In a recent campaign session, my character (a gnome bard) challenged another character (a dwarf rogue) to a drinking competition. We have a house rule that you can drink a number of drinks equal to your CON modifier, and after that we have to make FORT saves starting at DC10 and increasing by +2 for each additional beverage consumed (a beverage consists of either a glass of wine, which is equal to a pint of beer, which is equal to a shot of hard stuff). For every fail you essentially get a negative level in terms of rolls and such. If you fail a number of time equal to 2x your Con modifier, you black out.
After I made the challenge, the DM asked me if I was drinking a beverage of size appropriate for a small creature. So I said "no, I will drink the same size beverage as the dwarf", because if I drink less then I can't really say I won the competition. So he told me that if I drink the same size beverage, I will start having to make FORT saves after drinking half my CON modifier in drinks, and all those FORT saves would be at a -4 penalty.
My DM said that the logic behind this was that with the amount of blood in my blood stream relative to a medium size dwarf, it makes no sense that I shouldn't have a penalty. I then argued that alcohol is a poison and should be treated as such.
An elephant has 11HD and FORT=+13, and a warrior-type halfling for example with the same number of HD (which would have 7 base + CON modifier) have a similar FORT save. In fact, if you multiclass the halfling he could easily have a higher FORT save than an elephant with the same number of HD. If these creatures are subjected to a lethal poison (poison which is taken up by the blood stream) then the halfling would have an equal or greater chance of succeeding the save, even though it make no sense that an elephant with 10x the volume of blood as a halfling could be more vulnerable to poison.
I then mentioned that if we apply a size modifier to drinking alcohol then we should apply it to all poisons, or not at all.
Fundamentally everyone agreed with the DM and I had to take the -4 penalty, which pissed me off a bit. I tried to argue that there is very little that is realistic about Dnd (or pathfinder) and that it is like a videogame. Trying to include 'realistic' scenarios for very specific instances is contradictory to how the rules work.
I even mentioned that for low levels the 'realistic' drinking system makes sense. For example a human (who starts off at 1HD and has average CON) would definitely lose a drinking competition to a larger creature (which start off at higher HD and tend to have good CON), but once you get to high levels that logic breaks down.
I know it is silly because its a drinking competition, but I feel that my point makes sense and I was a bit annoyed that noone even seemed to consider that my argument made sense. They just kept saying "but he is small. Something small like that just cant drink as much"
I was wondering what you guys' take was on this issue...
Actually, isn't the fact that gnomes have a bonus to CON supposed to reflect in game mechanics they are tough in spite of their size?
That's what I figured. I think drinking capacity should be a measure of Fortitude, not a measure of size...
That's what I figured. I think drinking capacity should be a measure of Fortitude, not a measure of size...
This is what happens when a DM puts real Life rules into a Fantasy Game..
In the REAL WORLD... YES... MASS (which does not equate to Size at ALL 100 percent of the time) more mass you have then less of the Poison (Alchohol) will affect you. A Person that weighs 30 pounds is going to be affected QUICKER than the 400 Pound Bastard.... thats why you get a FORT SAVE to see what actually happens (the 30 pound person could be a 20th level Village Idiot that is used to getting Drunk... while the 400 Pound Bastard could be a Level 1 Expert who never drinks ever)
But in Fantasy World... Dwarves are hardy.... infact they are DENSE and have alot of MASS for their size... same with Gnomes (although I would say its more of a magical thing..hence why Gnomes do not weigh alot..)\
Either way the FORT SAVE is the way to go... and if the Creature is HUGE or larger than they usually get a bonus to certain FORT Saves... but Medium and Small do not in this game.
Sometimes keeping things simple (Fort Saves) is the way to go.. no need to start adding size modifiers for saving throws (unless game mechanics call for it... such as a Druid Wildshaping into a Tiny Bee and getting extra DEX,ect)
Gah, I swear I responded to this thread... but alas, my post was eaten by some insatiable monster hell bent on making me look... afk?
The amount you drink should have a direct effect on how drunk you get, based on size. Small sized PCs don't need to eat or drink as much normal food as a medium sized creature, and the bigger you get, the more you consume on a daily basis.
