PDA

View Full Version : throwing cats at commoners



A Tad Insane
2013-08-06, 12:08 PM
People always joke about how commoners are so weak a cat could kill them, but has anyone ever thrown a cat at a real person and recorded the results? I know, emprically, that most humans are stronger and could crush a cat with ease, but the same holds true for most dogs, yet people still fear a dog bite, even a non fatal one.

Or is there a secert cat fighting society were people fight cats, and I'm literally the only person who doesn't know of its existance.

Amaril
2013-08-06, 12:34 PM
Or is there a secert cat fighting society were people fight cats, and I'm literally the only person who doesn't know of its existance.

If that were the case, it wouldn't be much of a secret, now would it? :smalltongue:

I really don't know much about the physical capabilities of house cats relative to those of humans, but I imagine a sufficiently angry or desperate cat could probably tear a human's throat up badly enough to kill them. Whether the cat would survive the attempt, I don't know.

LimeSkeleton
2013-08-06, 12:47 PM
What a morbid topic! :smallbiggrin: I guess it depends on the cat. An everyday housecat who has been pampered for their entire life probably wouldn't be too frightening, but maybe an alley cat that's had to survive by itself in the "wild" could perhaps be more dangerous. I mean, there's the possibility that it could carry some sort of disease with it, although I'm no veterinarian.

SethoMarkus
2013-08-06, 01:01 PM
I don't think this is based on cats real-world abilities so much as it is based on commoners being drastically short-changed in 3.x. I mean, really, cough hard enough on a commoner and they drop dead (unless they are Joe Wood (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19558998/Commoner_Campaign?pg=1)).

In real life, I don't think that a house cat could cause significant enough damage to an adult human to kill them out right, but might open wounds that become infected and cause death through disease. House cats just aren't powerful enough to get through even the meekest of human defensive gestures; hurting, yes; killing, not so much. I suppose an angry cat might kill an unconscious or otherwise helpless human if they decided to use him as a scratch post... though it would take more than the 12 seconds a D&D cat can mess up a commoner in.

TheStranger
2013-08-06, 01:34 PM
Or is there a secert cat fighting society were people fight cats, and I'm literally the only person who doesn't know of its existance.
My experience is that all cat owners find themselves in this society sooner or later.


I don't think this is based on cats real-world abilities so much as it is based on commoners being drastically short-changed in 3.x. I mean, really, cough hard enough on a commoner and they drop dead (unless they are Joe Wood (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19558998/Commoner_Campaign?pg=1)).

In real life, I don't think that a house cat could cause significant enough damage to an adult human to kill them out right, but might open wounds that become infected and cause death through disease. House cats just aren't powerful enough to get through even the meekest of human defensive gestures; hurting, yes; killing, not so much. I suppose an angry cat might kill an unconscious or otherwise helpless human if they decided to use him as a scratch post... though it would take more than the 12 seconds a D&D cat can mess up a commoner in.
The problem isn't that commoners are weak (they are, but that's ok), it's that D&D insists that every attack does at least 1 damage. And/or that it doesn't scale the effectiveness of attacks based on the size difference between attacker and target.

Souju
2013-08-06, 01:42 PM
they also insist on giving cats 3 attacks per round.
I dunno about you, but even when pissed off my cat never claw-claw-bites ANYTHING.
...though that's really my problem with fight mechanics involving animals in general. While i've seen real animals use the "pounce" mechanic often, I don't think i've ever seen a cat, even a tiger or lion, attack with both its claws consecutively and follow up with a bite.
So really, a cat should be CAPABLE of three attacks per round if it's a familiar or animal companion, but a standard garden variety house cat shouldn't do that under normal circumstances, thus giving the garden variety commoner more than 12 seconds of life against Sir Pouncealot.

...really if you ask me, a creature shouldn't be able to have more attacks per round than it has hit dice.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-08-06, 02:28 PM
but the same holds true for most dogs
I don't know about that. Yeah, you can out-muscle a poodle without too much trouble, but what about something the size of a lab? In a fight between a commoner and a hundred-pound dog, I'd take the dog.

Xelbiuj
2013-08-06, 02:33 PM
they also insist on giving cats 3 attacks per round.
I dunno about you, but even when pissed off my cat never claw-claw-bites ANYTHING.

Ever had a cat? If it's the playful type and you mess with it, grabbing its belly n whatnot. They have a tendency to bite between your thumb and index finger, wrap their paws around your hand and dig in, then rake with their hind legs.
Freaking ouch. lol

Warlawk
2013-08-06, 04:23 PM
I worked with a guy years ago who got a kitten. He thought it would be cool to essentially teach his kitten to 'hunt' him. He would put on elbow length gloves and let the cat go nuts attacking and scratching his hand, he would play a little rough with it like that (please note, not abusive at all, just taught the cat to really go after that gloved hand).

Well, a few months later as the cat is nearly full grown, he was laying on the couch taking a nap. He came to work the next day with bandages from his shoulder up across his neck, around his ear and the back of his head. The cat had ran out of the bedroom and pounced onto him while he was sleeping and ripped a lot of little holes into his neck. This cat was 'playing' and not even actively trying to hurt him.

