(3e) Cry Havoc! And let loose the cats of war!
green...@my-deja.com
challenge rating of 1/4? That means a group of 4 of them are considered
to be a suitable challenge for a party of 4 1st level adventurers. A
pack of 12 housecats are even considered to be a suitable challenge for
a group of 3rd level adventurers. Ok, I will admit that a common
housecat might terrify the average mouse, and maybe even the occasional
rat (not talking Dire Rat here), but exactly how much threat does a
bunch of cats *really* present even to a group of 1st level
adventurers? And would any DM in his or her right mind send even 12
housecats against a group of 4 3rd level adventurers? And then award
those adventurers 900 XP when they defeat those cats? As far as I'm
concerned, normal cats should have a challenge rating of 1/6 at best,
and that's only because an ordinary rat is considered to have a CR of
1/8 (which should probably be reduced to 1/10 anyway, IMO).
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> Has anyone else noticed that a common housecat is considered to have a
> challenge rating of 1/4?
Interesting.
Kobolds are CR 1/6.
Must be a good joke to go with that...
Stephenls
> Hehe...thinking about this might just make me send some bad-tempered
> cats up against my players...
Hell, you should have tried it in 2e.
Unless the PCs had some sort of area effect spell (like fireball or even
sleep), say, around 12 housecats won. Period. Always.
--
Stephenls
Geek
"Life without pain isn't real" -Isamu Dyson, Macross Plus
Sir Bob
message news:8t2jer$u8l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8t2hv7$t71$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> green...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Ok, I will admit that a common
> > housecat might terrify the average mouse, and maybe even the
> occasional
> > rat (not talking Dire Rat here), but exactly how much threat
does a
> > bunch of cats *really* present even to a group of 1st level
> > adventurers?
Hmmm? Felines are the perfect land-based predator. Even a
common housecat can *kill* a full-grown human if it attacks from
hiding. There are records of it happening. Leap from behind,
teeth to the neck, rip your juggular wide open.
Sir Bob
P.S. Nih!
Marizhavashti Kali
Sir Bob wrote:
>
> Hmmm? Felines are the perfect land-based predator. Even a
> common housecat can *kill* a full-grown human if it attacks from
> hiding. There are records of it happening. Leap from behind,
> teeth to the neck, rip your juggular wide open.
I've heard of it happening during "play" as well.
--
Deird'Re M. Brooks | xe...@teleport.com | cam#9309026
Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
"Atlantic City is Oz envisioned by used car salesmen and pimps."
http://www.teleport.com/~xenya | --Rick Glumsky, Celtic Filth
Jeremy Reaban
The Amethyst Dragon wrote in message <8t2jer$u8l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
<snip>
>They are fast, agile, and have a thin layer of natural armor (fur).
>They can move silently and often attack from hiding. Sounds
dangerous
>to me, especially in numbers.
Well, the thing with cats, is they are only really dangerous to an
unarmored person, but if you are wearing a thick coat (like a winter
one), they can't scratch or bite through it. Several layers of
clothing works well too - both are good ideas if you ever have to give
a cat a bath, or need to catch one (actually catching one is pretty
much impossible if they are not hurt or something).
That doesn't really translate into D&D well, though. But they are
actually pretty tough little critters. I don't think one cat could
kill someone unarmored who is expecting an attack, but from suprise,
yeah. And if a whole clutter of them attacked, it's possible.
If they weren't so lazy and good natured (sort of), cats might have
taken over the world by now.
Sir Bob
news:39F4E670...@teleport.com...
>
>
> Sir Bob wrote:
> >
> > Hmmm? Felines are the perfect land-based predator. Even a
> > common housecat can *kill* a full-grown human if it attacks
from
> > hiding. There are records of it happening. Leap from
behind,
> > teeth to the neck, rip your juggular wide open.
>
> I've heard of it happening during "play" as well.
Here's an idea; given the above, perhaps housecats should have
the ability to inflict Sneak Attacks as a rogue of equal level?
I can just picture it... "The housecat strikes from behind for
... (sound of multiple d6s) ... 31 points of damage." Heh...
*evil DM, evil DM*
Sir Bob
P.S. Nih!
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> You do realize that a non tamed cat could kill a human easilly. I doubt an
> armored fellow, but still. When not protected a cats claws and bite are
> HORRIBLY bad. DOnt say Im wrong because you've been scratched by your cat. They
> dont attack you full force when they are pissed. If the did the cat would be
> put down after you got out of the hospital :P
Actually the cat might be put down before I even called the ambulance!
Marizhavashti Kali
Speaker Gilthas wrote:
>
> You do realize that a non tamed cat could kill a human easilly. I doubt an
> armored fellow, but still. When not protected a cats claws and bite are
> HORRIBLY bad. DOnt say Im wrong because you've been scratched by your cat. They
> dont attack you full force when they are pissed. If the did the cat would be
> put down after you got out of the hospital :P
I've seen the results of full force cat attacks (I mentioned it
elsewhere), and they're never pretty...well, okay, the designs one cat
carved on my cousins arms were kind of pretty...sort of like the glyphs
in WW's Bastet sourcebook.
Barry Smith
Greywhisker the Wererat isn't amused one bit... ;)
*hisssss!*
--
Long live 2e.
Sir Bob
news:8t32ng$6g0$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> In article <39F4F96D...@teleport.com>, Marizhavashti Kali
<xe...@teleport.com> wrote:
> >I've seen the results of full force cat attacks (I mentioned
it
> >elsewhere), and they're never pretty...well, okay, the designs
one cat
> >carved on my cousins arms were kind of pretty...sort of like
the glyphs
> >in WW's Bastet sourcebook.
>
me. This
> applies whether we're talking dogs, or birds, or snakes, or
whatever. Unless
> there's poison involved, or the wounding implement can do me
serious harm (a
> macaw's beak, for instance, which I learned to respect after
nearly losing a
> finger in Costa Rica), there's no real cause for concern.
>
> Unless the offender is a cat.
>
> Now, as I said to Gilthas, I'm skeptical about the ability of
most small cats
> to do *serious* harm to a full-grown, healthy human
How little you know about cats. Y'see, unlike other animals,
cats' claws replace themselves with great frequency. A new claw
is always growing beneath the current one, and when cats
"sharpen" their claws, what they're really doing is shredding the
dried husks of their old claws to let the new ones emerge. A
newly-"sharpened" cats-claw is actually as sharp as a surgical
scalpel; they can literally etch sheet metal, though they'd be
significantly dulled in the process. Combine this with the fact
that cats have muscular and skeletal structures that allow them
to apply leverage all out of proportion to their size, and you
have one nasty weapon. A common housecat could rip your trachea
out with a single swipe of its paw.
So why don't they? Simple. In many ways, cats treat humans as
they would other cats, and cats *never* apply their full strength
or fully unsheathe their claws when fighting each other; that's
why catfights don't turn into bloodbaths.
Sir Bob
P.S. Nih!
Sir Bob
> In article <39f51...@news.newsdudes.com>, "Sir Bob"
<pr...@dlcwest.com> wrote:
> >Chris Campbell <sank...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> >news:8t32ng$6g0$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
of
> >> most small cats to do *serious* harm to a full-grown,
healthy human
> >
> >How little you know about cats.
>
anyone on this
> group. Comes with being a biologist specializing in large
carnivores.
>
> >Y'see, unlike other animals, cats' claws replace themselves
with great
> >frequency. A new claw is always growing beneath the current
one, and when
> >cats "sharpen" their claws, what they're really doing is
shredding the
> >dried husks of their old claws to let the new ones emerge.
>
many rodents
> and herbivores do the same. Other *predators* don't do it
much, but that's
> mostly because they use their teeth to kill -- and have the
sense to either go
> after big game in groups, or avoid it altogether.
>
> >A newly-"sharpened" cats-claw is actually as sharp as a
surgical
> >scalpel; they can literally etch sheet metal, though they'd be
> >significantly dulled in the process. Combine this with the
fact
> >that cats have muscular and skeletal structures that allow
them
> >to apply leverage all out of proportion to their size, and you
> >have one nasty weapon. A common housecat could rip your
trachea
> >out with a single swipe of its paw.
>
killing -- this is
> why they don't use their claws to dispatch prey. Watch one in
action
> sometime; claws are used to find purchase on a prey animal, or
to climb.
> Teeth are used to kill, pretty much unilaterally.
Even still, I'd like to see you volunteer to have a cat take a
swipe at your juggular. No? Thought so.
(And FYI, I have *seen* a cat's claws etch sheet metal. Involved
my cat slowly sliding off the roof of an unpainted metal shed.
