short(somewhat batlike) tail it's usually depicted with.
Earthquake, full damage on wooden structures, even though Wooden-structures should generally be stronger against earthquake than the general stone-structures.
Sometimes game mechanics makes the rules and it's perfectly fine, though I must admit It can be disappointing when cases show up where you think you got a useful idea based on your knowledge(or assumptions) of real life situations and those not being the same in the game ^^'
So you might say it could also be cases where you've had knowledge you couldn't use in the game due to the mechanics not supporting it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment, experience points and hit points are the things that always stand out to me as poor representations of what the real world is like.
I generally prefer them to the alternatives though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment, experience points and hit points are the things that always stand out to me as poor representations of what the real world is like.
I generally prefer them to the alternatives though.
Agreed. If I could come up with a good way to recreate the gaming experience and mechanical effects that the increase in power represented by a character level conveys without actually using levels, hp, or xp then I would publish a new core game myself.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
5' adjusting is not altered a bit by size.
A Kitten can make an un-threatened movement that is ten times the length of it's body. A Titan can't even move the length of it's big toe.
Two titans fighting each other essentially can't even shuffle their feet without risking getting hit for it.
Goblin Illiteracy. True on Golarion, but not necessarily elsewhere.
Gnome Bleaching. True on Golarion, but not necessarily elsewhere.
Elven Physical Descriptions. I just do not like them.
Starknives. A perfectly useless weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Jumping rules aren't changed based on size either.
A creature with a +10 racial bonus to jump doesn't actually get to jump significantly farther if it is made larger. In fact, it will usually be able to jump less well. Making things smaller makes them able to jump better though, due to increases in dexterity.
If a druid casts a Animal Growth on a kangaroo, it actually gets worse at jumping due to the size penalties from getting bigger.
5' adjusting is not altered a bit by size.
A Kitten can make an un-threatened movement that is ten times the length of it's body. A Titan can't even move the length of it's big toe.
Two titans fighting each other essentially can't even shuffle their feet without risking getting hit for it.
That's a good one. For some reason I never noticed that before... :/
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bearing in mind that this is a gamist game, and not a simulationist game (like, say, GURPS attempts to be, with opinions differing on how successful it is at that);
5' adjusting is not altered a bit by size.
Totally this. A creatures '5 ft. step' should probably be based on it's Space, so that something with a 10 ft. space could 'step' 10 ft.
Your movement rate also doesn't have much to do with your 'step.' A merfolk with a ground move of 5 ft. and a quickling with a ground move of 120 ft. have the same 5 ft. step.
Poisons are pretty gamist, as well. In the real world, most poisons can take hours to kill you. Many game poisons, even from real world creatures like vipers, 'tick' over 24 to 36 seconds, and if you survive that, it's totally over and done with forever. Diseases go the other direction, and have damage intervals in days, and might linger for weeks before killing even someone with average ability scores (which is accurate for some diseases, but less so for others that can kill in days, or last a lifetime).
Nonabilities and 'creature intelligence.'
Insects and arachnids can communicate, be trained, learn, remember stuff, do math, experience emotions, perform threat displays (use the Intimidate skill) and even create (do Craft skills) and improvise if plan A isn't working. They might not be rocket scientists, but their 'Int score' should be at least 1. Animals having a generic '2' Intelligence score regardless of whether they are the dull lump of a toad, whose clever hunting tactic is 'attempt to eat anything that moves to within 2 inches of my mouth' to a raven or octopus, that can figure out how to open a jar or unlatch a gate, is also wonky. I'd put the toad down there with bugs, at 1, and chimps and dolphins (and ravens and octopi and orca) up around a 5 or even 6.
As for the Con nonability stuck onto trees, objects, etc., my *car* has a Con score. It can certainly be 'critically hit' (in that there are places a bullet can pass through it and not affect it's internal workings and there are places that are more 'vital' to it's function and where damage will lead to failure and 'death'), it can suffer all sorts of blockages and even be 'poisoned' (ye olde sugar in the gas tank trick...). I'm not a fan of objects, trees, robots, (corporeal) undead, etc. not having Con, since they have a physical body that has systems that can be tampered with just like a person or animal. If it was called 'Durability' or just 'Body' instead of 'Constitution' (which term, in itself, doesn't actually require something to be *alive,* merely to be constituted or composed or made up of something), perhaps there would be less knee-jerk attempt to make constructs, etc. have a Nonability in Con.
