Basic Fighting Animals! (Test)

[JVWest]

I agree with Joe to minimize or often just eliminate some of the Bite and Claw attacks... they are anthropomorphic and use equipment for the most part.

Personally, I would focus in on a subset of creatures... for instance, in Redwall the primary characters are mostly rodent and/or small woodland creatures.
Another sort of sub-setting might be African/Safari oriented, where everyone is Lions, Zebra, Rhino, etc. Lego-Chima takes this approach.
Yet another sort of sub-setting could be all Bear oriented (Polar, Grizzly, Black Bears as the main races, pitted against some antagonist race(s)).

While some size/ability equalization is good for a game/setting, I think it would be odd to have Mouse vs Rhino fights. The mismatch goes beyond just the mechanics. Some "Thematic grouping" would be best in my mind.

I totally get you here. But my vision for this is to be all inclusive. If you wanna play a shrew and I wanna play an elephant we should be able to go dungeon diving together. That's the appeal of funny animals, to me. There's a ridiculous but sublime tone to the whole affair. The size differential rule was meant to balance that out. The wee mouse gets a beefy attack roll bonus against the elephant. And the elephant suffers a substantial penalty. But if he ever makes contact...BAM.

Someone also mentioned the HD issue. I don't have a big problem with it, personally. But then again I'm notoriously unconcerned about perfect game balance. If you end up with a d8 HD spellcaster I personally don't see a problem with it. If the rhino has a 13 or 14 Int then he should be just as capable of learning magic as the next guy. And if he's a rhino there's no reason he should suffer a small HD just because he's a magic-user.

But yeah, I will take a second look at that too. I will maybe come up with other ways to achieve a little more balance.

Thanks again for the great feedback. It gives me some inspiration to continue working on the idea. This is such a sub-sub genre it mostly feels like I'm writing it basically for myself. Most people just aren't interested in it.

[JVWest]

Also, I see my error with AC. I was going with the base 10 instead of base 11. I'll fix that.

Regarding class restrictions: I don't like them. As I said in one of the other posts I like the idea of keeping this as open ended as possible. The point is - in a way - to treat all PCs as essentially the same (human-like) with little tweaks and perks for choosing a particular animal race. So I don't want to say that any given animal is barred from being a certain class.

I'll see what I can do to give a nod to game balance though. I can see why some folks would find a problem with two players being magic-users and one of them having, by default, twice as many hit points.

Point taken, will consider alternate methods such as the d6 min instead of d8.

[LibraryLass]

You're writing this for me as much as for you, brah.

[Joe the Rat]

Indeed. At least it's not ponies.

Regarding class restrictions: I don't like them. As I said in one of the other posts I like the idea of keeping this as open ended as possible. The point is - in a way - to treat all PCs as essentially the same (human-like) with little tweaks and perks for choosing a particular animal race. So I don't want to say that any given animal is barred from being a certain class.

That sounds like a good (and fun) direction to take. Certain species are naturally better suited to certain classes based on attributes (including size), but nothing prevents you from playing a Mouse Barbarian ("Murinae Rage! Squereeee!") or Elephant Mage ("Eeek! Barbarian! Run away!").

On sizes: What sort of guidelines do you have on deciding what is small, medium, large, or huge? Is medium the "human-ish" size group? What are you picturing in the huge category (besides elephants)? Also, make sure you aren't arbitrarily up-sizing predators. You have Deer as Medium sized, while Cheetahs are Large. Checking numbers, Deer mass in the same range - or larger - than Cheetahs... which top out around 70-75 kilo.

[Dimirag]

I like what you are doing. Some ideas:
1-Lessen the unarmed damage so weapons are a better choice for fights.
2-Put the unarmed damage as an optional rule for more animal than human games.
3-Put the size modifiers as optional so one can play a game where most characters falls on the same size range (Like in TMNT)
4-Why not to modify base attack bonus and AC based on size? Smaller sizes gets a bonus, bigger ones a penalty, this can speed play when confronted with a bunch of mixed sizes opponents.

