• COMING SOON! -- The Awfully Cheerful Engine on Kickstarter! An action comedy RPG inspired by cheerful tabletop games of the 80s! With a foreword by Sandy 'Ghostbusters' Petersen, and VTT support!
log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 3E/3.5 v4: Challenge Ratings pdf (3.5 compatible)

Upper_Krust said:
Well what you want to do is match ECL (with Equipment) and Equipment Level.

So if something is CR 7 we know that adding seven levels of equipment will make it ECL 8.4 (7 + 1.4)*, we want to try it with eight levels of equipment.

*8 (ECL) is not the same as 7 (levels of equipment).

Kreynolds,

I'm doing it the hard cranky way because that was how Old Krusty did it himself in v.3 (in the troll ECL for regeneration example).

It is still the way, right UK?

Later,
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Wulf Ratbane

Adventurer
Upper_Krust said:
Hiya mate! :)
1. Your new method for determining multiple opponent EL.

What happens if you have a Great Wyrm Red Dragon (CR 59) and 15 Skeletons (CR +10)

CR 69 = EL 25

16 characters = EL -8. So that would be EL 17.

So a great red wyrm with multiple weaker opponents actually rates weaker than such a dragon on its own!?

Or did I miss something? :confused:

Easily fixed using your own guidelines.

Upper Krust said:
Individual EL -9 or worse opponents have a notably weakened impact on proceedings. Whereas EL -17 or worse opponents have virtually no impact on proceedings.

So, it seems you can discount creatures less than ECL -8 (or -16) off the lead creature.

It's a rather extreme example you've chosen, at any rate; even your own current rules couldn't account for that one, neh?

2. Your new method for determining experience points.

If you have party size along the top and EL difference along the side (on the table) there is no room for CR/Level. Doesn't that mean that DMs/PCs will have to multiply for every level other than 1st. Whereas at least my Table gives them 30 levels to simply 'look up' and apply a figure. I am not yet convinced if your updated table for EXP is actually better/simpler and therefore necessary.

It's not simpler; but in certain circumstances, it is definitely better. The table breaks down XP for each individual in a combatant group.

You could either multiply the figure in each column by the party's total CR, and divide by the number of characters; or you could multiply that same figure by each individual's CR. The difference is that in case 1, the low level characters get more than their fair share of XP: their contribution to the fight is not equal to their gain from the fight.

What individual XP awards would allow you to do, for example, is take a party that combines, say, the PCs, a couple of NPCs (for whom XP is irrelevant, they're just temporary additions through the story), and even stuff like a few animals (warhorses or war dogs) or even monsters that are along for the ride. You can then take this group's total CR-- all PCs, all NPCs, all animals, all combatants-- to find the relative EL of the encounter. However, when you go to figure XP, you can give each PC his correct share of the XP (his CR x the listed amount).

You don't have to calculate the XP for the NPCs and the added creatures, though it's a certainty that those allies had an effect on the EL.

In terms of actual play, rather than the DM looking up the total value and dividing it out per player, he simply looks up my value and says, "Guys, you each get XXX per level."

And finally, the strongest improvement for it is that it allows you to give players with "special abilities" or other "level adjustment" type stuff an increase in power without actually having to use the "level adjustment" mechanic. Take the example of the Troll character. His total CR is about 9, though his character level is 1. In this example, his total CR contributes to the EL of the encounter. However, when you go to award him XP, he receives XP based on his character level, not his total CR. You can totally throw out the ECL/LA mechanic. All you need to know is a character's total CR (to track his contribution to relative EL) and his Level (for XP awards).

The XP award can, thus, be looked at as not "per CR" (though that is how I wrote it) but "per level." (XP is only relevant to creatures that track xp, and only creatures with levels must do that.)

Does that make any more sense?


Wulf
 

kreynolds

First Post
Upper_Krust said:
Well what you want to do is match ECL (with Equipment) and Equipment Level.

Of course. It's just really clunky, something you may have to apply again, and again, and again, which makes for a very strange mechanic. It's kinda like the name George. When you spell out the name, it just never ends...

