>
>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 ?
My point exactly. By the looks of it, human normal is about both Small 6 AND Large 6, maybe just a bit larger (how big is a large deer?). My idea of human limits would therefore be Small 8 to about Large 13 at most. Strong could go up to 17 at absolute maximum in real world terms (heroes know no such limit...), but above Large 13 you're one BIG mother... The same general limits (low 8 to high 13), presumably, apply to Ugly/Beautiful, Weak/Strong, Clumsy/Agile, Fragile/Tough, etc. allowing default uses of general stats. But unless they are all comparable on one universal scale, it's pointless.
Trot sky, if it's not too late to reconsider, I think it would be a good idea to increase human averages to 13, with all Large ratings suitably raised. That way, if someone asks 'Can I carry him off the battlefield?', and both are average, you have a Large 13 vs. a Strong 13, which sounds reasonable. Using 6 vs 6, assuming that's correct anyway, both will probably fail. However, with a 13, even average people could try for some Edge from their average abilities, which is maybe a bad idea.
Wulf
Powered by hypermail