Pregnancy [3.5]

[ideasmith]

PREGNANCY

A creature with one or more levels in any PC class cannot become pregnant, get another pregnant, or their kindred’s equivalent, without magical assistance. Otherwise, characters get pregnant when the GM says so. As a default, assume that a fertile female has about an even chance of becoming pregnant during a time period equal to the length of her pregnancy. The DM is advised to consider the taste and maturity of the players before relating pregnancy to certain activities that may or may not actually occur in the gameworld.


During the first half of pregnancy, the parents are fatigued and have a +1 bonus to diplomacy and gather information checks. During the second half of pregnancy, the parents are exhausted and have a +3 bonus to diplomacy and gather information checks. This fatigue or exhaustion continues until the end of the pregnancy.

To get the expected duration of pregnancy in days, multiply the kindred’s age of adulthood 18. Starting 14 days before that, make a daily Constitution check (DC 20, use baby’s Constitution) to determine if birth occurs that day.

When birth occurs, check for side effects. For each parent and the baby, make the following checks:
The caretaker makes a DC 5 Heal check. This is automatically failed if there is no caretaker. The same caretaker may care for all three, if the parents sufficiently nearby.
The parent or baby makes a DC 10 Fortitude check.
If either check is failed, Filth Fever is contracted (see Disease Descriptions in the SRD). If both checks are failed, Filth Fever is contracted and 3d6 Constitution damage immediately occurs.

After the baby is born, both parents are exhausted.

To determine the baby’s gaming stats, see Fantasy Genetics, The Baby template, and eventually the Child template.



SPELLS

Stork Call, Lesser

Conjuration (Calling) [see text]

Level: Adp 1, Clr 1, Drd 1, Pal 1, Rgr 1
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 2D4 Days
Range: Close 25 ft.+ 5 ft./2 levels
Target: 2 willing, concious creatures of the same species
Duration: Instantaneous

This spell makes one of the targets pregnant by the other target. The targets will know which one of them is to be impregnated when determining whether they are willing. When either of the targets has one or more elemental &/or alignment subtypes, this spell has the appropriate descriptor(s).
Material Component: A cabbage leaf.

Stork Call

Conjuration (Calling) [see text]

Level: Adp 2, Clr 2, Drd 2, Pal 2, Rgr 2
Target: 2 willing, concious creatures of the same type &/or subtype.

This spell functions as lesser stork call, lesser except as noted above.

Stork Call, Greater

Conjuration (Calling) [see text]

Level: Adp 3, Clr 3, Drd 3, Pal 3, Rgr 3, Sor/Wiz 9
Target: 2 willing, concious creatures.

This spell functions as lesser stork call, lesser except as noted above.

[
MAGIC ITEMS

Elixir of the Stork
This elixir must be consumed by two drinkers to be effective. If the drinkers are valid targets of the spell, they are affected by the spell stork call.
Faint conjuration; CL 3rd; Craft Wondrous Item, stork call; Price 300 GP.
Elixir of the Stork, Lesser
This elixir must be consumed by two drinkers to be effective. If the drinkers are valid targets of the spell, they are affected by the spell stork call.
Faint conjuration; CL 1st; Craft Wondrous Item, stork call, lesser stork call; Price 50 GP.
Elixir of the Stork, Greater
This elixir must be consumed by two drinkers to be effective. If the drinkers are valid targets of the spell, they are affected by the spell stork call.
Faint conjuration; CL 5th; Craft Wondrous Item, stork call, greater stork call; Price 750 GP.

CHANGE LOG

1/24/2012 Replaced erroneous spell description (Thank you Grod_The_Giant.)
1/24/2012 Added hide from storks spell (Thank you Grod_The_Giant.)
1/24/2012 Removed some arbitrary distinctions concerning pregnancy (PC/NPC, male/female) (Thank you Grod_The_Giant.)
1/24/2012 Added duration to stork call
1/25/2012 Added word “willing” to hide from storks
1/25/2012 Simplified pregnancy duration calculation (Thank you Reluctance.)
1/25/2012 Added requirements for pregnancy (Thank you Reluctance.)
1/26/2012 Simplified pregnancy-roll rules (Thank you Mando Knight.)
1/26/2012 Removed pregnancy rolls (Thank you Reluctance.)
1/26/2012 Dropped hide from storks
1/26/2012 Added magic items
5/25/2012 Added 'concious' to stork call target description.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Originally Posted by ideasmith

Characters with levels in PC classes can only become pregnant, get another pregnant, or their kindred’s equivalent by means of magic.

While I see the value in preventing accidental pregnancy, I think it strains belief even more to have levels in, say, barbarian render you sterile.

Stork Call, Lesser
Conjuration (Calling) [see text]
Level: Adp 1, Clr 1, Drd 1, Pal 1, Rgr 1
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 2D4 Days
Range: Close 25 ft.+ 5 ft./2 levels
Target: 2 willing creatures of the same species

This spell operates dispel magic, except that the maximum caster level on your dispel check is +0, (not +10) and neither area dispel nor counterspell is possible.

I think you may be missing part of the description here, because as written it's near-incoherent, and my best guess (functions as dispel magic, no caster level bonus) has nothing to do with pregnancy.