Hit points, obviously, starting out squiffy, and getting increasingly absurd as one becomes 'higher level' in Commoner or Expert, and becomes increasingly able to jump off a cliff and recover fully in a few weeks.
Which leads to healing. No matter who you are, even being reduced to zero hit points and left 'Dying,' once stabilized most injuries will heal in a week (equal to your HD per day) or less (with bedrest). No non-supernatural injury will have a lingering effect, like give you a limp or leave you paralyzed or disfigured unless it's a specific story element. After being swallowed whole and bathing in the stomach acids of chi-jaluud a purple worm, you'll cut your way free, and recover without any scars.
The Armor Class mechanic, to a lesser extent. A more simulationist attempt might use Armor-as-Damage-Reduction rules.
Still, much of this I think works fine, for a gamist game. I can deal with AC and Hit Points and healing wonkiness, since it's a necessary evil for smooth gameplay. d20 is not and need not ever be GURPS.
The Nonabilities, which end up requiring all sorts of 'this special race / NPC can train vermin anyway' or 'this mind-affecting spell can affect mindless constructs anyway' or 'these undead can be hungry, or need rest, or need their shriveled dead hearts for something anyway,' exceptions-to-the-exceptions which, IMO, is just stacking madness upon madness, are the main rule that I'd prefer to be dragged into an alley and knifed to death.
The one instance of game mechanics not lining up with the real world in my opinion is the use of CMB to bind someone with rope. Being able to fight and then tie knots properly do not necessarily go hand in hand.
For instance, I know I can throw a punch better than I can tie a knot. As a boy scout, I was always terrible at knot tying. This has been plaguing me for the past few months.
grid combat in general
Wrist sheaths. I'm sorry, but you can't put 5 arrows into a wrist sheath, much less conceal them there. You just can't.
For "real world simulation," I think Hero System had the best approach in the way the game round was structured, the way movement worked, the way offense and defense worked, separating "minor" injuries from "major" injuries (so you could actually kill someone without knocking them unconscious, and getting knocked unconscious didn't threaten your life), etc.
However, Hero System was really designed for home games and self-world building. It required a significant amount of rules mastery, and you couldn't "skip" any part of the rule set. You could completely customize your character, but you always had to completely customize your character. It didn't have an organized play group, and it didn't have the same quality of story and history in the "system's" world building.
My best analogy is that Hero System was designed by and for engineers, and Pathfinder was designed by and for writers and storytellers. There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
One that bothers me is that many things that anyone can attempt require feats.
Strike Back is a perfect example. Anybody could say "I'll wait until it goes to attack me, then hit the limb it attacks with". Unless you have the feat, you are somehow physically incapable of doing so.
|
Agreed. If I could come up with a good way to recreate the gaming experience and mechanical effects that the increase in power represented by a character level conveys without actually using levels, hp, or xp then I would publish a new core game myself.Alignment, experience points and hit points are the things that always stand out to me as poor representations of what the real world is like.
I generally prefer them to the alternatives though.
Both the World of Darkness and perhaps Monte Cooks World of Darkness might interest you. Monte Cook's single book version utilizes the d20 system, but one of the interesting ideas he had for that was to allow incremental "leveling". Instead of focusing on XP, instead each game session allowed you to pick from one thing to increase (HP, Skills, BaB and Saves, or Class Features).
Once you picked one of those categories to level up, it could not be chosen again until all of the others had also been leveled up, but otherwise you had pretty free reign to pick whatever order you wanted.
It was an interesting system that was meant to emulate training into your next "full" level rather than hitting a certain point and suddenly everything just jumps up at once.
