Some help with big creature stats, please ...

[rust]

For the setting I am currently working on I would need the stats of some really big

creatures, like giant manta rays (SIZ from weight max. 45) and whale sharks (SIZ

from weight max. 83). This is a bit beyond my usual range of creature design, and

I am therefore not at all sure that I know a good way to determine such creatures'

STR and CON.

Any help with this would be most welcome.

[MrJealousy]

Uh oh, good question!

I think I would start by assuming that STR and SIZ are (approximately) the same dice roll. Having a quick look back at old RQ stats Dinosaurs seems to agree (give or take a bit in some circumstances), giants fit exactly.

CON seems to be mostly unrelated to SIZ and STR, other than the fact that it is lower...

What does BRP suggest?

That SIZ and STR is (mildly) related (in the Brontosaur) but CON not so much.

Looking at the Giant Squid on p.339 doesn't help, his CON is tiny compared to STR and SIZ.

Looking at the BRP Giant on p.344 I would say that CON is approximately 20%-30% lower than STR or SIZ.

That 20%-30% seems to work for the Bronto as well (give or take a bit).

So, no help at all then :-)

Still a good question though. I usually make it up!

[rust]

I usually make it up!

So did I, I just handwaved some stats which look remotely plausible.

[soltakss]

I compare the creature with what is out there at the moment.

If you can find something on the web that shows your creature in relation to another then you have a rough idea of SIZ. Put STR = SIZ for most things, change some D6s to 6s proportionally strong creatures, or add D6s for very strong creatures. CON should take care of itself, probably should be more than 2D6, though. APs shoudl depend on what kind of skin it has. If you use Hit Locations, you need to find a similar body type - Sharks and Whales probably have the same locations, a ray would have something very different.

But, once you get soemthing together, please share them as the more examples that we have the easier it is to create new creatures based on those examples.

[rust]

But, once you get soemthing together, please share them as the more examples that we have the easier it is to create new creatures based on those examples.

These are the numbers I finally decided to use:

Giant Manta Ray

STR: 6W6+4 - 25

CON: 5W6+5 - 22-23

SIZ : 6W6+9 - 30

Whale Shark

STR: 6W6+29 - 50

CON: 6W6+20 - 41

SIZ: 6W6+47 - 68

The Strength is a bit lower than the Size because both creatures are not able to use their

full body mass for any activities other than perhaps ramming something, and much of the

mass is more blubber than muscle anyway. The Constitution is just a pure handwave.

Edited August 10, 2011 by rust

[SDLeary]

What is the rationale, if any, for the high CON values? Are these species known to be much more resistant to disease than other species? This question of course assumes that you are defining CON as health.

SDLeary

[rust]

What is the rationale, if any, for the high CON values?

I wanted to make them not too easy to hunt. With the formula Hit Points = (CON + SIZ) : 2

the Giant Manta Ray has an average of 27 Hit Points and the Whale Shark an average of 55

Hit Points, "about right" for a science fiction setting where the available hunting weapons do

more average damage than in a fantasy or modern setting.

[Atgxtg]

Most creatures in BRP have STR scores within 25% of thier SIZ. So if a creature averages SIZ 80, the average STR should probably be in the 60-100 range.

For CON, I7d suggest using the old RQ2 armor rule, where minimum armor was equal to the number of dice in the damage bonus. In this case, use the number of dice as a modfier to the average CON of 10.

IMO CON probably shouldn't increase like it does, but then BRP uses CON for things like resisting toxins, when, IMO HP would be more accurate. But keping CON to within half HP seems like a good rule of thumb.

FYI, realistically the STR values shouldn't be as high as the SIZ scores. The cube-square law would result in creatures STR scores falling behind thier SIZ scores, and is a major reason why creatures only get so large.

Water creatures are supported somewhat by thier boyancy, and can be larger than land creatures. The same would hold true for low gravity planets.

[MrJealousy]

Water creatures are supported somewhat by thier boyancy, and can be larger than land creatures. The same would hold true for low gravity planets.

I like this idea, water and low grav critters have a noticeably larger SIZ than their STR...

[Atgxtg]

I like this idea, water and low grav critters have a noticeably larger SIZ than their STR...