[Ashtagon]

First determine if the NPC is married. Unmarried NPC’s can only become pregnant, get another pregnant, or their kindred’s equivalent by means of magic. If an NPC has multiple spouses, roll separately for each combination.

Clearly, sex never happens outside the bounds of holy matrimony

[ideasmith]

Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant

While I see the value in preventing accidental pregnancy, I think it strains belief even more to have levels in, say, barbarian render you sterile.

No more so than dragons or pegasi being able to fly. A healthy suspension of disbelief is needed to play D&D.

Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant

I think you may be missing part of the description here, because as written it's near-incoherent, and my best guess (functions as dispel magic, no caster level bonus) has nothing to do with pregnancy.

Thank you for catching that. (Not sure how the description for minor dispel magic got in there.) Fixed.

[druid91]

Originally Posted by ideasmith

No more so than dragons or pegasi being able to fly. A healthy suspension of disbelief is needed to play D&D.



Thank you for catching that. (Not sure how the description for minor dispel magic got in there.) Fixed.

Those are explicitly magical.

Dragons become very clumsy when flying in anti-magic fields.

And who really uses pegasi?

This is... just awkward.

[Grinner]

Pregnancy rules.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Originally Posted by ideasmith

No more so than dragons or pegasi being able to fly. A healthy suspension of disbelief is needed to play D&D.

True, but, as druid91 pointed out, dragons and pegasi are inherently magical creatures. Humans are not. More importantly, it's not consistent. Why does your class determine your fertility? I could buy magical power causing sterility somehow, but there is nothing separating a fighter from an NPC warrior other than extra training. If anything, I would expect a (male) PC to me more fertile, thanks to overwhelming amounts of manliness compared to random NPCS.

I would recommend that you use one set of rules for all humanoids, PC or NPC. Maybe make a "Bigby's Magic Condom" cantrip, and/or a "Mordenkainen’s Morning After" spell for players who really don't want to get pregnant.

Thank you for catching that. (Not sure how the description for minor dispel magic got in there.) Fixed.

I like how you can use the spell to get a man pregnant. Just saying

[ideasmith]

Originally Posted by Ashtagon

Clearly, sex never happens outside the bounds of holy matrimony

I am leaving that question up to the GM.

Originally Posted by druid91

Those are explicitly magical.

According to the 3.5 Monster Manual, both dragon flight and pegasus flight are “natural (not magical)”. Given how dragons and pegasi are built, that means that the rules of physics are different in D&D worlds. Which implies that the rules of biology are different in D&D worlds.

Originally Posted by druid91

Dragons become very clumsy when flying in anti-magic fields.

Not if you use the 3.5 Monster Manual version.

Originally Posted by druid91

And who really uses pegasi?

Dunno.

Originally Posted by druid91

This is... just awkward.

The rule under discussion is surely easy to understand and apply.

Originally Posted by Scotchland

Pregnancy rules.

Thank you. I already have the book that is from, but found it both too complicated, and too apt to treat male and female characters differently.

Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant

True, but, as druid91 pointed out, dragons and pegasi are inherently magical creatures. Humans are not.

If the flight is nonmagical, does it really matter if the flyer is magical?

Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant

More importantly, it's not consistent. Why does your class determine your fertility? I could buy magical power causing sterility somehow, but there is nothing separating a fighter from an NPC warrior other than extra training. If anything, I would expect a (male) PC to me more fertile, thanks to overwhelming amounts of manliness compared to random NPCS.

If fighter level benefits are solely due to training, then D&D training has results that real world doesn’t. No reason why sterility can’t be one of those results.

Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant

I would recommend that you use one set of rules for all humanoids, PC or NPC. Maybe make a "Bigby's Magic Condom" cantrip, and/or a "Mordenkainen’s Morning After" spell for players who really don't want to get pregnant.

This is worth doing, to reduce complexity if nothing else. Done.

Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant

I like how you can use the spell to get a man pregnant. Just saying

What do you think of the way I just expanded that?

[Grod_The_Giant]

Originally Posted by ideasmith

If the flight is nonmagical, does it really matter if the flyer is magical?

Flight itself is not the issue here. The point was that some subjects need to be handled with suspension of disbelief, because they

If fighter level benefits are solely due to training, then D&D training has results that real world doesn’t. No reason why sterility can’t be one of those results.

Well, yeah. It's called magic. But the difference between a fighter and a warrior? An improved hit die and a bunch of bonus feats. None of that represents anything other than exercise and mundane training.

This is worth doing, to reduce complexity if nothing else. Done.

Cool. Makes the argument above a moot point.

What do you think of the way I just expanded that?

You can still impregnate a dude, as long as he's willing. I'm not saying that it's a super-bad thing (great for gay couples, if nothing else), just amused.

[Tingel]

You are funny, ideasmith.

[Reluctance]

Originally Posted by ideasmith

PREGNANCYTo get the expected duration of pregnancy in days, multiply the kindred’s age of adulthood by 365 and divine by 20. Starting 14 days before that, make a daily Constitution check (DC 20, use baby’s Constitution) to determine if birth occurs that day.