The sound was incredible. And the marks are *still there*).
Sir Bob
P.S. Nih!
Sir Bob
news:39f51774...@news.paradise.net.nz...
> On 24 Oct 2000 02:18:53 GMT, speaker...@aol.com (Speaker
Gilthas)
> wrote:
>
> >You do realize that a non tamed cat could kill a human
easilly. I doubt an
> >armored fellow, but still. When not protected a cats claws and
bite are
> >HORRIBLY bad. DOnt say Im wrong because you've been scratched
by your cat. They
> >dont attack you full force when they are pissed. If the did
the cat would be
> >put down after you got out of the hospital :P
>
hospital. Cats
> aren't very tough compared to boken, machetes or even leather
boots.
If you could lay a finger on the sucker. Tame cats are trusting
enough to let that boot get in range; a wild cat won't give you
the chance.
Sir Bob
P.S. Nih!
The Amethyst Dragon
green...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Ok, I will admit that a common
> housecat might terrify the average mouse, and maybe even the
occasional
> rat (not talking Dire Rat here), but exactly how much threat does a
> bunch of cats *really* present even to a group of 1st level
> adventurers?
I don't know...Have you ever been in even a play fight with a house
cat? My cat often stalks and attacks my hands. I regularly come away
with painful scratches and bites, and my cat isn't even trying hard.
If he really wanted to, he could rip my hand and arm to shreds.
Cats naturally come equipped with four paws (each loaded with 4 sharp
retractable claws) and a powerful bite. Once they grab onto their
target, they hold on and keep biting and raking with the rear claws.
They are fast, agile, and have a thin layer of natural armor (fur).
They can move silently and often attack from hiding. Sounds dangerous
to me, especially in numbers.
Hehe...thinking about this might just make me send some bad-tempered
cats up against my players...
-The Amethyst Dragon
http://www.geocities.com/theamethystdragon
Chris Campbell
>to be a suitable challenge for a party of 4 1st level adventurers. A
>pack of 12 housecats are even considered to be a suitable challenge for
>housecat might terrify the average mouse, and maybe even the occasional
>rat (not talking Dire Rat here), but exactly how much threat does a
>bunch of cats *really* present even to a group of 1st level
>housecats against a group of 4 3rd level adventurers? And then award
>those adventurers 900 XP when they defeat those cats? As far as I'm
>concerned, normal cats should have a challenge rating of 1/6 at best,
>and that's only because an ordinary rat is considered to have a CR of
>1/8 (which should probably be reduced to 1/10 anyway, IMO).
Hey, don't knock rats. I've known rats who could beat the snot out of
tomcats, and come out of the fight with nary a scratch. Some of those suckers
are *mean.*
--
Oh my God! They've killed Kosh! You bastards!
Chris Campbell Sank...@ix.netcom.com
Speaker Gilthas
Chris Campbell
>If they weren't so lazy and good natured (sort of), cats might have
>taken over the world by now.
I'll remind you that humans house them, feed them, and provide free medical
care for them. They *have* taken over the world. You just don't realize it.
Chris Campbell
>You do realize that a non tamed cat could kill a human easilly. I doubt an
>armored fellow, but still.
Not easily, no. It takes something the size of a bobcat to be a credible
threat. Bigger than that, and unarmored humans are in trouble.
>When not protected a cats claws and bite are HORRIBLY bad. DOnt say Im wrong
>because you've been scratched by your cat. They dont attack you full force
>when they are pissed. If the did the cat would be put down after you got out
>of the hospital :P
This is an exaggeration. Cats under twenty pounds or so are nasty, and I
wouldn't wanna deal with one, but short of dumb luck they're not a serious
threat to an unarmed human. This is not to say they're harmless -- far from
it. They can inflict some nasty wounds. But to say they can kill a human
easily -- well, it just isn't so. Real cats -- any of the pantherines, pumas,
bobcats and lynxes, caracals and servals and little cats of similar size --
are another matter, of course.
Chris Campbell
>I've seen the results of full force cat attacks (I mentioned it
>elsewhere), and they're never pretty...well, okay, the designs one cat
>carved on my cousins arms were kind of pretty...sort of like the glyphs
>in WW's Bastet sourcebook.
As a general rule of thumb, animal bites/scratches don't bother me. This
applies whether we're talking dogs, or birds, or snakes, or whatever. Unless
there's poison involved, or the wounding implement can do me serious harm (a
macaw's beak, for instance, which I learned to respect after nearly losing a
finger in Costa Rica), there's no real cause for concern.
Unless the offender is a cat.
Now, as I said to Gilthas, I'm skeptical about the ability of most small cats
to do *serious* harm to a full-grown, healthy human. But that aside, cat
scratches are . . . unpleasant. For me, a good chunk of that comes from the
fact that I'm severely allergic to the foul beasts, and hence any scratches I
receive get nice and infected at the drop of a hat. But it's also because
those claws are sharp and pointy. Gimme a snake any day of the week -- at
least they don't turn into shredding machines when they're annoyed!
Michael Cornish
the bite went to the bone and she didn't get it checked out for a few days.
The sheer fact that a cat bite can penetrate bone must count for
something....
"Sir Bob" <pr...@dlcwest.com> wrote in message
news:39f4e...@news.newsdudes.com...
> The Amethyst Dragon <theameth...@my-deja.com> wrote in
> message news:8t2jer$u8l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <8t2hv7$t71$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > green...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > Ok, I will admit that a common
> > > housecat might terrify the average mouse, and maybe even the
> > occasional
> > > rat (not talking Dire Rat here), but exactly how much threat
> does a
> > > bunch of cats *really* present even to a group of 1st level
> > > adventurers?
>
> Hmmm? Felines are the perfect land-based predator. Even a
> common housecat can *kill* a full-grown human if it attacks from
> hiding. There are records of it happening. Leap from behind,
> teeth to the neck, rip your juggular wide open.
>
> Sir Bob
>
> P.S. Nih!
>
>
Chris Campbell
>Chris Campbell <sank...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:8t32ng$6g0$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
>
>How little you know about cats.
With a few exceptions, I probably know more about cats than anyone on this
group. Comes with being a biologist specializing in large carnivores.
>Y'see, unlike other animals, cats' claws replace themselves with great
>frequency. A new claw is always growing beneath the current one, and when
>cats "sharpen" their claws, what they're really doing is shredding the
>dried husks of their old claws to let the new ones emerge.
This is actually fairly common. Sharks do it with their teeth, many rodents
and herbivores do the same. Other *predators* don't do it much, but that's
mostly because they use their teeth to kill -- and have the sense to either go
after big game in groups, or avoid it altogether.
>A newly-"sharpened" cats-claw is actually as sharp as a surgical
>scalpel; they can literally etch sheet metal, though they'd be
>significantly dulled in the process. Combine this with the fact
>that cats have muscular and skeletal structures that allow them
>to apply leverage all out of proportion to their size, and you
>have one nasty weapon. A common housecat could rip your trachea
>out with a single swipe of its paw.
Again, an exaggeration. Cats' claws aren't that useful for killing -- this is
why they don't use their claws to dispatch prey. Watch one in action
sometime; claws are used to find purchase on a prey animal, or to climb.
Teeth are used to kill, pretty much unilaterally.
Claws *are* used defensively, of course, but there's no real precision in
that. Mostly, they just flail about, and rely on the sharpness of their claws
to make them more trouble than they're worth for anything harassing them.
>So why don't they? Simple. In many ways, cats treat humans as
>they would other cats, and cats *never* apply their full strength
>or fully unsheathe their claws when fighting each other; that's
>why catfights don't turn into bloodbaths.
That, and they don't use their claws to kill. Wounds from claws *can* kill,
of course, but that's incidental. Generally speaking, claws aren't weapons.
Teeth are weapons; claws are tools.
Chris Campbell
>My mother nearly lost half her hand to a cat bite. Granted, it was because
>the bite went to the bone and she didn't get it checked out for a few days.
>The sheer fact that a cat bite can penetrate bone must count for
>something....
Cats' teeth are pretty fierce, it's true. Smaller carnivores, like
musteleids, match them, but I don't think anything beats them -- nothing
currently alive, anyway.
Rupert Boleyn
<j...@Xconnectria.com> wrote:
>Well, the thing with cats, is they are only really dangerous to an
>unarmored person, but if you are wearing a thick coat (like a winter
>one), they can't scratch or bite through it. Several layers of
>clothing works well too - both are good ideas if you ever have to give
>a cat a bath, or need to catch one (actually catching one is pretty
>much impossible if they are not hurt or something).
