It might be there because eventually, there'd be someone, somewhere who
would have a totally bizarre situation that we could never dream of ahead of
time where it would be necessary to make a Con check. It may be virtually
unnecessary, but adding in one line for the sake of completeness is probably
warranted in my opinion.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geoffrey McVey [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 2:45 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [ogf-d20-l] Creatures lacking stats
>
> Thanks for all the answers. There's still only one point that's nagging
> me. Doug quoted me and said:
>
> >> Can anyone think of circumstances in which a Con-less creature would
> >> need to make a Con check, where it would make sense for that check to
> >> fail automatically? The only examples I can think of have to do with
> >> fatigue, holding one's breath, and so on -- none of which really seem
> >>to apply to undead.
> >
> >You've got it right on the head. :) Constitution checks deal with
> things
> >about your life force--and undead and constructs don't have a life force,
>
> >so don't have to worry.
>
> 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"?
>
> Puzzled,
> G.
