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.
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.
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.
Size | Base Strength Dice | Strength Variance | Minimum Str Dice |
2 or less | 0 | 0 | 0 |
3 | 1D3 | 0 | 1D3 |
4 | 1 | 1D-4 | 1 |
5 | 5 | Flux | 1 |
6 | 30 | Flux x 5 | 5 |
7 | 130 | Flux x 25 | 5 |
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: