This makes no sense to me...

[supergoji18]

Looking through the Monster Manual, I came across two interesting creatures: Mammoths and Triceratops. Both are classed as huge creatures that are pretty dangerous to fight at lower levels. What I found strange though was that the Mammoth:
- had more HP
- was stronger (24 Str vs 22 on the triceratops)
- had a higher constitution
- did more damage per hit
- was able to hit more easily

Now I always assumed the Triceratops would be much more powerful than a Mammoth, but maybe I am wrong. I decided to check out what they were like in real life...

http://www.prehistoric-wildlife.com/images/species/m/mammuthus-primigenius-woolly-mammoth-size.jpg
http://www.prehistoric-wildlife.com/images/species/t/triceratops-size.jpg

... wow. That's a big difference in size...

Why is the mammoth so much more powerful than the triceratops when it should be the other way around?

[FightStyles]

Why is the mammoth so much more powerful than the triceratops when it should be the other way around?

It should be the other way around huh? When's the last time you've faced either of these in combat? haha (Although, the developers haven't either, you got me there.)

[Gwendol]

Actually, the mammoth and the triceratops are believed to be of similar size (weight). The mammoth should be taller though, contrary to the picture you provided. Maybe that can explain the higher numbers?

I don't think the writers went for historic and scientific accuracy though...

[FightStyles]

Actually, the mammoth and the triceratops are believed to be of similar size (weight). The mammoth should be taller though, contrary to the picture you provided. Maybe that can explain the higher numbers?

I don't think the writers went for historic and scientific accuracy though...

Well, there are also estimates that put mammoths a couple tons over the triceratops, although these estimates are for the largest samples of each.

Some estimates give triceratops upper level weights at 11,000-16,000 lbs vs the mammoths 18,000-26,000 lbs.

[obryn]

D&D isn't a paleontology textbook. :smallsmile:

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

It's all guesswork, especially with the triceratops. Who knows what it's vision, hearing or other senses are like. There are theories that dinosaurs didn't even have true diaphragms, which would mean they would get easily winded during bursts of activity.

[Dizlag]

From the pictures you provided, it looks like the Mammoth is stockier than the Triceratops. I compare it to a Mountain Dwarf (Mammoth) vs. a Human (Triceratops). Or at least that's how I make sense out of it.

Dizlag

[ChubbyRain]

Triceratops aren't used to fighting humanoids whereas the Mammoths would be. The mammoths, from countless battles versus humanoids, are sturdier and have passed their fighting styles down from generation to generation (thus do more damage) more so than the triceratops.

Plus we all know that the triceratops is a herbavoir while the mammoth ate Homosapiens and Neanderthals to supplement their diet, thus they would deal more damage.

Just look at the following photo of elephants attacking these cats that just wanted to be left alone. Their mammoth ancestors taught them how to hunt and fight, good thing the cats can gang up and take at least some of these savage beast down.

http://images.sciencedaily.com/2010/07/100701072732-large.jpg

[jazzymantis]

It is also possible that the triceratops in the MM isn't the same species as the one you mentioned.
Here is a picture of different species of allosaurus, I would give very different stats to some of those guys.

http://www.palaeocritti.com/_/rsrc/1257637491750/by-group/dinosauria/carnosauria/allosaurus/Allosaurus_species_K.jpg

If you want the triceratops to be more beef, bump its stats.

[ChubbyRain]

It is also possible that the triceratops in the MM isn't the same species as the one you mentioned.
Here is a picture of different species of allosaurus, I would give very different stats to some of those guys.

http://www.palaeocritti.com/_/rsrc/1257637491750/by-group/dinosauria/carnosauria/allosaurus/Allosaurus_species_K.jpg

If you want the triceratops to be more beef, bump its stats.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/12/141209-dinosaur-feathers-flight-archaeology-science/

Point being that the triceratops could have had feathers... How cool would that have been haha.

[Chronos]

Aside: There's a hypothesis floating around paleontological circles that triceratops wasn't even a separate species, and that the triceratops remains we've found are really just juvenile torosaurus. So maybe the dinos in the Monster Manual are weaker because they're still just clumsy kids... but Mommy and Daddy will be considerably more buff than the puny mammal.

[Shining Wrath]

If you think mammoths are warm-blooded while triceratops is cold-blooded, the more efficient cardiac and respiratory system of the more evolved creature might result in more strength, and superior quickness.

[supergoji18]

If you think mammoths are warm-blooded while triceratops is cold-blooded, the more efficient cardiac and respiratory system of the more evolved creature might result in more strength, and superior quickness.

