-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Should Str and Con be one stat?
- Thread starter GSHamster
- Start date
IanB
First Post
It sounds like what you really want, if you go down the realism path, is to have strength be the statistic that determines HPs but leaves constitution as the ability for the things that are currently covered by con checks and fort saves.
While this would possibly be more realistic it is *very* problematic from a game balance perspective. Strength becomes way too valuable in this scenario I think.
While this would possibly be more realistic it is *very* problematic from a game balance perspective. Strength becomes way too valuable in this scenario I think.
Sejs
First Post
Plane Sailing said:
*nod* Think back to a lot of the Ye Olde Strongman stereotypes. Often times they guy was just plain big in all dimensions - tall, with thick, meaty limbs and a big ol' gut.
The description one of my friends gave me went something along the lines of: you walk around carrying 100 lbs of cargo all day, every day and your muscles learn to compensate some. Of course when you do have to start movin' quickly it's not exactly like you can put the weight down.
Hussar
Legend
High con, low str - as mentioned Bilbo Baggins, but, heck, how about Frodo? Or Sam? Or any of the Hobbits really.
Gollum?
What's the name of the guy in Die Hard? John MacClane or something like that?
High Str, Low Con? Sumo wrestlers. Get winded going up a flight of stairs, but, I don't think you'd easily find stronger people.
Gollum?
What's the name of the guy in Die Hard? John MacClane or something like that?
High Str, Low Con? Sumo wrestlers. Get winded going up a flight of stairs, but, I don't think you'd easily find stronger people.
Dr Simon
Explorer
Victim said:
But a swimmer would have maxed out ranks in Swim, plus Skill Focus (Swim) whereas a climber would have maxed out ranks in Climb, Skill Focus (Climb) and probably a masterwork climbing kit. So from a root of two fairly strong individuals the system still lets you customise specialists.
Resistance to disease, cold etc seems unrellated to strength, there may even be an inverse correlation. Women generally seem to have higher fortitude than men, but lower STR.
However, what struck me forcefully when I was training in the Territorial army reserve is that resistance to damage, what in D&D is hit points, is heavily correlated with muscle mass, and hence STR. While male soldiers seemed more likely to suffer from heat stroke, sickness and other 'fortitude save' stuff, women were much more likely to suffer training injuries such as broken bones, due to less muscle mass sheathing the bone. D&D addresses this by having warrior classes get higher hit dice, but it would be most credible if STR affected your hit point total. Of course STR is already a very powerful attribute in 3e - which is historically accurate, it was the dominant attribute for medieval warriors - but it may be that unless you're using roll-in-order character gen, letting STR affect resilience may make it just too good, so every PC's STR is maxed-out.
However, what struck me forcefully when I was training in the Territorial army reserve is that resistance to damage, what in D&D is hit points, is heavily correlated with muscle mass, and hence STR. While male soldiers seemed more likely to suffer from heat stroke, sickness and other 'fortitude save' stuff, women were much more likely to suffer training injuries such as broken bones, due to less muscle mass sheathing the bone. D&D addresses this by having warrior classes get higher hit dice, but it would be most credible if STR affected your hit point total. Of course STR is already a very powerful attribute in 3e - which is historically accurate, it was the dominant attribute for medieval warriors - but it may be that unless you're using roll-in-order character gen, letting STR affect resilience may make it just too good, so every PC's STR is maxed-out.
Similar Threads