Unless you've got it cornered in your shed. BTW while a cat can't bite
through heavy clothes on your torso they can bite through very thick
gloves. My father once got bitten by a cat he was trying to extract
from a corner it was in, and the bite was through heavy leather
welding gloves.
>That doesn't really translate into D&D well, though. But they are
>actually pretty tough little critters.
They don;t do too well when someone in combat boots kicks them,
though.
--
Rupert Boleyn <rbo...@paradise.net.nz>
"Inside every cynic is a romantic trying to get out."
Rupert Boleyn
wrote:
>You do realize that a non tamed cat could kill a human easilly. I doubt an
Not of it did it to me - it'd be dead before I went to hospital. Cats
aren't very tough compared to boken, machetes or even leather boots.
Rupert Boleyn
Campbell) wrote:
>In article <39F4F96D...@teleport.com>, Marizhavashti Kali <xe...@teleport.com> wrote:
>>I've seen the results of full force cat attacks (I mentioned it
>>elsewhere), and they're never pretty...well, okay, the designs one cat
>>carved on my cousins arms were kind of pretty...sort of like the glyphs
>>in WW's Bastet sourcebook.
>
>As a general rule of thumb, animal bites/scratches don't bother me. This
>applies whether we're talking dogs, or birds, or snakes, or whatever. Unless
>there's poison involved, or the wounding implement can do me serious harm (a
>macaw's beak, for instance, which I learned to respect after nearly losing a
>finger in Costa Rica), there's no real cause for concern.
Watch dog bites, too. They tend to be deep and dogs generally have
pretty filthy mouths. They also have long teeth and can mess up a
hands operation from only one bite because of the depth of the
punctures.
Rupert Boleyn
wrote:
>So why don't they? Simple. In many ways, cats treat humans as
>they would other cats, and cats *never* apply their full strength
>or fully unsheathe their claws when fighting each other; that's
>why catfights don't turn into bloodbaths.
Yes they do. My parents bred cats, and when stray toms turned up
there'd be blood-baths alright.
Chris Campbell
>enough to let that boot get in range; a wild cat won't give you
>the chance.
A wild cat will run like hell as soon as it hears you. Hell, even large cats
tend to avoid humans (though some, like tigers, leopards, and the occasional
lion are bolder than most).
Chris Campbell
Sure, but they have to be *really* mad to bite you that hard. Now, granted,
dogs can exert absolutely tremendous pressure via their jaws -- in fact, some
can't be made to let go once they've latched on, and will hold their grip
until they care to let go or are forcibly removed by tools or a number of
other people. But it takes a seriously pissed dog to make a bite like that,
and they need a really good position to latch on like that.
Damage from cat claws, OTOH, is more incidental, and their bites are more
likely to cause wounds. As in most things, dogs have greater extremes
(harmless or really serious), while cats are consistently ouchy (but rarely
dangerous enough for real concern, at least with the smaller varieties).
Rupert Boleyn
Campbell) wrote:
>In article <39f51...@news.newsdudes.com>, "Sir Bob" <pr...@dlcwest.com> wrote:
>>If you could lay a finger on the sucker. Tame cats are trusting
>>enough to let that boot get in range; a wild cat won't give you
>>the chance.
>
>A wild cat will run like hell as soon as it hears you. Hell, even large cats
>tend to avoid humans (though some, like tigers, leopards, and the occasional
>lion are bolder than most).
Yeah. They eat humans from time to time.
Chris Campbell
>Chris Campbell <sank...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> Again, an exaggeration. Cats' claws aren't that useful for
>> killing -- this is why they don't use their claws to dispatch prey.
>> Watch one in action sometime; claws are used to find purchase on a prey
>> animal, or to climb. Teeth are used to kill, pretty much unilaterally.
>
>swipe at your juggular. No? Thought so.
It wouldn't matter, because the thing can't aim for shit. I wouldn't let a
cat's *teeth* anywhere near my jugular, but with claws I'd be more concerned
with a random swipe nailing me. If the bugger meant me harm he wouldn't be
swiping at my throat -- he's be digging his claws into my chest as he tried to
*bite* my throat.
>(And FYI, I have *seen* a cat's claws etch sheet metal. Involved
>my cat slowly sliding off the roof of an unpainted metal shed.
>The sound was incredible. And the marks are *still there*).
Sure. Cats are hypercarnivores, and their claws are well-adapted to that
lifestyle. That doesn't mean wildcats (the critters which gave rise to
domestics) are terribly dangerous. I'd fear a feral dog before I'd fear them,
because the dog has jaws that can crush bone. Cats try to slice and dice, and
unless they get a lucky shot they'll be dispatched before they do any real
harm.
Chris Campbell
>On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 05:23:53 GMT, sank...@ix.netcom.com (Chris
>Campbell) wrote:
>>A wild cat will run like hell as soon as it hears you. Hell, even large cats
>>tend to avoid humans (though some, like tigers, leopards, and the occasional
>>lion are bolder than most).
>
>Yeah. They eat humans from time to time.
Not so much lions (notable exceptions to the contrary), but leopards have a
pretty high kill rate, and tigers kill a *lot* of people -- they are, in
fact, responsible for more human deaths than any other mammal, killing some
100 people per year in India alone. This makes tiger conservation a bitch --
kinda hard to get people to conserve something that eats them on occasion,
y'know? It also puts tigers in a unique situation -- the number of people
killed by tigers annually actually *exceeds* the number of tigers killed by
people. If you know anything about conservation, you know this is *weird.*
Tigers, very dangerous. Handle with care. Housecats, harmless. Punt at
will.
j
the _outback_ for anyone from overseas ;)) but if you have you'd know about
feral cats. While on a field trip to a place called Millstream in North
Western Australia (Pilbara Region) i once saw three feral cats that came up
to my knee at their shoulders...would've scared the crap out of me if i
wasn't returning from the dunny (outhouse) already... in the middle of a
National Park...at night... in what equates to a jungle in the middle of a
desert ....scarey shit...i ran like hell...
now...i don't care how tough you are...in the right circumstances cats can
surprise you...and hence are a threat...in D&D terms...six feral cats
(domestic type cats that have been born in the wild and bred there over
generations) are a pretty good match for a bunch of 1st level weaklings...
in 3e perhaps not..given the feats and chunkified nature of pcs...but a
feral cat might even equate to a dire pussy cat...in a lot of ways...thats
scarey..heheh look out players....anyone read the Lovecraft story about hte
town that had a rule about not killing cats....
hrmmm interesting.... dire pussy cats... hehehe
<green...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8t2hv7$t71$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Has anyone else noticed that a common housecat is considered to have a
> challenge rating of 1/4? That means a group of 4 of them are considered
> to be a suitable challenge for a party of 4 1st level adventurers. A
> pack of 12 housecats are even considered to be a suitable challenge for
> a group of 3rd level adventurers. Ok, I will admit that a common
> housecat might terrify the average mouse, and maybe even the occasional
> rat (not talking Dire Rat here), but exactly how much threat does a
> bunch of cats *really* present even to a group of 1st level
> adventurers? And would any DM in his or her right mind send even 12
> housecats against a group of 4 3rd level adventurers? And then award
> those adventurers 900 XP when they defeat those cats? As far as I'm
> concerned, normal cats should have a challenge rating of 1/6 at best,
> and that's only because an ordinary rat is considered to have a CR of
> 1/8 (which should probably be reduced to 1/10 anyway, IMO).
>
>
Julian Mensch
life. I just thought I'd share an anecdote from an RPG. In a
Vampire game, I once had a /very/ tough character who decided
to declare one-man war on the Sabbat. No, I'm not joking. He
could take out Sabbat packs single-handed - say, an 12th level
vampire fighter, in D&D terms. Anyway, you know what the
Sabbat (a vampire political group) finally used to bring him
down?
A pack of fifty feral cats that had been fed vampire blood
(that basically makes them dire animals), controlled by a
vampire with animal-control powers. I'm not joking. It wasn't
a joke game or a joke scene. Being in a modern setting, the
badass had no armor, and a katana can only take out so many
rabid alleycats before you go *splonk*... :)
-- Julian Mensch
Rupert Boleyn
Campbell) wrote:
>>Watch dog bites, too. They tend to be deep and dogs generally have
>>pretty filthy mouths. They also have long teeth and can mess up a
>>hands operation from only one bite because of the depth of the
>>punctures.