It seems like the thing most people forget when making these kind of discussions is that animals don't fight fair. They aren't going to wait until you're ready for a fight. They will stalk you and attack when you aren't ready. Or in the case of canines they will bring a pack of friends with them. These animals are hunters, and they are the survivors of millions of years of evolution to make them good at that. Sure if you put a man and a cat in an open empty room and say that there can only be one survivor the conclusion is pretty well a given. Put them in a forest where the cat can hide, climb, stalk, potentially wait for night time or for the human to sleep... even a housecat determined to kill a human could probably pull it off if it was smart enough to hit and run since chances are slim the average city dwelling human will have even the slightest chance of seeing/tracking a hunting feline in a wilderness setting.

Berenger
2013-08-06, 04:29 PM
I once had to bathe a rather small housecat.

I'm not especially strong, but I'm fairly certain I have a 10-11-ish strenght and I was unable to hold that little critter. Two hands her were not enoug to stop her from pulling herself over my stomach, shoulder and back with her claws ripping my shirt and leaving deep, bloody scratches. Granted, this was not so much a fight as a grappling check, but still. I lost.

Lapak
2013-08-06, 04:50 PM
I once had to bathe a rather small housecat.

I'm not especially strong, but I'm fairly certain I have a 10-11-ish strenght and I was unable to hold that little critter. Two hands her were not enoug to stop her from pulling herself over my stomach, shoulder and back with her claws ripping my shirt and leaving deep, bloody scratches. Granted, this was not so much a fight as a grappling check, but still. I lost.I would submit that you lost because you were attempting to grapple the cat without injuring it. If you were fighting the cat instead of bathing it, it would not be an issue; cats do not have the mass or muscle to overpower an adult human being that isn't restraining him- or herself.

RandomNPC
2013-08-06, 05:47 PM
Thing about cats is the claws, there's a reason they can't climb back down out of trees, they've got hooks for claws. If a cat gets into you, you're either going to bleed a lot or take the time to grab the cats paw and move it forward and up from the fresh punctures. In that time, it'll rake with back claws.

People have been hospitalized by cats due to a bit of splashed water and a cat with above average hydrophobia. I could see a cat taking someone out, but it'd be the exception. In a true combat situation as soon as the cat tries to latch on and rake you would get a grip on it and go all out.

I could see the cat drawing first blood almost every time.

Alejandro
2013-08-06, 05:51 PM
As a person who has and loves cats dearly, cats are merciless predators, against their prey types. Against a human, they'd prefer to flee in a short burst of speed and go somewhere the human cannot follow; they have no reason to battle a human.

In a straight up fight, the human will win, but will get cut up unless wearing protective gear.

Zahhak
2013-08-06, 05:51 PM
My group is getting together on Friday for a birthday. I'm now thinking we should actually run some 3.x battles between house cats and commoners. The possible youtube video will be posted here.

LimeSkeleton
2013-08-06, 06:57 PM
My group is getting together on Friday for a birthday. I'm now thinking we should actually run some 3.x battles between house cats and commoners. The possible youtube video will be posted here.

That sounds hilarious, please do post it! :smallbiggrin:

Beleriphon
2013-08-06, 07:57 PM
Here's a hint. A man in the Ukraine was killed by a beaver. A beaver. It got mad enough at him and severed an artery.

Cats could do the same thing, however unlikely.

Kyberwulf
2013-08-06, 08:28 PM
The only problem I have with this scenario is that it all assumes that the cat is fighting a Level 1 commoner, or a Level 1... erm, cat.

Incanur
2013-08-06, 08:41 PM
Are there any documented instances of a house cat or even something like a bobcat killing a person? I've heard of at least one that involved significant injury, but never fatality.

elliott20
2013-08-06, 08:57 PM
I always imagine that we're not talking about 7 lb house cat, but rather more like a small jaguar, like a lynx or something.

awa
2013-08-06, 09:24 PM
beavers bite through wood and weigh on average 40+ pounds a beaver bite is nothing to laugh at. a beaver bite is vastly more dangerous then that of a house cat and even then (assuming your talking about the story i think you are) it was a lucky shot that only happened because some one tried to pick up a wild animal.

thing is in real life cat needs to be very luck to bring down a human.

all these examples of dangerous cats were people dealing with pets where the human started at a disadvantage and did not want to hurt much less kill the cat.

BWR
2013-08-07, 03:26 AM
People always joke about how commoners are so weak a cat could kill them, but has anyone ever thrown a cat at a real person and recorded the results? I know, emprically, that most humans are stronger and could crush a cat with ease, but the same holds true for most dogs, yet people still fear a dog bite, even a non fatal one.


What people said about cats holds true. Thing about dogs is they have massively powerful jaws. Even tiny dogs can deliver a nasty bite. While the claws and bite of a cat can be painful, it's mostly superficial. A dog's bite can do a lot more damage. If you're strong of stomach, Google pictures of what it looks like when dogs attack humans.

And most dogs people fear are a lot bigger than a housecat. The housecat is so small that unless it hits your eyes it's only going to do superficial damage. Even something the size of a lynx, smaller than a Labrador, would royally mess you up if it decided to. Look at these (http://scotcats.online.fr/abc/photoalbum/lynxattack.html)scratches, and that's just the cat saying "leave me alone", not trying to do serious damage.

Gettles
2013-08-07, 04:05 AM
Are there any documented instances of a house cat or even something like a bobcat killing a person? I've heard of at least one that involved significant injury, but never fatality.