From the World of Darkness system itself, (a different system completely, but same setting), they do have HP, but it never changes. There are a few exceptions, (and which exact version you look at is slightly different), but your Health Levels (HP) doesn't normally change. Instead, the focus is on finding ways to reduce the damage you would take (such as armor, natural toughness, magic) or to get better at avoiding it.
Hit points, obviously, starting out squiffy, and getting increasingly absurd as one becomes 'higher level' in Commoner or Expert, and becomes increasingly able to jump off a cliff and recover fully in a few weeks.
Which leads to healing. No matter who you are, even being reduced to zero hit points and left 'Dying,' once stabilized most injuries will heal in a week (equal to your HD per day) or less (with bedrest). No non-supernatural injury will have a lingering effect, like give you a limp or leave you paralyzed or disfigured unless it's a specific story element. After being swallowed whole and bathing in the stomach acids of chi-jaluud a purple worm, you'll cut your way free, and recover without any scars.
This for me was the greatest disconnect between D&D (AD&D, D&D, Pathfinder etc) and the fantasy worlds as I imagined them. I've since made peace with hit points, but the lack of quick recovery and injuries bothered me for a long time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Levelling up without training - i.e. learning new languages, skills etc.
Also I've never been comfortable with the Heal skill being little more than first aid, and changing dressings rather than medicine.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty much all of them. Falling, combat, skills, feats, levels, experience, the weapons ALL are very poor representations of anything like reality. And honestly, thank goodness. D&D is very terrible at real-world simulation and attempt at emulating it just results in poor mechanics. D&D is not, nor has it EVER been, Real World + Magic.
The Jumping rules aren't changed based on size either.
A creature with a +10 racial bonus to jump doesn't actually get to jump significantly farther if it is made larger. In fact, it will usually be able to jump less well. Making things smaller makes them able to jump better though, due to increases in dexterity.
If a druid casts a Animal Growth on a kangaroo, it actually gets worse at jumping due to the size penalties from getting bigger.
This is actually somewhat realistic.
Mice can jump many, many times their own body length. Elephants can't jump at all.
In fact, when an elephant runs, it always has at least one foot on the ground, which is a sign that they aren't going that fast for their body length.
If you measure distances in increments of body length, insects are the fastest and longest jumpers in the world. Paratarsotomus macropalpis moves at about 322 times it's body length per second. If it were human size and going that fast, it would be about 1300 mph. In comparison, a cheetah can only travel at about 16 body lengths per second.
|
True Neutral as an absolute category for all animals.
I have seen (heard of in some cases) horses that can be easily categorized as Not-Neutral on either or both alignment axes (ie, there are indeed Evil horses, Good horses, Lawful horses, Chaotic horses).
And I believe the same probably holds true for other RL living beings (like insects), except that we have no mean of communicating with them and thus understanding how they react.
One that bothers me is that many things that anyone can attempt require feats.
Strike Back is a perfect example. Anybody could say "I'll wait until it goes to attack me, then hit the limb it attacks with". Unless you have the feat, you are somehow physically incapable of doing so.
It's probably worth noting that strike back also allows you to retaliate when it should otherwise be impossible to do so (like a giant with a long spear jabbing you from 20 ft away).
Also, note that strikeback feat does not have the "Normal" line, explaining that you cannot do ___ without it. (For example, Spring Attack and Combat Reflexes have the "Normal" language, spelling out that Spring Attack is the only way to be able to move, attack, and move, and that Combat Reflexes is the only way to get more than one AoO.)
So whether you can do a strike-back style readied action without the feat is simply at GM discretion, with the GM being free to say yes or no.
Actually having the feat just means the feat controls and you get that attack no matter what's going on, whether it's a dragon attacking you with its face or a giant impaling you with a reach weapon.
It's a feat that bypasses GM discretion.
Now, to reply to the OP - HP and the accompanying abstract damage system. It's nice and easy to run, but holy hell is it unrealistic.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Falling damage has been mentioned upthread but is pretty bad. Likewise injury, where a 200 hp critter with 1 hp left still fights at full effectiveness despite being on death's door.