>
>Sure, but they have to be *really* mad to bite you that hard. Now, granted,
>dogs can exert absolutely tremendous pressure via their jaws -- in fact, some
>can't be made to let go once they've latched on, and will hold their grip
>until they care to let go or are forcibly removed by tools or a number of
>other people. But it takes a seriously pissed dog to make a bite like that,
>and they need a really good position to latch on like that.
Actually I was speaking from experience - our dog bit me while aiming
for another dog. One of his canines went into the top of my hand just
inside the bone that supports the little finger - no big deal, though
it went over half way through my hand. However another canine went
into the underside of my wrist, between two of the major tendons
there, just missing cutting both. It also just missed a couple of
veins and several nerves. Despite not having done any lasting harm the
shock to my hand was sufficient to stop it having any grip strength
for several hours. The dog only weighs about 40 lbs, BTW. If he'd been
serious and had shaken my hand instead of realeasing it immediately
I'd have had a seriously messed up hand from that one bite.
Rupert Boleyn
Campbell) wrote:
>Tigers, very dangerous. Handle with care. Housecats, harmless. Punt at
>will.
But watch it if you're fragile of bone - my grandfather broke a toe
kicking a solid tom once.
Sea Wasp
> now...i don't care how tough you are...in the right circumstances cats can
> surprise you...and hence are a threat...in D&D terms...six feral cats
> (domestic type cats that have been born in the wild and bred there over
> generations) are a pretty good match for a bunch of 1st level weaklings...
I have just three words for you.
Arduin. Kill Kittens.
Ahhh, what sweet words they are, too.
--
Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.html
/^\
;;; _Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at
http://www.hyperbooks.com/catalog/20040.html
Tetsubo
> I have just three words for you.
>
> Arduin. Kill Kittens.
>
> Ahhh, what sweet words they are, too.
Oh that's beautiful! I haven't thought of those beasties in years! You made my day Sea
Wasp. :)
--
Tetsubo
--------------------------------------
"I surmise that your basement is made of skin and is never depleted of nurses."
The Surrealist Compliment Generator
http://www.madsci.org/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/~lynn/jardin/SCG
Chris Campbell
>On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 05:28:24 GMT, sank...@ix.netcom.com (Chris
>Campbell) wrote:
>>Sure, but they have to be *really* mad to bite you that hard. Now, granted,
>>dogs can exert absolutely tremendous pressure via their jaws -- in fact, some
>>can't be made to let go once they've latched on, and will hold their grip
>>until they care to let go or are forcibly removed by tools or a number of
>>other people. But it takes a seriously pissed dog to make a bite like that,
>>and they need a really good position to latch on like that.
>
>for another dog.
Holy Christ, you got into the middle of a dogfight? You're lucky a nip on the
hand is all you got!
>One of his canines went into the top of my hand just
>inside the bone that supports the little finger - no big deal, though
>it went over half way through my hand. However another canine went
>into the underside of my wrist, between two of the major tendons
>there, just missing cutting both. It also just missed a couple of
>veins and several nerves. Despite not having done any lasting harm the
>shock to my hand was sufficient to stop it having any grip strength
>for several hours.
That's true for any serious trauma, btw. I say that as a person highly
skilled at self-injury . . .
>The dog only weighs about 40 lbs, BTW. If he'd been serious and had shaken my
>hand instead of realeasing it immediately I'd have had a seriously messed up
>hand from that one bite.
Yeah, you were definitely pretty lucky there. Most dogfights aren't really
serious (for the dogs), but you still don't wanna get in the middle of them.
Yowch.
Chris Campbell
>On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 05:45:24 GMT, sank...@ix.netcom.com (Chris
>Campbell) wrote:
>>Tigers, very dangerous. Handle with care. Housecats, harmless. Punt at
>>will.
>
>kicking a solid tom once.
Fair point. Also, proper foot position is essential. :-)
S. Delerme
wrote:
>
>
>Sir Bob wrote:
>>
>> Hmmm? Felines are the perfect land-based predator. Even a
>> common housecat can *kill* a full-grown human if it attacks from
>> hiding. There are records of it happening. Leap from behind,
>> teeth to the neck, rip your juggular wide open.
>
>I've heard of it happening during "play" as well.
"ripping your jugular" is unlikely
1) to happen
2) to kill you
Ripping your carotid artery is still unlikely but in the absence of modern
surgery will probably kill you
I still have difficulties imagining a housecat doing this (a wild cat maybe)
but it is a fact that almost anything *can* happen
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> Sea Wasp wrote:
>
> > I have just three words for you.
> >
> > Arduin. Kill Kittens.
> >
> > Ahhh, what sweet words they are, too.
>
> Oh that's beautiful! I haven't thought of those beasties in years! You made my day Sea
> Wasp. :)
For real fun let the party walk into a kennel full of
Kill Kitties and Blast Puppies...
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> On 24 Oct 2000 02:18:53 GMT, speaker...@aol.com (Speaker Gilthas)
> wrote:
>
> >You do realize that a non tamed cat could kill a human easilly. I doubt an
> >armored fellow, but still. When not protected a cats claws and bite are
> >HORRIBLY bad. DOnt say Im wrong because you've been scratched by your cat. They
> >dont attack you full force when they are pissed. If the did the cat would be
> >put down after you got out of the hospital :P
>
> Not of it did it to me - it'd be dead before I went to hospital. Cats
> aren't very tough compared to boken, machetes or even leather boots.
Or being stepped on and trampled by 150+ lbs...
Xeno
>Has anyone else noticed that a common housecat is considered to have a
>challenge rating of 1/4? That means a group of 4 of them are considered
>to be a suitable challenge for a party of 4 1st level adventurers. A
>pack of 12 housecats are even considered to be a suitable challenge for
>a group of 3rd level adventurers. Ok, I will admit that a common
>housecat might terrify the average mouse, and maybe even the occasional
>rat (not talking Dire Rat here), but exactly how much threat does a
>bunch of cats *really* present even to a group of 1st level
>adventurers? And would any DM in his or her right mind send even 12
>housecats against a group of 4 3rd level adventurers? And then award
>those adventurers 900 XP when they defeat those cats? As far as I'm
>concerned, normal cats should have a challenge rating of 1/6 at best,
>and that's only because an ordinary rat is considered to have a CR of
>1/8 (which should probably be reduced to 1/10 anyway, IMO).
Perhaps they are the sort of vicious pointy-toothed cat-beasts you
encounter when you try to give normal house-cats a bath. ;)
Dave
Sea Wasp wrote:
> ...
>
> I have just three words for you.
>
> Arduin. Kill Kittens.
>
> Ahhh, what sweet words they are, too.
>
Ahhh yes. That does bring back the memories. (Nightmares at that). Slightly OT for this
thread though, I wonder what the Arduin Star Spyder looks like for D20/ 3E.
Certic
The Amethyst Dragon <theameth...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8t2jer$u8l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8t2hv7$t71$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> green...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > housecat might terrify the average mouse, and maybe even the
> occasional
> > rat (not talking Dire Rat here), but exactly how much threat does a
> > bunch of cats *really* present even to a group of 1st level
> > adventurers?
>
> cat? My cat often stalks and attacks my hands. I regularly come away
> with painful scratches and bites, and my cat isn't even trying hard.
> If he really wanted to, he could rip my hand and arm to shreds.
--------
Right, so a cat can do perhaps 1 or 2 points of damage in DnD terms, but how
many instances are there of people being savaged to death by cats?
--
You are not entering Chapeltown.
We walk on two legs, the one abstract
the other surreal.
Certic
Marizhavashti Kali <xe...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:39F4E670...@teleport.com...
>
>
> Sir Bob wrote:
> >
> > Hmmm? Felines are the perfect land-based predator. Even a
> > common housecat can *kill* a full-grown human if it attacks from
> > hiding. There are records of it happening. Leap from behind,
> > teeth to the neck, rip your juggular wide open.
>
> I've heard of it happening during "play" as well.
and you can trip over a loose flagstone, split your head open and die as
well. Perhaps going to the shops should be worth 900XP.
Gadgetfan
green...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Has anyone else noticed that a common housecat is considered to have a
> challenge rating of 1/4? That means a group of 4 of them are considered
> to be a suitable challenge for a party of 4 1st level adventurers. A
> pack of 12 housecats are even considered to be a suitable challenge for
> a group of 3rd level adventurers. Ok, I will admit that a common
> housecat might terrify the average mouse, and maybe even the occasional
> rat (not talking Dire Rat here), but exactly how much threat does a
> bunch of cats *really* present even to a group of 1st level
> adventurers? And would any DM in his or her right mind send even 12
> housecats against a group of 4 3rd level adventurers? And then award
> those adventurers 900 XP when they defeat those cats? As far as I'm
> concerned, normal cats should have a challenge rating of 1/6 at best,
> and that's only because an ordinary rat is considered to have a CR of
> 1/8 (which should probably be reduced to 1/10 anyway, IMO).