I know someone who was hospitalized due to injuries caused by her cat.

Lord Vukodlak
2013-08-07, 04:26 AM
Sure if you put a man and a cat in an open empty room and say that there can only be one survivor the conclusion is pretty well a given.
Your missing the point, the point is using D&D rules in that empty room the cat has decent chance of beating the commoner.
If the cat has the opportunity to sneak up on the commoner he'll almost certainly win.

Fouredged Sword
2013-08-07, 08:44 AM
This is why many people play in a world where level 2 is roughly adulthood, and most commoners are level 2-3. Level one represents a youth or totally inexperienced person.

But yes, we are seeing a flaw in our simulationist / gamist balance here.

awa
2013-08-07, 09:05 AM
like others have said the only reason a cat can kill a commoner is because damage the minimum damage is to high. If average adult is level 3 you get a lot of level inflation. Now you need to give every orc and goblin extra levels or else your saying a guy who has never fought a day in his life is just as skilled as a warrior in a brutal cut throat society and so on.

Jay R
2013-08-07, 11:29 AM
Or is there a secert cat fighting society were people fight cats, and I'm literally the only person who doesn't know of its existance.

You'll never know. The first rule of Cat Fight Club is ....

elliott20
2013-08-07, 11:40 AM
You'll never know. The first rule of Cat Fight Club is ....

"U KANT TALK CHEESEBURGER"?

Altair_the_Vexed
2013-08-07, 01:10 PM
I've just always ruled that if you're smaller (by size category) than your target, then you can deal 0 damage if your STR modifier is negative. However, if you are delivering disease or poison, successful attacks still prompt the relevant save.

I think I adopted that rule about 2002. Never looked back.

Rhynn
2013-08-07, 01:53 PM
The problem isn't that commoners are weak (they are, but that's ok), it's that D&D insists that every attack does at least 1 damage. And/or that it doesn't scale the effectiveness of attacks based on the size difference between attacker and target.

To get even more-nitpicky and a bit historical...

In Original D&D, all HDs were 1d6 (but you didn't get 1 per level), and all attacks dealt 1d6 damage. The basic thinking was this: an attack with any weapon can kill a person, but sometimes they don't. Heroes are harder to kill, because stories (Howard, Leiber, etc.). That's pretty sound. You made one attack in a round, probably representing a whole bunch of back-and-forth. Domestic cats did not have stats, because domestic cats are not enemies you need to fight.

This started to get stretched out of shape in later editions, though. And then we get to D&D 3.5, where - for reasons of stupidity - domestic cats get three attacks and can actually deal damage. This is based on the incorrect assumptions that any attack needs to be modelled and to deal damage. Not so: if a housecat is not really capable of killing a grown man or injuring, e.g., a person in plate armor, it shouldn't have attacks or deal damage. The reasonable attack statistics for a housecat would be no attacks, for 0 damage.

This does present a problem with scaling, though: if you cast animal growth on that housecat, it should probably get big enough to hurt people (the size of a cougar, maybe). If it doesn't have attacks in its statblock, then it won't have attacks when made bigger. If it has attacks for 0 damage, those don't grow into more than 0 damage.

There's two solutions: let damage be reduced to 0 by Str modifiers (giving the housecat something like 1d3-3/1d2-3), or include a "0" step on the "damage scaling" table...

Killer Angel
2013-08-07, 04:30 PM
People always joke about how commoners are so weak a cat could kill them, but has anyone ever thrown a cat at a real person and recorded the results? I know, emprically, that most humans are stronger and could crush a cat with ease, but the same holds true for most dogs, yet people still fear a dog bite, even a non fatal one.

That really depends on the dog... :smallwink:

Anyway: toxoplasmosis and feline rabies, count? :smalltongue:

Lord Vukodlak
2013-08-07, 04:38 PM
To get even more-nitpicky and a bit historical...

In Original D&D, all HDs were 1d6 (but you didn't get 1 per level), and all attacks dealt 1d6 damage. The basic thinking was this: an attack with any weapon can kill a person, but sometimes they don't. Heroes are harder to kill, because stories (Howard, Leiber, etc.). That's pretty sound. You made one attack in a round, probably representing a whole bunch of back-and-forth. Domestic cats did not have stats, because domestic cats are not enemies you need to fight.

This started to get stretched out of shape in later editions, though. And then we get to D&D 3.5, where - for reasons of stupidity - domestic cats get three attacks and can actually deal damage. This is based on the incorrect assumptions that any attack needs to be modelled and to deal damage. Not so: if a housecat is not really capable of killing a grown man or injuring, e.g., a person in plate armor, it shouldn't have attacks or deal damage. The reasonable attack statistics for a housecat would be no attacks, for 0 damage.

This does present a problem with scaling, though: if you cast animal growth on that housecat, it should probably get big enough to hurt people (the size of a cougar, maybe). If it doesn't have attacks in its statblock, then it won't have attacks when made bigger. If it has attacks for 0 damage, those don't grow into more than 0 damage.

There's two solutions: let damage be reduced to 0 by Str modifiers (giving the housecat something like 1d3-3/1d2-3), or include a "0" step on the "damage scaling" table...

