Fera Assumptions

[Cheesefondue]

For the combats pitting the different Fera against each other, I've made the following assumptions, and just wanted to check they were reasonable. The changing breed book is somewhat ambiguous on a lot of issues:

*The Ananasi can normally only spend one blood per turn to get an extra action.
*All Fera except for the Corax can bite for aggravated damage. In crinos-equivalent form, this is for Strength+1, except for the Mokole that have Strength+2. The Nagah have poison (I have another post on that).
*All Fera except for the Nagah, Ratkin, Apis, and Grondr have Strength +2 aggravated claws.
*The Nagah do Strength +1 aggravated damage with claws.
*The Ratkin do Strength +2 lethal damage with claws.
*The Apis has no claws, but can do Strength +2 aggravated damage with its horns (at difficulty 7, as per the text).
*The Grondr has no claws, but can do Strength +1 aggravated damage with its hoofs (at difficulty 7, as per standard kick).

Just wanted to be sure I hadn't missed anything major, or made the wrong assumptions, before I started running the program...

[idpersona]

could come up, but drinking Ratkin blood causes aggravated damage.
Rokea skin causes lethal damage without gifts involved.
Gurahl spend rage differently than the rest.

There are other Fera specific rules, but I can't think of them off the top of my head at the moment.

[Cheesefondue]

Thanks! But those are clearly indicated in the rules, and I've incorporated them. Whether or not certain fera have claws... is often a question of looking at the pictures ^_^

[idpersona]

Grondr doing Agg with hooves. Where is that from? I would've assumed tusk attacks for them.

[Cheesefondue]

Grondr doing Agg with hooves. Where is that from? I would've assumed tusk attacks for them.

That's my interpretation. It's stated they have sharp hooves, and shapeshifter damage is almost always aggravated...

What would tusk attacks come under?

[CeltSPZ]

A few things, what about archid traits? How are you going to rule on those?

Also as for the Apis and Grondr, I brought up the dmg issue with Stew during the Kickstart for CB20. He said unless otherwise stated all fEra have the same claw and bite dmg as garou, he didn't feel it had to be in the book. Mind you, that is info coming from me and not the book, so I understand if you won't want to go by it.

[idpersona]

That's my interpretation. It's stated they have sharp hooves, and shapeshifter damage is almost always aggravated...

What would tusk attacks come under?

For Tusk attacks, I would just treat it as a bite. Seems easiest.

[Cheesefondue]

A few things, what about archid traits? How are you going to rule on those?

The simple Mokole has no combat-relevant archid traits. The broken one has terrible claws (along with razor claws, giving +5 damage), and stacks Armored Scales (5 of them, in fact).

Also as for the Apis and Grondr, I brought up the dmg issue with Stew during the Kickstart for CB20. He said unless otherwise stated all fEra have the same claw and bite dmg as garou, he didn't feel it had to be in the book. Mind you, that is info coming from me and not the book, so I understand if you won't want to go by it.

Hum. I've decided it's irrelevant anyway; I won't do any broken versions of those fera, and the simple ones will just bite.

[CeltSPZ]

Wise choice, I always felt armor was designed better then behemoth or tall.

[Saur Ops Specialist]

Wise choice, I always felt armor was designed better then behemoth or tall.

It's only adjusting one variable, so that kind of goes without saying. The components of the old Huge Size, those were far more complex. I think that it might have been better to soft-lock them from being selectable by having size tiers with different Archid stats, and balancing the number of other Traits by which size you choose rather than by Gnosis (so being really big would only give you a small number of other options, but being the size of a Crinos Garou would provide lots of space for customization).

[CeltSPZ]

Yea I agree, the thing that always bugged me was that you could be 200 ft, but a 10 garou could have a higher strength score, not to mention you don't get any bonuses on the feats of strength chart.

[Saur Ops Specialist]

Yea I agree, the thing that always bugged me was that you could be 200 ft, but a 10 garou could have a higher strength score, not to mention you don't get any bonuses on the feats of strength chart.

Well, at that point, the Strength chart would be kind of meaningless. You should just start rolling your "Strength" on the demolition chart in Hunter Book: Avenger instead; each success is a level of structural damage, with one point representing a completely demolished structure roughly the size of a modest shed.

[idpersona]

Well, at that point, the Strength chart would be kind of meaningless. You should just start rolling your "Strength" on the demolition chart in Hunter Book: Avenger instead; each success is a level of structural damage, with one point representing a completely demolished structure roughly the size of a modest shed.

I had never read the Hunter creed books, though I do have them on my shelves. I wish there was a core rulebook (similar to nWoD) where all of the rules were complied. Hunter Book: Avenger is worth having just for that section now. Then again, such a book would also require the various splats to actually run off the same basic rules.

[Cogliostro]

Yea I agree, the thing that always bugged me was that you could be 200 ft, but a 10 garou could have a higher strength score, not to mention you don't get any bonuses on the feats of strength chart.

If you have a 200ft creature with Strength 10 and treat it like a Garou with strength 10, you're doing something wrong.

[Erinys]

What are the "broken" and "simple" builds people mention? I have CB2 but don't know what this is.