G-E-O-R-G-E-O-R-G-E-O-R-G-E-O-R-G-E-O-R-G-E-O-R-G-E-O-R-
G-E-O-R-G-E-O-R-G-E-O-R-G-E-O-R-G-E-O-R-G-E-O-R-G-E-O-R-G-E-
O-R-G-E-O-R-G-E-O-R-G-E-O-R-G-E-O-R-G-E-O-R-G-E-O-R-G-E-O-
R-G-E-O-R-G-E-O-R-G-E-O-R-G-E-O-R-G-E

Edit: because you were messing up the entire thread. -Dinkeldog
 
Last edited by a moderator:


xanatos

First Post
Yesm but sometimes you use 1,63 as the adder to the attributes, and sometimes 2,63. What is the 1 point?
For the life of me I cannot actually remember - I am sure there was a good reason at the time.
I think the Lycanthrope Template breakdown may be slightly off (I would imagine Damage Reduction is definately incorrect).
So you'll probably have to recheck it! :)

Then why in ability scores you write: When do Ability Scores affect Challenge Rating? ...As part of the Size factor...
I wrote that because that was the question everyone asked me. I subsequently list all the answers.
What do you mean with "I subsequently list all the answers"?
I gave a lot of thought yesterday with Sizes... What table are U using for size? Are you using the "Changes to Statistics by Size" table of the 3.5 MM p. 292? The one that you have to use to make a monster bigger?
Because it's very complex to use that that table if you are building a monster from scratch.
I think you should include in the Size only Reach, Weight Multiplier and AC bonus/malus for Size. Natural Armor, STR, CON and DEX should be bought separately, even because you don't always apply them (look at the Ooze, Elder Gargantuan Green Jelly (or something similar)... It doesn't have a Natural Armor. And then there is another problem: your CR rules will be probably used for three things:
- building monster from scratch
- calculating the CR of an existing monster
- calculating the CR of a beefed monster
Now... If you build a monster from scratch you decide his attributes and armor (probably looking at the table Creature Size, Scores and Damage, p. 297 of MM 3.5). It's surely easyer to simply multiply the total attributes - the base attributes * 0,1 CR. With your method you'll have to subtract the "free points" before multiplying (so it's more difficult)
If you have to calculate the CR of an existing monster, it's the same... You have final attributes, you don't get the attributes without size.

As a note: what are the characteristics of Colossal+,Colossal++,Colossal+++? What do you get "for free"?

You should write that Armor is "free" when you buy ability scores (probably under Armor)...
I don't understand you here mate?
Read "ability scores" = "size" and "mate" = "stupid"! :)

And perhaps write somewhere the cost of Reach (I could build a small tentacled monster with reach)
Okay, so you would like to see a breakdown of the individual components of what make up the size factors. Fair point.
This could be a solution.... You wrote the breakdown for races/monster types...

My point was that if you put a note somewhere, then you must put it everywhere.
Again this returns to the question of space.
Then put it at the beginning or in an appendix, so you save simmetry and space! :)

--- Bye
 

Wulf Ratbane

Adventurer
I think I have to agree.

The Size category shouldn't include anything that is bought in a seperate factors (Str, Con, natural armor). It will simplify your Size table, and it will definitely simplify the work for a DM trying to track down all the changes when he increases size or builds from scratch.

Size should include changes to AC, reach, maybe space (although I am not sure why that would increase CR) and some accomodation for the increase in base attack damage (natural or manufactured).

Which, now that I mention it, is a better place for the "average combat damage" factor to be included than in Full Attack. I was much happier with Full Attack being calculated on BAB than on average damage. It makes no sense to change the CR of a Giant just because he happens to drop his Huge dagger and draws his Huge greatsword. (The CR difference for this single factor changes by almost x3!)

UK, I'll say this: I'd rather have the framework be as good as possible than have stats for all of the monsters, if that is holding you back on improvements.

And I would love comments on my reply above from yesterday-- does it make any more sense?

Wulf
 


Howdy all.

I just got word from Upper_Krust over MSN that he cannot post on EN World (and by extension, any internet forum), nor send e-mails, due to catastophic network problems he is experiencing in Ireland. The Krust assures me that he will address all your posts and e-mails ASAP once these problems have cleared up. I now resume you back to your regular programming.

:)
 

Upper_Krust

Adventurer
Okay I'm back...and this time its personal! :p

Sonofapreacherman said:
Howdy all.

I just got word from Upper_Krust over MSN that he cannot post on EN World (and by extension, any internet forum), nor send e-mails, due to catastophic network problems he is experiencing in Ireland. The Krust assures me that he will address all your posts and e-mails ASAP once these problems have cleared up. I now resume you back to your regular programming.