You could also treat the stats for tiny mundane animals as existing only for the purposes of familiars. Real domestic housecats remain unstated as they aren't a threat to any human sized creature.
If you use animal growth on a house cat then you default to the base familiar stats.(then add the spell effects)

Jay R
2013-08-07, 09:38 PM
The reasonable attack statistics for a housecat would be no attacks, for 0 damage.

Ever struggle with a fighting cat? I'd say three attacks, for 0 damage.

It can't kill you, but a successful attack would disrupt spell-casting, or distract you from another opponent.

Sith_Happens
2013-08-07, 09:59 PM
Also, I'd say that most people in modern-day industrialized nations are better represented by Experts than Commoners (minus the weapon and armor proficiencies), which means very slightly more HP.

elliott20
2013-08-07, 10:15 PM
man, all this talk about vicious cats just makes me want to go cuddle with my cat right now and get some feel goods.

Rhynn
2013-08-07, 10:23 PM
Ever struggle with a fighting cat? I'd say three attacks, for 0 damage.

It can't kill you, but a successful attack would disrupt spell-casting, or distract you from another opponent.

Nope, but I've had my share of scratches (although, to be fair, I've gotten worse scratches from dogs that were trying to stand against me to lick my face than from cats clawing me on purpose). But you make a good rules point.

So, fix D&D housecats by allowing attacks to deal 0 damage, and making sure housecats have a Str penalty that reduces their attacks' damage to 0.

SowZ
2013-08-08, 01:40 PM
Here's a hint. A man in the Ukraine was killed by a beaver. A beaver. It got mad enough at him and severed an artery.

Cats could do the same thing, however unlikely.

Beavers have incredibly sharp, long teeth and very powerful jaws. A beaver could bite into your arm and completely crush the bone. They are designed to cut down trees with their teeth. I don't think a beaver is a good example on account of beavers being totally BA.

awa
2013-08-08, 01:47 PM
agreed they also weigh like 40 pounds so they are not that small

SowZ
2013-08-08, 02:31 PM
Also, I'd say that most people in modern-day industrialized nations are better represented by Experts than Commoners (minus the weapon and armor proficiencies), which means very slightly more HP.

I think simple weapon proficiency is perfectly reasonable. That includes spears, blunt weapons, crossbows, and punching daggers. If you give someone a baseball bat or brass knuckles, they become far more likely to kill someone in a fight. Also, most people could get the basics of firing a gun or crossbow. They wouldn't be that accurate by virtue of low BAB and probably a low Dex mod/no relevant feats. But they could aim and shoot.

Lapak
2013-08-08, 03:42 PM
I think simple weapon proficiency is perfectly reasonable. That includes spears, blunt weapons, crossbows, and punching daggers. If you give someone a baseball bat or brass knuckles, they become far more likely to kill someone in a fight. Also, most people could get the basics of firing a gun or crossbow. They wouldn't be that accurate by virtue of low BAB and probably a low Dex mod/no relevant feats. But they could aim and shoot.But not necessarily reload - a crossbow, at least. I was just the other day watching an episode of Top Shot (a reality show that's a shooting competition) which involved crossbows, and one guy just got hopelessly messed up trying to get the thing re-cocked. And the contestants are non-representative in that they actually ARE used to aiming and shooting things on a regular basis. Proficiency covers exactly that kind of thing, not just 'can you pick this thing up and maybe use it once' but 'have you practiced enough with this thing that you can get the BEST use out of it.' Anybody can pick up a bat and swing it, yes - but with a non-proficiency penalty unless they've practiced actually using it as a weapon. Otherwise you'll over-swing and throw yourself off balance, or choke up too much on the grip (or not enough) and cost yourself leverage, and so on. And spears? Yikes. You'll still be more effective with the thing than without it, maybe, but most people really wouldn't qualify for a weapon proficiency of any kind.

SowZ
2013-08-08, 05:33 PM
But not necessarily reload - a crossbow, at least. I was just the other day watching an episode of Top Shot (a reality show that's a shooting competition) which involved crossbows, and one guy just got hopelessly messed up trying to get the thing re-cocked. And the contestants are non-representative in that they actually ARE used to aiming and shooting things on a regular basis. Proficiency covers exactly that kind of thing, not just 'can you pick this thing up and maybe use it once' but 'have you practiced enough with this thing that you can get the BEST use out of it.' Anybody can pick up a bat and swing it, yes - but with a non-proficiency penalty unless they've practiced actually using it as a weapon. Otherwise you'll over-swing and throw yourself off balance, or choke up too much on the grip (or not enough) and cost yourself leverage, and so on. And spears? Yikes. You'll still be more effective with the thing than without it, maybe, but most people really wouldn't qualify for a weapon proficiency of any kind.

*Shrugs* Maybe I just run in weird circles. I know that myself and most of my acquaintances/friends are proficient in the use of any civilian firearm, (our equivalent of crossbows,) and a lot of people I know would be at least proficient with a number of medieval weapons. Is LARPing/fencing/blunted metal fighting/eskrima/kendo really so uncommon that most people don't at least know the basics of one of them? Shoot, you could justify club proficiency by doing baseball in highschool.

What about punch weapons? If you can throw a punch you can use brass knuckles. Most people were at least in a handful of fights during middle and high school or at least have some martial arts training, weren't they?