Typos aside, wouldn't "the mother's base adulthood age times eighteen" amount to practically the same thing while being much simpler?

When birth occurs, check for side effects. For each parent and the baby, make the following checks:
The caretaker makes a DC 5 Heal check. This is automatically failed if there is no caretaker. The same caretaker may care for all three, if the parents sufficiently nearby.
The parent or baby makes a DC 10 Fortitude check.
If either check is failed, Filth Fever is contracted (see Disease Descriptions in the SRD). If both checks are failed, Filth Fever is contracted and 3d6 Constitution damage immediately occurs.

After the baby is born, both parents are exhausted.

Your PCs never adventure while their spouses are pregnant? I'd love to see that: Filth Fever and auto-exhaustion striking in the middle of combat, just because your wife's water broke somewhere on the other side of the kingdom.

As Grod said, pregnant men. The only problem I have with spells like that is that they open the door for other spells. Things that do things like disintegrate an enemy's clothes. Or a spell to disrupt an enemy mid-combat by giving them an orgasm. And asking just what happens to the baby-nurturing anatomy when it's born, and how it gets out in the first place. It's well-intentioned, but introduces way too many weird places.

I like how for the sufficiently stupid, you're more likely to get pregnant when you're trying not to than if you make an active effort. For all that the sheer number of stats you can key off of makes that unlikely for PCs. (It breaking down to three mental stats and one physical, though, which means you're more fertile the older you get.)

Finally, it seems like a lot of work when my preferred method for dealing with pregnancy is already in the rulebooks. I refer to P. 63 in the DMG (first item in miscellaneous features), and P. 154 in the PHB (second form of special attack).

[ideasmith]

Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant

You can still impregnate a dude, as long as he's willing. I'm not saying that it's a super-bad thing (great for gay couples, if nothing else), just amused.

By ‘expansion’, I meant dudes getting pregnant without magic.

Originally Posted by Tingel

You are funny, ideasmith.

Why, thank you. I hope you find this useful as well as amusing.

Originally Posted by Reluctance

Typos aside, wouldn't "the mother's base adulthood age times eighteen" amount to practically the same thing while being much simpler?

Good point. I’ll have to fix that.

Originally Posted by Reluctance

Your PCs never adventure while their spouses are pregnant? I'd love to see that: Filth Fever and auto-exhaustion striking in the middle of combat, just because your wife's water broke somewhere on the other side of the kingdom.

Since the pregnancy penalties apply to both parents, adventuring would be inadvisable.

Originally Posted by Reluctance

As Grod said, pregnant men. The only problem I have with spells like that is that they open the door for other spells. Things that do things like disintegrate an enemy's clothes. Or a spell to disrupt an enemy mid-combat by giving them an orgasm.

I don’t see your reasoning here.

Originally Posted by Reluctance

And asking just what happens to the baby-nurturing anatomy when it's born, and how it gets out in the first place. It's well-intentioned, but introduces way too many weird places.

Even in the real world, pregnancy causes temporary body changes to accommodate the baby. This is just more-so.

Originally Posted by Reluctance

I like how for the sufficiently stupid, you're more likely to get pregnant when you're trying not to than if you make an active effort. For all that the sheer number of stats you can key off of makes that unlikely for PCs. (It breaking down to three mental stats and one physical, though, which means you're more fertile the older you get.)

Perhaps I should add an age modifier there.

Originally Posted by Reluctance

Finally, it seems like a lot of work when my preferred method for dealing with pregnancy is already in the rulebooks. I refer to P. 63 in the DMG (first item in miscellaneous features), and P. 154 in the PHB (second form of special attack).

This seems to be a joke I’m not getting.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Originally Posted by ideasmith

By ‘expansion’, I meant dudes getting pregnant without magic.

...still technically possible, since you never explicitly say that only females can get pregnant. In fact, as written, all the partners involved have to make checks to get/avoid getting pregnant. It's admittedly one of those RAW vs RAI things, but...

I'm more worried by the bit about "unmarried characters can't get pregnant without magic." It's useful for adventurers, sure, but why would you need rules like these if you didn't want there to be a risk of unintentional pregnancy? Not to mention the mind-boggling amounts of suspension of disbelief necessary to make this fly,

This seems to be a joke I’m not getting.

P. 63 in the DMG (first item in miscellaneous features) = stairs
P. 154 in the PHB (second form of special attack) = bull rush

[ideasmith]

Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant

...still technically possible, since you never explicitly say that only females can get pregnant. In fact, as written, all the partners involved have to make checks to get/avoid getting pregnant. It's admittedly one of those RAW vs RAI things, but...

Actually, the rules as intended here are treat male and female PC’s the same as far as game mechanics go. Including pregnancy rolls.

Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant

I'm more worried by the bit about "unmarried characters can't get pregnant without magic." It's useful for adventurers, sure, but why would you need rules like these if you didn't want there to be a risk of unintentional pregnancy?

In order to deal intentional pregnancy. I remind you that the chance of unintentional PC pregnancy was at your suggestion.

Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant

Not to mention the mind-boggling amounts of suspension of disbelief necessary to make this fly,

This is D&D. Mind-boggling suspension of disbelief can be assumed.

Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant

P. 63 in the DMG (first item in miscellaneous features) = stairs
P. 154 in the PHB (second form of special attack) = bull rush

I got that far. Still not getting the joke.

[radmelon]

On one hand, I wonder why this is necessary. On the other hand, this is rather tastefully and logically done. Some of it makes me go "eh" but most of it is good.

[Wyntonian]

Ok, one thing that homebrew revolves around is the need, application or potential use for the 'Brew in question.

Now.

Please remind me.

Why anyone needs rules for a dude getting pregnant and having his wife, across the country and unaware of his giving birth, suddenly fall down from exhaustion and Filth Fever.

Honestly, if your players are above about 12 years old you don't have much of a use for "Stork" spells. We're generally mature enough to handle the concept of human sexual relationships, if we're including it in a game.

EDIT: Also, if you're smarter, you're more likely to get pregnant. Huh.

[ideasmith]

Originally Posted by radmelon

On one hand, I wonder why this is necessary.

Family relations can add interest to a story, which is part of why they show up a fair amount in fiction. Having a rules framework should make it easier to include such in a game.

Originally Posted by radmelon

On the other hand, this is rather tastefully and logically done. Some of it makes me go "eh" but most of it is good.

Thank you.

Originally Posted by Wyntonian

Please remind me.

Why anyone needs rules for a dude getting pregnant and having his wife, across the country and unaware of his giving birth, suddenly fall down from exhaustion and Filth Fever.

If one is going to have rules for anything, including pregnancy, it is best to have it treat male and female characters the same way.

And the Strength and Dexterity penalties she was suffering from for the past 9 months should have been a glaring clue that she was becoming a parent. Or, at minimum, that she had better find out why she was suffering those penalties.

Originally Posted by Wyntonian

Honestly, if your players are above about 12 years old you don't have much of a use for "Stork" spells. We're generally mature enough to handle the concept of human sexual relationships, if we're including it in a game.

I am certain that D&D players are mature enough to handle climbing. Nevertheless, Spider Climb is in the Players Handbook.

Just because the players are mature enough to handle something does not prevent characters from wanting spells to help with it. At all. Not even slightly.

Originally Posted by Wyntonian

EDIT: Also, if you're smarter, you're more likely to get pregnant. Huh.

If the character is trying to get pregnant, yes. I am assuming the existence of fertility techniques that depend on memory.

Similarly, if a character is trying to avoid pregnancy, being smarter makes you less likely to get pregnant. Contraceptive techniques that depend on memory.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Originally Posted by ideasmith

Actually, the rules as intended here are treat male and female PC’s the same as far as game mechanics go. Including pregnancy rolls.
<snip>
If one is going to have rules for anything, including pregnancy, it is best to have it treat male and female characters the same way.

Normally I'm all for gender equality. However... gender equality in rules for pregnancy is like all-gender urinals. It just doesn't make sense. A normal male physically cannot get pregnant by mundane means. Biology does not work that way. The cases you hear about from time to time? Transgendered men who still have functioning ovaries.

As for rules consistency? Great. Rules should be as consistent as possible. Yes, there are minor physiological differences between men and woman, and no, they should not be hard-coded into the rules. But sex is gender-linked, and pregnancy even more so. Consistency is something to make the game easier to remember, but-- like all other rules-- there comes a time when exceptions have to be made. Would you allow a bow to shoot sling bullets because they're both projectiles? Of course not. Would you allow a woman to get a man pregnant because they're both human?...

In order to deal intentional pregnancy. I remind you that the chance of unintentional PC pregnancy was at your suggestion.

This is D&D. Mind-boggling suspension of disbelief can be assumed.

Suspension of disbelief should not be abused. You suspend your disbelief when it comes to, say, magic, because there is no way to explain magic in real life terms-- you just accept that it exists. You suspend your disbelief when the random plot hook ties into the broader campaign, because that's how narrative structures work. You suspend your disbelief when the final confrontation with the villain takes place in a void filled with floating rocks and fireballs, because it's just cool. You do not suspend your disbelief when something that exists in real life-- and for which the details are commonly known-- is changed without explanation.

Your system is solid. You just seem to be attached to these nonsensical concepts, like unassisted male pregnancy, or biology working differently depending depending on your occupation and marital status, which you present without explanation. The thing that puzzles me the most is your reasoning-- these are things that could either be clarified with a sentence, or which actually involve extra rules. As far as I can tell, they actively detract from the system, by making radical changes to aspects of life which are common knowledge.

I got that far. Still not getting the joke.

<sigh> It's an abortion joke. You push someone down the stairs to abort their baby.

[Mando Knight]

Originally Posted by ideasmith

Similarly, if a character is trying to avoid pregnancy, being smarter makes you less likely to get pregnant. Contraceptive techniques that depend on memory.

It shouldn't be a straight up ability check... that's unreasonable, especially at DC 2 (you're assuming that your contraceptive method is 95% accurate with average humans... Oh, wait. That's the same as your given base conception rate. Oops). Instead, it would more realistically be modeled as a check to impose a bonus or penalty to another roll, which actually directly determines the pregnancy probability. Actually, there's a whole lot of variables, so making it just a single mental score check is pretty lacking for a month-long process (IMO).

