vagabond

Exactly. But in the book it doesn't says one full combat round for the special crushing effect... It says one combat round.

I would say that by definition those are the same. If something lasts a combat round, it must last through all four phases since that is what a combat round is defined as consisting of.

This also makes sense when you apply the rules regarding Powers that take a combat round to manifest - you must complete the Powers phase, the Actions phase, the Resolution phase, then go to the next round's Statements phase, and finally the Power takes effect at the beginning of that round's Powers phase. You have stepped through all four phases that make up a combat round.

And, again, by extension of stepping through all four phases to define a combat round (or a full combat round), if something begins effect in the middle of the Actions phase, for consistency, I would have a (full) combat round expire on the same DEX rank (or Strike rank) of the following combat round.

It really is simple to implement, it makes sense, and even with a lot of combatants, is fairly easy to track. I just list all combatants in each DEX rank (or Strike rank) at the beginning of combat. It rarely changes (especially if using DEX ranks since it is based upon DEX and not SIZ or weapon reach or encumbrance). And, if you have many combatants, you are already either tracking armor and HP, or you have instituted some sort of "mook" rules, which you can also apply to DEX/Strike ranks.

Ian

Fairly speaking it's not a complicated situation nor a high detail occasion to count "by the book" the duration of an effect that starts inside the Actions phase(the most obscure situation is a special crushing blow that resolves to a stunned target. see first thread). It's just core mechanics.

According to BRP one Combat round starts with the Statements phase and ends in the Resolution phase. Thus the definition of one combat round is not connected with Strike or DEX ranks. So for an effect that resolves in the Actions phase one Combat round has passed has passed at the beginning of the next round. This is quiet unfair for a slow fat dwarf with a hammer but that's life...

On the other hand if one combat round is passed at the Resolution phase of the next round thinks mess up... I guess that a distinction between 1dX combat rounds and 1dX full combat rounds is needed if the previous paragraph is not correct.

The definition is correct - that is the definition of a single combat round. Let's break it down into phases - a combat round consists of, by definition:

1) Statements phase

2) Powers phase

3) Actions phase

4) Resolution phase

Now, let's assume that something occurs in the middle of the Actions phase, which has a lasting effect of one combat round. Where do you start counting the combat round? Do you backtrack to the Statements phase? Do you backtrack to the Powers phase? Or, do you begin tracking the round in the Actions phase when the event occurs? Logically, you would start in the Actions phase when the event occurs. Now, how would you count out a full combat round if you start in the Actions phase? Do you just run through the Actions phase, and then the Resolution phase, and declare the effects that were supposed to last a full combat round over? If so, the effects have not lasted a full combat round, because they have only lasted through the Actions phase and the Resolution phase, but the Statements phase and the Powers phase were not considered, or, more bluntly, you have only counted through two of the four phases that make up a combat round. But, if you also count through the following round's Statements and Powers phases, you have now stepped through all four phases that make up an entire combat round.

Ian

The Laundry, p54:

"When the last character involved in the round has completed

their resolution phase and the DEX rank countdown

reaches 0, any potential effects that are ‘once per round’ or

anything that lasts for the duration of the round ends at this

time. This might include poisons, acid, fire, sorcery or other

miscellaneous conditions."

Going from here, I would say a one round stun effect ends at DEX rank 0, giving other characters the chance to make an Easy attack against the stunned target. A two round stun effect would last until the DEX rank 0 of the following round.

The problem with this rule (and the application of the end of the combat round being the end of the Action phase in that round) is that if our example orc is stunned by the character who acted last in the round, the effects of the stun immediately wear off - or, for all intents and purposes (and game effect), the orc is never stunned. He is back to full capability starting the next round.

One thing I think people over focusing on is the fact that the stunned character loses their action(s) for a full combat round, and assuming that is the vital/critical effect. It isn't. The real problem with being stunned is the fact that the character is considered "prone" - i.e. its only defense is the armor (if any) it is wearing. A prone character is not allowed to parry or dodge. Again, looking at our example orc (using a slightly modified example to clarify the point) , who normally acts on DEX rank 15, but is hit and stunned on DEX rank 10, the orc goes to the end of the round, and the beginning of the next (until DEX rank 10) prone. It cannot perform an "active" action at its normal DEX rank 15, AND, it cannot parry/dodge until DEX rank 10. If you just rule that the orc loses its very next action (even if it only is allowed one action per round), it would still be allowed to parry/dodge between DEX ranks 15 and 10, or a full 5 DEX ranks before a full combat round (counting by DEX ranks) has passed.

