PDA

View Full Version : No more swashbuckling rats!



Dhavaer
2007-01-18, 04:55 AM
Why do so many animals gain Weapon Finesse as a bonus feat? It gives them an unrealistic and artificial boost to attack bonus, resulting in a famed example of Fluffy the cat killing his owner (presumably for calling him Fluffy). If cats had the -2 attack penalty they would have without Weapon Finesse, you'd have the more realistic situation of the cat barely being able to penetrate his owner's skin.

random11
2007-01-18, 05:10 AM
Seems like a classic example of "times when you need to forget about the rules and use your brain".

Not EVERYTHING has to be exactly realistic in games, and if you want it to be more realistic, simply change the rules.

Avicenex
2007-01-18, 05:31 AM
If you really don't like rats having weapon finnesse, replace the feat. It's easy. The reason fluffly killed his owner is otherwise a catgirl would have died via lightning--if you're looking for realism, read a physic's book. If the most unrealistic thing you can think of about D&D is animals having weapon finesse...

Nevermind. I'm just going to go battle the Tarrasque on my dragon mount while my friend smacks around the laws of physics by conjuring up fire from his palm and battles a being composed completely of water. You have fun with the kitten.

Zincorium
2007-01-18, 05:40 AM
I think the problem lies more in the fact that no matter how well you get hit by the cat, it's not going to do appreciable damage (except in the eye or somesuch, but that's a critical hit). Painful as all heck, I learned that when I tried to pet a feral cat, but in no way life threatening unless it gets infected.

But the cat hitting you make sense unless you're wearing armor, try dodging a cat's swipe and most will fail. Chalk it up to D&D's warped combat mechanics.

Dhavaer
2007-01-18, 05:59 AM
I think the problem lies more in the fact that no matter how well you get hit by the cat, it's not going to do appreciable damage (except in the eye or somesuch, but that's a critical hit). Painful as all heck, I learned that when I tried to pet a feral cat, but in no way life threatening unless it gets infected.

Precisely. The cat is hindered by its lack of muscle power (low strength) and small claws (low damage dice). No matter how dexterous it is, it's not going to make it any better at getting through your skin.

SpiderBrigade
2007-01-18, 06:27 AM
The problem isn't the weapon finesse, it's the scale of HP. Sure, if you fight a cat, it's going to get lots of hits in. Lots. But (speaking as a low-level commoner myself) it will have trouble killing you. In terms of D&D, a cat should be doing something like 0.1 damage per hit...but the minimum by the rules is 1. So it kills a commoner in 3-4 rounds.

Catharsis
2007-01-18, 06:32 AM
Maybe a cat shouldn't do damage at all on a normal hit, but rather cause distraction like a swarm. Then give it a threat range of 18-20 and let it do actual damage on a crit.

Matthew
2007-01-18, 06:33 AM
Nah, I think the problem is with Weapon Finesse and the Cat's chances of hunting a Rat.

SpiderBrigade
2007-01-18, 07:01 AM
Do you mean hunting as in, finding and catching? Or as in fighting, in combat? Either way it looks like a pretty even match, except the cat has twice the HP and moves faster.

Which I think it pretty appropriate. The D&D "Rat" entry is not your average pest - it's one of those legendary NY sewer rats the size of a small dog.

Matthew
2007-01-18, 07:06 AM
Finding and fighting was what I had in mind...

MetalKelt
2007-01-18, 09:32 AM
I'd have to concur that the problem really is with the quantized hp.

Am I the only one who thought of Reepicheep when I saw the subject line?

MrNexx
2007-01-18, 10:38 AM
Actually, I'd considered any having any creature that does less than 1 damage on a hit to instead do 1 non-lethal damage, instead of 1 lethal damage.

ampcptlogic
2007-01-18, 10:43 AM
MetalKelt: I did, too. Though technically, Reepicheep is a mouse.

headwarpage
2007-01-18, 10:51 AM
Actually, I'd considered any having any creature that does less than 1 damage on a hit to instead do 1 non-lethal damage, instead of 1 lethal damage.

