Author Topic: Confusion on the 'were' section  (Read 7241 times)

Offline ralexs1991

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 293
    • View Profile
Re: Confusion on the 'were' section
« Reply #15 on: July 28, 2010, 03:10:06 PM »
i would also recomend taking the hulking size -2 power
Oh, hi, Mr. Warden!  How are you this fine day?  My, what a shiny sword you have there...

Offline Thrythlind

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 399
  • Wile E. Coyote. Suuuuper Genius
    • View Profile
    • Luke Green's Storefront
Re: Confusion on the 'were' section
« Reply #16 on: July 28, 2010, 03:20:39 PM »
i would also recomend taking the hulking size -2 power

depends on the animal...most wereforms turn into very healthy versions of normal animals...so buffalo, bears and the like would have hulking size...possible a tiger...but probably not a wolf
Thrythlind Stories and Games: http://Http://thryth.webs.com
Original Fiction: Bystander, Greenwater, Zodiacs, Choice and Consequences
Fan Fiction: Chi and Chakra, Divine Blood, others
Games: The Unnamed System, Lycan Life
Fan Art
Blog on Writing Technique and occasional rants

Offline Deadmanwalking

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 3534
    • View Profile
Re: Confusion on the 'were' section
« Reply #17 on: July 28, 2010, 10:37:31 PM »
depends on the animal...most wereforms turn into very healthy versions of normal animals...so buffalo, bears and the like would have hulking size...possible a tiger...but probably not a wolf

I wouldn't give it to most Bears either. The cutoff point you need to remember is as follows: Creatures with Hulking Size cannot use Stealth. If the creature you're thinking of is capable of being sneaky (as gorillas and bears most certainly are), it shouldn't get Hulking Size.  Most 'larger than human' creatures just don't warrant it. We're talking Elephant size here, not Gorilla.

Offline daddystabz

  • Participant
  • *
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Re: Confusion on the 'were' section
« Reply #18 on: July 29, 2010, 12:30:35 AM »
If you really want to feel terrible in comparison to the Wizard and/or the Alpha then try playing a poor Red Court Infected vampire at the same power level.  You will feel gimped and every time you use ANY of your powers in a conflict you will have to make a Discipline check after the conflict versus an attack equal to the cost of the powers you used in the encounter or suffer Hunger damage, making you more likely to feast on a human for blood...and the sinker is that when you do feast on that human for blood and kill him/her you now become an NPC! JOY!

Offline Arcteryx

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 357
  • "I comb my hair with a hand grenade."
    • View Profile
Re: Confusion on the 'were' section
« Reply #19 on: July 29, 2010, 01:59:55 AM »
If you really want to feel terrible in comparison to the Wizard and/or the Alpha then try playing a poor Red Court Infected vampire at the same power level.  You will feel gimped and every time you use ANY of your powers in a conflict you will have to make a Discipline check after the conflict versus an attack equal to the cost of the powers you used in the encounter or suffer Hunger damage, making you more likely to feast on a human for blood...and the sinker is that when you do feast on that human for blood and kill him/her you now become an NPC! JOY!

Now now, its all about the drama of playing a doomed creature  :D

Offline Deadmanwalking

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 3534
    • View Profile
Re: Confusion on the 'were' section
« Reply #20 on: July 29, 2010, 02:17:54 AM »
Now now, its all about the drama of playing a doomed creature  :D

Exactly!  :)

Nobody is forced to play this sort of creature, it should be a choice based on wanting to explore those themes.

Offline vultur

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 3942
    • View Profile
Re: Confusion on the 'were' section
« Reply #21 on: August 03, 2010, 04:14:25 AM »
I wouldn't give it to most Bears either. The cutoff point you need to remember is as follows: Creatures with Hulking Size cannot use Stealth. If the creature you're thinking of is capable of being sneaky (as gorillas and bears most certainly are), it shouldn't get Hulking Size.  Most 'larger than human' creatures just don't warrant it. We're talking Elephant size here, not Gorilla.

How big are Ogres supposed to be then? They have it, and I thought they were like polar/Kodiak bear size.

Offline JosephKell

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 317
  • Total Refresh Cost: +2 (Pure Mortal)
    • View Profile
Re: Confusion on the 'were' section
« Reply #22 on: August 03, 2010, 04:30:42 AM »
I wouldn't give it to most Bears either. The cutoff point you need to remember is as follows: Creatures with Hulking Size cannot use Stealth. If the creature you're thinking of is capable of being sneaky (as gorillas and bears most certainly are), it shouldn't get Hulking Size.  Most 'larger than human' creatures just don't warrant it. We're talking Elephant size here, not Gorilla.
They can stealth, it is just really hard since they start at mediocre and never benefit from more than 1 shift of effect.

