• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

BeastMaker Strength and Personal Combat - a problem and proposed solution

OjnoTheRed

SOC-13
Marquis
From experimenting with unarmed combat as detailed in this thread using my idea for a 2D BeastMaker Table (the second one) and encountering the problems I detailed in my recent blog post, I wanted to share some thoughts. My blog post is very long (sorry readers!) and has buried this issue. I may have missed things in the core rules, and so what I think is a problem may not be. But this is the way I am seeing things, and I think this needs to be fixed as errata but I want to ask the community here first.

Beast Strength is generated via Table 5 on page 581, and it is based on Size (as benchmarked on page 36), multiplied by the roll of a die that gives you the number of dice to roll for Strength. The table uses the abbreviation "Str=". Page 576 of the rulebook elaborates: "Strength indicates the relative strength of the animal. The description of Strength is relative: a large weak animal (Str= 5 x 1D) is probably stronger than a tiny strong animal (Str= 1 x 4D)."

I am inferring from these two references to Beast strength that it is intended to be a direct analog of Sophont Strength, and used for resolving tasks and damage with natural weapons, and is the one characteristic to which hits are applied before the beast is out of action (equivalent to one characteristic being reduced to zero for players). Burden is calculated separately for Beasts on page 583.

For the purpose of this discussion, I am taking a Strength of 5 x 1D to be equivalent to 5D although the results are distributed very differently, their range is the same.

The problem is in resolution of damage from combat. All natural weapons have damage listed on page 260 (BladeMaker) as "=C1" which on page 231 as "=Str Dice" as an environmental effect. A Size 4 creature with Typical strength of 2D gets 4 x 2D strength. Does this mean that in combat they get 2D of hits when striking with a natural weapon, or 4 x 2D hits?

If it is the latter, then a creature the size of a cat (e.g. a Size 3 creature) could have 3 x 4D damage, equivalent to 12D damage, making our Formidably Strong Cat more powerful than most high powered energy weapons.

It also means that our Formidably Strong Cat can take, on average, 42 hits before falling unconscious. An Advanced Battle Rifle-9 doing Bullet-5 will not take this creature down in one combat round even rolling 6's on all 5 dice. For a creature weighting around 3kg.

Sophonts are not nearly as good at taking damage - if we reverse the calculation on page 559, Sophont total physical characteristic dice are equal to size in litres divided by 12. Our 3kg Formidably Strong Cat at anything from 30 litres to 2 litres (depending on density) could come in at 3 dice to 0 dice for all three physical characteristics. Our ABR-9 could blow away a Sophont of this size, why not a Beast?

There is a huge dissonance between the way Sophonts take damage and Beasts take damage. Beasts having more hits than Sophonts to a certain extent is understandable - without intelligence, a living creature would need to be stronger, faster, or have other adaptations to survive. But the difference is an order of magnitude in the rules as they stand.

My proposed solution is to base Strength directly on Size, and utilise Flux to work out precisely how many dice a creature rolls for Strength. This creates a scalable solution with variations it will be fun for the Referee to justify. For creatures Size 2 or smaller, they are assigned a 0 for Strength; they do no damage in combat and are assumed to die from a casual swat.

SizeBase Strength DiceStrength VarianceMinimum Str Dice
2 or less000
31D301D3
411D-41
55Flux1
630Flux x 55
7130Flux x 255

Each Beast starts with Strength Dice under Base Strength Dice. Then roll for Strength Variance which varies the number of Strength dice. For example, a Size 5 creature starts with 5D for Strength. Then we roll Flux, and add this number of dice to Strength. We might roll -3 on Flux; this means the Beast ends up with 2D for Strength. This replaces Table 5 on Page 581.

Strength would then be listed in terms of dice on the Animal Encounter table, and represent the number of hits before the Beast is out of action; Str as the Beast's Asset for Personal Combat tasks; and the number of dice to roll for damage from natural weapons.

One possible objection I want to anticipate: that the higher number of hits accounts for Beasts possibly having natural armour. But at present, nearly all creatures would need this justification for the ability to take additional hits, and Str also represents the damage the creature can do. At the larger end of the spectrum, Size 7 creatures are as big as Adventure Class Ships, and so hundreds of dice makes sense for Strength in terms of hits, and brings damage from Strength into line with ram damage based on tonnage of the creature.

There is also an additional problem: Page 575: "What Animals Are Encountered. The Animal Encounter Tables concern themselves with important animals which provide challenges and (potentially) interesting encounters. They usually ignore small, inconsequential animals: mice and squirrels may inhabit the terrain hex, but unless they have some importance, they do not appear on the Animal Encounter Tables." Yet the rules as they stand will randomly generate tiny microscopic creatures; this is probably a whole other discussion.
 
Last edited:
Reading through your post a couple of times makes it look like when it comes to handling animals, the data is spread all through T5, which is a headache. I do need to get it though.

I do have a couple of thoughts for you when it comes to working up animals with hit points and attacks. Have you looked at any other game systems to get an idea of how various animals compared to your standard human of roughly 150 pounds, 75 kilograms? You also might want to take a look at some of the classic books on hunting, to see what it takes to drop an animal with one shot. Compared to a human, most animals are a lot tougher.

Say you put a slug from a 30-30 into a man's abdomen, about a 150 grain soft-nose, and that guy is very likely down and out for a while. Put a 300 grain soft nose from a .375 Magnum through the abdomen of a Cape Buffalo, and you have one very upset Cape Buffalo coming after you. Note, buffalo have been known to head for deep brush and ambush the hunter.