Thanks for helping out there mate. :)
 

Upper_Krust

Adventurer
Hiya Wulf mate! :)

...hope you just got my email?

Wulf Ratbane said:
Easily fixed using your own guidelines.

Which ones (I have so many guidelines I tend to lose track)?

I was simply thinking of a caveat whereby (obviously) no monster could have its group EL lowered beneath its individual EL? Feels a bit clumsy though - what do you think?

Wulf Ratbane said:
So, it seems you can discount creatures less than ECL -8 (or -16) off the lead creature.

It's a rather extreme example you've chosen, at any rate; even your own current rules couldn't account for that one, neh?

I suppose you could create a Human Swarm; or Balor Swarm to challenge the appropriate epic and immortal individuals respectively. :D

Wulf Ratbane said:
It's not simpler; but in certain circumstances, it is definitely better. The table breaks down XP for each individual in a combatant group.

You could either multiply the figure in each column by the party's total CR, and divide by the number of characters; or you could multiply that same figure by each individual's CR. The difference is that in case 1, the low level characters get more than their fair share of XP: their contribution to the fight is not equal to their gain from the fight.

What individual XP awards would allow you to do, for example, is take a party that combines, say, the PCs, a couple of NPCs (for whom XP is irrelevant, they're just temporary additions through the story), and even stuff like a few animals (warhorses or war dogs) or even monsters that are along for the ride. You can then take this group's total CR-- all PCs, all NPCs, all animals, all combatants-- to find the relative EL of the encounter. However, when you go to figure XP, you can give each PC his correct share of the XP (his CR x the listed amount).

You don't have to calculate the XP for the NPCs and the added creatures, though it's a certainty that those allies had an effect on the EL.

In terms of actual play, rather than the DM looking up the total value and dividing it out per player, he simply looks up my value and says, "Guys, you each get XXX per level."

And finally, the strongest improvement for it is that it allows you to give players with "special abilities" or other "level adjustment" type stuff an increase in power without actually having to use the "level adjustment" mechanic. Take the example of the Troll character. His total CR is about 9, though his character level is 1. In this example, his total CR contributes to the EL of the encounter. However, when you go to award him XP, he receives XP based on his character level, not his total CR. You can totally throw out the ECL/LA mechanic. All you need to know is a character's total CR (to track his contribution to relative EL) and his Level (for XP awards).

The XP award can, thus, be looked at as not "per CR" (though that is how I wrote it) but "per level." (XP is only relevant to creatures that track xp, and only creatures with levels must do that.)

Does that make any more sense?

Yes. I get it now. I agree with your point, you have convinced me. :)
 

Upper_Krust

Adventurer
Hi xanatos mate! :)

xanatos said:
So you'll probably have to recheck it! :)

:D

xanatos said:
What do you mean with "I subsequently list all the answers"?

I mean I pose the questions of when ability scores do and do not apply and then I list all the answers with big bullet points so no one can miss them.

xanatos said:
I gave a lot of thought yesterday with Sizes... What table are U using for size? Are you using the "Changes to Statistics by Size" table of the 3.5 MM p. 292?

Thats part of it. But there are better Tables floating about somewhere with reach, space, AC/Attack bonuses/penalties.

xanatos said:
The one that you have to use to make a monster bigger?
Because it's very complex to use that that table if you are building a monster from scratch.

Thats because of an inherant flaw in D&Ds treatment of sizes smaller than Medium.

xanatos said:
I think you should include in the Size only Reach, Weight Multiplier and AC bonus/malus for Size. Natural Armor, STR, CON and DEX should be bought separately, even because you don't always apply them (look at the Ooze, Elder Gargantuan Green Jelly (or something similar)... It doesn't have a Natural Armor.

This would effectively get you into a Catch 22 situation:

eg. Lets say we don't rate (average) ability score increases from Size. Where do we add them then? As simply Ability Score increases? If so what happens to Ability Score increases from all other sources Templates; Racial Traits etc.

Either we have to rate where ability scores come from (as I do) or we have to ignore ability score modifiers from all sources and just rate them alltogether.

