Talk:Fantasy Pregnancy (3.5e Variant Rule)

Ratings
I'm not sure, other than for Political Correctness, if there is a reason to have both parents suffer fatigue/exhaustion.

Also, with the Constitution checks for day of birth, does the birth happen on a success or failure?

I like the suggestions to limit this to groups that can handle it. However, the restrictions on PC's getting pregnant or impregnating, these seem like they would be better as guidelines - an even then I'd add the proviso that a player might try to make it happen. Player attempts might be modified by their Constitution and that of their partner. Be Well 02:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Having both parents suffer pregnancy penalties prevents discussions of who gets stuck with said penalties, which in turn prevents the political arguments such discussions would be all too likely to lead to.
 * Birth happens on a success. Thank you for catching that.
 * The magical-pregnancy-only rule ducks various issues that are best ducked in an RPG. If you prefer not to duck them, a set of rules for nonmagical pregnancies can be found at http://www.purpleduckgames.com/qhum7.--Ideasmith 01:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

My review
"A creature with one or more levels in any PC class cannot become pregnant, get another pregnant, or their kindred’s equivalent, without magical assistance."

Why? This makes no sense.

"Otherwise, characters get pregnant when the GM says so. As a default, assume that a fertile female has about an even chance of becoming pregnant during a time period equal to the length of her pregnancy."

This seems rather useless. Characters already got pregnant when the GM said so. Try making some rules.

"The DM is advised to consider the taste and maturity of the players before relating pregnancy to certain activities that may or may not actually occur in the gameworld."

No comment here, that is reasonable.

"During the first half of pregnancy, the parents are fatigued and have a +1 bonus to diplomacy and gather information checks. During the second half of pregnancy, the parents are exhausted and have a +3 bonus to diplomacy and gather information checks. This fatigue or exhaustion continues until the end of the pregnancy."

Almost none of this makes sense. Sticking fatigue or exhaustion on the mother makes sense, but (speaking from a biological standpoint) putting those on the father makes no sense. Also, what is with the diplomacy and gather information stuff? Seems random to me.

"To get the expected duration of pregnancy in days, multiply the kindred’s age of adulthood 18. Starting 14 days before that, make a daily Constitution check (DC 20, use baby’s Constitution, birth occurs if check succeeds) to determine if birth occurs that day."

I think this needs some editing on the wording. Also, please note that this can lead to an endless pregnancy.

"When birth occurs, check for side effects. For each parent and the baby, make the following checks: The caretaker makes a DC 5 Heal check. This is automatically failed if there is no caretaker. The same caretaker may care for all three, if the parents sufficiently nearby. The parent or baby makes a DC 10 Fortitude check. If either check is failed, Filth Fever is contracted (see Disease Descriptions in the SRD). If both checks are failed, Filth Fever is contracted and 3d6 Constitution damage immediately occurs.

After the baby is born, both parents are exhausted."

Again, these things effecting the dad makes no sense. I would like to point out that the dad might not even be there. He could be off on the other side of the world.

Overall, none of this works. I award you no points. --Qwertyu63 (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "Why? This makes no sense."


 * Because the deities/deity-like beings that place babies choose to place them in that manner. Or whatever else the DM decides. It makes as much sense as D&D rules usually do.


 * "This seems rather useless. Characters already got pregnant when the GM said so. Try making some rules."


 * I'm not making specific rules for frequency of children or the portions of the economy that don't involve adventurers for what I assume is the same reason the core books duck these issues. DM's who care about these matters either, A: prefer them to vary from gameworld to gameworld or, B: have strong idiosyncratic preferences. So such rules would by "rather useless", as you put it.


 * I'm sticking to rules for PC types getting pregnant.


 * "No comment here, that is reasonable."


 * That sex might not be occurring in a D&D gameworld that has pregnancy? I think so, but ,judging by the rest of your reply, I suspect you missed that.


 * "Almost none of this makes sense. Sticking fatigue or exhaustion on the mother makes sense, but (speaking from a biological standpoint) putting those on the father makes no sense."


 * From a D&D magical standpoint, when a spell has two targets it affects both the targets.


 * "Also, what is with the diplomacy and gather information stuff? Seems random to me."


 * I honestly don't remember. I put that in a long time ago. Dropped.


 * "I think this needs some editing on the wording."


 * Thank you for catching that! Yes, it needs a 'by' after the word 'adulthood'. Fixed.


 * "Also, please note that this can lead to an endless pregnancy."


 * Thanks again! While some chance of of endless pregnancy is fine, this is whenever the baby has a CON penalty. Not fine. Fixed.


 * "Again, these things effecting the dad makes no sense. I would like to point out that the dad might not even be there. He could be off on the other side of the world."


 * As might the mom. Either way, the spell creates conduits between the unborn baby and both parents.


 * "Overall, none of this works."


 * You haven't provided much evidence for that claim. I get the impression that these rules don't fit the fluff you have in mind; I point out the distinction between 'not useful for fluff it wasn't intended to represent' and 'not useful to anyone'.--Ideasmith (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * What fluff is this intended to represent? --50.47.36.22 03:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Scroll of Generations, of which this is a part, is intended to encourage and support adventurer downtime and various consequences thereof in a simple, playable, 3.5-consistent, and catgirl-safe manner. I am not insisting on any particular fluff for these mechanics; there are lots of possibilities.


 * If you're going for catgirl-safety, couldn't you at least choose something that isn't just a cruel mockery of the real-world physics? I'd like a system that involves storks flying babies to people a lot better. --Foxwarrior (talk) 05:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * No mockery of real-world physics is intended, and I am not sure why you find it derisive. As the spell names imply, I do imagine storks being involved, and have added some clarification. Thank you, --Ideasmith (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You see, before that clarification was added, nothing in the description contradicted the title's assertion that it was describing all pregnancies. --Foxwarrior (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, I'd missed that.--Ideasmith (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Article / Expectation Mismatch
This is not really about discussing pregnancy within a game of DnD except as it relates to a subset of people, and the title and article format do a poor job of setting that up. The expectations that people would have based on the title certainly aren't met, but there's not much work done to disabuse them of those expectations or set up new ones until you're halfway into the article.

It might benefit from an intro blurb that suggests some fluff while remaining neutral, or moving the links in the introduction to after the rules mechanics. While they are quite relevant in a world where adventurers can't get initiate pregnancy without assistance (because Witcher like training or meddling gods or stork avoidance of people who could murder it or whatever), you don't even find out about that until the rules section. Introducing the idea via text or making that come sooner would help set expectations more effectively. It also seems that a more descriptive title, such Fantasy Pregnancy or Variant Adventurer Pregnancy, might be helpful and prevent some of the knee-jerk reactions by some to the rule presented here.

Presentation aside, I actually like the potential weirdness and implications here, but I haven't reviewed the actual details sufficiently well to feel comfortable reviewing it. - Tarkisflux Talk 22:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Excellent points, and excellent advice. Thank you. I have already made most of the needed changes.


 * By the way, how do I change the name?--Ideasmith (talk) 00:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Flows a bit better now I think, even if it feels a bit terse for my taste. Renames are handled via page moves. Please be sure to uncheck the redirect options when you do move it to a new name. - Tarkisflux Talk 05:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Moved.--Ideasmith (talk) 11:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)