Or, using the example of the orc being stunned at the very end of the combat round, and using the rule that a combat round lasts until the end of the current combat round, not only is the orc allowed to make its normal attack at DEX rank 15, but it is allowed to parry/dodge at the very beginning of the next round (in our example, DEX rank 20). In other words, the orc has suffered no ill effects of the stun in this example.

Ian

That would leave the orc in a big disadvantage, as it already 'lost' 9 DEX ranks. Penalising it for an other round seems to be unfair to me, if you 'calculate' DEX ranks. Your 'DEX calculation' could now be simplified by saying 'the orc loses its next action' - no calculation needed.

If the round is divided into 15 DEX ranks, then so far, the orc has only lost 9 of the 15 DEX ranks, and still has 6 more to go before a full combat round has passed.

Ian

see my example definition above (in the thread). I still think you are overcomplicating the issue. Im interested though how your power rules work, if a character casts a spell at INT 16 and the spell needs one round to get off. Does that mean it will go off at INT 16 the 'next round', even if the rules say spells go off at the beginning of a round? If so, does INT 16 take place before DEX 16?

Bad example since spells cost a single DEX rank per level to cast, and are cast at the appropriate DEX rank. By the book, INT does not come into play, you use the character's DEX rank. And, by the book, a spell cast by a character with an INT of 16 goes off at DEX rank 16 minus each spell level, or, at the earliest, DEX rank 15. Any actions occurring in the same DEX rank are resolved as if they happened simultaneously. At least that is my recollection since I do not have the book at hand, and I am using the playtest docs as a reference. The playtest docs also use the example of INT of 16 equating to DEX rank 16.

I personally do not like splitting the Powers phase off of the Action phase since, IMHO, casting spells and using powers are still actions. What I rule is that if a power of any sort requires a physical trigger, then the DEX rank in the Action phase is the place to resolve that trigger or begin any necessary count down, applying any necessary modifiers (such as spell levels). For innate powers (or super powers, though I hardly play supers) that do not require a trigger, but are instantaneous, I either go with the INT of the character setting the DEX rank, or the power goes off at the very beginning of the Action phase. I also define the Powers I have in play with a base DEX rank if they do not require any action or thought to trigger.

Ian

That would leave the orc in a big disadvantage, as it already 'lost' 9 DEX ranks. Penalising it for an other round seems to be unfair to me, if you 'calculate' DEX ranks. Your 'DEX calculation' could now be simplified by saying 'the orc loses its next action' - no calculation needed.

No, the orc has lost nothing but a single round of combat. If the orc normally acts at DEX rank 11, he has already performed an action in the first round.

Again, if you assume there are 15 DEX ranks in a round (the highest DEX rank is 20 and the lowest is 5), then the orc will lose 15 DEX ranks. No matter where the stun begins effect, or where the orc normally would act. Once the stun effect wears off, he can still defend.

Yes, you can say the orc loses his next action in this particular case, but if the orc has more than one action available because it can act in DEX rank 11 and DEX rank 6, then losing the next action would not be equal to a combat round, it would be less.

Ian

I think instead of start calculating DEX ranks, one should try the Strike Ranks system. It was build for this amount of detail and clearly handles it in a better and easier way.

As far as 'stunning' goes when using the Strike Rank system, I would judge the d3 'lost rounds' are the next d3 actions. Simple and smooth.

DEX ranks are much simpler than using Strike Ranks. That is why DEX ranks are the default, and Strike Ranks are the option. Both work similarly - you start at the beginning rank and move to the last, then cycle around. Something that occurs in the middle of the actions phase and is expected to take a full combat round can easily be counted form the rank the action starts in one round, and completes on the rank in the next round, to yield one full combat round.

If you use "d3 lost rounds are the next d3 actions", you are not using the definition of a full combat round. What if the stunned character can perform multiple actions, say 2, in a round due to a high DEX or whatever. The d3 lost rounds becomes d3/2 lost rounds if you rule that s/he loses the next d3 actions.

If the orc is stunned at DEX 10 and the effect lasts one round, that would mean the orc may attack at DEX 10 the next round again, if it usually attacks at DEX 11.

I mean, the orc would not lose its attack in the second combat round completely, would it? But then, with these interpretation, there would be nearly NO impact for the orc - except of the delayed action - right?