Surely the latter makes rating templates and traits irrelevant!?

xanatos said:
And then there is another problem: your CR rules will be probably used for three things:
- building monster from scratch
- calculating the CR of an existing monster
- calculating the CR of a beefed monster
Now... If you build a monster from scratch you decide his attributes and armor (probably looking at the table Creature Size, Scores and Damage, p. 297 of MM 3.5). It's surely easyer to simply multiply the total attributes - the base attributes * 0,1 CR. With your method you'll have to subtract the "free points" before multiplying (so it's more difficult)
If you have to calculate the CR of an existing monster, it's the same... You have final attributes, you don't get the attributes without size.

Why not just create the ability scores then apply all modifiers?

xanatos said:
As a note: what are the characteristics of Colossal+,Colossal++,Colossal+++? What do you get "for free"?

I thought they were pretty obvious, however I am going to have to revise Colossal + or better anyway, I have changed my mind on how to detail them.

xanatos said:
Read "ability scores" = "size" and "mate" = "stupid"! :)

:D

xanatos said:
This could be a solution.... You wrote the breakdown for races/monster types...

This I can do.

xanatos said:
Then put it at the beginning or in an appendix, so you save simmetry and space! :)

:D
 

Upper_Krust

Adventurer
Hiya mate! :)

Wulf Ratbane said:
I think I have to agree.

The Size category shouldn't include anything that is bought in a seperate factors (Str, Con, natural armor). It will simplify your Size table, and it will definitely simplify the work for a DM trying to track down all the changes when he increases size or builds from scratch.

Size should include changes to AC, reach, maybe space (although I am not sure why that would increase CR) and some accomodation for the increase in base attack damage (natural or manufactured).

I don't think this is a good idea (see my previous post for reasons why)

Wulf Ratbane said:
Which, now that I mention it, is a better place for the "average combat damage" factor to be included than in Full Attack. I was much happier with Full Attack being calculated on BAB than on average damage. It makes no sense to change the CR of a Giant just because he happens to drop his Huge dagger and draws his Huge greatsword. (The CR difference for this single factor changes by almost x3!)

But that would actually change the CR. Though rarely would this every change the EL much.

Wulf Ratbane said:
UK, I'll say this: I'd rather have the framework be as good as possible than have stats for all of the monsters, if that is holding you back on improvements.

Not at all, I just want to make sure I have all the feedback before I begin any changes.

Although I have no intentions of undertaking the entirety of those revised CRs ever again.

One way we could work it is if we get at least a half dozen volunteers (who have at least a rudimentary grasp of the rules) and everyone picks a part of the monster manual and outlines those CRs under their charge. Fifty or sixty CRs wouldn't be too bad.

Wulf Ratbane said:
And I would love comments on my reply above from yesterday-- does it make any more sense?

Yes, thanks.
 

Wulf Ratbane

Adventurer
Upper_Krust said:
One way we could work it is if we get at least a half dozen volunteers (who have at least a rudimentary grasp of the rules) and everyone picks a part of the monster manual and outlines those CRs under their charge. Fifty or sixty CRs wouldn't be too bad.

Crap, I haven't even got through one monster (my own!) yet. I'd be slow.

Now, what I really want is an automated spreadsheet. There's fame and fortune in it-- ok, mostly fame-- for any codemonkeys out there who'd like to undertake such a project to my specifications...

Wulf
 

Kerrick

First Post
Well, I'm back.. unfortunately, I forgot my notes, so I'll have to go off memory for now.

I temporarily circumnavigated those laws for the epic monsters for this technically playtest pdf, but the epic monsters are supposedly going to be updated before the release of the IH.

Did you snag a copy of the 3.5 conversion for the monsters? It's not a full conversion - they just fixed the feats, skills, and DR...

Ok. First off, thanks a lot to Wulf - your explanation of the EL calculation is so much simpler, IMO - I was tearing my hair out trying to make sense of the other one (sorry UK).

UK - I was busy converting all the varius monsters we've got, so I picked up a few things, mostly errors and such.

And now a few questions...

Why are the CRs so much lower than before? Seems like they're a bit more accurate, so I'm not complaining...

What's with all the different Colossal sizes? Which one do I use?

p. 6. The "Create spawn' example has a wraith creating a wight.

p. 7. The note for spell immunity reads "Spell immunity... is treated as +5...' I presume that's supposed to be +0.5, since that's what it's listed as on the table. That provided some confusion until I looked at v3 and saw it was supposed to be 0.5.