Ranged weapons in general do not model the real world well. Real bows do most of their damage from power (draw) and accuracy (shot placement), rather than machine-gun-esque rapid fire. (Yes, I've seen that one guy on Youtube. He hits a bunch of tennis balls, not 200 lbs. of live flesh. Go talk to a bow hunter sometime). Crossbows are much the same. Real crossbows in general have less range and slower reload time than bows, but are much easier to use (see the fate of the Italian crossbowmen at Agincourt). Nonetheless, crossbows were powerful enough to punch through plate armor and were even banned by the Church at one point because they were so devastatingly effective. The gun rules really take the cake, though--I won't elaborate, but they don't model real firearms well at all.
My favorite, though, are the animal companion rules. Wolves are Medium and bears are Large. But somehow, a wolf animal companion starts out Medium and becomes Large, and a bear animal companion starts out Small and becomes Medium, but never Large. ?1?!
The Jumping rules aren't changed based on size either.
A creature with a +10 racial bonus to jump doesn't actually get to jump significantly farther if it is made larger. In fact, it will usually be able to jump less well. Making things smaller makes them able to jump better though, due to increases in dexterity.
If a druid casts a Animal Growth on a kangaroo, it actually gets worse at jumping due to the size penalties from getting bigger.
This is actually somewhat realistic.
Mice can jump many, many times their own body length. Elephants can't jump at all.
In fact, when an elephant runs, it always has at least one foot on the ground, which is a sign that they aren't going that fast for their body length.
If you measure distances in increments of body length, insects are the fastest and longest jumpers in the world. Paratarsotomus macropalpis moves at about 322 times it's body length per second. If it were human size and going that fast, it would be about 1300 mph. In comparison, a cheetah can only travel at about 16 body lengths per second.
You are talking about jumping relative distances, not absolute distances, which is what the person you quoted was talking about.
The jumping rules were a bit better in 3.5 when Jump was a STR-based skill (one of the nice points of 4E was that Jump was part of Athletics, a STR-based skill).
Correct.
Also, we're talking about magic. Sizing things up or down doesn't change their physical properties in Pathfinder. It only changes their mass (which is where the very small bonuses and penalties to dex and strength come from).
Lets assume a scarlet spider can jump a fifty times the length of it's own body. If it gets sized up with a Giant Vermin spell it should still be able to perform the exact same feats that it could when it was smaller. That's sort of the point of the spell. If the magic is going to allow it to ignore the laws of physics by not letting it's exoskeleton collapse under it's own weight and not having to increase the liquid pressure inside it to absurd degrees just so it can move, then it should be able to jump exactly the same way that it did when it was small. A giant Scarlet Spider should be able to jump a thousand feet.
The jump distances in Pathfinder are measured in absolute values, and are mathematically geared to make sense for for medium creatures. Adjustments are made based on speed but not for size. The farther you get away from Medium size, the less sense the Jumping rules make.
The Jumping rules aren't changed based on size either.
A creature with a +10 racial bonus to jump doesn't actually get to jump significantly farther if it is made larger. In fact, it will usually be able to jump less well. Making things smaller makes them able to jump better though, due to increases in dexterity.
If a druid casts a Animal Growth on a kangaroo, it actually gets worse at jumping due to the size penalties from getting bigger.
This is actually somewhat realistic.
Mice can jump many, many times their own body length. Elephants can't jump at all.
In fact, when an elephant runs, it always has at least one foot on the ground, which is a sign that they aren't going that fast for their body length.
If you measure distances in increments of body length, insects are the fastest and longest jumpers in the world. Paratarsotomus macropalpis moves at about 322 times it's body length per second. If it were human size and going that fast, it would be about 1300 mph. In comparison, a cheetah can only travel at about 16 body lengths per second.
You are talking about jumping relative distances, not absolute distances, which is what the person you quoted was talking about.
The jumping rules were a bit better in 3.5 when Jump was a STR-based skill (one of the nice points of 4E was that Jump was part of Athletics, a STR-based skill).
Correct.