Also, I would suggest that Impregnate would be a better name for the spell line, since that doesn't rely on a fairly ridiculous bit of English folk mythology (common though that particular old wives' tale is).

[Acanous]

You know, the Book of Erotic Fantasy has a roll for this, a couple spells and feats for it, and a chart.

It's pretty well done, and doesn't impose a penalty on both parents during childbirth.

There's actually a rather good reason human kind are seperated into two genders- it's so that one can continue to function normally while the other is creating and caring for a child.

In this manner, one parent can ward off predators and provide food/water/shelter while the other rears the child.

If both parents were put through the same physical symptoms, you'd need an expansive social net to care for couples, so the species could continue.

While this would be an interesting mechanic for another race (Perhaps one not segregated by gender, but still requiring two parents for genetic variability) it's not one that works for humans, from a simulationist standpoint.

Heck, give the female partner a +4 on diplomacy/intimidate against the male partner, along with the cumulative dex penalties. That's reasonable. Making the male partner suffer the same penalties, though, isn't how it works.

Perhaps create a magic item that splits the penalties between two wearers. You could make it a set of rings, for thematic reasons. That way married couples share the suffering but can still perform regular duties.

Re: Magic and suspension of disbelief;
If you want magic to do something, like make your child a half-dragon, half-celestial, give a permanent bonus to an ability score, choose gender, prevent conception, aid conception, protect the child from damage, nullify the effects of pregnancy, or have the male partner carry the child, go for it! It's magic, it does weird things like that. Most of those, Science can't do yet (Excepting prevention of conception, which it can) so there's nothing saying Magic shouldn't be able to. But unless you're boffing a dragon, you're not rolling on a table for if you'll get a half-dragon kid from a mundane coupling, and you're not rolling to determine which parent carries the child.

Equality does not always mean that both people get the same thing. It means both people get the same consideration in accoardance to their needs.
If one person is a vegitarian and the other is a carnivore, you don't give both people a chicken salad.

[averagejoe]

Originally Posted by Acanous

Equality does not always mean that both people get the same thing. It means both people get the same consideration in accoardance to their needs.

I don't think he ever mentioned, "Equality," only that it is desirable from a metagame standpoint to not have separate rules for men and women.

Re: the actual homebrew

You say this is how you determine pregnancy in non-reptilian humanoids. Does that include thri-keen? Vampires? Mer-ladies? Warforged? It would be slightly amusing to leave as is, and honestly doing so would probably be enough in line with the general tone/philosophy of the thing that I'm not sure that the subtypes weren't so restricted on purpose.

[druid91]

Originally Posted by ideasmith

According to the 3.5 Monster Manual, both dragon flight and pegasus flight are “natural (not magical)”. Given how dragons and pegasi are built, that means that the rules of physics are different in D&D worlds. Which implies that the rules of biology are different in D&D worlds.

And according to the 3.5 Draconomicon, Dragons use natural magic to aid in their flight. IIRC you reduce their manueverability by one step in an antimagic field.

As the draconomicon is specifically for dragons... I'm going with that.

[ideasmith]

I have made more changes in the system: See original post.

I am also considering going back to PC-levels-prevent-pregnancy-rolls. Since only NPC’s would then be making pregnancy rolls, this would allow making them female NPCs only. Would the lower congnitive dissonance be worth the increased complexity?

Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant

Normally I'm all for gender equality. However... gender equality in rules for pregnancy is like all-gender urinals. It just doesn't make sense. A normal male physically cannot get pregnant by mundane means. Biology does not work that way. The cases you hear about from time to time? Transgendered men who still have functioning ovaries.

If D&D biology worked the same way real world biology did, most of the vermin in the Monster Manual would be unable to walk.

Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant

As for rules consistency? Great. Rules should be as consistent as possible. Yes, there are minor physiological differences between men and woman, and no, they should not be hard-coded into the rules. But sex is gender-linked, and pregnancy even more so. Consistency is something to make the game easier to remember, but-- like all other rules-- there comes a time when exceptions have to be made. Would you allow a bow to shoot sling bullets because they're both projectiles?

Is there a playablility issue comparable to the force-female-characters-to-stay-home-via-random-roll issue? Whether they’re both projectiles isn’t the issue.

Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant

Of course not. Would you allow a woman to get a man pregnant because they're both human?...

Whether they ‘re both human isn’t the issue.

Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant

Suspension of disbelief should not be abused. You suspend your disbelief when it comes to, say, magic, because there is no way to explain magic in real life terms-- you just accept that it exists. You suspend your disbelief when the random plot hook ties into the broader campaign, because that's how narrative structures work. You suspend your disbelief when the final confrontation with the villain takes place in a void filled with floating rocks and fireballs, because it's just cool.

So let’s talk about swordfights, which clearly can occur in the real world. Assume two human fighters, core options only, no magic.

What are the chances of one of them lopping off an arm, even if trying to? None. Of taking out an eye? None. Of maiming a leg? None. Causing any significant permanent damage, other than death? None, nothing, nope zippo, zilch. And that is far from the only absurdity in that situation.