I'm curious - what would the side-effects be if you allowed attacks to not do any damage? Other than making cats less lethal, I mean. I'm sure it would break something, but what?

CharPixie
2007-01-18, 10:52 AM
There's a simple answer to this all... if you don't think an animal can do combat damage to its foe, don't use the combat profile *grins*. The fact that it can hit more often is overshadowed, as mentioned above, by the fact it can kill.

Now, an awakened cat pouncing in for the jugular, that would justify allowing combat damage. But otherwise save the attacks for when the critter could actually damage something.

It's like the handful of dust attack; 1000+ specks of dust, all doing 1 damage. Gloss over it and rule that the target sneezes.

EDIT: yeah, go make my point while i'm posting. steal my thunder. *pointed stare*

Leush
2007-01-18, 10:54 AM
/\ That makes more sense than the cat owner dying, still, the cat owner falling unconcious is also a little strange.

However allow me to shed an alternative hypothesis: The commoner is a stupidly weak class made by a stupid person to make level 1 characters feel good about themselves: Realistically people have a slightly higher hp (I'd guess at about 6-8). That, and cats seldom attack to kill and people seldom keep fighting a cat. Other than that, I have to agree that it is more than a little strange, although if a cat was sincerely trying to kill me, I don't know how that would turn out.

MrNexx
2007-01-18, 11:03 AM
I'd also posit that cats have similar restrictions on their natural weapons that whips do... at least, when they're tiny sized.

Anyone else remember Llyan?

AtomicKitKat
2007-01-18, 12:39 PM
Joe Commoner the Farmer should be in his low ones by the time he's 40 or so. A Commoner 1 is more likely his pre-teen children, still learning the ways of the farm. Once they actually start farming(1 xp per acre, or whatever), they will be less threatened by Mr Snuffles.

krossbow
2007-01-18, 12:44 PM
I personally houserule that all humanoid's get bonus HP on top of their class HP.



1d10. Makes it more realistic, and makes level 1 less of a crap shoot. Plust, at high levesl it won't matter much.
________
Qy10 (http://www.yamaha-tech.com/wiki/Yamaha_QY10)

Matthew
2007-01-18, 12:46 PM
I don't really think that makes D&D more 'realistic'. It's not exactly a game designed with realism in mind.

I think Nexx is right, House Cat Claws shouldn't be considered Natural Weapons at all, but Unarmed Attacks...

Jack Mann
2007-01-18, 12:48 PM
Anyone else remember Llyan?

Poor Fflewddur...

And yes, I think the problem is in the damage and HP system, not their possession of weapon finesse. A cat should have no trouble hitting the average human. They should be able to hit a target the size of, say, a mouse, as well. Weapon finesse allows them a reasonable chance of doing this. The problem is that they do far more damage to the human than is realistic.

MobiusKlein
2007-01-18, 12:51 PM
What about giving creatures DR 1/magic for attacks from 2 sizes (or more) smaller? Then the cat can't hurt a person unless it's strength is upped, or gets Magic Fang cast.

Maglor_Grubb
2007-01-18, 01:09 PM
Or just scale damage from/to bigger/smaller creatures: a cat does more damage to a mouse than to a human. A human can crush any bug due to the size difference, but the bugs can still have a wide variety of con stats.

It makes sense, that the lvl 5 gnome would be able to stab an other (lvl 7) gnome to death, with luck and surprise, but would have a lot more difficulty killing the huge (lvl 3) giant, who should be able to deal a significent amount of damage to a small foe, even of higher level, when hitting it, just by kicking it.

Diggorian
2007-01-18, 02:17 PM
I'm thinking the problem is the commoner part of the equation. Given what medieval commoners did for a living, I'd give them 1d8 HD. I justify this by the amount of physical labor they do, FARmore than lower HD classes whom primarily earn their living by working smarter, not harder. I can see a lvl 1 commoner beating up a level 1 Harry Potter no problem :smallbiggrin:

Cat's need Weapon finesse or they'd starve. Cat's dont kill their owners because they instinctively know realism with their high Wis, despite the threat to their cat-girl cousins.

