I am trying to find some alternate rules that I remember seeing a while ago, that I am pretty sure came from SKR.
It started with the question: why does almost everything in cold environments have cold-based attacks, when they local fauna are resistant/immune to cold? A winter wolf breathing on a yeti is just wasting his time, since the yeti will ignore the cold damage. Any creature that evolved a fire-based attack would have a great advantage. So why aren't there any?
He then went on to suggestion some rule alternations that result in it being logical that creatures in cold environments have cold based attacks.
I've looked in my bookmarks and at seankreynolds.com, but I can't find it. Does this sound familiar to anyone? Anybody know where it is?
Remmorhaz.
|
The best way you can encourage cold-based attacks in cold environments is to grant an environment or circumstance bonus to those attacks. Call it sympathetic environment. Alternatively, you could penalize the "wrong" kind of energy in an environment. Traditionally, this is done by adding or subtracting damage (+1/-1 per die) or altering the save DC (+1/-1 per "environmental step").
why does almost everything in cold environments have cold-based attacks, when they local fauna are resistant/immune to cold? A winter wolf breathing on a yeti is just wasting his time, since the yeti will ignore the cold damage. Any creature that evolved a fire-based attack would have a great advantage. So why aren't there any?
He (SKR) then went on to suggestion some rule alternations that result in it being logical that creatures in cold environments have cold based attacks.
Not familiar with any rule alteration from SKR (although I'm rather curious to see them now!), but creatures with cold-based attacks in cold environment do make some sense to me:
From an "evolutionist" perspective, a creature that develops a cold attack probably has some affinity with cold in the first place. Some kind of evolutionary pre-requisite if you want.
In D&D/Pathfinder, that translates in the Cold subtype. Similarly, I could see that a creature with a fire attack required the Fire subtype in order the qualify for its "evolution". Again, working with the tools that are given to us, creatures with the Fire subtype take half as much damage from cold attacks (including non-lethal damage from environmental hazards AFAIK). This creature may not be able to exist comfortably in a cold environment (i.e. provide a believable habitat for the creature).
Again going with this "evolutionist" theory, a creature probably requires a significant exposition to cold before being able to acquire this cold subtype. Rationally, this would lead to the conclusion that creatures with cold attack must come from cold environment, even if from a gamist perspective a fire attack in a cold environment would be more optimal.
Similarly, I can buy that Yetis can survive in a cold environment partially because for them, winter wolves are not more threatening than than worgs are to their sasquatch cousins.
I'm aware that this doesn't help you with any rule alteration whatsoever, I'm just not sure if this needs to be an issue worth addressing?
'findel
Winter wolves don't live off of Yetis. They eat mundane animals like rabbits and goats and sheep. And when two creatures with cold-based attacks (and resistance vs. cold) go up against each other, it is likely to be more like a head-butting contest between bighorn sheep-- lots of sound and fury, but usually the weaker creature gives up territory/acknowledges the other as stronger/etc. without either creature being seriously injured. If all the powerful creatures in a given environment were constantly dishing out lethal damage against each other, the environment would be depopulated pretty quickly.
