Roleplaying GamesThe all-purpose forum for general advice or system-independent (or multi-system) discussion. Come discuss adventure plots, gamemastering dilemmas, or player advice here. For ruleset-specific discussions, see the subforums.
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost_warlock
Seriously, though, a 50lb. rat is a capybara. NOT SCARY.
50 pounds is really light for a Capybara. 100 pounds is more normal, which just makes these hypothetical rats even sadder. That said, rats are much more dangerous for their size than capybaras are.
__________________
Fudge Assistant in the Playground.
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Just because it looks cute and harmless, doesn't mean it is. Angered squirrel can bit a grown man's finger off through leather gloves. Not pretty. A giant rat with a beef with your face would be pretty scary.
On the other hand, most such creatures are wary of men. You see a rat, you find a mop and shoo it away.
__________________ "It's the fate of all things under the sky,
to grow old and wither and die."
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost_warlock
I grew up in the rural midwest U.S. I've been clearing rats that size out of the corn crib since I was 12 years old. Obviously, a giant rat is an appropriate encounter for an adolescent commoner, not a 1st-level adventurer.
Seriously, though, a 50lb. rat is a capybara. NOT SCARY.
This is also not a Dire Rat in any shape or form.
First, we have to determine what a medium sized quadroped is.
I would go for this.
Then, we need the rat. I would go for this.
Combine.
THATS a Dire Rat. Now tell me such a creature isn't worth the AC 13, 5 HP, attack +2 1d6+2 damage it gets in Next.
If anything, Dire Rats are underpowered in Next.
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombimode
If anything, Dire Rats are underpowered in Next.
I should know. I myself commissioned a genuine Rat in NYC for $50 (that's almost $50) and have been practicing with it for years now. I can even chew through slabs of solid steel with my Rat.
Filthy sewers spend years working on a single Rat and feed it up to a million times to produce the finest CR appropriate encounters known to mankind.
Rats are thrice as fierce as Kobolds and thrice as tough for that matter too. Anything a Kobold can dig through, a Rat can dig through better. I'm pretty sure a Rat could easily bisect a knight wearing full plate with a simple vertical slash.
IDK, I don't have that many ranks in Knowledge (Nature) myself but a single rat seems like an inappropriate enemy. Rat Swarm? Yeah. Were-Rat? Silly, but okay. Dire Rat... nah, too stupid.
My personal meter-stick is "If it gets lucky and kills you, would it be awesome or embarrassing?" Getting killed by a Dragon, or a bunch of Goblin Raiders, or a Wolf, or an Ilithid? Awesome. Getting killed by a big rat or centipede or a Flumph? Sorry, I don't care how high it's stats are that's just pathetic.
Anyone knows blue is for sarcas'ing in · Use of gray may indicate nitpicking · Green is sincerity · "Take 10 SAN damage from Dark Orchid"
I often hop into threads for just one thing
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
I have to say, though, Dire Rats are somewhat redundant because there are dozens of real carnivorous, roughly mansized critters you could use to fill their role. Like, say, wolves. Or dingoes. Or rabid dogs. Or wolverines. Or lynxes. Or giant otters. Or some of the smaller bears. Or honeybadgers. Or...
__________________ "It's the fate of all things under the sky,
to grow old and wither and die."
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
I have no issue with the intended power at level one so long as it doesn't affect how powerful characters can become.. It broadens the scope of adventures that can occur (by allowing less powerful characters) without inherently removing what power level I enjoy playing at. Even in a system like 3.5, I rarely start at level one. There's nothing that I immediately object to with regard to that statement.
__________________
Theory and practice are the same in theory, but differ in practice.
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost_warlock
That sounds fine. My problem is with the idea that low level characters should be afraid of everything because they have so few hit points. Even a low-level character should not be seriously threatened by a giant rat...that's like your soldier coming back from a tour in war and getting killed by a corgi! I'm not a skilled combatant by any means but I'm fairly certain that it'd take a large number of corgis to seriously injure me unless there were some pretty extreme circumstances.
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Quote:
I have to say, though, Dire Rats are somewhat redundant because there are dozens of real carnivorous, roughly mansized critters you could use to fill their role. Like, say, wolves. Or dingoes. Or rabid dogs. Or wolverines. Or lynxes. Or giant otters. Or some of the smaller bears.
Eh, they fill a niche that none of those other examples do... dark, dank, cave dwelling scavengers. Some of those animals might make their homes in a cave, but a few levels under the earth or beneath a ruined castle, and you wouldn't expect to find many wolves or rabid dogs. But rats? Yeah, you expect the rats among the filth.
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Well here I was wondering how this discussion could go so long without mention of R.O.U.S's only to be ninja'd at the end :'(
So anyhow, I'd have to say that a Dire Rat is the size of a small dog, with teeth sharper than a dagger, scrabbling claws & they hunt in packs & swarms, sure a warrior with a sword could cut one to ribbons but two or three? He's going to start to hurt
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frozen_Feet
I have to say, though, Dire Rats are somewhat redundant because there are dozens of real carnivorous, roughly mansized critters you could use to fill their role. Like, say, wolves. Or dingoes. Or rabid dogs. Or wolverines. Or lynxes. Or giant otters. Or some of the smaller bears. Or honeybadgers. Or...
