04-19-2016, 06:42 PM | #11 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: Snakes and Size Modifier
That's because you're comparing reptiles to mammals, has nothing to do with body configuration.
|
04-19-2016, 08:34 PM | #12 |
Untagged
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Forest Grove, Beaverton, Oregon
|
Re: Snakes and Size Modifier
Okay, you're right I miswrote.
I should have said, "comparably massed reptile". A thirty pound snake should eat almost exactly the same amount as a thirty pound lizard regardless of how they differ in SM by longest dimension. Frequenting the 130 character limited site Imgur has promoted some bad habits. Brevity should never take priority over clarity.
__________________
Beware, poor communication skills. No offense intended. If offended, it just means that I failed my writing skill check. |
04-19-2016, 09:06 PM | #13 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: Snakes and Size Modifier
I'm not convinced that's true, but unless you're making a comparison to a turtle (which will eat less...) there's not really going to be that much difference; standard lizard configurations aren't dramatically different from snakes in terms of surface area vs body.
|
04-19-2016, 09:44 PM | #14 |
Untagged
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Forest Grove, Beaverton, Oregon
|
Re: Snakes and Size Modifier
Come on. You must be intentionally misunderstanding me. A 7 foot long 10 lb SM+1 rattlesnake will not eat as much as a 7 foot long 150 lb SM+1 Komodo dragon.
__________________
Beware, poor communication skills. No offense intended. If offended, it just means that I failed my writing skill check. |
04-19-2016, 10:12 PM | #15 | ||
Join Date: Sep 2011
|
Re: Snakes and Size Modifier
Quote:
Quote:
Now, a 7 ft. Komodo dragon may very well eat more that a 7 ft. rattlesnake but that's essentially SM by length which is directly the opposite of your post which stated "regardless of how they differ by SM." |
||
04-19-2016, 10:24 PM | #16 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: Snakes and Size Modifier
It also doesn't have anywhere comparable surface area.
|
04-19-2016, 11:52 PM | #17 |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: Snakes and Size Modifier
SM's usage really being about area is somewhat true, but it's projection area, not surface area.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
04-20-2016, 01:49 AM | #18 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: Snakes and Size Modifier
While true, they tend to be fairly closely correlated.
|
04-20-2016, 01:49 AM | #19 |
Untagged
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Forest Grove, Beaverton, Oregon
|
Re: Snakes and Size Modifier
In R.A.W. SM is about longest dimension with a slight adjustment for unusual shapes.
I don't see any suggestion for making a 7 foot snake -3 SM for food requirments as the aforementioned 10 lb snake should have.
__________________
Beware, poor communication skills. No offense intended. If offended, it just means that I failed my writing skill check. |
04-20-2016, 03:22 AM | #20 |
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Helmouth, The Netherlands
|
Re: Snakes and Size Modifier
I use a house rule for starships (which could be implemented for creatures) which I call Tactical SM. I just wrote down the SM for all sides (top, ventral, left, right, front, and back) and it becomes relevant for the attacker and defender to take tactical postions either to get the best chance of hitting or trying to get the best chance for your attacker to miss.
Instead of Quick Contest Piloting rolls to get this advantage, you have to roll against Tactics or another appropriate skill. |
Tags |
size modifier |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|