Also, we're talking about magic. Sizing things up or down doesn't change their physical properties in Pathfinder. It only changes their mass (which is where the very small bonuses and penalties to dex and strength come from).
Lets assume a scarlet spider can jump a fifty times the length of it's own body. If it gets sized up with a Giant Vermin spell it should still be able to perform the exact same feats that it could when it was smaller. That's sort of the point of the spell. If the magic is going to allow it to ignore the...
Thread title is about where the game rules contradict "our own world"... I'm not sure what magic has to do with the real world.
Physics and verisimilitude. The thread is about comparing the mechanics of a fantasy world against how we would expect fantastical things to actually work if they were real.
Just because none of this stuff really exists doesn't mean we can't make educated guesses about what they would be like.
First line of the thread:
Ofcause ignoring magic and monsters and the like.
My point is that jumping and size actually work more realistically than people expect. Sorry if that bursts your bubble. Things like elephants, rhinos and hippos can't jump in the real world at all.
Humans and horses have nearly identical record long and high jumps, despite horses having nearly double the top speed of a human and being larger. The world record for a dog's long jump is by a belgian malinois, not a small breed, but not particularly large either, is similar to a human's as well. That's a large, medium and small creature all with the same horizontal jumping capability, not in relative terms, but in actual distance.
First line of the thread:
Ofcause ignoring magic and monsters and the like.My point is that jumping and size actually work more realistically than people expect. Sorry if that bursts your bubble. Things like elephants, rhinos and hippos can't jump in the real world at all.
Humans and horses have nearly identical record long and high jumps, despite horses having nearly double the top speed of a human and being larger. The world record for a dog's long jump is by a belgian malinois, not a small breed, but not particularly large either, is similar to a human's as well. That's a large, medium and small creature all with the same horizontal jumping capability, not in relative terms, but in actual distance.
You realize that none of those things are true in the game, right.
In pathfinder elephants and rhinos can jump. In fact, given that a rhino has a 40 foot speed, they can jump better than average humans.
In pathfinder horses can jump farther than humans. Again, because they are faster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sort of -- a generic horse will have a +14 check to make a running jump, between its dex, base speed, and the Run feat.
Which is better than a 2nd level human can manage, but can be topped by a 5th level human who isn't using magic (5 ranks + 3 trained + 4 dex +3 skill focus)
IIRC, a 5th level human is about where "real world" humans cap out. (The Russian WWI vets in Rasputin Must Die! are 6th level.)
So yeah, under the system an Olympic athlete does match or beat a standard horse (I'd expect the Olympian to have the Run feat, for example, getting up to +19 for running jumps).
An animal companion horse would do better, but then you're getting into super-horses =P
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly don't mind when the mechanics don't match OUR world.
It bothers me a lot, though, when they don't match the GAME world.
Which is why I ended up rewriting most of them.
First line of the thread:
Ofcause ignoring magic and monsters and the like.My point is that jumping and size actually work more realistically than people expect. Sorry if that bursts your bubble. Things like elephants, rhinos and hippos can't jump in the real world at all.
Humans and horses have nearly identical record long and high jumps, despite horses having nearly double the top speed of a human and being larger. The world record for a dog's long jump is by a belgian malinois, not a small breed, but not particularly large either, is similar to a human's as well. That's a large, medium and small creature all with the same horizontal jumping capability, not in relative terms, but in actual distance.
You realize that none of those things are true in the game, right.
In pathfinder elephants and rhinos can jump. In fact, given that a rhino has a 40 foot speed, they can jump better than average humans.
In pathfinder horses can jump farther than humans. Again, because they are faster.
You're the one that said that it was unrealistic that gaining a size category made you worse at jumping. I'm pointing out that bigger creatures aren't actually better at jumping.
Kangaroos have a similar horizontal jump distance to humans, interestingly enough, a little over 8 meters. They can go about 0.5 meters higher though in a high jump.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Daggers doing only 1d4 is probably the first example that comes to mind. Someone holding a knife to your throat is hardly something to worry about; even if they get a coup de grace, you're likely to survive as a moderately tough character.