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1337 b4k4
Eh, they fill a niche that none of those other examples do... dark, dank, cave dwelling scavengers. Some of those animals might make their homes in a cave, but a few levels under the earth or beneath a ruined castle, and you wouldn't expect to find many wolves or rabid dogs. But rats? Yeah, you expect the rats among the filth.
Skip the giant rats - they were a bad joke encounter back when I was playing with Rules Cyclopedia characters and they'll still be a bad joke encounter in 5e.
If you want a subterranean muck-dwelling encounter use slimes. They're just as silly but at least their myriad immunities and stealthiness make them actually dangerous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anderlith
Well here I was wondering how this discussion could go so long without mention of R.O.U.S's only to be ninja'd at the end :'(
Actually, Knaight mentioned them a page ago:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knaight
Full plate isn't necessary. If you look at the stuff dog trainers use to get attacked in, it's basically a heavy gambeson, heavy pants and a helmet. In short, it is the equivalent of padded armor to use D&D terms, which is about as light as it gets. As for weapon training, you're essentially guaranteed to have a major reach advantage regardless, while up against something used to fighting other quadrupeds with teeth and claws and not bipeds with legitimate weapons. An ROUS is probably not an issue.
That's not to say that animals shouldn't be dangerous, but that the wrong animals currently are. It's one thing to be seriously threatened by a bear, or by most decently sized water animals while in the water, or a pack of wolves, and another entirely to be threatened by a rat.
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
The thing with small animals is the tend to attack with their mouth, which brings their necks into range where they can be snapped by an average adult human. Any sort of small animal should be a meaningless threat to a combat trained adventurer, most of the danger of domestic animals attacks comes from either surprise, or people freaking out too much to realize than humans are much better in a fight than an animal who weighs less than 100 pounds.
__________________
"It wasn't me who was wrong, it was the world!"
Hm, gotcha
But I didn't mean it that way. I just wanted to point out, that Dire Rats in Next are not unreasonably strong like some people here seem to think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost_warlock
Skip the giant rats - they were a bad joke encounter back when I was playing with Rules Cyclopedia characters and they'll still be a bad joke encounter in 5e.
The point is, so far you (or anybody else for the matter) have not provided a convincing account for why Dire/Giant Rats should not be an opponent in Next.
Many of the arguments raised here are missing the point, since they seem to refer to slightly larger Earth-Rats, and not the big furry scavenger/mob predators they are in Next.
Other then this, your argument boils down to "Well, for some unstated reason, I don't like Dire Rats as enemies."
This is of course fine, but expect then some people will go "Ok, but I do like Dire Rats so I would prefer for them to be included in the Monster Manual. You don't have to use them, there are lots of other options if you want."
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombimode
Hm, gotcha
But I didn't mean it that way. I just wanted to point out, that Dire Rats in Next are not unreasonably strong like some people here seem to think.
The point is, so far you (or anybody else for the matter) have not provided a convincing account for why Dire/Giant Rats should not be an opponent in Next.
Many of the arguments raised here are missing the point, since they seem to refer to slightly larger Earth-Rats, and not the big furry scavenger/mob predators they are in Next.
Other then this, your argument boils down to "Well, for some unstated reason, I don't like Dire Rats as enemies."
This is of course fine, but expect then some people will go "Ok, but I do like Dire Rats so I would prefer for them to be included in the Monster Manual. You don't have to use them, there are lots of other options if you want."
It breaks down to this - it's unconvincing and shatters verisimilitude that parties of armed and trained adventurers, even 1st level ones, should be so fragile that they fear for their life when fighting rats (even 50 lb. rats).
As I've said earlier even first level adventurers are not completely green; they've been trained and have basic proficiency with their individual skill sets and weapons of choice. A group of giant rats are perhaps an appropriate encounter for a pitchfork-wielding commoner, but even then the commoner likely doesn't have to fear for his/her life except in extreme circumstances. If you want to play a game where you portray a commoner fighting vermin you're more than welcome to, but that's not the default expectation when someone sits down to play Dungeons & Dragons.
Also, if rats - even giant ones - are scavengers then they should not be attacking groups of torch-wielding humans. Behaviorally it just makes no sense. Now, I can come up with some scenarios* where the rats attacking adventurers might make sense, but none of them are typical scenarios since the kind of aggression on the part of rats needed to facilitate them attacking groups of much-larger creatures carrying fire is far outside the norm.
To sum up, giant rats have a place in the 5e Monster Manual, but the game should not be designed in such a way that adventurers of even 1st level should seriously feel threatened by them. That's really the primary issue.
*
Spoiler
Wererats have been specifically breeding them for aggression, size, and fighting ability.
Mind control - druids, wererats, the Rat King from Ninja Turtles, etc.
The adventurers are tearing apart the rats' nest and threatening their young.