By challenging a medium sized creature to a drinking contest when you are small, and insisting you drink the same amount ounce for ounce (drink for drink), you are effectively doubling the intake of alcohol by game definition that the medium sized creature is imbibing.
Medium drink (1) =
(2) drinks for a small creature
(4) for a tiny creature
(8) for a diminutive creature
(16) for a fine creaturedivide going the other way ~
(1/2) drinks for a large creature
(1/4) for a huge,
etc etc.You should not be hit with a con penalty that isn't called for based on # of drinks you had, as long as you are calculating drinks based on the above numbers.
This means that you WILL get to the point where you have to start making CON checks in half the time the Dwarf does due to your decision, but your CON score might very well be quite a bit higher than his, and he very well might drop before you do (not very likely since you are effectively taking 2 drinks to his 1)
So you don't think that alcohol should be treated as a poison? Or would you say there should be a size modifier for poison as well?
I understand your point stubs, and it is reasonable. I just feel that it is a contradiction to somehow treat alcohol with special rules even though it clearly is a poison (a dilute poison but a poison none the less). Even though there aren't rules for terpentine or any other kind of harmful ingested substance doesn't mean that it won't provoke a FORT save to not suffer consequences.
I just find it strange because there are ways (such as through multiclassing) to get a creature as small as 'fine' to obtain a FORT save equivalent to a creature which is massive. If this creature somehow ingests, or is in some other way put into contact with a poison (a volume which if internalized would probably explode his body) he would have the same odds as a massive creature at avoiding harmful effects. This makes no sense since the 'fine' creature probably has a pinch of blood, whereas the big creature could have litres. Yet, although this makes no sense in the real world, this is how the pathfinder system works. Adding some kind of size modifier against poisons would break the game causing big creatures to be immune and smaller one's to be very vulnerable. With the same reasoning, although it makes no sense in the real world, alcohol should follow this same set of rules built by the pathfinder system.
Also, as I mentioned above, to a certain extent pathfinder does consider alcohol and poison tolerance in a realistic way. A basic human (who starts off at 1HD, has average CON and maybe a good FORT) would definitely lose a drinking competition to a larger creature (which start off at higher HD, tend to have good CON and almost always have good FORT). But once you get to high levels, and with multiclassing and such, the epic nature of the system pulls away from what makes sense in the real world. Because of this, the fact that it is possible for a halfling to out drink a giant (or to be better at resisting poison) is not far-fetched... and is even funny.
There are other examples of things that occur in pathfinder that make no sense in reality(like a character taking a full attack and 6+ attacks of opportunity in a six second period, or a person escape artisting through an area smaller than his head for example).
That's why I disagree that somehow saying alcohol consumption should be realistic, when there are so many things that aren't, is a contradiction to the way the system works.
Are you kidding? Its a drinking contest. There's only one way to settle this: LARP it!
Both of you takes a "flagon" made from cardboard and duct tape. If you're under age then fill each with mountain dew; first one to pee loses. If you're of legal drinking age...START DRINKING! The first one to fail a sobriety test, pass out, throw up, or hit on another guy's mom loses.
I speak from experience when I say LARP drinking contests are a LOT of fun! Just don't be the one to pass out first; one eyebrow, that's all they left me... just ONE eyebrow...
|
I agree with the whole dosage concept. Also, don't certain poisons work in different ways? I know alcohol is affected by how much mass the drinker has, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter how big you are, certain types of jellyfish venom will still have you going into cardiac arrest within 30 minutes...
I agree that simplicity is best, but agree that for alcohol (a poison that is so diluted), drinking ounce for ounce against a medium character would mean they'd have to roll more often, just not with a penalty.
This actually raises a VERY interesting plot idea, involving assassinating a halfling king and...but I'm getting tangential. Um, no penalty, but more saves due to amount of drink per size I guess.
|
You should have argued to do "shots" with the dwarf. This SHOULD have allowed you your full FORT save, as the volume of liquid has NOTHING to do with the amount of alcohol poisoning recieved. Or perhaps made it even more deadly and just challenged him to a straight up POISON drinking competition. Each touch to the tounge made equal that way. You have a stupid GM, IMHO. Your stats reflect the HUMAN EQUIVALENT. Thus your fort is your fort is your fort between races, regardless of size.
