If you're right, it's bizarre ! It means that if we want to create a
big rhino, we can say large 5ww, which should be compared towards
other rhino only ? Same for each creature, therefore ending with a
specific scale for each creature ? So what is the point in having the
proposed table for comparing between creatures if it is not possible ?
What about the wealth ? Should we apply the same system to the wealth
table, i.e. the 5W wealth of a noble not being the same a s the 5W
wealth of a priest ?
It wouldn't make sense to me either.
Alain.
écrit
> >The Large numbers are lower than I expected: they
> >seem to mean that a notably big starting PC (Hefty 13) is almost as
> >large as a gorilla, and (if the sample resistances in the rulebook
> >haven't changed) a clan strongman could lift an elephant. If 1-20
is
> >the non-expert human scale, a troll or a man-and-a-half of SIZ 20
> >should be into the W1 range, I'd have thought.
>
> As i interpret the HW rules, a trait like 'large' or 'size' doesn't
> actually/primarily say how large the creature is. The value after
the
> trait represents how good the creature is at using its size to its
> own advantage.
>
> A human with 'big' 2ww is bigger than an ordinary human but still
> nowhere near as large as a rhino. The trait rating merely means
that
> he's very good at putting his size to good and effective use.
>
> --
> -
> Mikael Raaterova [.sig omitted on legal advice]