Don’t get me wrong, the D&D hit point system is effective, elegant, and fun. But if being totally absurd were incompatible with being effective, elegant, and fun, it would not be.

Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant

You do not suspend your disbelief when something that exists in real life-- and for which the details are commonly known-- is changed without explanation.

I suspend disbelief in the D&D hit point system. I can suspend disbelief in this, just fine.

Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant

Your system is solid. You just seem to be attached to these nonsensical concepts, like unassisted male pregnancy,

Already explained. Female Pregnancy Rolls + PC Gender Rule Homogeneity = Male Pregnancy Rolls.

Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant

or biology working differently depending depending on your occupation

Huh? Are you confusing occupation with character class?

Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant

and marital status,

Well, basing it on who’s having sex with who would run into taste issues. If not who’s married to who, then what?

Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant

which you present without explanation. The thing that puzzles me the most is your reasoning-- these are things that could either be clarified with a sentence, or which actually involve extra rules. As far as I can tell, they actively detract from the system, by making radical changes to aspects of life which are common knowledge.

I hope the above helps make my reasons clear.

Originally Posted by Mando Knight

It shouldn't be a straight up ability check... that's unreasonable, especially at DC 2 (you're assuming that your contraceptive method is 95% accurate with average humans... Oh, wait. That's the same as your given base conception rate. Oops). Instead, it would more realistically be modeled as a check to impose a bonus or penalty to another roll, which actually directly determines the pregnancy probability. Actually, there's a whole lot of variables, so making it just a single mental score check is pretty lacking for a month-long process (IMO).

You gave me an idea for simplifying the pregnancy rolls. No more ability checks.

Originally Posted by Mando Knight

Also, I would suggest that Impregnate would be a better name for the spell line, since that doesn't rely on a fairly ridiculous bit of English folk mythology (common though that particular old wives' tale is).

‘Impregnate’ sound so matter-of-fact. I think I prefer fanciful here.

Originally Posted by Acanous

You know, the Book of Erotic Fantasy has a roll for this, a couple spells and feats for it, and a chart.

It's pretty well done, and doesn't impose a penalty on both parents during childbirth.

It has the same problems as the Quintessential Human system mentioned above.

Originally Posted by Acanous

There's actually a rather good reason human kind are seperated into two genders- it's so that one can continue to function normally while the other is creating and caring for a child.

In this manner, one parent can ward off predators and provide food/water/shelter while the other rears the child.

If both parents were put through the same physical symptoms, you'd need an expansive social net to care for couples, so the species could continue.

While this would be an interesting mechanic for another race (Perhaps one not segregated by gender, but still requiring two parents for genetic variability) it's not one that works for humans, from a simulationist standpoint.

In D&D, playability mostly trumps simulating reality. Having both parents penalized says that parenthood is serious. Having one parent penalized, without any real basis for which one, sounds like potential headaches at the tabletop. No thank you.

Originally Posted by Acanous

Heck, give the female partner a +4 on diplomacy/intimidate against the male partner, along with the cumulative dex penalties. That's reasonable. Making the male partner suffer the same penalties, though, isn't how it works.

Perhaps create a magic item that splits the penalties between two wearers. You could make it a set of rings, for thematic reasons. That way married couples share the suffering but can still perform regular duties.
Re: Magic and suspension of disbelief;
If you want magic to do something, like make your child a half-dragon, half-celestial, give a permanent bonus to an ability score, choose gender, prevent conception, aid conception, protect the child from damage, nullify the effects of pregnancy, or have the male partner carry the child, go for it! It's magic, it does weird things like that. Most of those, Science can't do yet (Excepting prevention of conception, which it can) so there's nothing saying Magic shouldn't be able to. But unless you're boffing a dragon, you're not rolling on a table for if you'll get a half-dragon kid from a mundane coupling, and you're not rolling to determine which parent carries the child.

For taste reasons, this system doesn’t deal with who’s ‘boffing’ who.

Originally Posted by Acanous

Equality does not always mean that both people get the same thing. It means both people get the same consideration in accoardance to their needs.
If one person is a vegitarian and the other is a carnivore, you don't give both people a chicken salad.

If one person wants to play an adventurer and the other wants to play an adventurer, you don’t make one play a stay-at-home while the other gets to adventure. Not without a better reason then I have seen here.
Two people wanting the same thing does not equal two people wanting different things.

Originally Posted by averagejoe

You say this is how you determine pregnancy in non-reptilian humanoids. Does that include thri-keen?

I don’t have that book. I would guess monstrous humanoid, so no, but that is just a guess. The type might be humanoid, which would be yes. If you can access a copy of the book then check the gaming stats.

Originally Posted by averagejoe

Vampires?

Monster Manual says “type changes to undead”, so no.

Originally Posted by averagejoe

Mer-ladies?

If you are referring to female merfolk of distinction, then the Monster Manual says “Humanoid (Aquatic)”, so yes. Otherwise, get the book and check the gaming stats.

Originally Posted by averagejoe

Warforged?

I don’t have that book. I would guess construct, so no, but that is just a guess. Get the book and check the gaming stats.

