considerations for statting creatures
I apologize for not commenting on all of this so far, but there is a lot here and more every time I show up. Which means two things: you guys rock, and my ability to soak information is dwindling (probably because I am overworking myself and stressing over moving soon).
Now here's my thoughts on this whole categorizing thing... Since it's obvious that evolutionary "between" species and some groups of variants and/or similar species like or unlike those of others, this project as it stands on that timeline could potentially take as long as the original taxonomy of the original critters.
SO my idea is instead of trying to group them all at first and dissect them that way, choose a few that you are very familiar with, and give them some general outline of stats that you think would be credible (especially if something the previous unreviewed version is cool enough to inspire a flavor idea). For example, Stegosaurus - Huge - 16HD, +6 natural armor (these are BS stats, I am just making an example)... Now Dacentrurus is similar but somewhat different. Maybe I would make that Dacentrurus - Huge - 14HD, +5 natural armor, and so on.
I think that if we get a good grouping of dinosaurs (AND other prehistoric animals, mind you) that seem "iconic" that will help to establish a precendent, and we can stat out similar creatures from there. Does EVERY creature on this list needs its own list of stats and flavor text? No. BUT, they could at least get a mention in a VERY similar creature's entry claiming that they could use the same stats, or we could even feature mini-stat blocks, which simply state the specific ways in which they differ from another creature stat block. This would help, say for example, between Deinonychus and Velociraptor - similar, but just close enough to call it.
This would mean we could end up with a basic list of animals with simple stats that we could then compare and really start blocking out all the animals. I also noticed we are looking into this project taxonomically, which I think we should avoid. We should try and look at it as though we are balancing out and evaluating stats as they apply to all animals, and not just the ones on the top of our minds. It's easy to think of this project as simply delineating dinosaur species, but because there was such a long evolutionary line of creatures that all evolved, devolved, and changed in such unique ways, there is a lot of crossover and debatables. I think we should avoid that in favor of comparing the creatures for how they stand up in combat and as statistics. This will make it much easier to balance them and compare them for statistic precedence.
Dear God, I hope that made sense - it didn't work for me after re-reading. I think what I am trying to get across is that we should begin statting out how we believe they are right and wrong in the ways we have seen them represented, and start with some real basic comparisons between two or so creature stats and which other creatures might utilize similar or the same stats & flavor text.
I don't have any books or material in front of me to make educated examples, but see what I said above so you know what I mean. I am really behind on this one right now because I have to pack and move to some undecided location soon. I think that the creatures that Cleon statted up here earlier are a great start and we could use them as precedent for now until you get further into the others. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful - I am super tired and a little delerious.
-will
I apologize for not commenting on all of this so far, but there is a lot here and more every time I show up. Which means two things: you guys rock, and my ability to soak information is dwindling (probably because I am overworking myself and stressing over moving soon).
Now here's my thoughts on this whole categorizing thing... Since it's obvious that evolutionary "between" species and some groups of variants and/or similar species like or unlike those of others, this project as it stands on that timeline could potentially take as long as the original taxonomy of the original critters.
SO my idea is instead of trying to group them all at first and dissect them that way, choose a few that you are very familiar with, and give them some general outline of stats that you think would be credible (especially if something the previous unreviewed version is cool enough to inspire a flavor idea). For example, Stegosaurus - Huge - 16HD, +6 natural armor (these are BS stats, I am just making an example)... Now Dacentrurus is similar but somewhat different. Maybe I would make that Dacentrurus - Huge - 14HD, +5 natural armor, and so on.
I think that if we get a good grouping of dinosaurs (AND other prehistoric animals, mind you) that seem "iconic" that will help to establish a precendent, and we can stat out similar creatures from there. Does EVERY creature on this list needs its own list of stats and flavor text? No. BUT, they could at least get a mention in a VERY similar creature's entry claiming that they could use the same stats, or we could even feature mini-stat blocks, which simply state the specific ways in which they differ from another creature stat block. This would help, say for example, between Deinonychus and Velociraptor - similar, but just close enough to call it.
This would mean we could end up with a basic list of animals with simple stats that we could then compare and really start blocking out all the animals. I also noticed we are looking into this project taxonomically, which I think we should avoid. We should try and look at it as though we are balancing out and evaluating stats as they apply to all animals, and not just the ones on the top of our minds. It's easy to think of this project as simply delineating dinosaur species, but because there was such a long evolutionary line of creatures that all evolved, devolved, and changed in such unique ways, there is a lot of crossover and debatables. I think we should avoid that in favor of comparing the creatures for how they stand up in combat and as statistics. This will make it much easier to balance them and compare them for statistic precedence.
Dear God, I hope that made sense - it didn't work for me after re-reading. I think what I am trying to get across is that we should begin statting out how we believe they are right and wrong in the ways we have seen them represented, and start with some real basic comparisons between two or so creature stats and which other creatures might utilize similar or the same stats & flavor text.
I don't have any books or material in front of me to make educated examples, but see what I said above so you know what I mean. I am really behind on this one right now because I have to pack and move to some undecided location soon. I think that the creatures that Cleon statted up here earlier are a great start and we could use them as precedent for now until you get further into the others. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful - I am super tired and a little delerious.
-will