Yes, the orc would lose its attack in the second combat round because it would be stunned during its DEX rank. Hence, the 1 round penalty still is effective. Since the orc is stunned, it cannot take advantage of "waiting" to use its attack, normally at DEX rank 11, later in the round.

Ian

@vagabond:

Yes, I agree with that. If the situation really has to be measured in that very detail, your DEX rank explanation is completely right.

In practise, I find it too cumbersome and simply rule "The orc loses its next three attacks (as it is allowed to attack once per combat round)" and I'm done

Let's not overcomplicate it, this is not GURPS or HERO ... ^^

There is no complication. The orc is stunned on DEX rank 10. The effect lasts a full combat round. The orc may act again in the next combat round starting at DEX rank 10. A full combat round has passed. If the orc normally acts at DEX rank 7, he loses his action in the first combat round. If the orc normally acts at DEX rank 11, he loses his action in the second combat round. It is very simple and precise.

Ian

@vagabond:

Yes, the way you see it is right from a mathematical way. But as I quoted earlier, the rules for Powers count Combat rounds in a different way - effects simply end at the start of the next combat round, no DEX ranks mentioned. But whatever works for a gaming group best will be fine I guess ...

Using the rules you quoted earlier:

"Powers used in a previous round will “go off” at the beginning of a new combat round if their effects are not instantaneous."

and

"Most powers require exactly one full combat round to prepare and use, with their effects occurring at the beginning of the next combat round during the powers phase."

if a Power takes one combat round to prepare and take effect - it starts before the highest DEX rank in the combat round (the Powers phase takes place before the combat phase), counts down through the DEX ranks until the last DEX rank takes a combat action, the new round begins, and the Power takes effect before the next combat round begins. So, again, using DEX ranks, we have counted a full combat round.

However, the OP was using a combat round result, which occurs during the combat phase, and gets resolved in the next combat phase. DEX rank to DEX rank is a full combat round, Powers act outside this, but still adhere to the fact that you must march through a full combat round (aka all necessary DEX ranks) before they take effect. Again, DEX rank to DEX rank is the most consistent way to count a combat round.

Ian

So, you need a house rule to measure the effect of a special success inside the combat phase.... I think that there must be a ''by the book" way to do it. It's not a strange situation to have a special success with a crushing blow which resolves to a stunned target... Either a clarification is needed or a better definition.

I Gm Stormbringer since 1996 until now (proudly speaking from Greece) and I never thought about it because a situation like this it's quit uncommon in the set-up. In BRP it is quit common as I posted in the previous paragraph. You cannot kill someone with a house rule or at least I don't enjoy it (sardonically laughing)! Something of the flavor goes away...

I am not sure why you think this is a house rule issue. A combat round can be measured in multiple ways. However, the most consistent is by using DEX ranks (or Strike ranks, depending on which "initiative" system you prefer).

By default, a combat round goes from the highest DEX rank to the lowest DEX rank. Therefore, a consistent way to determine a "full" combat round if you start in the middle of one round is to cycle through the end of the first combat round, and then count down in the next combat round until you reach the DEX rank you started counting at in the first combat round.

Again, in my example, if an effect starts at DEX rank 10 in combat round one, a full combat round later would be DEX rank 10 in combat round two.

Ian

looks like it is a matter of taste and interpretation

One way to measure a combat round, and consistently I might add, is by DEX ranks (by default) or Strike Ranks.

Looking at DEX ranks - if you start at the highest DEX rank of the combatants, say 20, and count down to the lowest, say 5, you have 15 DEX ranks in that round. If a character is stunned on DEX rank 10, then a full combat round goes from the current DEX rank 10, down to the last DEX rank 5, and then cycles over to the next combat round at DEX 20, and counts back down to DEX rank 10. A full combat round has now passed, and the character is no longer stunned. Even if someone new enters the fray at DEX rank 21, you still have a pretty consistent way to represent a full round by counting back down to DEX rank 10.

This is a very simple and consistent way to deal with full combat round (and even multiple combat round) effects occurring in the middle of a combat round.

Ian

If you use Strike Ranks, the next round lasts until the relevant strike rank. Presumably the same applies to Dex Ranks.

There used to be a similar issue in RQ2/3 when you fumbled and lost your next so many attacks, if you didn't atack in that combat how long did the fumble last.