Originally Posted by averagejoe

It would be slightly amusing to leave as is, and honestly doing so would probably be enough in line with the general tone/philosophy of the thing that I'm not sure that the subtypes weren't so restricted on purpose.

‘Humanoid’ and ‘reptilian’ are both defined terms in D&D.

Originally Posted by druid91

And according to the 3.5 Draconomicon, Dragons use natural magic to aid in their flight. IIRC you reduce their manueverability by one step in an antimagic field.

As the draconomicon is specifically for dragons... I'm going with that.

I do not have the draconomicon, so I am going with the Monster Manual.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Originally Posted by ideasmith

stuff

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You would never put pregnancy in a game if players weren't mature about it-- and if they can be mature about pregnancy, they can be mature about sex. If they can't handle that tastefully, then why do you think that pregnancy will be any better? You will never be able to make a useful pregnancy system that doesn't involve sex. It's just not feasible. We don't live in Puritan times anymore; I think most adult playgroups can handle a little boning.

Please, for the love of Pelor, make mundane pregnancy apply to females only, and don't limit it by class or marital status. I promise you that this is one of those cases where common sense trumps rules consistency. You mention forcing female players to lose out on adventures because of a random roll? By your rules, if you try not to get pregnant, there is a zero percent chance of failure. ZERO PERCENT. It is entirely your fault if you don't make a contraception roll.

The gender equality thing you're trying to do here isn't a simplification of something that would be extremely complex to model effectively, like hit points. It's not something that can't be explained in real-world terms, like dragons flying. It is, in fact counter-intuitive that married men can get pregnant, but unmarried woman can't. You can fix it easily. Look:

Spoiler

First determine if the character can get pregnant at all. To get pregnant without magic, a character must be married female, in the young age category, and not already pregnant.

There! Changed one word, and the whole thing makes so much more sense!

[Reluctance]

Originally Posted by ideasmith

I am also considering going back to PC-levels-prevent-pregnancy-rolls. Since only NPC’s would then be making pregnancy rolls, this would allow making them female NPCs only. Would the lower congnitive dissonance be worth the increased complexity? ... Is there a playablility issue comparable to the force-female-characters-to-stay-home-via-random-roll issue? Whether they’re both projectiles isn’t the issue.

And herein lies the biggest puzzler in your system. I propose a counter fertility system: NPCs get pregnant when the plot/DM decides it's appropriate. PCs, and NPCs closely attached to a PC, get pregnant when the player decides. No rolls, no worries about random chance screwing things up, and no need to create spells to patch the system. Getting knocked up is more plot/roleplay side than game side, and shouldn't need dice to adjudicate.

Heck, this even leaves room for mpreg or people well into Venerable getting pregnant, with the understanding that it'll be like high-strength female characters: Nothing in the rules to stop them, but noticeably less likely because we real-world players are guided by real-world biology that doesn't live up to people's egalitarian hopes.

[YakYak]

Shoouldn't trying to avoid prognancy reduce to a 1% chance, unless avoiding specifically refers to abstinence, as this is the only surefire way of avoiding pregnancy.

Also, you could just declare that a character is pregnant whenever you think it would work great to drive a player insane/motivated.

[averagejoe]

Originally Posted by ideasmith

I don’t have that book. I would guess monstrous humanoid, so no, but that is just a guess. The type might be humanoid, which would be yes. If you can access a copy of the book then check the gaming stats.

Oh, yeah, they are. Misremember on my part. Same with warforged. Kind of an obvious one too. I'll chalk it up to midnight. >.<

Originally Posted by ideasmith

Monster Manual says “type changes to undead”, so no.

Type changes to undead (augmented humanoid [or monstrous humanoid depending but that isn't immediately pertinent]). According to the rules, "A creature with the augmented subtype usually has the traits of its current type, but the features of its original type." Whatever that means.

Originally Posted by ideasmith

‘Humanoid’ and ‘reptilian’ are both defined terms in D&D.

I never said they weren't. I'm honestly not sure what you're getting at with this.

Look, my point wasn't to idly ask about different monsters, it's just that singling out reptilians seems kind of random. I realized before I made my post that, per your rules, merfolk would interact with them the same as humans, that's not why I brought it up. I brought it up because merfolk are fish people, which seem a bit further afield than reptilian humanoids. So either I'm missing the logic of excluding reptilians, or it seems like the excluded species should be more exclusive.

[ideasmith]

More changes to the system. (See original post.)

Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant

[snip]

I am glad that you like your suggestions. It is a good thing when people like their own suggestions.

EDIT: We disagree on how pregnancy rules should interact with PC gender. It's my article, so it's my call.

Originally Posted by Reluctance

And herein lies the biggest puzzler in your system. I propose a counter fertility system: NPCs get pregnant when the plot/DM decides it's appropriate. PCs, and NPCs closely attached to a PC, get pregnant when the player decides. No rolls, no worries about random chance screwing things up, and no need to create spells to patch the system. Getting knocked up is more plot/roleplay side than game side, and shouldn't need dice to adjudicate.

Heck, this even leaves room for mpreg or people well into Venerable getting pregnant, with the understanding that it'll be like high-strength female characters: Nothing in the rules to stop them, but noticeably less likely because we real-world players are guided by real-world biology that doesn't live up to people's egalitarian hopes.

