Atlas   Rules   Resources   Adventures   Stories       FAQ   Search   Links

Striking Procedure strangeness

by Antonio Eleuteri

I was reviewing the Striking Procedure from the Companion set, and wondered at why the procedure wasn't made more straightforward.
Namely, the procedure requires to roll 1d20, subtract the Con, compare the result with the number "1". On a check of 1 or more, the character is stunned.
But, there is an easier way of doing it with a bit of algebra:
Let's see what inequality is to be satisfied to avoid the Stun:

1d20 - Con < 1

Which becomes:
1d20 < Con+1

Now, since Con is an integer number, we can discard the "1" and eliminate the strict inequality to get:

1d20 <= Con

Which is just a Con check!

I wonder why the procedure was made so abstruse when a Con check would have sufficed? I can't see any reason to not do it as such. Also the Rules Cyclopedia reports the same procedure, so they too missed the real meaning of the rule.

The "true meaning" of the rule also brings the question: isn't 2xHD too small for creatures as a proxy for Con? Take an Ogre; you would hardly say he has something equivalent to 8 Con.
I would use the "DM's Option: High Level Campaigns" AD&D 2e method. On average, these are the suggested scores as function of monster size:

9 11 13 15 17 19

T=tiny, S=small, M=medium, L=large, H=huge, G=gargantuan

So, for most S, M and L creatures, the 11,13 and 15 numbers would be good. An ogre with a score of 15 is definitely good.
For giants and similar, 17 seems just fine.
For very small creatures, a 9 also seems good.