You have to use common sense in such situations and fit the solution to the actual gameplay that occured.

So, if the orc is stunned for a round then I would say that he is stunned until a similar time (SR/DEX rank/Whatever) the next round. I wouldn't say that it lasts untuil the end of the round as the orc might have been stunned at the very end of the round making it a meaningless penalty.

This would be my interpretation as well.

Ian

If you want a more heroic feel (and a little more survivability), use SIZ + CON for PC and major villain HP instead of the average of the two. Keep "mooks" and other NPCs the standard (SIZ + CON)/2. Also, use the Fate Point/Hero Point mechanic.

For simplicity, use general HP and Major Wounds instead of Hit Locations. Normal blows will just tick off general HP, but memorable ones will be associated with a particular location on the Major Wounds table. In other words, you can still lose an arm, but it will be a memorable occasion Even though this also means you use the random armor damage reduction, in all reality, you can still use a set value. Of course, this makes plate armor really really effective.

Use DEX ranks, maybe modified by weapon speeds/reach. Add a d4 or d6 randomizer if you want a little more variety in your initiative, but still want to favor higher DEX and/or better reach.

Ian

The Stormbringer supplement Corum has excellent Construct rules.

Ian

Just wanted to say that I was able to really pick up things in earnest over the past couple of weeks, collating notes, expanding on thoughts, and organizing things. Hope to put things into a digestible format soon. I will put up docs on a chapter by chapter basis so that should one chapter get updated, there is no need to download the entire thing.

Chapter one will be chargen of the basic playable races - Humans, Boccord, Muadra, Bronth, Woffen, and Crugar. I will also include some basics for the remaining races so that NPCs can be rolled up. Basically, I will have stats, backgrounds and professions/vocations with associated skill lists.

Chapter two will be Skills and skill resolution. Brief descriptions of new skills specifically from Jorune, or old skills from BRP but adjusted to reflect reuse for Jorune.

Chapter three will focus on combat. It will include Combat Maneuvers (slightly altered), as this fits with Jorune's original combat system pretty well. Also included will be the beginnings of the Gloundan Shadow Warrior's Sis-Naun martial arts, as well as Thike Fighting. Jorune specific weapons will be covered.

Chapter four will be Isho, Moon skills (Color) and Dyshas, as well as Ebitra (Shanthic martial arts using Isho) and more detailed Sis-Naun (an interesting look at Isho use for non Dysha weavers). Current Dyshas will be reworked a liltle to reflect the modifications to BRP, as well as providing advice and a way to create new Dyshas. Isho skills will also be covered in more detail, as well as how the major playable races interact with it.

Chapter five will expand the non player races such that almost any race can be a PC (Shanthas are not intended to be PCS, but obviously, I cannot nor will not make that a "rule" - purely a matter of GM's discretion). There will be some "new"revelations regarding lineage and motives, as well as some new information regarding Isho interaction. Also, Lamorri will make an appearance.

Chapter six will be a bestiary - a port of Jorune creatures and a reworking of Recos.

That's all for now. Chapters may not be posted in the exact order, and may get reworked over time due to suggestions and testing. I hope to have chapters one, two and three posted soon, as they are the closes to completion. Chapter four and six will probably follow.

Cheers and Happy New Year's.

Ian

Hmmmmm... on to something here. Perhaps we could call them Classes, and give each one pre-defined Methods!

SDLeary

Which, of course, implies Inheritance !

Seriously, "quality" was my first thought ...

Ian

>In the interest of full-disclosure I'm running a version of RQ, but I think my method works.

It sounds like a good system. My problem with systems like that is that it strongly discourages players who want to have characters who have good skills in several related skills from doing that at character generation time.

Say you want a hard science character with good skills in Science: Physics and Astronomy. You have decided on a budget of 125% for these skills. The maximum you can raise any one skill to is 75%, so you raise Physics to 75%, then raise Astronomy to 50% (ignoring the base 1%).

You know that the GM will often let you substitute one of these skills for others though. In many situations you might well be able to roll for Astronomy tasks at 38% for free. What do you do? If you can later develop an Astronomy skill from a base of 38% for free using a skill check, or as a result of a critical success, thats another strong disincentive to spend any skill points on related skills during character generation.

So I fully sympathise with the sentiment behind that rule, but without balancing options during character generation the result could be to distort the player's options when creating a character.