Meanwhile, in real life, having your throat slit is a serious problem, no matter how big you are...
Kangaroos have a similar horizontal jump distance to humans, interestingly enough, a little over 8 meters.
Most humans can't jump "a little over 8 meters." I ran track in high school (long jump and triple jump), and no one in the state championship was regularly jumping over 8 meters. The fact that the average kangaroo can do it regularly says something.
Kangaroos have a similar horizontal jump distance to humans, interestingly enough, a little over 8 meters.Most humans can't jump "a little over 8 meters." I ran track in high school (long jump and triple jump), and no one in the state championship was regularly jumping over 8 meters. The fact that the average kangaroo can do it regularly says something.
And I can probably jump further than a kangaroo that's been permanently injured from being hit by a car. Or if we raised a kangaroo in an environment where it could never jump/run, I bet it wouldn't be nearly as good at jumping as most high school athletes (regardless of sport).
I wasn't trying to compare individual members of each species, but rather comparing what each species is capable of.
Regardless, I don't see how this is relevant to the real world mechanics of increasing in size improving jumping ability.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Daggers doing only 1d4 is probably the first example that comes to mind. Someone holding a knife to your throat is hardly something to worry about; even if they get a coup de grace, you're likely to survive as a moderately tough character.
Meanwhile, in real life, having your throat slit is a serious problem, no matter how big you are...
Oh man SOOO much this ^^^
This is where I'd just consider the narrative to be better than the game-mechanics. If a character makes the necessary checks to grab someone and hold a dagger to their throat, chances are I'm not factoring in HP at all at this stage, I don't care if said target has 450 HP, a dagger plunged into your neck will most certainly take you out of the fight (and I fully discount that one guy in the Kingdom of Heaven movie who still fought a few seconds with a bolt sticking through his neck[/i]).
Ohhhh yeah.. lots of them.
Some of the biggest ones was a friend who had a Large Snake animal companion.
1) This snake slithering on the ground, somehow still provided soft cover for people I wanted to shoot with a bow.
2) When it constricted someone, it didn't share the same square as it's enemy.
Bugged me at first, eventually we had to acknowledge that rules were rules, and had no bearing on 'reality'.
I absolutely agree that Pathfinder and D&D are made to be games, and not real-life simulations. However, the item weight system has bothered me. For instance, a character can carry literally as many candles as they want, or have 47 Flint and Steel items on them. The idea that a Tower Shield weighs 45lbs is baffling. Likewise, since a Light Wooden Shield and a Light Steel Shield do EXACTLY the same thing, but the Wooden Shield costs less and weighs less (even if it's only 6GP and 1 lbs), why would I ever use a Light Steel Shield?
I certainly think that this system works best though. Who wants to calculate the .2 lbs that a bell weighs? And who's to say that a Wizard COULDN'T carry 130 potions of Bears Endurance? These things certainly don't line up with the real world, where when hiking, literally every pound can count in some (extreme) cases.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spears can't be used one handed.
Regardless, I don't see how this is relevant to the real world mechanics of increasing in size improving jumping ability.
It's not. But you made a factual statement that was incorrect, and I corrected it. The fact that a handful of Olympic champions, under ideal conditions, can jump as far as 99.99% of kangaroos regularly hop throughout the day does not mean that "kangaroos have a similar horizontal jump distance to humans."
Kangaroos have a similar horizontal jump distance to humans, interestingly enough, a little over 8 meters.Most humans can't jump "a little over 8 meters." I ran track in high school (long jump and triple jump), and no one in the state championship was regularly jumping over 8 meters. The fact that the average kangaroo can do it regularly says something.And I can probably jump further than a kangaroo that's been permanently injured from being hit by a car. Or if we raised a kangaroo in an environment where it could never jump/run, I bet it wouldn't be nearly as good at jumping as most high school athletes (regardless of sport).
I wasn't trying to compare individual members of each species, but rather comparing what each species is capable of.
Regardless, I don't see how this is relevant to the real world mechanics of increasing in size improving jumping ability.