What's with all the funky CRs (1/9, 1/8, etc)? And why do the CR and EL go up equally until you hit 8-9? I don't seriously think a CR 5 creature is an EL 10 encounter, do you? I'm obviously missing something there...
 

Wulf Ratbane

Adventurer
Kerrick said:
Ok. First off, thanks a lot to Wulf - your explanation of the EL calculation is so much simpler, IMO - I was tearing my hair out trying to make sense of the other one (sorry UK).

I hope it's helpful and UK deems it mathematically sound.

What's with all the funky CRs (1/9, 1/8, etc)? And why do the CR and EL go up equally until you hit 8-9? I don't seriously think a CR 5 creature is an EL 10 encounter, do you? I'm obviously missing something there...

You need to throw out your old conception of EL. Part of the confusion of UK's document is when old definitions hold over.

EL is simply a gauge of RELATIVE power. A CR 5 encounter is EL10, yes, because a 5th level character is ALSO EL10.

You could conceivably throw out the EL "conversion" table altogether, and compare CR to CR. The problem with that method, though, is that CRs can get very high, very fast, especially when you are totalling the CRs on both sides of a fight, making the math unwieldy. What the EL table does is it "boils down" CR to a new value, EL. You can then compare EL to EL on a much lower scale and with greater facility.

You could use the old CRs from the MM, plug them into the same EL table, and still end up with "correct" relative values-- this means that all further EL comparisons and calculations will still be correct. (This also assumes that you stick with 1 Character Level = 1 CR.)

What you can't do is mix and match CRs from WOTC and CRs from UK (unless you apply some of his "quick fix" calculations first). It's useful, then, to have a list of recalculated CRs, because the real strength of what UK has (in my opinion) is that you can easily add abilities to characters, and know their exact CR and EL relative to their opponents.


Wulf
 

Upper_Krust

Adventurer
Hiya Wulf mate! :)

Wulf Ratbane said:
Crap, I haven't even got through one monster (my own!) yet. I'd be slow.

Your kung-fu's useless! :p

I am like lightning doing the CRs and it still took me the best part of 12 hours a day for a week. :eek:

Wulf Ratbane said:
Now, what I really want is an automated spreadsheet. There's fame and fortune in it-- ok, mostly fame-- for any codemonkeys out there who'd like to undertake such a project to my specifications...

Free copies of all the four Immortals Handbook pdfs (when they are released) if someone comes up with it.
 

Upper_Krust

Adventurer
Kerrick said:
Well, I'm back..

Hiya Kerrick matey! :)

Kerrick said:
unfortunately, I forgot my notes, so I'll have to go off memory for now.

:p

Kerrick said:
Did you snag a copy of the 3.5 conversion for the monsters? It's not a full conversion - they just fixed the feats, skills, and DR...

Yes, all my epic monsters are 3.5 compliant, based on that doc. ;)

Kerrick said:
Ok. First off, thanks a lot to Wulf - your explanation of the EL calculation is so much simpler, IMO - I was tearing my hair out trying to make sense of the other one (sorry UK).

:eek:

Kerrick said:
UK - I was busy converting all the varius monsters we've got, so I picked up a few things, mostly errors and such.

DOH! :eek:

Kerrick said:
And now a few questions...

Fire away.

Kerrick said:
Why are the CRs so much lower than before? Seems like they're a bit more accurate, so I'm not complaining...

I didn't know that they were noticeably lower? :confused:

Kerrick said:
What's with all the different Colossal sizes? Which one do I use?

You use Colossal.

Colossal+ is used in the Epic Level Handbook, though I made a few changes to that which I am contemplating changing back again so don't use any of the Colossal+ sizes.

Kerrick said:
p. 6. The "Create spawn' example has a wraith creating a wight.

DOH!

Kerrick said:
p. 7. The note for spell immunity reads "Spell immunity... is treated as +5...' I presume that's supposed to be +0.5, since that's what it's listed as on the table. That provided some confusion until I looked at v3 and saw it was supposed to be 0.5.

No, full spell immunity is treated a CR +5.

Spell Immunity to a single level of spells is +0.5. (Including 0th-level spells that makes 9th-level spell immunity +5)

Kerrick said:
What's with all the funky CRs (1/9, 1/8, etc)?

They have fractional CRs in the Monster Manual dude. :confused:

Kerrick said:
And why do the CR and EL go up equally until you hit 8-9?

Its all explained on Page 15.

