>From: Geoffrey McVey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>So... why put the line in *at all* about failing Con checks (and it *is*
>for Con-less creatures, not for ones with a Con of zero; I
>double-checked)? I mean, if none of the creatures lacking Con have to
>worry about checks involving their life force, what's the point of having
>that sentence there? Am I missing something blindingly obvious, or can any
>of you come up with a situation in which you'd say, "The vampire fails her
>Con check, so X happens"?
First off, you need to find a situation where someone without an ability
score would have to make that check.
For example, let's presume that a tree wants to influence the reactions of a
druid who's reacting with it. Since the tree is unable to affect the
environment and thus has no charisma score, it automatically fails the check
to influence the NPC. Even with the magic that lets the inanimate tree
communicate with the druid, the tree isn't able to affect the reaction of
the druid because it has *no* frame of reference.
Or, if an undead monster was infected with a magical disease; the very
concept of a disease is so foreign to the undead's creature
pseudo-metabolism that it had no defense against it, and automatically
fails.
DM
P.S. Anyone else notice how the really great ideas come when you're helping
someone else understand the rules--and then you can never manage to work
them into the adventure? *sigh*
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