When you compare species you should compare median or mean capability, not ceiling. Also, what data do you have on the ceiling of kangaroo jumping? It seems like your data are incomplete for the purpose of your comparison.
Spears can't be used one handed.
Shortspears can though. If that doesn't suffice, let characters use spears one handed if they have proficiency with martial weapons, like a simple/martial version of the bastard sword.
When you compare species you should compare median or mean capability, not ceiling. Also, what data do you have on the ceiling of kangaroo jumping? It seems like your data are incomplete for the purpose of your comparison.Kangaroos have a similar horizontal jump distance to humans, interestingly enough, a little over 8 meters.Most humans can't jump "a little over 8 meters." I ran track in high school (long jump and triple jump), and no one in the state championship was regularly jumping over 8 meters. The fact that the average kangaroo can do it regularly says something.And I can probably jump further than a kangaroo that's been permanently injured from being hit by a car. Or if we raised a kangaroo in an environment where it could never jump/run, I bet it wouldn't be nearly as good at jumping as most high school athletes (regardless of sport).
I wasn't trying to compare individual members of each species, but rather comparing what each species is capable of.
Regardless, I don't see how this is relevant to the real world mechanics of increasing in size improving jumping ability.
If you want to disprove what I'm saying by using that kind of data, feel free to bring it up. What your asking for doesn't exist, so I don't see the point in bringing that up. It doesn't seem very useful.
There is no data on median or mean jumping distance for humans, dogs, horses or kangaroos. If you can dig it up from a legitimate source (and not just someone's best guess of what they've seen personally), feel free to link it. If you'd like me to provide sources on the data I've shown so far, I can, but it's all pretty easy to find with simple searches.
The point isn't to prove definitively which species is better at jumping. The point is to prove that being a larger creature does not automatically provide jumping bonuses.
Cause it's still a fact: all humans who are capable of jumping can jump further than any elephant/rhino/hippopotamus.
Regardless of comparative jumping distance of kangaroos and humans, all kangaroos, which are smaller than elephants, are better at jumping than elephants. In fact, I challenge you to find a LARGER mammal that can jump further than a kangaroo?
One of the next best jumpers is SMALLER than a kangaroo, the klipspringer, which is more of a vertical jumper and can reach heights of 7 meters, but is only around 2 feet tall.
Yes, anything but admit the fact that you're wrong. Stall! Stonewall! Demand sources! Then stall some more!
Person 1: "No, elephants and mice are not the same size. Just look at them!"
Answer: "Well, a month-old fetal elephant still in utero might be smaller than a full-grown mouse!"
Person 2: "Look at mean adult size."
Answer: "There is no definitive mean for elephant sizes! And looking at them doesn't count!"
When you compare species you should compare median or mean capability, not ceiling. Also, what data do you have on the ceiling of kangaroo jumping? It seems like your data are incomplete for the purpose of your comparison.Kangaroos have a similar horizontal jump distance to humans, interestingly enough, a little over 8 meters.Most humans can't jump "a little over 8 meters." I ran track in high school (long jump and triple jump), and no one in the state championship was regularly jumping over 8 meters. The fact that the average kangaroo can do it regularly says something.And I can probably jump further than a kangaroo that's been permanently injured from being hit by a car. Or if we raised a kangaroo in an environment where it could never jump/run, I bet it wouldn't be nearly as good at jumping as most high school athletes (regardless of sport).
I wasn't trying to compare individual members of each species, but rather comparing what each species is capable of.
Regardless, I don't see how this is relevant to the real world mechanics of increasing in size improving jumping ability.
If you want to disprove what I'm saying by using that kind of data, feel free to bring it up. What your asking for doesn't exist, so I don't see the point in bringing that up. It doesn't seem very useful.
There is no data on median or mean jumping distance for humans, dogs, horses or kangaroos. If you can dig it up from a legitimate source (and not just someone's best guess of what they've seen personally), feel free to link it. If you'd like me to provide sources on the data I've shown so far, I can, but it's all pretty easy to find with simple searches.
So you are making an argument with knowingly incomplete information but you want to be taken seriously? I'll pass.