That may be the case, but the most widely accepted theory today is that Dinosaurs were warm-blooded (which makes sense considering that Dinosaurs are the ancestors of modern day birds, which are warm blooded).

[Gwendol]

That may be the case, but the most widely accepted theory today is that Dinosaurs were warm-blooded (which makes sense considering that Dinosaurs are the ancestors of modern day birds, which are warm blooded).

Agreed. Although mammals may still be more efficient, regardless (different evolutionary pressure, etc).

[Shining Wrath]

Agreed. Although mammals may still be more efficient, regardless (different evolutionary pressure, etc).

I should have just left it at mammoths being a little further along the evolutionary trail rather than speaking to thermal concerns.

That being said, D&D creatures don't necessarily evolve; the gods of nature may well have made the mammoth on Tuesday and the triceratops on Friday.

[Tenmujiin]

I'm thinking the creators didn't realise that the creature who's very name is used tp describe something which is excessively large didn't realise it was a piddly 2 humans tall.

[Rowan Wolf]

Trying to bring sense into a fantasy game this is going to end well.

[Bharaeth]

Trying to bring sense into a fantasy game this is going to end well.

This gets said a lot around here, but I think there is still much importance to suspension of disbelief in the fantasy genre. Even if they want a simpler rule set, making a half-baked attempt at simulation for a game designer is kinda lazy. Sure, it's a magic game with elves and dragons and wizards, but is there any reason that animals in the MM that resemble ones on our planet should be so different from the real thing?

It bugs me that a tiny rat is more difficult to spot than a lion, panther, tiger or even a fricking warhorse, when they're trying to be sneaky!

And also, why should a house cat be as clever as an elephant, killer whale or octopus, and smarter than a raven? Are the game designers just cat people?

Perhaps in the standard DnD setting in 5e, the presence of elves and orcs in the food chain means that elephants and the like evolved to be witless, and the only reason they still exist is that people are farming and force-breeding them? And perhaps, they meant to include it in the blurb, but budget limits meant that what they call a 'rat' is actually a kind of bumbling sloth or something, that waddles around uselessly, but they didn't have the room to state it explicitly?

I don't know.

Maybe the designers just have no clue about the natural world?

[LordVonDerp]

Trying to bring sense into a fantasy game this is going to end well.

It most certainly is going to end well, mostly because it's what allows the genre to move forward.

[ChubbyRain]

It most certainly is going to end well, mostly because it's what allows the genre to move forward.

Sadly this genre (though specifically D&D) hasn't moved forward at all, it is stuck in a rut and if you even try to change that people flip out. It's all the same stuff refurbished in a new package.

[Knaight]

I should have just left it at mammoths being a little further along the evolutionary trail rather than speaking to thermal concerns.

The entire concept of "more evolved" and "further along the evolutionary trail" is pretty incoherent. Yes, mammoths are less closely related to the common ancestor. That doesn't make them superior or anything though, it just means they emerged later. There are species which have changed in fairly minimal ways from a genetic perspective for a very long time (turtles, alligators, etc.), that doesn't make them "less evolved". There's also no particular reason to think that the selection pressure on mammoths even favored becoming stronger to a larger extent.

[supergoji18]

I should have just left it at mammoths being a little further along the evolutionary trail rather than speaking to thermal concerns.

That being said, D&D creatures don't necessarily evolve; the gods of nature may well have made the mammoth on Tuesday and the triceratops on Friday.

As someone else said earlier, "further along the evolutionary trail" doesn't really mean anything, let alone that they are somehow better because of it. Evolution isn't an arms race to become the strongest thing alive, it is a struggle to survive. Just because a species arose later in history says nothing about its strength, or even its ability to survive.

But if we really want to get technical about things, Triceratops is actually the one who is further along the evolutionary path. Dinosaurs dominated the world for over 230 million years, during which time mammals weren't even given a chance to evolve into anything more than "something that looks like a rat with fangs." By the time the Triceratops came around, they had well over 200 million years of evolution backing them up. It wasn't until after the mass extinction of the dinosaurs that mammals really began to evolve. When the Mammoth rose up, they really only had about 60 million years of evolution behind them.

[Tvtyrant]

I would justify it by the fact that the Triceratops isn't going to be hitting a humanoid with its horn, what with it being so high up and ducking so easy. Against larger opponents have the Triceratops do double damage as it can more easily use its weapon.

