Race with Split Strength?

[Velmont]

It is more of a weight issue. When you charge you get all of your mass behind you, which is better represented by your lower strength.

Weel, I will demonstrate my point of view with physic. The amount of damage you can do depend on the energy you put in your weapon. You can see the weapon as the only point of impact of the two mass who collide (both opponent). As all the force is put where the weapon hit, and so, to know what energy is transfer, you need to know the force, and the force depend on two things, acceleration and mass.

Acceleration is pretty easy, it is the differential of speed between the moment after the impact and the speed before the impact, divided by the time it take. So yes, the speed have an influence. Just look at a car who hit a wall, what does more damage. Hit the wall at 10mph or at 60mph.

Next the mass, a centaur or wemic have a greater mass (weight) as they have a great body behind them, so it should raise the damage compare to a human. Same analogy, what does the most damage on a wall, a baseball ball thrown at 60mph or a car moving at 60mph?

So, considering only physic, I would say a wemic would do greater damage than a human on a charge. So I maintain my suggestion with this proof. If you are still sceptical, ask the question to a physic teacher at your nearest University, I'm pretty sure he would tell you the same thing.

 

[AeroDm]

So what all would the strength affect? I think you will come into a lot of debate problems in-game. If someone is trying to lift something would they use their higher strength? Obviously lifting is in the torso, but also in the legs.

Does the jump skill? What about the Swim skill? If someone tries to bash open a door is it their torso strength? If they get a running start could they use their leg strength?

Although monk's dont exist in your world, unnarmed attacks still do. Even without the monk this needs to be addressed. Characters can choose to kick unnarmed and might be a little annoyed if the explanation is that they can't because they are too inflexible.

That is all that comes to me atm, but I bet there are a few more. It is an excellent idea, but I think a split strength is not the way to go. +2 jump, the increased carrying capacity for 4 legs, and a special attack involving charging could give you all you desire without a lot of arguing.

 

[The Souljourner]

I think the split strength would be a pain in the buttocks. "Wait, which strength do I use to climb?" Screw that, man. It's not what D&D does. They should have a single strength score and some racial benefits and penalties to some actions. Make sure you take into consideration the automatic benefits of having 4 legs, and then just say they always count as mounted for the purpose of using a lance. There you go.

Don't think of each ability as a feat... look at dwarves, they have like a dozen different abilities, even elves have a bunch of abilities. Just give them what makes sense (I don't recommend a bonus above +4 to a limited use action, such as AC vs giants, or +2 to a skill such as jump or climb. That seems to be what the PHB sticks to for the most part)

-The Souljourner

 

[monkius]

I think the split strength would be a pain in the buttocks. "Wait, which strength do I use to climb?" Screw that, man. It's not what D&D does. They should have a single strength score and some racial benefits and penalties to some actions. Make sure you take into consideration the automatic benefits of having 4 legs, and then just say they always count as mounted for the purpose of using a lance. There you go.

Don't think of each ability as a feat... look at dwarves, they have like a dozen different abilities, even elves have a bunch of abilities. Just give them what makes sense (I don't recommend a bonus above +4 to a limited use action, such as AC vs giants, or +2 to a skill such as jump or climb. That seems to be what the PHB sticks to for the most part)

-The Souljourner

A few things. I have played GURPS with this race, the concept of split strength can work. It currently isn't a concept D&D supports, but I was seeing if I could stretch things.

I think one of the problems that D&D has is that none of the races have any penalties. Other than a slower move, I don't really see any racial penalties. Attributes have modifiers up and down, so they balance out. You don't see any races with a -2 to some skill. I think this limits race creation because you can only add positive modifiers, it makes it harder to balanace the race with others.

 

[Velmont]

RPGs systems are there to simplify the job of DMs and players, so they can play a fun game. If it is not fun to keep track of such split strength, than forget it. If you find it funny, well, do it, after all, that's the only important rule.

Golden Rule: Have fun!

 

[AeroDm]

I think one of the problems that D&D has is that none of the races have any penalties. Other than a slower move, I don't really see any racial penalties. Attributes have modifiers up and down, so they balance out. You don't see any races with a -2 to some skill. I think this limits race creation because you can only add positive modifiers, it makes it harder to balanace the race with others.

There is a reason for this though...

Imagine a race that got +10 move (going with a theoretical wemic type race) and -10 climb to "balance" things out. The player would then devote no ranks to climb, avoid it at all costs, complain if it came up too often, and enjoy the hell out of their increased move.

Penalties are ignored while bonuses are embraced. Giving a race "flavor" by giving it a penalty adds no flavor at all, because you'll never see someone of that race sucking at whatever it is they suck at. Why? because they suck, so why would they try.

 

[SylverFlame]

There is a reason for this though...
Penalties are ignored while bonuses are embraced. Giving a race "flavor" by giving it a penalty adds no flavor at all, because you'll never see someone of that race sucking at whatever it is they suck at. Why? because they suck, so why would they try.

But part of the fun of games CAN be a races penalties. In 2e Dwarves had three penalties that came up very often. They didn't like water, horses (ponies and donkies were okay) and they often had magic items fail to work for them.

These made for GREAT fun for the party. Imagine a dwarf tied up and screaming as you threw him onto a boat or horse. Or when that same dwarf was the only character who could get to the item that would save the day and watching the dice bounce across the table as you wonder "explosion or victory?"

The thing was the player who had the dwarf as his PC enjoyed these moments more than the other players. It made the game interesting and enjoyable.

Also, for another example, White Wolf's Vampire and Werewolf gives a penalty to each PC based on what they are. Kind of fun to see people try and figure out ways to get around their personal flaws.

Penalties can be a great part of the game because they add MORE flavour than bonuses.


EDIT: Yes, I realize now that I have posted this that it can be seen has having a bite to it. Sorry, as that was not my intention. I merely wanted to say that there is a place for penalties, as long as they can add to a game. I did not mean to be a jerk, nor did I intend to tick anyone off. Okay, feel better apologizing like this.