Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7177958" data-attributes="member: 4937">Everyone is different.&nbsp; For example, I simply cannot stand it that elves are the only creature in D&amp;D with a constitution penalty and that far from +0 being average, the vast majority of creatures have a CON bonus.&nbsp; The vast majority of creatures in D&amp;D that are not elves have vastly inflated constitution.&nbsp; A good example is an ordinary rat.&nbsp;&nbsp; An ordinary rat should have a constitution of between 4 and 7.&nbsp; Yet, when you say that, people are like, &quot;Look how much stamina it has!&nbsp; Look how much disease resistance it (presumably) has!&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; Sure, but Constitution itself measure multiple things, and nothing with low body mass should have high constitution.&nbsp;&nbsp; Look how small of a dose of poison is necessary to kill a low body mass animal.&nbsp;&nbsp; Look how fragile that they are.&nbsp;&nbsp; If you want to have a high endurance, disease resistant low mass creature, just give it a racial bonus against disease and to acts of endurance.&nbsp; (In 3.X there is even a feat for that.).&nbsp; &nbsp; Don't bump up the entire stat of Constitution to unrealistic levels.&nbsp;&nbsp; A house cat weighs like 10lbs and has a CON of 10!&nbsp;&nbsp; You probably wouldn't need 1/2 HD much of the time if you just gave small creatures realistic CON.&nbsp; Don't bump Constitution just because you are trying to make a monster a higher challenge rating and need to give it hit points.&nbsp;&nbsp; Again, if it for some reason can absorb damage, unless all of its attributes indicate a high constitution, just give it racial bonus hit points (as an ooze for example).Does all this matter?&nbsp; Probably not.&nbsp; But it bugs me to the extent that I'm usually willing to rewrite the stat block of a monster whenever I use one.&nbsp;&nbsp; It just annoys the heck out of me that having low mass is not reflected realistically in the rules.&nbsp; It bugs me beyond my capacity to endure if the farmer has no advantages relative to this cat.&nbsp; I'm perfectly ok with you laughing at me about that as silly.Conversely, I often reduce the arbitrarily high DEX of massive creatures assigned apparently only to reach some target AC monsters of this CR 'needed'.&nbsp; (Clearly I'm biased against little people, right?&nbsp; That sizist; discriminating against people with growth disorders.&nbsp;&nbsp; There is no other possible explanation for such a disproportionate insistence on realistic mechanics for size.)And yet there are limits where I throw up my hands and just leave it be, knowing that it is incoherent, but knowing that a 'fix' would probably have its own problems and add complexity to the game.&nbsp; How do bow hunters take large game in D&amp;D?&nbsp; *shrug*&nbsp; Hit points are game abstractions; they don't have to be realistic.&nbsp;&nbsp; I see the hypocrisy of that statement quite clearly, but it doesn't mean that I'm going to have a 10 CON house cat in my game with no magic involved!&nbsp; 'Realistically' cats have a CON of no more than about 4!&nbsp; It's obvious I tell you!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7177958, member: 4937"] Everyone is different. For example, I simply cannot stand it that elves are the only creature in D&D with a constitution penalty and that far from +0 being average, the vast majority of creatures have a CON bonus. The vast majority of creatures in D&D that are not elves have vastly inflated constitution. A good example is an ordinary rat. An ordinary rat should have a constitution of between 4 and 7. Yet, when you say that, people are like, "Look how much stamina it has! Look how much disease resistance it (presumably) has!" Sure, but Constitution itself measure multiple things, and nothing with low body mass should have high constitution. Look how small of a dose of poison is necessary to kill a low body mass animal. Look how fragile that they are. If you want to have a high endurance, disease resistant low mass creature, just give it a racial bonus against disease and to acts of endurance. (In 3.X there is even a feat for that.). Don't bump up the entire stat of Constitution to unrealistic levels. A house cat weighs like 10lbs and has a CON of 10! You probably wouldn't need 1/2 HD much of the time if you just gave small creatures realistic CON. Don't bump Constitution just because you are trying to make a monster a higher challenge rating and need to give it hit points. Again, if it for some reason can absorb damage, unless all of its attributes indicate a high constitution, just give it racial bonus hit points (as an ooze for example). Does all this matter? Probably not. But it bugs me to the extent that I'm usually willing to rewrite the stat block of a monster whenever I use one. It just annoys the heck out of me that having low mass is not reflected realistically in the rules. It bugs me beyond my capacity to endure if the farmer has no advantages relative to this cat. I'm perfectly ok with you laughing at me about that as silly. Conversely, I often reduce the arbitrarily high DEX of massive creatures assigned apparently only to reach some target AC monsters of this CR 'needed'. (Clearly I'm biased against little people, right? That sizist; discriminating against people with growth disorders. There is no other possible explanation for such a disproportionate insistence on realistic mechanics for size.) And yet there are limits where I throw up my hands and just leave it be, knowing that it is incoherent, but knowing that a 'fix' would probably have its own problems and add complexity to the game. How do bow hunters take large game in D&D? *shrug* Hit points are game abstractions; they don't have to be realistic. I see the hypocrisy of that statement quite clearly, but it doesn't mean that I'm going to have a 10 CON house cat in my game with no magic involved! 'Realistically' cats have a CON of no more than about 4! It's obvious I tell you! [/QUOTE]

Verification