The rats are fleeing something much more frightening than the adventurers and the PCs just happen to be in their escape path.
__________________
Last edited by ghost_warlock : 09-24-2012 at 04:08 AM.
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost_warlock
It breaks down to this - it's unconvincing and shatters verisimilitude that parties of armed and trained adventurers, even 1st level ones, should be so fragile that they fear for their life when fighting rats (even 50 lb. rats).
But the point is that Dire Rats in Next are NOT small 25 kg creatures. They are about the size of Mabari Dogs of Dragon Age.
If we would talk about rats how they are portrayed in many video games, like in Oblivion or Morrowind, I would totally agree.
I can't say that I'm to happy about the peoples apparent reaction, though, especially concerning the Sorcerer, which was, so far, my favorite class design in Next (note that the Dragon Sorcerer in specific was to strong in comparison with the other classes, but thats a problem of the execution, not the idea).
The random background generator is awesome. I got a NG dwarven magus who was involved in a "pleasure" scandal with some arcane experiment backfire as well. My imagination is running off with that.
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombimode
But the point is that Dire Rats in Next are NOT small 25 kg creatures. They are about the size of Mabari Dogs of Dragon Age.
If we would talk about rats how they are portrayed in many video games, like in Oblivion or Morrowind, I would totally agree.
And yet they're still smaller than the largest extant real world rodent, the capybara. I could make another comparison and say that the giant rats are about the size of a goat - which implies something completely different about their combat ability.
Comparing them, based solely on weight, to a dog specifically bred and trained for combat (or to a goat) is a poor comparison because it implies something grossly misleading about the rats' build and the threat they pose. They might both be 50 lbs. but giant rats have the skeletal and muscular build of rats, not war dogs (or goats). It's a rather large difference:
vs.
The giant rat is certainly "icky" but it doesn't have the body shape to be a dangerous combatant like the war dog. Any disease possibly carried by the rat could be extremely deadly, but that's an entirely different issue.
I can't say that I'm to happy about the peoples apparent reaction, though, especially concerning the Sorcerer, which was, so far, my favorite class design in Next (note that the Dragon Sorcerer in specific was to strong in comparison with the other classes, but thats a problem of the execution, not the idea).
I'll admit that I'm amused to read that "players consistently feel that their characters don’t have enough hit points" and WotC's reaction is basically say "too bad...though I guess we can give the wizard a bump." LOL
__________________
Last edited by ghost_warlock : 09-24-2012 at 06:56 AM.
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombimode
But the point is that Dire Rats in Next are NOT small 25 kg creatures. They are about the size of Mabari Dogs of Dragon Age.
If we would talk about rats how they are portrayed in many video games, like in Oblivion or Morrowind, I would totally agree.
I think the core of misunderstanding here is that James Wyatt was talking about 'giant rat,' while playtest packet provides stat block for 'cave rat' (small creature) and 'dire rat' (medium creature) and it is unclear which he meant. And in previous packet those two monsters were tiny and small respectively. 4 feet long and 50 pounds of weight comes in turn from 3.5 edition monster entry for dire rat I guess. I am fine with dire rats being supersized to the point they are dangerous to an adventurer, otherwise there would be nothing dire about them. They should be unnatural, unusually aggressive mutated specimens. Cave rats on the other hand should never be a danger to PCs when solitary. As others have said, they are no larger than a capybara. 4-5 cave rats against 1st level wizard? Yes, it could be a threat. One on one fight with any adventurer? Why would you go into any sort of dungeon when you can't even handle a single rat?
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
I can live with rats the size of cats or small dogs. But at a certain size I'm afraid they might become more like the giant guinny pigs from southpark.
The random background generator is awesome. I got a NG dwarven magus who was involved in a "pleasure" scandal with some arcane experiment backfire as well. My imagination is running off with that.
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost_warlock
The knight is okay. Buff the pawn, nerf bishops. Queen is outright broken.
No way man! It's balanced because in the early game, the queen can't do anything! You spend the first few moves sucking and the last few moves owning, so that's balanced.
Also, any rat (dire or not) will totally defeat a queen, especially a low-level one.
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
On the fragility of PCs thing, my issue is not that giant rats are a threat to PCs, it's the 'one-hit death' issue. Basically, I don't want the chance that my character will be killed in the first round of combat with no opportunity to defend myself, such as an orc getting a crit with his falchion or greataxe.
I am fine if, say, 3 hits will take him down, as this generally at least gives me the chance to run away in an undignified manner if I want to. So I prefer to have my HP high enough out of the starting gate to survive a few hits from level appropriate opponents.
IMO, you can get an equal level of fragility by setting the opponents HP similarly high - but at least this way I have a bit more input into my characters survival rather than it being down to a single unlucky dice roll.
I could start at 4th of course, but this is not just adding more hit points - it's extra spells etc., which changes the entire feel of the game, so that is not really an ideal option for me either.
I'd be OK with having higher HP start as a separate module, so long as it is done well, and something more than the aforementioned 'start at level 4' option...
RSS Feeds: 
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