Souju
2013-08-08, 06:24 PM
There's a LITTLE more that goes into being proficient with crossbows than goes into using a modern firearm...though at the same time there's more that goes into firing a gun than a crossbow. Someone used to one would have a small measure of difficulty with the other. Kinda like driving a car vs. driving a motorcycle. Or maybe driving a motorcycle vs. driving a bicycle.
Anyway, zeroing out cat-size creatures damage seems good...but that would assume you could go toe to toe with a cat and they could never, EVER kill you. 8 determined hungry cats versus a single level 1 character are still going to hurt/kill you. So my solution...they deal 1 non-lethal damage.
And yes i do own a cat :P owned several cats. when they grapple you they really do rake you, but oddly enough only larger cats have that mechanic in their stats. Under my rules, that rake attack WOULD deal lethal damage. Cuz let's be honest, if a cat successfully grapples you, God doesn't want you alive anyway.

Fouredged Sword
2013-08-08, 06:36 PM
I think 1d3-2 damage seems correct if the damage can be zero'd out. A cat scratch isn't likely to do damage, but it could nick an artery. One thought on zero damage is that it can't kill you if you refuse to defend yourself. A cat could kill a paralyzed person.

awa
2013-08-08, 06:45 PM
Personal I think a more realistic system would be one where on a crit the damge is min 1 becuase a house cat can only cause a serious injury with extreme luck

Lapak
2013-08-08, 08:50 PM
*Shrugs* Maybe I just run in weird circles. I know that myself and most of my acquaintances/friends are proficient in the use of any civilian firearm, (our equivalent of crossbows,) and a lot of people I know would be at least proficient with a number of medieval weapons. Is LARPing/fencing/blunted metal fighting/eskrima/kendo really so uncommon that most people don't at least know the basics of one of them? Shoot, you could justify club proficiency by doing baseball in highschool.That's why I mentioned the show - those guys aren't just even casual marksmen, they are professional / world-champion-title-holding / working sniper types. And when thrown against a weapon they weren't practiced with, they sometimes bobble it. The guy-on-the-street would be even worse off. As for baseball, that's exactly why I said 'in a fight'; swinging a bat at a ball effectively has surprisingly little to do with swinging it at a person in earnest. I'm not saying you can't do it - most people can! - I'm saying the average person would be non-proficient. Which is another thing altogether. Against a similarly defenseless / inexperienced person? Yeah, it would be a decisive advantage. Against a trained combatant? No, not so much.

What about punch weapons? If you can throw a punch you can use brass knuckles. Most people were at least in a handful of fights during middle and high school or at least have some martial arts training, weren't they?Not universally, no.

Drachasor
2013-08-08, 09:45 PM
*Shrugs* Maybe I just run in weird circles. I know that myself and most of my acquaintances/friends are proficient in the use of any civilian firearm, (our equivalent of crossbows,) and a lot of people I know would be at least proficient with a number of medieval weapons. Is LARPing/fencing/blunted metal fighting/eskrima/kendo really so uncommon that most people don't at least know the basics of one of them? Shoot, you could justify club proficiency by doing baseball in highschool.

What about punch weapons? If you can throw a punch you can use brass knuckles. Most people were at least in a handful of fights during middle and high school or at least have some martial arts training, weren't they?

Yes, you run in weird circles.

Cealocanth
2013-08-08, 10:09 PM
Yes, you run in weird circles.

For this forum, those circles are surprisingly common.

On the original subject, we are talking about what constitutes as a domestic cat in medieval society. These animals are not the fat spoiled things we keep in our houses today. We've been breeding hostility out of them for centuries. Back in the day, commoners and nobles alike would often allow their animals to roam wherever they pleased, feeding them with nothing but whatever vermin the cat would catch and if you were lucky, the occasional table scraps. A common domestic cat in the classic D&D setting is closer to the feral "alley cats" you see living in impoverished areas.

Still, that's probably not enough to say that they could drop a commoner in 12 seconds. People during the same period, while malnourished and often diseased, were at least competent in the use of simple weapons or improvised weapons. They were also remarkably tough, being expected to farm or craft enough to feed themselves and their families while paying huge taxes to their lords too. One cat probably couldn't take one commoner down, but throw a pack of two or more at them, and they're probably not going to get out of it with potentially fatal injuries.

SowZ
2013-08-08, 10:27 PM
For this forum, those circles are surprisingly common.

On the original subject, we are talking about what constitutes as a domestic cat in medieval society. These animals are not the fat spoiled things we keep in our houses today. We've been breeding hostility out of them for centuries. Back in the day, commoners and nobles alike would often allow their animals to roam wherever they pleased, feeding them with nothing but whatever vermin the cat would catch and if you were lucky, the occasional table scraps. A common domestic cat in the classic D&D setting is closer to the feral "alley cats" you see living in impoverished areas.

Still, that's probably not enough to say that they could drop a commoner in 12 seconds. People during the same period, while malnourished and often diseased, were at least competent in the use of simple weapons or improvised weapons. They were also remarkably tough, being expected to farm or craft enough to feed themselves and their families while paying huge taxes to their lords too. One cat probably couldn't take one commoner down, but throw a pack of two or more at them, and they're probably not going to get out of it with potentially fatal injuries.

If the human started to take enough damage he felt like his life was threatened by a mob of cats, he would be able to run away in time. Infection could get him, but the cats are unlikely to. Even in large numbers. That's why an HP system where you have 3 HP and a crossbow does about 5 damage and a punch does 1 doesn't really work.