Cats Withdraw from a fight with humans (a Huge foe from their perspective) whenever possible. When they cant do this, they scoot past with total defense. If cornered, they fight defensively. Eventually, they'll get grappled and mundanely polymorphed into violin strings or (in some cultures) dinner.

Gamebird
2007-01-18, 02:23 PM
I give all humanoids max hit points for first level. And I don't use any NPC classes (though I have an enhanced Expert class for non-rogue skill monkeys). That seems to help a lot.

Matthew
2007-01-18, 03:31 PM
If you scale up the Hit Points of Level 1 NPCs, though, shouldn't you scale up the damage for weaponry?

Jack Mann
2007-01-18, 03:41 PM
No. As it is, a first level human commoner dies from any attack that lands. They get 2+Con hit points, and they're probably not getting the elite array, so two hit points. If you're a fighter type, you probably can't do less than two.

Giving them 7 or 8 hp (using krossbow's idea) or 4 hp (Digg's idea) or 4-12 hp (Gamebird's idea, allowing for the lack of commoners), doesn't make them that tough. It just gives them a bit more survivability. An average greatsword hit is still going to seriously inconvenience them, and, assuming a fair strength bonus, will probably kill them. There's no reason to make weapons do more damage.

Diggorian
2007-01-18, 03:51 PM
I was trying to figure out who Matthew was addressing. :smallbiggrin: But, Jack Mann and I are of like mind on this.

In the dark ages, Commoners were often conscripted into the warrior role in a pinch. Fight your lord's enemies and likely die or be definately killed by your lord and have your evicted family starve to death too.

Woot Spitum
2007-01-18, 03:54 PM
The real question is "What is more of a threat to commoners (based on D&D rules) the rat or the cat?" Not to mention whether or not dire rats eat cats. Plus, if you had dire rats infesting your silo, what would you do to get rid of them? Buy a few dire cats?:smallbiggrin:

Matthew
2007-01-18, 04:10 PM
I think an unadjusted Spear thrust or blow from a Long Sword should pretty much be grounds for a kill. Given the average is 4.5, I wouldn't expect to see an Average Commoner with more than 4 HP [i.e. I would max out the Hit Die, but that's about it].

With regards to conscripts and all that. The proportion of people involved in battles was *very* low comparatively. At Hastings, from a population of something like three or four million, the estimates for the numbers on the English side go no higher than 10,000. If I were feeling really generous I might buck that trend and aim for 30,000, but even that is a very small percentage of the overall population.

The other side of the picture is that Peasant conscripts (which weren't really that common anyway) don't seem to me a good reason to give Commoners more Hit Points.

Diggorian
2007-01-18, 05:13 PM
... Plus, if you had dire rats infesting your silo, what would you do to get rid of them? Buy a few dire cats?:smallbiggrin:

No, you call the militia, or take your life savings in gold down to the local inn and hope some PC's are there. :smallbiggrin:


The other side of the picture is that Peasant conscripts (which weren't really that common anyway) don't seem to me a good reason to give Commoners more Hit Points.

Agreed, I justify the larger HD size with the fact that they live physical lives comparable to other classes that get 1d8 or higher. They toil more than rogues (1d6) but have an easier time than Barbarains (1d12).

Gamebird
2007-01-18, 05:14 PM
I also have about 40% of the adult population being "0 level", where they must roll for hit points. This percentage of the population is almost entirely in the lower social classes. About 40% of the humanoids are "0 level" too, which means I use the monster as listed in the book. The other 60% have at least one class level.

Works for me. I also run some creatures (mice, wasps, hummingbirds, etc.) as being unable to do real damage unless they are in a swarm or confirm a critical hit. Now if someone picks one up and lets it bite them, that's the equivalent of allowing the critter to attempt a sort of coup de gras on you - an automatic critical hit (though with no chance of killing you unless that was your last hit point).