This shows that your experience is limited to house tabbies and scrawny
timid strays...a well fed outdoor-cat in a genuine combat situation (such
as defending an intrusion against its litter can (and has) put people in
the hospital with serious injuries. Normally, they should be _no_ Cr (= no
XP, period), but they are capable of inflicting real injury...best to use
the stated CR for them when they are magically controlled to attack, or
those (very rare) cases where they would actually seriously attack
something the size of a PC.
Gadgetfan
Sir Bob wrote:
have one nasty weapon. A common housecat could rip your trachea
> out with a single swipe of its paw.
>
> So why don't they? Simple. In many ways, cats treat humans as
> they would other cats, and cats *never* apply their full strength
> or fully unsheathe their claws when fighting each other; that's
> why catfights don't turn into bloodbaths.
_Almost_ never...the best cat I ever owned died from horrific injuries
caused by a cat that was psychotic from previous mistreatment (yes,
animals are subject to psychosis..at least the higher mammals...)
Gadgetfan
not. A cat that is actually attacking to kill can be truly hellacious; my
grandmother once owned a cat that would chase away full grown dogs,
including Dobermans (no exagerration or joke!)
Rupert Boleyn wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 20:46:34 -0500, "Jeremy Reaban"
> <j...@Xconnectria.com> wrote:
>
> >Well, the thing with cats, is they are only really dangerous to an
> >unarmored person, but if you are wearing a thick coat (like a winter
> >one), they can't scratch or bite through it. Several layers of
> >clothing works well too - both are good ideas if you ever have to give
> >a cat a bath, or need to catch one (actually catching one is pretty
> >much impossible if they are not hurt or something).
>
> Unless you've got it cornered in your shed. BTW while a cat can't bite
> through heavy clothes on your torso they can bite through very thick
> gloves. My father once got bitten by a cat he was trying to extract
> from a corner it was in, and the bite was through heavy leather
> welding gloves.
>
> >That doesn't really translate into D&D well, though. But they are
> >actually pretty tough little critters.
>
> They don;t do too well when someone in combat boots kicks them,
> though.
S. Delerme
>You do realize that a non tamed cat could kill a human easilly. I doubt an
>armored fellow, but still. When not protected a cats claws and bite are
>HORRIBLY bad.
Would you care and entertain us by describing how ONE cat would "easily" kill
a man
Killing a man is not an easy feat when he weights about 5 to 10 times your
weight and has no easily reachable organ that can get him killed (unless your
cat can tear his neck out in which case I have some news for you : it is not
a cat but a tiger (and yes, you'd better run)
Defigurate and scratch badly I agree, kill...
S. Delerme
>have one nasty weapon. A common housecat could rip your trachea
>out with a single swipe of its paw.
>
Get real
I am an anesthetist and can tell you, ripping someone's throat out with one
single swipe from a scalpel is hard enough when the patient is under
anesthesia, let alone if he is actively defending himself (not that I make an
usual business of ripping patients' trachea, mind you)
Luke Goaman-Dodson
green...@my-deja.com wrote in the log:
> Has anyone else noticed that a common housecat is considered to have a
> challenge rating of 1/4? That means a group of 4 of them are considered
> to be a suitable challenge for a party of 4 1st level adventurers. A
> pack of 12 housecats are even considered to be a suitable challenge for
> a group of 3rd level adventurers. Ok, I will admit that a common
> housecat might terrify the average mouse, and maybe even the occasional
> rat (not talking Dire Rat here), but exactly how much threat does a
> bunch of cats *really* present even to a group of 1st level
> adventurers? And would any DM in his or her right mind send even 12
> housecats against a group of 4 3rd level adventurers? And then award
> those adventurers 900 XP when they defeat those cats? As far as I'm
> concerned, normal cats should have a challenge rating of 1/6 at best,
> and that's only because an ordinary rat is considered to have a CR of
> 1/8 (which should probably be reduced to 1/10 anyway, IMO).
<cough, cough>
You don't have a cat, do you?
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
> Housecats, harmless. Punt at
> will.
Not to mention that some 14-15 of them will give you your next level,
Soloing 1st Level Fighter. :-)
--
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen <to...@chello.no>
So the fruits of your labors have fermented into wine
And the sweat that was dripped is now the honey of the hive
- Clutch: High Caliber Consecrator
jere7my tho?rpe
*green...@my-deja.com wrote in the log:
*
*> Has anyone else noticed that a common housecat is considered to have a
*> challenge rating of 1/4?
The thing that gets me is that a first-level fighter is about on
par with ten ordinary toads (CR 1/10).
----j7y
--
*********************************** <*> ***********************************
jere7my tho?rpe / 734-769-0913 "Oh, yeah. Old guys becoming pandas --
c/o kesh...@umich.edu _that's_ the future." Mike Nelson, MST3K
Rupert Boleyn
Campbell) wrote:
>Holy Christ, you got into the middle of a dogfight? You're lucky a nip on the
>hand is all you got!
It wasn't a dog fight when I grabbed the other dog. It only turned
into one when our dog turned up and charged the intruder, which I was
in the process of picking up so I could remove him before this
happened. I was a little slow, though.
The funny things is that when I came back from the clinic after
getting my hand taped up (it was quite spooky looking at the hole in
my wrist, as I could see all these important bits that had just been
missed by the slimmest margin) the our dog went and hid. He was
clearly expecting to get in trouble for biting me, even though it was
an accident.
>>The dog only weighs about 40 lbs, BTW. If he'd been serious and had shaken my
>>hand instead of realeasing it immediately I'd have had a seriously messed up
>>hand from that one bite.
>
>Yeah, you were definitely pretty lucky there. Most dogfights aren't really
>serious (for the dogs), but you still don't wanna get in the middle of them.
>Yowch.
No kidding. Usually we grabbed the dogs by their hind legs and pulled
them apart (with the liberal application of a boken sometimes).
Marizhavashti Kali
Sea Wasp wrote:
>
> Arduin. Kill Kittens.
> Ahhh, what sweet words they are, too.
This isn't disagreement - I just want to know why *everywhere* I go
lately someone has to mention Kill Kittens.
--
Deird'Re M. Brooks | xe...@teleport.com | cam#9309026
Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
"Atlantic City is Oz envisioned by used car salesmen and pimps."
http://www.teleport.com/~xenya | --Rick Glumsky, Celtic Filth
Chris Campbell
>On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 13:54:26 GMT, sank...@ix.netcom.com (Chris
>Campbell) wrote:
>>Holy Christ, you got into the middle of a dogfight? You're lucky a nip on the
>>hand is all you got!
>
>It wasn't a dog fight when I grabbed the other dog. It only turned
>into one when our dog turned up and charged the intruder, which I was
>in the process of picking up so I could remove him before this
>happened. I was a little slow, though.
Ah. I see the difficulty.
>The funny things is that when I came back from the clinic after
>getting my hand taped up (it was quite spooky looking at the hole in
>my wrist, as I could see all these important bits that had just been
>missed by the slimmest margin) the our dog went and hid. He was
>clearly expecting to get in trouble for biting me, even though it was
>an accident.
Sure. You're the head of his pack, and he knew he screwed up. Yes, it was an
accident, but he'd done you harm, and he remembered that. Dogs have a
terrific sense of cause and effect, and this means they know when they've
screwed up (it also means they know how to punish their owners when *they*
screw up).
>>Yeah, you were definitely pretty lucky there. Most dogfights aren't really
>>serious (for the dogs), but you still don't wanna get in the middle of them.
>>Yowch.
>
>No kidding. Usually we grabbed the dogs by their hind legs and pulled
>them apart (with the liberal application of a boken sometimes).
Heh. That works, so long as you're quick. :-)
Steve Miller
<< I've seen the results of full force cat attacks (I mentioned it
elsewhere), and they're never pretty... >>
I have scars on my arms from *playful* cats. My arms
Interesting fact: House cats have always been lethal in D&D and AD&D. Try
pitting a 1st-ed cat against a 1st-level 1st-ed Wizard made strictly by the
rules.
My money would be on the house cat coming out alive and the Wizard being dead
on the ground. So, D&D Third Edition is true to the spirit that has been
present in the game from the beginning. :)
Steve Miller
Writer of Stuff
--
Dolphins Evolve Opposable Thumbs
'Oh, Shit,' Says Humanity
http://www.theonion.com/onion3630/dolphins_evolve_thumbs.html
Chris Campbell
>> Arduin. Kill Kittens.