You can drop an elephant with a perfect brain shot from a 6mm using full-jacketed rounds, but your target is about 3 inches by 4 inches and the elephant has to be just in the right position for the shot. You can also hit an elephant in the head with a .600 Nitro Express, and if you miss the brain, the elephant might be down and out for up to 30 minutes, but then you have an elephant with a bad headache who is not very happy with you. Sir Samuel Baker used a rifle firing a one-half pound explosive projectile at times for elephant hunting, and while he killed every elephant hit with one shot, they ran up to a mile after being hit. That projectile would be comparable to a 20mm explosive round with some delay. Baker was probably the finest hunter of his era, or any other era for that matter, and knew where to place his shots. Again, a hit from a 20mm explosive round in a non-vital area is going to cause bit problems, as will a 20mm round that blows up on impact, making a nasty surface wound.

Lastly, you might want to consider how the behavior of smaller animals can often tip off a hunter or pursuer that there is something a bit more hazardous in the area. Read Jim Corbett's Man-Eaters of India to get some idea about that. Small animal encounters can prove to be quite important.

There was also a discussion about determining hit dice for animals that I was in, but I cannot find it now, where I gave my formula for figuring out how tough animals were when size increased, based on analysis from hunter experience, but I cannot find it now. I will have to keep looking.

Edit Note: Found it. http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=32756

You started that thread too.
 
Last edited:
For creatures Size 2 or smaller, they are assigned a 0 for Strength; they do no damage in combat and are assumed to die from a casual swat.

How big are Size 2 animals? If on the order of a house cat, Canada Goose, or falcon, they are not going to die from a casual swat, and you would be surprised by how much damage that they can do.
 
Thanks for the insights, I'll read the post with interest.

Size 2 are typically 75mm in length; and on the charts can vary from 20mm through to 20cm, although in the range 10cm to 20cm the sizes overlap with Size 3.

I'm visualising anything from a spider to a small gecko; definitely smaller than a common brown rat. Although you might miss, these are sizes where you'd probably squash them from treading on them. In a combat context, someone aiming a deliberate blow is certain to disable it if they hit it, and will probably kill it.
 
P.S. I'd completely forgotten I'd started that thread! How funny is that - and yes, it was about the same encounter, we hadn't played since then. Thanks heaps for your responses both times.
 
Thanks for the insights, I'll read the post with interest.

Size 2 are typically 75mm in length; and on the charts can vary from 20mm through to 20cm, although in the range 10cm to 20cm the sizes overlap with Size 3.

I'm visualising anything from a spider to a small gecko; definitely smaller than a common brown rat. Although you might miss, these are sizes where you'd probably squash them from treading on them. In a combat context, someone aiming a deliberate blow is certain to disable it if they hit it, and will probably kill it.

The problem is that means a Size 2 is about the size of a scorpion or Black Widow Spider and similar poisonous spiders, and about right for the Blue-Ringed Octopus, which is one of the deadliest marine creatures around. Then you have some of the shellfish that are equally lethal in terms of poison. I would have to check on the size of the Lionfish and the Stone Fish of the Pacific. Those are just the ones on Earth.

If you add in the extraterrestrial environment, animals that might not be poisonous to the local fauna might be highly poisonous to humans and Earth-adapted creatures. That small thing that looks like a gecko might just have what amounts to cobra poison for its saliva. If the small creature originated on a high-gravity planet and is introduced to a planet with lower gravity, it might not simply crush when stepped on, but retaliate with a body adapted to high gravity. See the Mesklinites in Hal Clement's Mission of Gravity.

In putting together your encounter tables, you might want to consider such things. I am working on a set of encounter tables for Classic Traveller (to include Starter Traveller and The Traveller Book) similar to what are found in the Animal Encounter Supplement, but basing them for a starter on Earth ecologies.
 
The problem is that means a Size 2 is about the size of a scorpion or Black Widow Spider and similar poisonous spiders, and about right for the Blue-Ringed Octopus, which is one of the deadliest marine creatures around. Then you have some of the shellfish that are equally lethal in terms of poison. I would have to check on the size of the Lionfish and the Stone Fish of the Pacific. Those are just the ones on Earth.

If you add in the extraterrestrial environment ...

I solidly agree; looking back at the BeastMaker weapons table on page 581, the weapon "sting" comes up, which back on page 260 inflicts Pen =C1 (i.e. Str Dice) and in addition Poison 2D hits; does this mean roll 2D, and then this is the number of dice to roll for Poison damage? (e.g. roll 7, and inflict Poison-7?) or does it mean inflict 2D hits of type Poison? This is contradicted on page 231 where Sting inflicts "Poison = Str Dice or Tranq". This is definitely errata (I'll log it after some further investigation and reflection on your posts).

So there's scope for a 'poison' built in as a natural weapon that is used in the context of local ecology especially by carnivores. This damage is potentially of a different type to "blow" or "cuts" which would be determined by overall strength dice, and a separate Poison rating (if we go with the page 260 interpretation). We could have fun with different poison effects and antidotes.

I like even more your approach of building a bit of non-Earth ecology that is "unintentionally" ;) harmful to human PCs, or affects them in some interesting way. This would add colour via the local ecology to a gaming session.

I've been running a bit of D&D 3.5 for the kids as well, and the Monster Manual is a good source of inspiration for "alien" effects implemented as special rules.
 
I have the older D&D books, from the original tan ones to AD&D and the Blue Book D&D, and they do make very useful monsters and monster ideas.

Also, if you are running D&D, you might want to check out the tubes of critters from Safari Limited. I get them from the Shedd Aquarium in Chicago, Michael's, and Hobby Lobby. They have a wide range of animals that you could use as either window dressing, or ideas for creatures, or to represent said creature to your players.

You may also want to check out the following short story on Project Gutenberg.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/29987/29987-h/29987-h.htm

Sterling Lanier's Join Our Gang, on putting Earth creatures into another planetary environment. Quite interesting.
 
Back
Top