Even though HP isn't a realistic system to begin with, if you are going to use it, everyone having maybe 20 or so HP and lethal weapons doing more like 2d20 makes more sense. But it is less playable. And since most people don't play at level 1 for very long anyway, the game not modeling real life commoners very well isn't a true fault in the system. Running a party of random Joe Shmoes isn't what D&D is trying to do so it puts less effort for that working out.

TuggyNE
2013-08-09, 02:15 AM
*Shrugs* Maybe I just run in weird circles. I know that myself and most of my acquaintances/friends are proficient in the use of any civilian firearm, (our equivalent of crossbows,) and a lot of people I know would be at least proficient with a number of medieval weapons. Is LARPing/fencing/blunted metal fighting/eskrima/kendo really so uncommon that most people don't at least know the basics of one of them? Shoot, you could justify club proficiency by doing baseball in highschool.

What about punch weapons? If you can throw a punch you can use brass knuckles. Most people were at least in a handful of fights during middle and high school or at least have some martial arts training, weren't they?

You do run in weird circles. I know one person who might (or might not!) know how to use a melee weapon, and that's just based on the ornamental swords they own. I know several people, including myself, who know how to throw a punch, but according to my Tae Kwon Do instructor, 90% of Americans can't throw a proper punch.

On the other hand, of course, I know at least a couple dozen people who have Simple Weapon Proficiency: Rifle/Handarm.

BWR
2013-08-09, 02:31 AM
You do run in weird circles. I know one person who might (or might not!) know how to use a melee weapon, and that's just based on the ornamental swords they own. I know several people, including myself, who know how to throw a punch, but according to my Tae Kwon Do instructor, 90% of Americans can't throw a proper punch.

On the other hand, of course, I know at least a couple dozen people who have Simple Weapon Proficiency: Rifle/Handarm.

Improved Unarmed Strike isn't that common nowadays. Here in Norway I know several people who know how to use assault rifles to a basic degree, but that's because we have 1 year of mandatory military service. I know two people who have guns as a hobby (as opposed to hunting), but that is far less common than in the US. I actually know people who know how to handle a sword (and spears and other melee weapons to a lesser degree), but that's just scewed demographics because there is a significant correlation between people who like that sort of stuff and fantastic fiction/RPGs.

Avilan the Grey
2013-08-09, 02:53 AM
This reminds me of the great fear in some editions: The Hamster.

It only bites for 1 HP per bite, and has virtually no HP itself, but it is of such a small size that a commoner (or even a level 1-2 warrior) cannot hit it without freakish luck. Even if it is dangling from your nose, biting you. (Because rules trumps common sense :smalltongue::smallbiggrin:)

Imaginte being bit once every six seconds until you die... :smallamused:

Edit: I think a cat would attack for 0 damage BUT a perfect hit could take out an eye. Cats will go for the face of a bigger animal if cornered and desperate. I have seen a small house cat severely damage the face (and permanently blind one eye) of a young German Shepard who didn't understand when to back off. Not a happy sight. (None of the animals were mine or any friend's of mine, it happened on a friends neighbours porch several years ago).

snowblizz
2013-08-09, 04:09 AM
So I had to finally register because this thread is epic. Also, because last week the morning news blew my mind.

So why did I register? Because in Finland, in the period 1998-2011 house cats were twice as deadly as bears. Bears! That bear death happened in 1998 and was the *only* one the last century. Wolves hasn't killed anyone since 1881.
http://areena.yle.fi/tv/1989275 around 19:30 (if anyone can watch it).
http://www.iltalehti.fi/uutiset/2013022016698165_uu.shtml

Deaths by animal:
1. Dog attacks/bites - 15
2. Wasps - 14
3. Bovines, cows, bulls - 10
4. Horse - 7
5. Cat - 2
6. Bear - 1
7. Ram - 1
8. Viper bite - 1
9. Bees - 1

I have no idea exactly how cats killed two people and the paper reporting couldn't get it answered either as coroners reports are confidential. Obviously the lists says nothing about relative power of animals a modern society has skewed all kinds of natural orders. Still, Cats 2, bears 1. Go cats.

Talking of fat lazy housecats. Mine sent my best friend to the emergency room, where they wondered what kind of dog had bit him. And my poor tomcat only had the one canine, imagine what it could have done if he still had both! :smallwink: (I know I know it was more for getting a tendershot than massive bloodloss that sent him there, still, he was the one with the schnautzer on his side and they still both lost to one fat lazy housecat).

Wardog
2013-08-11, 09:37 AM
Also, I'd say that most people in modern-day industrialized nations are better represented by Experts than Commoners (minus the weapon and armor proficiencies), which means very slightly more HP.

Most people in modern industrialized nations, who tend to live relatively sedentary lives and who can rely on the police for protection are tougher than people who did hard labour for 12 hours a day and generally had to look after themselves?


Anyway, I once set up a cats vs. commoners scenarion in Neverwinter Nights. I don't think it perfectly recreated the RAW scenario, due to limitations in the engine. But the commoner killed the cat more often than not, but the cat won fairly often too.