Simon Hibbs

I am using a modified version of Ringworld's root skills, various BRP iterations of base skill chances, and the old TSR Conan's skill groups in my BRP Jorune port. Basically, the base skills start at a value based upon a stat, pair of stats, average of stats, or similar. Then, the individual specialties are increased beyond that to show specific training or interests. All "untrained" specialties in the same "group" use the base skill chance until trained, or if noted as "advanced" skills which must be trained and start at 00 due to their complex nature. As a trained skill improves by a certain value, the base skill also increases (I am not sure if I want to do a 10:1 ratio or not). So, for example, Melee Combat has a base of STR+DEX (say, a value of 30), and the player chooses broadsword to specialize in and raises it to +45%. The total skill when using the broadsword is 75%. When the player raises his broadsword up to +55%, he gains +1% to the base Melee Combat skill (now 31), for a total chance of 86% skill.

Just some thoughts, and not finalized yet ...

MRQII Combat Manoevres - having now looked a bit closer, I like 'em.

I think they'd make combat more interesting, as well as realistic-seeming and perhaps cinematic (depending what films you watch...).

There are a few problems, though, albeit minor...

I can relate to this. The feel is important. I'd suggest this problem can be role-played around though - just by saying a few words as you roll, describing in a very general way what you're attempting to do to the other guy. Then if you score any CMs the most appropriate ones for that are selected - the choice was made beforehand, so hopefully it wouldn't feel out-of-sequence.

Another problem I'd note is that some people prefer to roll attack & damage dice together, to save time - but with MRQII you can't. It would be cheating.

And yes, (sigh), it does constitute Opposed Rolling and so offend against my preference for independent rolls. Shame. But I'm working on that - I'll get independent-rolling CMs house-ruled before too long, don't you worry!

Good effort, guys!

I think I may have found a houserule that may fix the issue for me somewhat. I'll do some testing and let you know.

BTW, Loz, Pete, RosenMcStern, and, of course, Steve Perrin as well as everyone else who has responded - thanks for the patience and explanantions. It has helped clarify a few things. Again, the main problem, for me, is feel. But, maybe my "fixes" will help some ...

Ian

In addition, to choose a tactic (such as deciding to try and disarm an opponent or to aim for leg for example) you have to make it more difficult for yourself and don't take the opponent's actions into consideration.

It would be like being in a real fight and deciding "right I'm going to swing at his head now, no matter what he does." No one would ever fight like that. RQ isn't granular enough that you can say "ok he's defending himself that way which means I should get a blow to his head if I feint then attack slightly from the side."

No, what I am saying is a combatant chooses to attempt to create an opening to allow them to swing his opponent's head, or disarm, or whatever. Not attempt to hit his head no matter what he does. That is what making tactical decisions is about. And, that is exactly how hand to hand combat works. Yes, there are opportunities one can take advantage of, but there are also opportunities one creates. And, yes, I already stated you make things more difficult for yourself, that is the price one pays for trying to quickly dispatch an opponent (or, of one is significantly better than his opponent, the risk is significantly less, which again models reality very well).

Taking your opponent's actions into consideration is part of the attack modifiers already stated, as well as other modifiers that may be in play due to previous actions.

Ian

OK, this is all my opinion and based upon my tastes and experiences.

Firstly, the reason I do not like the MRQII approach to CMs is this: I prefer my tactical decisions (CMs) to drive the action (attack/defense rolls) which produces the results (hit/miss/degree of success and damage and armor as appropriate). In MRQII, it is more like the action (attack/defense rolls) produce partial results (hit/miss/degree of success) which leads to a tactical decision (CMs) which then produce final results (damage and armor as appropriate). While the latter may play smoothly, it does not feel smooth, it feels disjointed(again, in my experience).

Yes, a combatant will sometimes wait for an opening and then exploit it, but a combatant will also perform certain maneuvers in order to create an opening (the feint being the most obvious example). Also, I disagree that a combatant chooses the best opening - in life or death combat, they more often than not try to take advantage of the first opening they see, since they have no idea when, if at all, the next opening will occur. Yes, sometimes they may pass up certain openings because the risk is not worth any perceived gain, or they may realize that it is a feint or ploy. But, again, the waiting for the best opening is more of a rarity.

So, given the above, I prefer to use CMs as a tactical decision to make before resolving the combat strike. I prefer a more active approach, one where the combatant tries to create the openings. However, I do concede that the best solution is probably a combination of the two. Hence, I am working up rules as such:

I classifying CMs into two categories - ones that must be selected before rolling for success (taking necessary modifiers into account), and ones that must be selected after rolling for success (to reflect taking advantage of an opening). Some CMs may fall into both categories.