[Chronos]

Quoth Bharaeth:

It bugs me that a tiny rat is more difficult to spot than a lion, panther, tiger or even a fricking warhorse, when they're trying to be sneaky!
Wait, what? What bugs you about that?

[Bharaeth]

Wait, what? What bugs you about that?

Ahh, wait - now I get it why no one responded! D'oh! So what I was trying to say is that, by the creature stats, a rat is less difficult to spot, rather than more. Dex bonus of +0, and a war horse is +1, and those others stealth at +6.

In future, I'll try to learn to proofread.

[ChubbyRain]

Ahh, wait - now I get it why no one responded! D'oh! So what I was trying to say is that, by the creature stats, a rat is less difficult to spot, rather than more. Dex bonus of +0, and a war horse is +1, and those others stealth at +6.

In future, I'll try to learn to proofread.

The rat can get cover more easily and can fit places where the horse can't.

The horse can't hide in 3" of grass but a mouse/rat could. You may not even get a check in some cases, the rat staying still, because you don't have line if sight to the rat (blocked by grass).

The warhorse also doesn't have the inaticts to hide. So if a DM is having horses hide like that then they are pulling your leg. Maybe a trained horse... No not even then. Horses just aren't stealthy.

[Bharaeth]

Okay, I get that the tiny size helps with hiding, and probably every now and again a reasonable DM might throw in advantage on the Stealth check to reflect the tiny size. But aren't we still in the situation where in long long grass, a rat is still far more likely to be heard in 5e than a stalking tiger? Why?

I would just bump the creature's Dex up. I can't imagine too many ways that undomesticated rats and mice in the real world aren't fast and equipped with good reactions

[goto124]

The warhorse also doesn't have the inaticts to hide. So if a DM is having horses hide like that then they are pulling your leg. Maybe a trained horse... No not even then. Horses just aren't stealthy.

clip clop clip clop clip cloppity clop

[ChubbyRain]

Okay, I get that the tiny size helps with hiding, and probably every now and again a reasonable DM might throw in advantage on the Stealth check to reflect the tiny size. But aren't we still in the situation where in long long grass, a rat is still far more likely to be heard in 5e than a stalking tiger? Why?

I would just bump the creature's Dex up. I can't imagine too many ways that undomesticated rats and mice in the real world aren't fast and equipped with good reactions

It is actually quite easy to spot a rat when you go searching for them,they are kinda stupid, ingenious but stupid at the same time.

If you boost the Dex then those rats will murder everyone. And you get commoner's housecat. It wouldn't be advantage versus sight, it would be effectively invisible since you can't see the rat at all.

Outside of natural defenses you will see a tiger easier than the rat. Probably hear their breatging too. Mostly because of size and assuming you are looking for it. But the world isn't a plain featureless and colorless area.

In long long grass the rat is less likely to be heard because the are most likely standing still and not moving around when the predator (you) are looking for it. When you find a rat/mouse it is typically hiding somewhere and when you expose it, then it runs. Then they would get advantage versus hearing based perception that way.

The tiger though would be moving toward you from time to time, again you are looking for it, and you are more likely to spot it since the grass is moving, there is more sounds (though they still are super quiet), and to top it all off they are naturally born for the job.

The situations are totally different for the two species. One is being active while the other is not. Even with its better Dex and such the tiger is easier to spot because of situation bonuses and such.

You don't need to change the Dex on the rats. Their situation bonuses and style of hiding makes up for it. They won't move until you are close and by then they are long gone and hiding again (no movement, no line of sight, and no sound).

Tl:dr; There is more to it than individual ability scores.

[xyianth]

The tiger though would be moving toward you from time to time, again you are looking for it, and you are more likely to spot it since the grass is moving, there is more sounds (though they still are super quiet), and to top it all off they are naturally born for the job.

This is really only true if there is absolutely no wind at all. Big cats, when stalking, make almost no noise and lower their bodies closer to the ground. This causes the movement of the grass to shift almost exactly like a light breeze does. That shifting grass easily drowns any sound produced by the cat. Having personally witnessed a black panther stalking prey in high grass, I assure you that only a godlike perception ability could pick out its location during even a slight breeze. Most prey have to rely on scent to detect big cats in those conditions, and humans' sense of smell sucks. (relative to most animals)

Obviously, D&D is not about perfect simulation of reality, so I am not suggesting anything be changed regarding the stealth ability of big cats. I just wanted to point out that, in reality, even a light breeze renders big cats nearly undetectable in high grass. (and they know it, so they often only move when wind is present and keep downwind of any prey)