>> Ahhh, what sweet words they are, too.
>
>This isn't disagreement - I just want to know why *everywhere* I go
>lately someone has to mention Kill Kittens.
If it makes you feel any better, I don't even know what they are. :-)
Marizhavashti Kali
Certic wrote:
>
> > I've heard of it happening during "play" as well.
> --------
> and you can trip over a loose flagstone, split your head open and die as
> well. Perhaps going to the shops should be worth 900XP.
Where did you learn math?
Marizhavashti Kali
Certic wrote:
>
> Right, so a cat can do perhaps 1 or 2 points of damage in DnD terms, but how
> many instances are there of people being savaged to death by cats?
One immediately comes to mind.
Martin Leslie Leuschen
: Hmmm? Felines are the perfect land-based predator.
Nope. Humans are the top LBP in RL, and even they're not
perfect. Cats are lower than that. Dogs are competitive
with cats, as are bears and weasels.
Feline is a good design, but not perfect.
As for housecat vs. human, I'll bet on the human, even if
you take away the human's tools. Lynx vs. human would be
more even. Mountain lion vs. human goes to the cat, unless
you give the human its tools back.
Ofc, in D&D3, *PCs* are the ultimate LBP. :)
IMHO
martinl
Rupert Boleyn
Campbell) wrote:
>In article <39F605BC...@teleport.com>, Marizhavashti Kali <xe...@teleport.com> wrote:
>>> Arduin. Kill Kittens.
>>> Ahhh, what sweet words they are, too.
>>
>>This isn't disagreement - I just want to know why *everywhere* I go
>>lately someone has to mention Kill Kittens.
>
>If it makes you feel any better, I don't even know what they are. :-)
Nor do I, but I was imagining those things in George R. R. Martin's
Tuf stories. Hell Kittens, was it?
Chris Campbell
>On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 22:00:04 GMT, sank...@ix.netcom.com (Chris
>Campbell) wrote:
>>Sure. You're the head of his pack, and he knew he screwed up. Yes, it was an
>>accident, but he'd done you harm, and he remembered that. Dogs have a
>>terrific sense of cause and effect, and this means they know when they've
>>screwed up (it also means they know how to punish their owners when *they*
>>screw up).
>
>had cats (lots of cats), and no dogs, and I've always liked cats.
>However since living with a dog I've come to the conclusion that I'd
>probably rather have a dog than a cat if I had to make the choice
>between them. This would definately be the case if I had children, as
>a good dog is such a wonderful thing to have with your kids. If
>nothing else you know that nobody's going to get near them as long as
>the dog's alive.
Absolutely. Dogs are perfect companions, because they understand the rules of
relationships and generally abide by them. They know what they can do, and
they know how to behave themselves. Cats . . . well, cats do what they want,
and if that happens to coincide with what you want, great. If not, tough. As
such, they're bad pets, unless you happen to want what they want. Dogs,
however, can be trained to get along with those who don't necessarily agree
with them. Clever beasts.
James Garvin
> It's one of the great things about dogs. I grew up in a family that
> had cats (lots of cats), and no dogs, and I've always liked cats.
> However since living with a dog I've come to the conclusion that I'd
> probably rather have a dog than a cat if I had to make the choice
> between them. This would definately be the case if I had children, as
> a good dog is such a wonderful thing to have with your kids. If
> nothing else you know that nobody's going to get near them as long as
> the dog's alive.
I donno. I have an attack cat. Not only does he keep the stray dogs and cats
away, but he will also attack anybody that is messing with my wife or I. I was
wrestling with a friend of mine and my cat attacked him.....Happened on other
occasions too...
My cat has attacked anything from a small cat to a large dog. He has really taken
care of all the stray dogs in the area...
--
James Garvin
bo...@nmt.edu
(505) 835-6277
Computer Science Major
New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology
http://www.cs.nmt.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------
ITV WebMaster:
http://www.nmt.edu/~itv
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN BOOT'S GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/B/H !d s+:+@ a? C++>++++ UL++ P++ L++>++++ E++ W-@ N++ o+ K---
w--- O- M-- V-- PS+ PE++ Y-- PGP t+(++) 5-- X++ R++>$ tv b++>++++
DI+++ D++ G e*>+++ h--- r+++ y+++ A09 H+++>* P+++
------END BOOT'S GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Rupert Boleyn
Campbell) wrote:
>Absolutely. Dogs are perfect companions, because they understand the rules of
>relationships and generally abide by them. They know what they can do, and
>they know how to behave themselves. Cats . . . well, cats do what they want,
>and if that happens to coincide with what you want, great. If not, tough. As
>such, they're bad pets, unless you happen to want what they want.
They do make fine rodent control technicians, however. The trick is to
avoid overfeeding them, otherwise they'll only take the mice, which is
no good on a farm where there are rats.
Rupert Boleyn
Campbell) wrote:
>Sure. You're the head of his pack, and he knew he screwed up. Yes, it was an
>accident, but he'd done you harm, and he remembered that. Dogs have a
>terrific sense of cause and effect, and this means they know when they've
>screwed up (it also means they know how to punish their owners when *they*
>screw up).
It's one of the great things about dogs. I grew up in a family that
had cats (lots of cats), and no dogs, and I've always liked cats.
However since living with a dog I've come to the conclusion that I'd
probably rather have a dog than a cat if I had to make the choice
between them. This would definately be the case if I had children, as
a good dog is such a wonderful thing to have with your kids. If
nothing else you know that nobody's going to get near them as long as
the dog's alive.
--
Chris Campbell
>Sir Bob (pr...@dlcwest.com) wrote:
>: Hmmm? Felines are the perfect land-based predator.
>
>Nope. Humans are the top LBP in RL, and even they're not
>perfect. Cats are lower than that. Dogs are competitive
>with cats, as are bears and weasels.
Not really. Humans are no match for much of anything without tech; one can
argue that their brains are their adaptation, but in terms of raw capability
they're pretty pathetic. Dogs fall *way* short of cats in terms of killing
ability; that's why they hunt in packs. Bears do alright, but they're not
really predators -- they're omnivores, and they don't outperform cats when it
comes to killing. Weasels, OTOH, are as supremely adapted to killing as cats
are -- just on a smaller scale.
>Feline is a good design, but not perfect.
It's as close to perfect as you can get using evolution as your mechanism of
change. Pound for pound, cats are the most efficient land predators on the
planet.
>As for housecat vs. human, I'll bet on the human, even if
>you take away the human's tools. Lynx vs. human would be
>more even. Mountain lion vs. human goes to the cat, unless
>you give the human its tools back.
Lynx vs. human goes to the cat as well, most of the time. For larger cats,
fights are even if humans have primative tools (i.e., spears and such).
Otherwise, the humans don't have a prayer.
>Ofc, in D&D3, *PCs* are the ultimate LBP. :)
Only with their gear, and time to use their spiffy abilities.
Rupert Boleyn
wrote:
>Sir Bob (pr...@dlcwest.com) wrote:
>
>: Hmmm? Felines are the perfect land-based predator.
>
>Nope. Humans are the top LBP in RL, and even they're not
>perfect. Cats are lower than that. Dogs are competitive
>with cats, as are bears and weasels.
>
>Feline is a good design, but not perfect.
>
>As for housecat vs. human, I'll bet on the human, even if
>you take away the human's tools. Lynx vs. human would be
>more even. Mountain lion vs. human goes to the cat, unless
>you give the human its tools back.
>
>Ofc, in D&D3, *PCs* are the ultimate LBP. :)
I don't think PCs are predators, so much as a natural disaster, like a
column of soldier ants if if you can't move out of their way.
Rupert Boleyn
<b.e...@tyndale.apana.org.au> wrote:
>I am used to Labradors, which can't develop the jaw pressure to make
>more than a scratch, and are averse from biting anyway.
I've seen pretty decent bites from a Lab. It's true that they don't
like biting like that, though.
Rupert Boleyn
Campbell) wrote:
>In article <8t5255$rob$2...@joe.rice.edu>, mar...@rice.edu (Martin Leslie Leuschen) wrote:
>>Sir Bob (pr...@dlcwest.com) wrote:
>>: Hmmm? Felines are the perfect land-based predator.
>>
>>Nope. Humans are the top LBP in RL, and even they're not
>>perfect. Cats are lower than that. Dogs are competitive
>>with cats, as are bears and weasels.