So any were-form with Hulking sized should downgrade Stealth (if it was above average) to average since it counts as mediocre.

But with the right stunt, you can make up for the mediocre stealth.  Such as something that moves trappings (ambush!) or gives bonuses in certain settings.

You might need more than just ambush though.
If you have to ask, it probably breaks a Law of Magic.  You're just trying to get the Doom of Damocles.

Offline Deadmanwalking

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 3534
    • View Profile
Re: Confusion on the 'were' section
« Reply #23 on: August 03, 2010, 04:47:28 AM »
How big are Ogres supposed to be then? They have it, and I thought they were like polar/Kodiak bear size.

Oh, I give it to Kodiaks, they're sometimes nearly twice the size of Grizzlies.

My usual cutoff is 1000 lbs. Under that you lack Hulking Size, at it or above, you have it.

Offline vultur

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 3942
    • View Profile
Re: Confusion on the 'were' section
« Reply #24 on: August 03, 2010, 05:38:12 AM »
Oh, I give it to Kodiaks, they're sometimes nearly twice the size of Grizzlies.

Ok, makes sense.

Grizzly bears are very variable in size. There's the normal individual variation, and males are bigger than females -- but the Alaskan population is significantly larger than the lower-48 types.

Quote
My usual cutoff is 1000 lbs. Under that you lack Hulking Size, at it or above, you have it.

Hmm. According to Our World, Ogres are 8 to 12 feet tall, and they have it. If ogres are built like really burly humans (as I had thought), an 8-foot ogre wouldn't weigh 1000 pounds, more like 500-600.

Offline Deadmanwalking

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 3534
    • View Profile
Re: Confusion on the 'were' section
« Reply #25 on: August 03, 2010, 07:16:05 AM »
Ok, makes sense.

Grizzly bears are very variable in size. There's the normal individual variation, and males are bigger than females -- but the Alaskan population is significantly larger than the lower-48 types.

I'm aware, I'm from Montana, and Grizzlies are a very real presence hereabouts.

Hmm. According to Our World, Ogres are 8 to 12 feet tall, and they have it. If ogres are built like really burly humans (as I had thought), an 8-foot ogre wouldn't weigh 1000 pounds, more like 500-600.

Uh...not really. At 8' sure, but not at 10 to 12 feet, and I always got the impression anything under 10' is short for an Ogre.

A good rule of thumb on height/weight numbers is to cube the height in feet, and have that be the weight in pounds. This results in someone fairly hefty for that height (125 lbs. for 5' tall, 216 lbs. for 6' tall, 343 lbs. at 7' tall, and 512 lbs for 8'...just for example), but that's actually very appropriate for the thuggish build of an Ogre Going by that, a 10 foot Ogre comes in at exactly 1000 lbs.


Anyway, it's not a exact science, I admit. 1000 lbs is just right about where I draw the line, but it might be doable for some creatures at a bit lower. On the other hand, it seems to me like people have looked at Hulking Size and then give it to everyone who's even a bit above human-sized, which is an even bigger mistake. After all, Tigers can get up to 500 or 600 lbs, but I certainly don't think they should be suffering any Stealth penalties, do you?

Offline vultur

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 3942
    • View Profile
Re: Confusion on the 'were' section
« Reply #26 on: August 03, 2010, 09:05:07 PM »
I'm aware, I'm from Montana, and Grizzlies are a very real presence hereabouts.

Uh...not really. At 8' sure, but not at 10 to 12 feet, and I always got the impression anything under 10' is short for an Ogre.

Well, Our World says 8 to 12 feet. That is shorter than I had thought, too, but...

Quote
Anyway, it's not a exact science, I admit. 1000 lbs is just right about where I draw the line, but it might be doable for some creatures at a bit lower. On the other hand, it seems to me like people have looked at Hulking Size and then give it to everyone who's even a bit above human-sized, which is an even bigger mistake. After all, Tigers can get up to 500 or 600 lbs, but I certainly don't think they should be suffering any Stealth penalties, do you?

I agree. The cutoff should probably be a bit higher for things like tigers and such, that are naturally 'lightly built', and lower for things like ogres and wild boars that are inherently unstealthy.