Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wulf Ratbane" data-source="post: 5060482" data-attributes="member: 94">Multiplication table? That's a harsh, if accurate, description. Hmm.I'm still not hearing what you want, I suppose.Does this comport with what I said above:And finally:There's a few ways I can move here based on what folks want.Option 1: by Creature Type. Find the Type of creature you want (Giant, Ooze, etc.), find the Size you want, find the CR or HD of the creature you want. All the numbers are done for you, then you just pick whatever special effects you want to bolt onto that Spine. We'll provide guidelines for how many special features you could/should add to stick within a given CR.Option 2: by Creature Role.The creature's Spine is defined by its role-- Brute, Tank, Soldier, Skirmisher, Leader, etc. As above, find the Size, CR or HD, and read across to get the numbers.If this is the path you prefer, then you can help out by defining the roles you want to see and the Spine (HD type, BAB, Saves) that you expect to see in each role.As a caution, as shown on p.16-17 of Trailblazer, it is really pretty hard for a change in Spine Option 3: The Ur-Monster.Generate ONE fixed, middle-of-the-road Spine that's good for pretty much anything-- d8 HD, 3/4 BAB, two good saves. This is more of a 1e philosophy, where monsters had their own HD, their own attack table, etc. All creatures have pretty much the same numbers-- it's the special features that matter.Option 4: Tables for Everything.Ehh, I have a spreadsheet, and it's just a multiplication table after all. I can provide as many variants as you want.Option 5: Give me the guidelines, I'll do my own Math.Option 6: Slide RuleGive me a table that lets me advance HD (or Size) and see how that affects the numbers I already have in the statblock. In other words, instead of reading across to find a fixed number for BAB (+12), I read across to a cell that shows me the change (+3) from where I started.Option 7: Give me everything.This seems to be the simplest answer. Make the method transparent so you can do it yourself, but provide tables so you don't have to.I may discover, once I am finished with the tables, that the numbers end up so close together (again, see p.17 of Trailblazer) that a "Close Enough, One Size Fits All" is the best way to go.For players who are absolute sticklers for every last skill rank, every possible point balanced out, you simply might not have any good options, and you have to live with the status quo. I think these players are misguided, and I will do what I can to convince them to loosen up a bit, but you're going to get out (in precision) what you put in (in effort). If you can live with less precision, you can get by with much less effort.</blockquote>

Verification