>
>Not really. Humans are no match for much of anything without tech; one can
>argue that their brains are their adaptation, but in terms of raw capability
>they're pretty pathetic. Dogs fall *way* short of cats in terms of killing
>ability; that's why they hunt in packs. Bears do alright, but they're not
>really predators -- they're omnivores, and they don't outperform cats when it
>comes to killing. Weasels, OTOH, are as supremely adapted to killing as cats
>are -- just on a smaller scale.
I'd say wolverines are pretty good, too.
James Kiley
>Try pitting a 1st-ed cat against a 1st-level 1st-ed Wizard made strictly
>by the rules.
I'm painfully allergic to cats. The idea of Magic Missiling the family cat
through an open window is so cathartic it's scary.
jk
lizard
>
> Sea Wasp wrote:
> >
> > Arduin. Kill Kittens.
> > Ahhh, what sweet words they are, too.
>
> This isn't disagreement - I just want to know why *everywhere* I go
> lately someone has to mention Kill Kittens.
>
One possible answer, though, it that 3e is having a large 'nostalgia'
effect on gamers, and us first-gen gamers often have fond (and
frightening) Arduin memories.
lizard
>
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 22:13:12 GMT, sank...@ix.netcom.com (Chris
> Campbell) wrote:
>
> >In article <39F605BC...@teleport.com>, Marizhavashti Kali <xe...@teleport.com> wrote:
> >>> Arduin. Kill Kittens.
> >>> Ahhh, what sweet words they are, too.
> >>
> >>This isn't disagreement - I just want to know why *everywhere* I go
> >>lately someone has to mention Kill Kittens.
> >
>
> Nor do I, but I was imagining those things in George R. R. Martin's
> Tuf stories. Hell Kittens, was it?
Based on the timing, and Martins other geek references (The Claremontine
Wind Rider), I think he was inspired by Arduin. That, or it was a case
of simultaneous creation, hardly an impossibility. But I'm pretty sure
Martin was/is a gamer, since the Wild Cards novels began as a Superworld
game, so the odds of him being at least familair with Hargrave's work is
high.
(Please note:This isn't an accusation of a 'rip off'. All authors swipe
from other authors, and a clever tribute is NOT a sign of a lack of
imagination.)
Marizhavashti Kali
Steve Miller wrote:
>
> I have scars on my arms from *playful* cats. My arms
I used to have "cat wrangling gear." A thick, cotton jacket thing with
long sleeves and zipped up to the collar, and thick gloves. The jacket
was such that cats could just latch on and hang off it without
penetrating the fabric. When you're dealing with several cats who like
to play *rough*, it's a necessity.
> Interesting fact: House cats have always been lethal in D&D and AD&D. Try
> pitting a 1st-ed cat against a 1st-level 1st-ed Wizard made strictly by the
> rules.
>
> My money would be on the house cat coming out alive and the Wizard being dead
> on the ground. So, D&D Third Edition is true to the spirit that has been
> present in the game from the beginning. :)
Very true. :-)
Marizhavashti Kali
Chris Campbell wrote:
>
> >This isn't disagreement - I just want to know why *everywhere* I go
> >lately someone has to mention Kill Kittens.
>
> If it makes you feel any better, I don't even know what they are. :-)
This is no surprise, as Sea Wasp has probably been gaming longer than
you've been alive. :-)
Kill Kittens are a horrible monster-trap presented in the Arduin
Grimoire. They look cute, fluffy and adorable, but if you pick them up
they try to carve a tunnel to your heart.
Arduin Grimoire was a series of digest-sized booklets - like the
original Traveller and D&D boxed sets, detailing Dave Hargrave's
gonzo-deadly fantasy world that was at least loosely based on D&D.
Arduin had classes and levels, but the level scale was a bit different -
and Dave had a thing for level-draining monsters. And gems in
characters' foreheads.
Stephenls
> katana
Tell me, did your character also wear a trenchcoat?
--
Stephenls
Geek
"Life without pain isn't real" -Isamu Dyson, Macross Plus
Marizhavashti Kali
Chris Campbell wrote:
>
> Absolutely. Dogs are perfect companions, because they understand the rules of
> relationships and generally abide by them. They know what they can do, and
> they know how to behave themselves. Cats . . . well, cats do what they want,
> and if that happens to coincide with what you want, great. If not, tough. As
> such, they're bad pets, unless you happen to want what they want. Dogs,
> however, can be trained to get along with those who don't necessarily agree
> with them. Clever beasts.
Interesting...these generalizations about cats tend not to be the case,
at least with cats I've had as pets - and I've had quite a few. They
also do not quite match what I've seen of other pet cats.
Marizhavashti Kali
lizard wrote:
>
> (Please note:This isn't an accusation of a 'rip off'. All authors swipe
> from other authors, and a clever tribute is NOT a sign of a lack of
> imagination.)
Handled well, clever tributes are quite fun. :-)
Marizhavashti Kali
lizard wrote:
>
> > This isn't disagreement - I just want to know why *everywhere* I go
> > lately someone has to mention Kill Kittens.
> >
> Uhm...where else have they been mentioned?
Well, in my day-to-day life that doesn't involve e-mail and electrons,
I'd have to say both gaming groups I participate in, and a few other
conversations hither and yon.
> One possible answer, though, it that 3e is having a large 'nostalgia'
> effect on gamers, and us first-gen gamers often have fond (and
> frightening) Arduin memories.
True, true.
I still fondly recall killing a sluggoth, although I suspect the DM was
soft.
Marizhavashti Kali
Chris Campbell wrote:
>
> That's true. Cats are tools who are occasionally personable.
I'm getting the impression, Chris, that you don't like cats much.
Marizhavashti Kali
Stephenls wrote:
>
> Julian Mensch wrote:
>
> > katana
>
> Tell me, did your character also wear a trenchcoat?
My character wears a trenchcoat and mirrorshades, but she does *not*
have a katana.
She does, however, have matched semiautomatic pistols.
So, apparently, my character sucks. I can live with this. :-)
Marizhavashti Kali
Chris Campbell wrote:
>
> Yes. Small cats are managable -- claws aside, a boot to the head will pretty
> much put them down for the count. Do that to a big cat, and he'll give you a
> mad look and tear your head off.
I thought he'd do it the other way around?
> >People domesticated the biggest dogs they could find... and the
> >smallest cats available :).
>
> Well, yeah. The biggest dogs were the most useful. More importantly, they
> were *friendly* if you got 'em as cubs. Cats just couldn't be fully
> domesticated, and so the bigger ones weren't worth the trouble. :-)
No, no, cats could be domesticated just fine. They couldn't be fully
*dominated*.
Marizhavashti Kali
Chris Campbell wrote:
>
> >This is no surprise, as Sea Wasp has probably been gaming longer than
> >you've been alive. :-)
>
> Quite possibly, but he hasn't been playing *D&D that long (which I can say
> with certainty because Gygax and co. came up with it years after I was born).
Ah, okay, then he hasn't been gaming that long. I misremembered you as
being younger.
> >Kill Kittens are a horrible monster-trap presented in the Arduin
> >Grimoire. They look cute, fluffy and adorable, but if you pick them up
> >they try to carve a tunnel to your heart.
>
> Oh. Sluggy Freelance's Kitten arc, IOW.
Yes, but twenty-plus years before Sluggy. :-)
> >Arduin Grimoire was a series of digest-sized booklets - like the
> >original Traveller and D&D boxed sets, detailing Dave Hargrave's
> >gonzo-deadly fantasy world that was at least loosely based on D&D.
> >Arduin had classes and levels, but the level scale was a bit different -
> >and Dave had a thing for level-draining monsters. And gems in
> >characters' foreheads.
>
> Ah. Okay, that explains much.
With any kind of luck, Emperor's Choice Games will get the D20 Arduin
books out within the next year and the joys of Killkittens and Phraints
can be revisited.
And Penion's Gardy Loo...there's an offensive spell if I ever saw one.
Marizhavashti Kali
Chris Campbell wrote:
>
> The short version: the generalizations hold, but that's all they are --
> generalizations. Exceptions, often on a large scale, are the nature of the
> beast.
Okay, thanks for clarifying your intent. I thought you were saying
something entirely different.
Marizhavashti Kali
Chris Campbell wrote:
>
> ones who go yip-yip-yip . . . yech. Gimme a mutt and I'm happy. As for cats
> . . well, they suffer from the "I'm fierce!" problem. They think they're
> cool, and people buy into it. Dogs don't do that. They think they're part of
> a group, and are humble accordingly (er, in general; I've known some that are
> very catlike in behavior, and vice versa).
How strange - I don't interpret feline behavior like that at all.