Also: http://metro.co.uk/2013/07/25/woman-and-dog-mauled-by-a-gang-of-six-feral-cats-3899269/

druid91
2013-08-11, 09:52 AM
http://mcgonnigle.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/coonbig.jpg

What was that about housecats being small?

Clarification, that is, if my search is correct, an American Longhair housecat. They get pretty big.

Beleriphon
2013-08-11, 11:15 AM
http://mcgonnigle.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/coonbig.jpg

What was that about housecats being small?

Clarification, that is, if my search is correct, an American Longhair housecat. They get pretty big.

Yeah, maine ***** are positively monstrous for cats. The largest can weight up to 30 pounds with a total body length of around 36 inches. I've heard them described as having a tiger sit in your lap when they want attention.

Norwegian forest cats can get pretty big as well, not quite as large but they top out around 25 pounds for males (and that would be abnormally large). They even look similar, but without the neck ruff.

Altair_the_Vexed
2013-08-11, 11:20 AM
Cat behaviour generally means that aren't going to kill people - they'll generally only strike out at a clearly larger and stronger opponent to distract them enough to run away.

Besides - houserule that 0 damage = 0 damage, and you have no problem.

Alex12
2013-08-11, 03:20 PM
I work at a vet clinic, and I pretty regularly have to restrain cats. I'd have to say that the real threat is trying to grapple the cat. By RAW, it's pretty easy to do that (big-time size penalties), and that's just completely absurd.

awa
2013-08-11, 05:49 PM
actually with the 3 facts of you provoking, the cat is making attacks in a grapple and even superficial cuts still hurt, and the fact that you are unwilling to use your full strength and skill to really pin the animal. it makes a lot more sense.

Its just a minor unrealism of the system that a you cant accidentally hurts some one grappling them or accidentally kill them with subdual damge.

Studoku
2013-08-11, 06:02 PM
I work at a vet clinic, and I pretty regularly have to restrain cats. I'd have to say that the real threat is trying to grapple the cat. By RAW, it's pretty easy to do that (big-time size penalties), and that's just completely absurd.
Doesn't the cat get absurd bonuses to its Escape Artist check from size and dex? I know mine does.

Lemmy
2013-08-11, 07:37 PM
Doesn't the cat get absurd bonuses to its Escape Artist check from size and dex? I know mine does.
Besides, most people who try to grapple a tend to try to do it as gently possible (which may not be all that gently, depending on how angry the cat is!)... In real combat, if you try to grapple someone, you don't care about how comfortable they are...

SassyQuatch
2013-08-11, 07:41 PM
So I had to finally register because this thread is epic. Also, because last week the morning news blew my mind.

So why did I register? Because in Finland, in the period 1998-2011 house cats were twice as deadly as bears. Bears! That bear death happened in 1998 and was the *only* one the last century. Wolves hasn't killed anyone since 1881.
http://areena.yle.fi/tv/1989275 around 19:30 (if anyone can watch it).
http://www.iltalehti.fi/uutiset/2013022016698165_uu.shtml

Deaths by animal:
1. Dog attacks/bites - 15
2. Wasps - 14
3. Bovines, cows, bulls - 10
4. Horse - 7
5. Cat - 2
6. Bear - 1
7. Ram - 1
8. Viper bite - 1
9. Bees - 1

I have no idea exactly how cats killed two people and the paper reporting couldn't get it answered either as coroners reports are confidential. Obviously the lists says nothing about relative power of animals a modern society has skewed all kinds of natural orders. Still, Cats 2, bears 1. Go cats.

Talking of fat lazy housecats. Mine sent my best friend to the emergency room, where they wondered what kind of dog had bit him. And my poor tomcat only had the one canine, imagine what it could have done if he still had both! :smallwink: (I know I know it was more for getting a tendershot than massive bloodloss that sent him there, still, he was the one with the schnautzer on his side and they still both lost to one fat lazy housecat).
I am reminded of a thread on another forum where worldwide deaths by terrorism and death by bees was compared. Death by bees was many times higher. So began an epic trolling thread demanding trillions of dollars be spent to combat the bee menace since it was also to save lives.

Good times. But really, bees are an underestimated threat.

SowZ
2013-08-11, 08:23 PM
So I had to finally register because this thread is epic. Also, because last week the morning news blew my mind.

So why did I register? Because in Finland, in the period 1998-2011 house cats were twice as deadly as bears. Bears! That bear death happened in 1998 and was the *only* one the last century. Wolves hasn't killed anyone since 1881.
http://areena.yle.fi/tv/1989275 around 19:30 (if anyone can watch it).
http://www.iltalehti.fi/uutiset/2013022016698165_uu.shtml

Deaths by animal:
1. Dog attacks/bites - 15
2. Wasps - 14
3. Bovines, cows, bulls - 10
4. Horse - 7
5. Cat - 2
6. Bear - 1
7. Ram - 1
8. Viper bite - 1
9. Bees - 1

I have no idea exactly how cats killed two people and the paper reporting couldn't get it answered either as coroners reports are confidential. Obviously the lists says nothing about relative power of animals a modern society has skewed all kinds of natural orders. Still, Cats 2, bears 1. Go cats.

Talking of fat lazy housecats. Mine sent my best friend to the emergency room, where they wondered what kind of dog had bit him. And my poor tomcat only had the one canine, imagine what it could have done if he still had both! :smallwink: (I know I know it was more for getting a tendershot than massive bloodloss that sent him there, still, he was the one with the schnautzer on his side and they still both lost to one fat lazy housecat).