Well, yeah. What happens is that a creatures requires a certain amount of internal structure to support it's own weight, and a certain amount of muscle (STR9 to move that weight. Under low G conditions (including to some extent in water), the structure and muscle requirements are less, so "weaker" creatures can evolve. Conversely, in high G enviroments greater structre and muscle is required, and so creatures tend to be smaller.

Ultimately, the nature of the "materials" used to "build" a creature and it's shape will limit how large it can be. This is why we don't really have 2 meter long ants, or 60 meter tall giants, and also why larger animals tend to be stockier, and also why thier STR isn't on par with thier mass (one hundred 70 kg men can probably lift more than one 7 ton elephant).

[KingSkin]

What is the rationale, if any, for the high CON values? Are these species known to be much more resistant to disease than other species? This question of course assumes that you are defining CON as health.

SDLeary

I don't know about rays but sharks have bloody amazing immune systems. Our are targetted so when something comes along our body throws general shit at it to slow it down then starts tailoring its defences. Sharks instead have what we have as babies (up until about 30 days I think) which is just a broad spectrum immune system that hits everything. The advantage is that they're incredibly resistant to most diseases but because they just use the same blanket defence against everything, if something comes along that can get through it will always get through. They have particular problems with a common form of occular parasite that their immune systems just can't touch.

[SDLeary]

IMO CON probably shouldn't increase like it does, but then BRP uses CON for things like resisting toxins, when, IMO HP would be more accurate. But keping CON to within half HP seems like a good rule of thumb.

Another winner for toxins would be SIZ alone. Though I can see the argument for HP, being injured doesn't necessarily make you more susceptible to toxins. Perhaps Max/Full HP?

SDLeary

[rust]

I like this idea, water and low grav critters have a noticeably larger SIZ than their STR...

The problem with this is that reducing the Strength reduces the creature's Damage Bonus,

and depending on the specific creature and the setting this can be unwelcome. In the ex-

ample of the Whale Shark ^^, a fully grown animal has a weight of more than 30 tons, so

an angry (e.g. wounded) Whale Shark should be able to do considerable damage by ram-

ming a boat (or a diver).

Overall, I think I have given up on attempts to model creatures realistically with the BRP

system, it just does not work well. Now all I try is to find a compromise between the real

world animal and what I need for a specific setting. If the setting needs a creature with

more Hit Points, the Constitution goes up, if it needs one with a higher Damage Bonus, the

Strength goes up, and so on.

[KingSkin]

That seems like the most sensible way to go about it and I don't think you're actually sacrificing realism with that approach. Different creatures have different ratios of musculature to overall mass. Chimpanzees for instance are proportionately much stronger than humans so factoring it directly from Size would give wonky results that don't mirror the real world.

By picking what feels right rather than slavishly using a fixed system for factoring SIZ/STR/CON in relation to each other you'll probably get a more realistic set of stats.

[Atgxtg]

Another winner for toxins would be SIZ alone. Though I can see the argument for HP, being injured doesn't necessarily make you more susceptible to toxins. Perhaps Max/Full HP?

I meant Hit Points, not current hit points. I think it works better than SIZ alone, since somewho with a mass of 100kg (SIZ 16) who is in good shape and good health (CON 14) should have a better resistance than a 100kg (SIZ 16) couch potato who can't go up a flightof stairs without taking a breather (CON 8).

[Atgxtg]

The problem with this is that reducing the Strength reduces the creature's Damage Bonus,

and depending on the specific creature and the setting this can be unwelcome. In the ex-

ample of the Whale Shark ^^, a fully grown animal has a weight of more than 30 tons, so

an angry (e.g. wounded) Whale Shark should be able to do considerable damage by ram-

ming a boat (or a diver).

Well, with a SIZ of 30 tons (SIZ 82) the Whale Shark has a 4D6 damage bonus before even factoring for STR. Even if you put it's STR on the low end, say 60 ish, you would end up with a 8 or 9D6 damage bonus, which seems "considerable" to me.

What exactly is the problem?

That is fine for matching a setting but I think you might not be looking to model creatures realistically to begin with. Reality-wise, there are upper (and lower) limits. There are reasons why you don't see 5000 ton animals walking (or swimming) about.But even so, there is a lot of wiggle room.

[rpgstarwizard]

With BRP stuff I sometimes adapt things. Instead of str+siz, use siz +con, straight siz etc.