Good advice (for the most part). Thank you.

However letting allowing PCs that much control over their pregnancies (let alone that of their allies) seemed odder than just saying tahey needed that 1st level spell, to no obvious benefit.

Originally Posted by YakYak

Shoouldn't trying to avoid prognancy reduce to a 1% chance, unless avoiding specifically refers to abstinence, as this is the only surefire way of avoiding pregnancy.

Since I have dropped pregnancy rolls, this is a moot point now.

Originally Posted by YakYak

Also, you could just declare that a character is pregnant whenever you think it would work great to drive a player insane/motivated.

Not sure what you are saying here.

Originally Posted by averagejoe

Type changes to undead (augmented humanoid [or monstrous humanoid depending but that isn't immediately pertinent]). According to the rules, "A creature with the augmented subtype usually has the traits of its current type, but the features of its original type." Whatever that means.



I never said they weren't. I'm honestly not sure what you're getting at with this.

Look, my point wasn't to idly ask about different monsters, it's just that singling out reptilians seems kind of random. I realized before I made my post that, per your rules, merfolk would interact with them the same as humans, that's not why I brought it up. I brought it up because merfolk are fish people, which seem a bit further afield than reptilian humanoids. So either I'm missing the logic of excluding reptilians, or it seems like the excluded species should be more exclusive.

At this point I am missing it too. Moot point now, since this was dropped with the pregnancy rolls.

[Debihuman]

Originally Posted by ideasmith

PREGNANCY

A creature with one or more levels in any PC class cannot become pregnant, get another pregnant, or their kindred’s equivalent, without magical assistance. Otherwise, characters get pregnant when the GM says so. As a default, assume that a fertile female has about an even chance of becoming pregnant during a time period equal to the length of her pregnancy. The DM is advised to consider the taste and maturity of the players before relating pregnancy to certain activities that may or may not actually occur in the gameworld.


During the first half of pregnancy, the parents are fatigued and have a +1 bonus to diplomacy and gather information checks. During the second half of pregnancy, the parents are exhausted and have a +3 bonus to diplomacy and gather information checks. This fatigue or exhaustion continues until the end of the pregnancy.

To get the expected duration of pregnancy in days, multiply the kindred’s age of adulthood 18. Starting 14 days before that, make a daily Constitution check (DC 20, use baby’s Constitution) to determine if birth occurs that day.

When birth occurs, check for side effects. For each parent and the baby, make the following checks:
The caretaker makes a DC 5 Heal check. This is automatically failed if there is no caretaker. The same caretaker may care for all three, if the parents sufficiently nearby.
The parent or baby makes a DC 10 Fortitude check.
If either check is failed, Filth Fever is contracted (see Disease Descriptions in the SRD). If both checks are failed, Filth Fever is contracted and 3d6 Constitution damage immediately occurs.

After the baby is born, both parents are exhausted.

To determine the baby’s gaming stats, see Fantasy Genetics, The Baby template, and eventually the Child template.



SPELLS

Stork Call, Lesser

Conjuration (Calling) [see text]

Level: Adp 1, Clr 1, Drd 1, Pal 1, Rgr 1
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 2D4 Days
Range: Close 25 ft.+ 5 ft./2 levels
Target: 2 willing creatures of the same species
Duration: Instantaneous

This spell makes one of the targets pregnant by the other target. The targets will know which one of them is to be impregnated when determining whether they are willing. When either of the targets has one or more elemental &/or alignment subtypes, this spell has the appropriate descriptor(s).
Material Component: A cabbage leaf.

Stork Call

Conjuration (Calling) [see text]

Level: Adp 2, Clr 2, Drd 2, Pal 2, Rgr 2
Target: 2 willing creatures of the same type &/or subtype.

This spell functions as lesser stork call, lesser except as noted above.

Stork Call, Greater

Conjuration (Calling) [see text]

Level: Adp 3, Clr 3, Drd 3, Pal 3, Rgr 3, Sor/Wiz 9
Target: 2 willing creatures.

This spell functions as lesser stork call, lesser except as noted above.

[
MAGIC ITEMS

Elixir of the Stork
This elixir must be consumed by two drinkers to be effective. If the drinkers are valid targets of the spell, they are affected by the spell stork call.
Faint conjuration; CL 3rd; Craft Wondrous Item, stork call; Price 300 GP.
Elixir of the Stork, Lesser
This elixir must be consumed by two drinkers to be effective. If the drinkers are valid targets of the spell, they are affected by the spell stork call.
Faint conjuration; CL 1st; Craft Wondrous Item, stork call, lesser stork call; Price 50 GP.
Elixir of the Stork, Greater
This elixir must be consumed by two drinkers to be effective. If the drinkers are valid targets of the spell, they are affected by the spell stork call.
Faint conjuration; CL 5th; Craft Wondrous Item, stork call, greater stork call; Price 750 GP.

What if the targets of the spell are male? How do you determine which one gets pregnant?

Debby

[Ashtagon]

Originally Posted by Debihuman

What if the targets of the spell are male? How do you determine which one gets pregnant?

Debby