[SmootRK]

Still not so sure about a "furry free for all" thing. For me, setting has a lot to do with how much I will like something... still I can wait and see what comes of this.

[JVWest]

Indeed. At least it's not ponies.

Regarding class restrictions: I don't like them. As I said in one of the other posts I like the idea of keeping this as open ended as possible. The point is - in a way - to treat all PCs as essentially the same (human-like) with little tweaks and perks for choosing a particular animal race. So I don't want to say that any given animal is barred from being a certain class.

That sounds like a good (and fun) direction to take. Certain species are naturally better suited to certain classes based on attributes (including size), but nothing prevents you from playing a Mouse Barbarian ("Murinae Rage! Squereeee!") or Elephant Mage ("Eeek! Barbarian! Run away!").

On sizes: What sort of guidelines do you have on deciding what is small, medium, large, or huge? Is medium the "human-ish" size group? What are you picturing in the huge category (besides elephants)? Also, make sure you aren't arbitrarily up-sizing predators. You have Deer as Medium sized, while Cheetahs are Large. Checking numbers, Deer mass in the same range - or larger - than Cheetahs... which top out around 70-75 kilo.

Yes, you are on the same page as me regarding class choices. No limits. Mouse barbarian, Elephant wizard, Snake cleric, Rhino thief, etc.

Good point about the sizes. I will have to watch out for that. I basically put Cheetahs in the Large category so they would not be the same as a Cat or Duck. But by that logic Deer should probably be Large too.

I put Elephants, Rhinos, and Hippos in the same category. I'm trying to keep it simple. I did this because of the way I'm writing the size differential rule (subtract the attacker's size from the defender's size to get the attack mod).

[JVWest]

I like what you are doing. Some ideas:
1-Lessen the unarmed damage so weapons are a better choice for fights.
2-Put the unarmed damage as an optional rule for more animal than human games.
3-Put the size modifiers as optional so one can play a game where most characters falls on the same size range (Like in TMNT)
4-Why not to modify base attack bonus and AC based on size? Smaller sizes gets a bonus, bigger ones a penalty, this can speed play when confronted with a bunch of mixed sizes opponents.

1-Yes, someone else pointed this out and I am going to reduce and simplify the Tooth-n-Claw damage. I don't like linking it to size, though. I think a Tiger should do more unarmed damage than certain other large animals.

Which harkens back to the previous post...I think I have Wolves as size Large but technically they are smaller than things like Deer. Yet I don't want Wolves and Cats in the same size category.

It is possible I'll have to add another rung to the ladder. In an older version I did it with numbers alone and my scale was 1 to 7 with Mice at 1 and Elephants at 7. That put Wolves at 4 and Lions at 5. I'll have to ponder it.

2-I'll think about that, but I think having unarmed damage gives a proper nod to the animal nature.

3-I don't like this idea. I see it's value but part of the charm of this concept for me was to really embrace the size issue. I like the idea of a Mouse being literally picked up and held by a Rhino while having a conversation. Yet both of them are adventuring together.

4-I could handle size in that way. I'll think about that. I always thought I'd use the differential rule because I think it makes a great deal of sense. But this might be a simpler solution, though a bit less elegant (maybe).

Thanks for feedback! Currently writing 3.5 module but I'll get back to this idea soon.

[Dimirag]

Oh, I wasn't saying to remove the unarmed damage, just to put the actual (more damaging) as an option for a more animal combat feel, same for size, you can give both options, so you can have a rat fighter with four roguish turtles fighting a rhino on the same scale or go with the size difference.

I don't know if my size ida (actually its from 3.5 and lot of other games) is ellegant, but it simplifies the game and makes all the mathematics in advance.

[LibraryLass]

Oh, I wasn't saying to remove the unarmed damage, justo to put the actual (more damaging) as an option for a more animal combat feel, same for damage, you can give both options, so you can have a rat fighter with four roguish turtles fighting a rhino on the same scale or go with the size difference.

I don't know if my size ida (actually its from 3.5 and lot of other games) is ellegant, but it simplifies the game and makes all the mathematics in advance.

I would definitely appreciate either making size optional or keeping it within a fairly narrow range.