If what the GM was saying was true, you would only get half reflex saves for human (or dwarf) sized traps (after all you have itty bitty legs). And only half wil saves for anyone with a bigger brain than you. You shouldn't arbitrarily be nerfed for size when size has already been taken into account with your stats.
I am not saying you wouldn't have to PEE before the dwarf, but you wouldn't get drunk any sooner either. Your body might not be able to hold as much liquid, but your FORT/CON to handle it is EQUAL if your STATS are equal.
Except alcohol intoxication is measured by blood/alcohol % content... the question isn't how tough are you, it is how much alcohol do you have in your body vs how big your body is. THEN, then next question becomes at what % of blood alcohol do you succumb to the effects (Fort saves... higher fort save means you stay up longer even though you have had a lot of liquor, more than maybe most of your kind could handle)You should have argued to do "shots" with the dwarf. This SHOULD have allowed you your full FORT save, as the volume of liquid has NOTHING to do with the amount of alcohol poisoning recieved. Or perhaps made it even more deadly and just challenged him to a straight up POISON drinking competition. Each touch to the tounge made equal that way. You have a stupid GM, IMHO. Your stats reflect the HUMAN EQUIVALENT. Thus your fort is your fort is your fort between races, regardless of size.
If what the GM was saying was true, you would only get half reflex saves for human (or dwarf) sized traps (after all you have itty bitty legs). And only half wil saves for anyone with a bigger brain than you. You shouldn't arbitrarily be nerfed for size when size has already been taken into account with your stats.
I am not saying you wouldn't have to PEE before the dwarf, but you wouldn't get drunk any sooner either. Your body might not be able to hold as much liquid, but your FORT/CON to handle it is EQUAL if your STATS are equal.
By going back to blood/alcohol content you are making my point. The extent to which poison influences something is equivalent to its concentration in the blood. A human bitten by a snake will have a higher blood/venom ratio then an elephant. In pathfinder, they make the same save. If the human has the same FORT save as the elephant, he has equal chance of succeeding. So why is alcohol any different?
I am not arguing with your logical point that a smaller creature should get drunk easier. I'm arguing that that smaller person should also be more susceptible to poison, but in pathfinder that smaller person is not more susceptible. FORT save is the determinant. Therefore it should be the determinant for alcohol as well. Size in itself doesn't matter. Size is taken into account in the sense that smaller creatures tend to have lower FORT saves in general, but size should not create a modifier in its own right.
But poisons do depend on the size of the creature. You provided a very specific example of a poison which would kill pretty much anything that comes into contact with it because it is so potent. This poison would be able to kill 1000 people but only, say, 2 dragons. Shouldn't the human have a 500x harder FORT save to make since his body is trying to deal with such a proportionately higher amount of poison? Right there size of the animal plays a role. You also mentioned a poison that is fatal to children but not to adults... therefore size plays a role.
We ignore this fact when we use a FORT save to determine if something is affected by the poison and we do not modify this FORT save with a size modifier. We do this because FORT save is the measure of a creatures fortitude. But we modify alcohol consumption with a size modifier?
Another example is in regards to the example maouse gave above. Shouldn't a smaller creature get a size bonus to his reflex save because he is small. The obvious answer is no, because the system already considers size into the equation. Small creatures (such as goblins and halflings) tend to have a high DEX and good REF, whereas larger creatures tend to have low DEX and bad REF. At higher levels however, with proper class selection, the large creature could very possibly have a higher REF save as a same level small creature. This makes no sense because obviously a 3ft tall halfling should have an easier time avoiding swinging blades, falling ceiling, etc, then a 10ft tall troll.
I think we are just going to disagree on this subject. We are both clearly stubborn in this regard. You don't see why I relate poison and alcohol, and don't understand how you don't see that applying a size modifier to alcohol consumption is in contradiction with the way the pathfinder system operates because there are a number of examples in the rules where size should influence saving throws but it doesn't.