Every time you double CR you increase EL by +4.

Kerrick said:
I don't seriously think a CR 5 creature is an EL 10 encounter, do you? I'm obviously missing something there...

Well remember that your PCs are also affected by the relationship between CR and EL. See Party Encounter Levels (PEL) on page 16.
 

Wulf Ratbane

Adventurer
Upper_Krust said:
Free copies of all the four Immortals Handbook pdfs (when they are released) if someone comes up with it.

I'll make sure I get "our hero" on a list for comp copies of all Bad Axe products...


Wulf
 

xanatos

First Post
I gave a lot of thought yesterday with Sizes... What table are U using for size? Are you using the "Changes to Statistics by Size" table of the 3.5 MM p. 292?
Thats part of it. But there are better Tables floating about somewhere with reach, space, AC/Attack bonuses/penalties.

Can you tell me where are they? Because that table is incomplete (being a relative table, you can't get the STR of Fine creatures (probably -12 or -14).

p.3 Size: you forgot that there are monsters without STR and CON... Spectres! (all Undead+Incorporeal creatures don't have STR and CON)

p. 7 Golems don't have Magic Immunity, in 3.5, they have Total Spell Immunity... It isn't clear in your rules, does Spell Immunity 0-9 gives you immunity to all spells, or only to spells from level 0 to 9 (no metamagic 9th level spells)

p.8 Summon: no, MULTIPLY by percentage! (if you divide something by 30%, you get a bigger number)
Shouldn't you use the EL of the creatures or something similar? Surely 10 goblins are not as strong as a CR 10 creature... They are only annoying... Unless the strategy is to slow the enemy! :)

I think that Turn Resistance should be capped at less than 1.5. Even if you have 20 turn res., you can still be turned and you have other Undead vulnerabilities (there are many nasty clerical spells around, plus Mace of Desruption etc.)

Immune to SOME Fortitude Saves (for CON = 0)... Disintegrate still works! :-(

Can you make a Reflex Save with Dex = 0? I'm not sure... I'll have to check. If you are immobile, then you should fail Reflex saves

Is no natural healing a modifier if the construct has fast healing? (is a disadvantage that is not a disadvantage still worth points?)

Wealth: wasn't the epic wealth rules different from normal ones? Are you using YOUR rules for wealth? Probably yes, but then you should write it clearly! Something like "Morons, I'm using MY wealth rules... Knee before me or DIE!" :)
Unless you have a whole chapter about wealth rules in your book! :)

Do monsters get the 1 attribute point / four levels for free?

p. 20 Can you sell back attributes/move base points between attributes?

If yes, wouldn't it be easyer to simply tell that you start with 63 or 72 "free" points for attributes (55 and 64 if you don't have an attribute)

--- Bye
 
Last edited:

xanatos

First Post
What do you mean with "I subsequently list all the answers"?
I mean I pose the questions of when ability scores do and do not apply and then I list all the answers with big bullet points so no one can miss them.
But your list (p.8, 2nd column, upper right) is wrong: You say that Ability Scores from Size factor affect CR... Ok... The Size affect CR... But it gives you free Ability Scores points. Reading what it's written it seems that you have to pay for the +8 STR that Large Size gives you.

eg. Lets say we don't rate (average) ability score increases from Size. Where do we add them then? As simply Ability Score increases? If so what happens to Ability Score increases from all other sources Templates; Racial Traits e
Then why Natural Armor isn't included in Size? I know that in a perfect world a creature would be the sum of various "layers" of templates... A Race/Type template plus a Size Template plus some generic templates plus the creature.
I consider Special Templates (Lich, Half Dragon etc) to be "adders" to the basic creature... You don't create a Half Dragon Half Demon Xyzptl from scratch. You first create a "Xyzptl"... Then you make it an Half Dragon Half Demon Xyzptl. So Special Templates should have attribute modifiers. Size is different. Each creature has a size and you normally don't start thinking a creature as a medium size creature and then enlarging it (or perhaps you could... For humanoid creatures sometimes I do this... I think it as a medium size creature and I ask myself how it would compare to a human... Then I enlarge it)... But many persons directly use the suggested values for creatures of size X, or directly compare it to other creatures (if I want the Yellow Dragon with Blue Spots I take a standard Dragon and I modify it... I don't start from scratch thinking "how would it be if it was a Human?")
 
Last edited:

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top