White Wolf Community

Animal errata mixed all over the place.

rated by 0 users
This post has 14 Replies | 1 Follower

Not Ranked
Posts 87
Setzer74 Posted: 3 Nov 2009 12:26 AM
In the book Blood of the wolf the pu the attributes of a great cat.

In the errata found here:

They list the Tiger... as being Size 6.

Yet in the book of the changing breeds p.77, they list the Tiger as being size 8 !!!

WDF !

I mean, size 6, and size 8 are much different.

What must I do ?  Take the average 7 and go that way ?

Im tempted to go with the size 8, as seing how much errors was found in the blood of the wolf book... still 8 is the same size as a Grizzly bear...

Ok, lets forget the rant... but an official bestiary would be cool.  Still, what do you think are the correct attributes and stats, including size of course, of a bengal or siberian tiger ?

I need it.

Thanks.
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 417
Setzer74:
Still, what do you think are the correct attributes and stats, including size of course, of a bengal or siberian tiger ?
Siberian tigers are actually bigger, though lighter, than grizzly bears.

Additionally, in the wild, bears and tigers really do fight sometimes and its just about 50/50 who wins.  I'd suggest a quick fix is using grizzly bear stats if you have them.


Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 462
Setzer74:
They list the Tiger... as being Size 6.
Yet in the book of the changing breeds p.77, they list the Tiger as being size 8 !!!
WDF !
It's Changing Breeds, the biggest flop of nWoD. Simple as that. It's best used on its own, like the rest of the setting never really existed.

Leisure, Encapsulated: a blog about games, movies,
     music, books and whatever strikes me as fun
Not Ranked
Posts 95
Fabio Sooner:
It's Changing Breeds, the biggest flop of nWoD. Simple as that. It's best used on its own, like the rest of the setting never really existed.


Changing Breeds has the tiger size correct. Tigers are fucking huge!

As patiently as the detractors of CB reiterate their hostility towards that book, I reiterate my favorite opinion - well, not about all the rules details, which are partly dubious, but about theme and mood and the general structure of it.
Not Ranked
Posts 45
Fabio Sooner:
Simple as that.


Not as simple as that.  Its your off-topic opinion.  I happen to like Changing Breeds.

Setzer74:  Tigers as Size 8 seems correct to me as well.  Tigers are massive. 
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 46
My group and I use Size as a "general" indication of volume.
So taking that into account....

Look at a Uratha in war form..thats size 6 at least, iirc. Would a normal, unaltered tiger of any sort have that kind of volume. Unless theres some kind of species factor bonus, I cant see it being greater than size 6.

EDIT: from wikipedia:
"Reaching up to 3.3 metres (11 ft) in total length and weighing up to 300 kilograms (660 pounds), the larger tiger subspecies are comparable in size to the biggest extinct felids."

If that helps any.


Top 500 Contributor
Posts 226
Honestly there is a pretty big range regarding how big tigers are, depending on gender and subspecies.  Siberian (Amur) Tigers are much larger than Sumatran Tigers, for example, and males are much larger than females.  A female Sumatran Tiger can be under 200 lbs, where a male Siberian Tiger can weigh well over 500 lbs.

Of course most tigers in zoos are either Bengal Tigers or Siberian (Amur) Tigers, and those are the two largest subspecies.
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,578
yup and then there is the size differences between a black bear and a grizzly.  a black bear is a bit heavier than the average human (females weighing around 250lbs and males weighing up to 400) but very rarely taller than most of the taller guys running around (tallest ive seen was 6'4")
Death be not proud
Though Some may call thee mighty and dreadful
For thou art not so...
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 124
Setzer74:
They list the Tiger... as being Size 6.

Yet in the book of the changing breeds p.77, they list the Tiger as being size 8 !!!

Changing breed sizes are one larger than the actual animal sizes (A rat is NOT size 2) because nahual animal interpretations are grander than their mundane counterparts.  So... technically changing breed tigers are size 7.

Considering humans can range from size 4 to size 6 (Size is a rating of density and volume), this isn't such a big stretch.

I'd say go with size 7.
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 462
Darkness:
I happen to like Changing Breeds.
I happen to like Microsoft Windows even with all its failures. This happens.

You can debate sizes all you want, but the fact is that the developers and authors of CB didn't have any prior experience with nWoD material and messed up where stats and rules are concerned (theme and mood is subjective, though I always point out that my biggest beef about CB in that field is that it doesn't really have an overarching theme - it's all over the place and the authors couldn't decide what they really wanted).

And opinion or not, it's far from off-topic. CB came after and posited a new size for the tiger, which confused the OP. Pointing out that CB messes stats up is relevant. You can grasp at straws such as the differences between tiger A or B (it's a friggin' storytelling game, people -  this level of specification doesn't friggin' matter, it isn't GURPs Jungle!), but it won't overcome the fact that CB contradicted previous published stats. It isn't errata, it's inconsistency.

Now please go back to your little debates about tiger sizes, it's amusing. Gods.

Leisure, Encapsulated: a blog about games, movies,
     music, books and whatever strikes me as fun
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 46
*pouts*

Gosh Fab. Didnt mean to offend.

*kicks stone as he slinks off into the Dunce corner.


Top 500 Contributor
Posts 226
*cries*

But, but, Tigers are different...oh, fine!

*slinks away as well*
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,786
Actually, I'd say the tiger discussion was significantly more on-topic than one regarding the quality of the Changing Breeds book.
White Wolf PawWhite Wolf Forum Moderator
Terms of Use

Support my Mo
Not Ranked
Posts 78
What about ligers? those are monstrous gigantic!
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 462
Yeled:
But, but, Tigers are different...oh, fine!
I didn't say they aren't. They are different, that's a fact. My point of contention goes beyond the fact: is it really relevant to the storytelling system?

If this was a thread about how to amend the rules or alter stats to reflect the difference between diverse kinds of tigers, I'd have steered clear from it - I don't know anything about the topic. Different chronicles have different needs according to the group, so it's entirely natural for this kind of debate to happen.

It's just that this thread wasn't about this, it was about inconsistencies between the stats for a tiger (as in "general" tiger) between two World of Darkness books. I don't want to rain on anybody's tiger parade, I'm just pointing out that it is an inconsistency and one of the books that offers a different Size value is often considered a flop (in design terms at the very least) by a lot of people due to, guess what, messed up stats.

Sparketh, you're free to read this any way you want, but this isn't about general quality of the book, at least not alone. The OP got confused about inconsistent stats between two sources. Stating that one of those sources is often considered unreliable exactly for that kind of information is indeed relevant, sorry. Trying to find unofficial justifications for that inconsistency (AFAIK, CB doesn't say the Size value represents a single, specific type of tiger) is an extrapolation. It may not be off-topic, but it adds to the confusion.

Leisure, Encapsulated: a blog about games, movies,
     music, books and whatever strikes me as fun
Page 1 of 1 (15 items) | RSS
Powered by Community Server (Non-Commercial Edition), by Telligent Systems