Basic Fantasy RPG Forums

SmootRK wrote: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.

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.

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

Indeed. At least it's not ponies.

JVWest wrote: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.

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.

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.

Joe the Rat wrote:Indeed. At least it's not ponies.

JVWest wrote: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).

Dimirag wrote: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.

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.

Dimirag wrote: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.