They're certainly playful, and most cats I've known have a sense of
empathy (and in some cases, behavior that's *extremely* easy to
anthropomorphize).
> I guess you could say that dogs are people I wanna know, and cats aren't. In
> general. Exceptions abound, as always.
Really? Dogs strike me more as yes-men and sycophants[1]. Okay, that's
extreme, but I'm just making a point. :-)
Allen Wessels
sank...@ix.netcom.com (Chris Campbell) wrote:
> Absolutely. Dogs are perfect companions, because they understand the
> rules of
> relationships and generally abide by them. They know what they can do,
> and
> they know how to behave themselves. Cats . . . well, cats do what they
> want,
> and if that happens to coincide with what you want, great. If not,
> tough. As
> such, they're bad pets, unless you happen to want what they want. Dogs,
> however, can be trained to get along with those who don't necessarily
> agree
> with them. Clever beasts.
Cats are just a bit more difficult to train. Both of mine have been
walked on a leash, albeit reluctantly. Both will tolerate a fair amount
of abuse and both understand what "no" means.
Dogs just test who the boss is a little less frequently.
I will admit that when one of mine is in lap seeking mode, "no" means
change to ultra-slow motion mode.
- Allen
Allen Wessels
sank...@ix.netcom.com (Chris Campbell) wrote:
> Experiences do vary, but it's pretty much incontrovertible that cats have
> never been fully domesticated, and are not as plastic in their behavior
> as
> dogs. There are many reasons for this, but the upshot is that dogs tend
> to be
> much more useful and reliable than cats. I don't mean this strictly in a
> pet
> sense -- I mean it in terms of the roles the animals fill in our culture.
>
> Dogs are pets, but they're also hunters, workers, and helpers. While
> individual cats might be any of these things, as a species they just
> aren't
> that reliable (hence the reason we don't have working cats, and hunting
> cats,
> and so on and so forth).
>
> The short version: the generalizations hold, but that's all they are --
> generalizations. Exceptions, often on a large scale, are the nature of
> the
> beast.
Arguably it is in the nature of humankind as a trainer. The real test
would be to see what the best trainers of each species can do.
- Allen
Mike Bruner
Varsil Savai wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 17:25:23 -0400, "jere7my tho?rpe"
> <kesh...@umich.edu> wrote:
>
> >*While oi was sailing ahn a poirate ship on 24/10/00 12:35 am, Cap'n
> >*green...@my-deja.com wrote in the log:
> >*
> >*> Has anyone else noticed that a common housecat is considered to have a
> >*> challenge rating of 1/4?
> >
> > The thing that gets me is that a first-level fighter is about on
> >par with ten ordinary toads (CR 1/10).
> >
> Heh! :).
Maybe it's because they assume 10 toads will be giving Con bonuses to 10
wizards as familiars? :)
--
Mike Bruner...@delaware.infi.net
"Yes, I am a servant of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial".
"No, Inigo Montoya, -I- am your father!"
Marizhavashti Kali
Allen Wessels wrote:
>
> Cats are just a bit more difficult to train. Both of mine have been
> walked on a leash, albeit reluctantly. Both will tolerate a fair amount
> of abuse and both understand what "no" means.
I once had a cat who could:
Play "catch."
Roll dice.
Use a pencil (she couldn't do better than make a small squiggle, tho)
She also enjoyed baths, but I explained why in another post.
> I will admit that when one of mine is in lap seeking mode, "no" means
> change to ultra-slow motion mode.
Heh. :-)
Marizhavashti Kali
Chris Campbell wrote:
>
> >No, no, cats could be domesticated just fine. They couldn't be fully
> >*dominated*.
>
> My dear, that's the very definition of "domesticated." We just don't like to
> admit it.
And here I thought it meant "learn how to live alongside humans without
too much fuss."
I should probably put it another way, as many cats of my past
acquaintance who were friendly and affectionate enough were very much
not tame.
Marizhavashti Kali
Chris Campbell wrote:
>
> >Ah, okay, then he hasn't been gaming that long. I misremembered you as
> >being younger.
>
> Oh, don't I wish. Grad school, remember? Fourth year, no less. I just
> turned 28, and I'm bitter.
Right, I forgot you were in *grad* school, which made me think you were
four years younger.
> >With any kind of luck, Emperor's Choice Games will get the D20 Arduin
> >books out within the next year and the joys of Killkittens and Phraints
> >can be revisited.
>
> Well, *that* could be fun. I still like the idea of a Tarrasque polymorphed
> into a kitten.
That is a terribly wrong thing to do.
> >And Penion's Gardy Loo...there's an offensive spell if I ever saw one.
>
> Er . . . okay. :-)
I could've lived my whole life without seeing spells used to conjure
chamberpots to dump on your enemies' heads.
Marizhavashti Kali
Chris Campbell wrote:
>
> >Okay, thanks for clarifying your intent. I thought you were saying
> >something entirely different.
>
> <Sigh> I have that problem a lot, it seems.
To be true to form, I should flame you here and keep it going until we
swear undying enmity. We could then killfile each other but scour
postings for quotes of ours, which we will then reply to with spite and
venom.
Or we could watch the original Escaflowne.
Marizhavashti Kali
Chris Campbell wrote:
>
> >Really? Dogs strike me more as yes-men and sycophants[1]. Okay, that's
> >extreme, but I'm just making a point. :-)
>
> Where's the footnote?
I moved the footnote into the main text, since I had nothing further to
add, or:
[1] Okay, that's extreme, but I'm just making a point. :-)
Marizhavashti Kali
Chris Campbell wrote:
>
> In article <39F64E68...@teleport.com>, Marizhavashti Kali <xe...@teleport.com> wrote:
> >She also enjoyed baths, but I explained why in another post.
>
> She enjoyed baths? I must have missed this; mind reiterating?
I found a dirty ivory colored cat outside the home who was literally
fleabitten and filthy. She was probably a month old - 6 weeks on the
outside. I brought her in and bathed her, only to see huge amounts of
reddish stuff wash out of her fur (and lots of fleas crawling on her).
It took several baths over three days along with flea powder that should
*not* be used on kittens that age to get everything[1] completely taken
care of. Afterward, because the other person in the household was
violently allergic to cats, I'd bathe her regularly to keep her "dander"
from getting bothersome. This, btw, worked much better than I'd
originally expected.
Anyway, she came to *expect* the baths and never fought when it was time
to get into the sink. She was usually opposed to anyone draining the
water and taking her out (and you had to take her out, she'd just sit
there and soak otherwise).
[1] The veterinarian said afterward that the fleas would've killed her
if we had not done this.
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> Rupert Boleyn wrote:
>
> > They do make fine rodent control technicians, however. The trick is to
> > avoid overfeeding them, otherwise they'll only take the mice, which is
> > no good on a farm where there are rats.
>
> People with experience of both tell me that carpet snakes (a kind of
> small python) are better at eliminating rats and mice than cats are.
IIRC, snakes don't view mice as "toys".
That helps...
(OK, properly that might be "chew toys", but...)
Marizhavashti Kali
Chris Campbell wrote:
>
> Yes. Many cats are very nice people -- but only so long as you're on their
> good side. But as you say, they are *not* tame, and can be dangerous when
> irritated.
Well, I've known several others who *were* tame. But the fact that the
not-tame cats were willing to be friendly and affectionate was
interesting.
Marizhavashti Kali
Chris Campbell wrote:
>
> >Right, I forgot you were in *grad* school, which made me think you were
> >four years younger.
>
> I like your impression of me better. May I borrow it?
Go for it.
> >> Well, *that* could be fun. I still like the idea of a Tarrasque polymorphed
> >> into a kitten.
> >
> >That is a terribly wrong thing to do.
>
> Well, of course! That's why it must be done.
I'm sure it will get done. Many times. Such is the miracle of usenet.
> >I could've lived my whole life without seeing spells used to conjure
> >chamberpots to dump on your enemies' heads.
>
> Ew. So could I, actually.
Now you understand.
Marizhavashti Kali
Chris Campbell wrote:
>
> >Or we could watch the original Escaflowne.
>
> B is good. I like option B. Three thousand miles bolloxing it up, but hey.
Noted. :-)
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> On 24 Oct 2000 22:06:57 GMT, Steve Miller <nue...@aol.comDELETEIT> wrote:
> >Try pitting a 1st-ed cat against a 1st-level 1st-ed Wizard made strictly
> >by the rules.
>
> through an open window is so cathartic it's scary.
Guess how I feel about flowering plants!
Pave the world!
Druids scare me...