Secondarily, CMs that must be chosen before rolling will have difficulty modifiers to represent the greater difficulty of forcing the action and trying to maneuver the opponent into creating an opening. Both pre-roll and post-roll usage of CMs may also have modifiers extended to the attacker to represent that they may have left them more exposed (especially if the pre-roll CM attack fails). Finally, the post-roll CMs may only take effect if the attack is two degrees of success better or a straight up critical in BRP. This reflects that a single degree of success represents a minor opening, one which does not allow any tactical decision to be made but is just enough of an opening to make contact.

Again, this is all based upon my opinion, experience, and tastes.

Ian

I am taking a different approach and using CMs as a tactical decision that can be made before rolling. They make the roll more difficult, and may also affect the next action by the character who uses them, and, depending on the maneuver, might also impact the next action taken by the opponent.

Ian

I would probably base MOV/speed on STR and DEX, modified negatively by SIZ (as mass).

Basically, creatures of identical STR and DEX but differing SIZ, the one with less SIZ "should" be faster. Creatures of identical DEX and SIZ, but differing in STR, the one with less STR "should" be slower. And, finally, creatures of identical STR and SIZ, but differing in DEX, the one with less DEX "should" be slower (though, this would be less of an effect than the other two scenarios).

After looking through the BGB and Elric! for some example MOV values (as well as the primary definition of what MOV means), I have decided to rethink this.

Since MOV is primarily defined as the number of units something can move in a combat round (emphasis mine), MOV should be primarily based upon DEX, then modified by STR (the stronger, the better) and SIZ (small is bad, average to large is good, but beyond a certain point, large is very bad).

My reasoning - given how short a combat round is, the amount of distance one can move is based upon explosiveness, reaction and agility. So, a quick reaction rules, and a high STR and low SIZ can augment the distance due to acceleration (strength to weight/mass ratio), but very high SIZ hampers (mass increases exponentially as SIZ gets higher, while strength increases in a more linear fashion, so the strength to weight/mass ration gets worse as a creature gets bigger), and very small SIZ hampers due to a smaller stride.

So, I would base MOV on DEX, and modify based upon a STR/SIZ ratio. This makes sense for most of the creatures given - dragons, while immensely strong and huge have a low DEX. Minotaurs, while strong and dexterous, have a lot of mass for their strength to move. I would also give a bonus to quadrupeds, hexapods, octopods, etc.

Also, I noted that while many of the creatures in BGB and Elric! have the same MOV, human sized creatures have a base MOV of 10 in BGB, but only a base MOV of 8 in Elric!. The latter makes more sense given some of the other values presented - wolves have a MOV of 10, but I would say that given a combat round, a wolf would be able to cover more ground than a person.

Ian

Quick cobble together - for humans (and human sized) PCs:

SIZ = 2d6 + 6

STR = SIZ + 2d6 - 6

That would give a nice range of 8 - 18 for SIZ, and corresponding (and larger range) of 4 - 24 for STR. Averages would be 13 for SIZ, and 14 for STR.

I suppose that a similar formula could be extended for other SIZ ranges as well ... using the same xd6 + y for SIZ, and xd6 - y for STR. I'll have to examine other creature SIZ and STR rolls to see how well it would work out.

Ian

I would probably base MOV/speed on STR and DEX, modified negatively by SIZ (as mass).

Basically, creatures of identical STR and DEX but differing SIZ, the one with less SIZ "should" be faster. Creatures of identical DEX and SIZ, but differing in STR, the one with less STR "should" be slower. And, finally, creatures of identical STR and SIZ, but differing in DEX, the one with less DEX "should" be slower (though, this would be less of an effect than the other two scenarios).

I'll be playing with some formulas and present some ideas later.

Also, I think basing STR of SIZ can work in either direction. Sure, larger creatures can be stronger (though not always the case), so it is also true that stronger creatures would have more mass (again, not always the case). If SIZ were to solely be mass, I would base SIZ off of STR to represent greater muscle mass. But, that would not take into account body fat. Similarly, while a larger creature (both length/height and mass) would have to be stronger on average to move its bulk around, it is very possible that there would exist smaller but stronger creatures. Again, something I may have to consider as well ...

Ian