How many of those cow deaths had the person harassing the cow, I wonder?

TuggyNE
2013-08-11, 08:28 PM
Doesn't the cat get absurd bonuses to its Escape Artist check from size and dex? I know mine does.

Size, no; Dex, yes.

primenumbers
2013-08-11, 08:56 PM
I had a character survive a bass fight, only to be finished off by a stupid cat before getting healed... It was... pretty sad.:smallfrown:

SowZ
2013-08-12, 01:35 AM
I had a character survive a bass fight, only to be finished off by a stupid cat before getting healed... It was... pretty sad.:smallfrown:

Umm, what is a bass fight?

Rhynn
2013-08-12, 01:44 AM
Umm, what is a bass fight?

I presume it is piscine or musical. Or both.

SowZ
2013-08-12, 01:47 AM
I presume it is piscine or musical. Or both.

While I am sure that a large enough bass would prove quite the challenge, I question what kind of game has a rockin' musical bass fight that ends in the winner having a cat lethally flung at their face. Still, the kind of game I would like to play in.

Avilan the Grey
2013-08-12, 02:31 AM
Doesn't the cat get absurd bonuses to its Escape Artist check from size and dex? I know mine does.

What is the DEX for a cat anyway? 28? I mean logically, not according to rules?

Edit: Regarding cows: Cows in a big enclosure will act like bovines in the wild. Add calves to it and you basically get this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU8DDYz68kM

...But more one-sided because you are not as big as a lion. Cows will protect their young, and 20 cows in an enclosure can easily be turned into many tons of horns, hooves and fury.

Always. Respect. Big. Animals.
A Shetland pony kicking you in the chest is a one-hit kill. IRL. A Clydesdale? Congratulations, you are now basically roadkill.

BWR
2013-08-12, 05:17 AM
So I had to finally register because this thread is epic. Also, because last week the morning news blew my mind.

So why did I register? Because in Finland, in the period 1998-2011 house cats were twice as deadly as bears. Bears! That bear death happened in 1998 and was the *only* one the last century. Wolves hasn't killed anyone since 1881.
http://areena.yle.fi/tv/1989275 around 19:30 (if anyone can watch it).
http://www.iltalehti.fi/uutiset/2013022016698165_uu.shtml

Deaths by animal:
1. Dog attacks/bites - 15
2. Wasps - 14
3. Bovines, cows, bulls - 10
4. Horse - 7
5. Cat - 2
6. Bear - 1
7. Ram - 1
8. Viper bite - 1
9. Bees - 1

I have no idea exactly how cats killed two people and the paper reporting couldn't get it answered either as coroners reports are confidential. Obviously the lists says nothing about relative power of animals a modern society has skewed all kinds of natural orders. Still, Cats 2, bears 1. Go cats.

Talking of fat lazy housecats. Mine sent my best friend to the emergency room, where they wondered what kind of dog had bit him. And my poor tomcat only had the one canine, imagine what it could have done if he still had both! :smallwink: (I know I know it was more for getting a tendershot than massive bloodloss that sent him there, still, he was the one with the schnautzer on his side and they still both lost to one fat lazy housecat).

Probable causes for death by cats:
1) infection. Cat scratch fever is a real thing.
2) cat getting underfoot at the top of a flight of stairs.

And number 2 is more likely than 1.

Brother Oni
2013-08-12, 06:24 AM
I know several people, including myself, who know how to throw a punch, but according to my Tae Kwon Do instructor, 90% of Americans can't throw a proper punch.

To clarify this point a little, a large number of people don't know how to hold their fist properly (either they hold their thumb inside the clenched fist or set it lengthways alongside the index finger), rather than unable to swing their arm.

The former position has a tendancy to break something in your thumb when you hit something hard and the latter position can cause the thumb to catch on your opponent (often their clothing), bending it painfully.

Avilan the Grey
2013-08-12, 06:46 AM
To clarify this point a little, a large number of people don't know how to hold their fist properly (either they hold their thumb inside the clenched fist or set it lengthways alongside the index finger), rather than unable to swing their arm.

Huh.
I find both of those ways to be extremely unnatural to me. A clenced fist, if just instinctively clenced in anger or frustration, tends to clench the "right" way in my experience.

Brother Oni
2013-08-12, 07:04 AM
Huh.
I find both of those ways to be extremely unnatural to me. A clenced fist, if just instinctively clenced in anger or frustration, tends to clench the "right" way in my experience.

I agree, but I've instructed a fair number of beginners with little or no martial arts experience that initially hold their fists in one of the two positions mentioned. My children when they first started martial arts, held their thumbs in their fists so I'd say that 'instinctive' varies from person to person.

It's possible that due to the shape of your personal anatomy, such as hand size or finger length, that your thumbs just end up naturally on the outside.
I've been doing martial arts so long that the correct way is ingrained, so I couldn't tell you what I 'naturally' do.

Gravitron5000
2013-08-12, 08:48 AM
Umm, what is a bass fight?
I presume it is piscine or musical. Or both.

It's when you get enraged by this (http://www.amazon.com/MOUTH-BILLY-BASS-SINGING-SENSATION/dp/B000F792BG) and can no longer contain you violent tenancies against its evil countenance.