animal weapon generation problem (Carnivores)

[lemmy the lurch]

Using the Animal weapon chart on pg 71 of the core rule book any die role 2D of 13+ gives a weapon of Thrasher +2. As any Carnivore gets +8 on this table over 80% of Carnivores will get this weapon surely this was not the intention . Am I misunderstanding something? Not sure what a Thrasher on land would be anyway?

 

[lurker]

I'm no math whiz so I'll take your word that it is 80%, but I interpret it the same way. I have 2 possible table modifications that make sense.

The simple one is just add 14+ Claws and Teeth +3. I believe this is easier to accept than thrasher.

The more detailed one is a total rewrite of the original and I'll leave it up to you to create your own instead of posting mine for people to rip apart.

 

[GypsyComet]

Some of the big cats almost qualify as Thrashers, as they will grip the neck of their prey and use their own weight to flip the animal off its feet. Housecats playing with their prey exhibit thrasher behavior as well.

Another interpretation might be an aggressive gorilla type that doesn't so much bite or claw as grab you and fling you at a tree or rock, grab and repeat.

 

[lemmy the lurch]

Some of the big cats almost qualify as Thrashers, as they will grip the neck of their prey and use their own weight to flip the animal off its feet. Housecats playing with their prey exhibit thrasher behavior as well.

Another interpretation might be an aggressive gorilla type that doesn't so much bite or claw as grab you and fling you at a tree or rock, grab and repeat.

Thanks for your ideas on this and i do take your point. I still believe this to be a mistake in the rules. looking at similar tables in the other incarnations of traveller would confirm this as they do not have this weapon type for 8 in 10 of all Carnivores. So I will be using a hacked version from these versions from now on.

 

[lemmy the lurch]

I'm no math whiz so I'll take your word that it is 80%, but I interpret it the same way. I have 2 possible table modifications that make sense.

The simple one is just add 14+ Claws and Teeth +3. I believe this is easier to accept than thrasher.

The more detailed one is a total rewrite of the original and I'll leave it up to you to create your own instead of posting mine for people to rip apart.

Thanks for getting back to me on this. The 80% comes from needing only 5+ on 2D for this weapon type (given the dm+8) for all carnivores. I like your solutions its either that or use a version of this table from previous traveller versions. none of them suffer from this problem and Thrasher is not very common as a weapon in any other version.

 

[phild]

I read this the other day too, and just saw it as another part of a broken set. After all, there are no modifiers to Armour given yet the armour table goes from 0 to 13 as well. Not well proofed at all.

Indeed, with some extensive flicking through, I couldn't even *find* what the definition of a Thrasher was. Not listed anywhere that I could see. And don't get me started on the proliferation of over-sized, over-violent, super strong animals that the system generates. Nope, I know animal encounter generation is one of those CT staples, but this system doesn't do the game any credit at all.

Love the game otherwise! Just in case people think I'm trolling

 

[GypsyComet]

I know the animal attack forms were described *somewhere* back in pre-history, but not in the places I've looked so far. I suspect a JTAS article back in the day, as I vaguely recall sharks and gators being held up as the archtypical thrashers. The bite itself is bad, but having the biter then use its considerable weight to "rag doll" the victim seemed to be the MO of the Thrasher.

As such, puppies and children are also Thrashers. Make of that what you will...

 

[Galaga]

Yup, a thrasher is "Bite/clawgrab+SHAKESHAKESHAKE/RIPTEAR"

 

[EDG]

Um, you guys do realise that "thrasher" is a weapon type, not an animal type, right? Specific animals are not "thrashers" - thrashers have never been defined as creature types in Traveller.

Based on the MGT table (and supported by what was said previously in CT's Animal Encounter tables in book 3) I think a more accurate interpretation is that "Thrashers" are actually appendages that the animal thrashes around (think "Ankylosaurus", with its big club tail) - i.e. something where the animal throws its body weight around to do damage. So a heavy tail is an obvious thrasher - I guess a "wing bash" might count for a big enough winged creature, and if you really stretch the definition then maybe a "body slam" or "trample" would count too?

Also, if you look at the rest of the weapon table you'll see teeth, claws, hooves, horns, and stingers - the only class of "attack appendage" missing from that table are tails, so it stands to reason that as the one remaining item, "thrasher" must be tails (and other similar attacks).

 

[lemmy the lurch]

Um, you guys do realise that "thrasher" is a weapon type, not an animal type, right? Specific animals are not "thrashers" - thrashers have never been defined as creature types in Traveller.

Based on the MGT table (and supported by what was said previously in CT's Animal Encounter tables in book 3) I think a more accurate interpretation is that "Thrashers" are actually appendages that the animal thrashes around (think "Ankylosaurus", with its big club tail) - i.e. something where the animal throws its body weight around to do damage. So a heavy tail is an obvious thrasher - I guess a "wing bash" might count for a big enough winged creature, and if you really stretch the definition then maybe a "body slam" or "trample" would count too?

Also, if you look at the rest of the weapon table you'll see teeth, claws, hooves, horns, and stingers - the only class of "attack appendage" missing from that table are tails, so it stands to reason that as the one remaining item, "thrasher" must be tails (and other similar attacks).

yes thanks some good ideas. Of course I realised that "thraser" was weapon type I was merely pointing out that it does not make sense to have 8 out of every 10 Carnivore generated using the tables with that weapon type. Not only does this not make sense intuitively but it is not present in any other traveller version. But as has been pointed out there are other problems. The Armour table runs from 1 to 13+ on a 2D6. But I cannot find any modifiers for amour ? So what am i missing?

 

[phild]

The Armour table runs from 1 to 13+ on a 2D6. But I cannot find any modifiers for amour ? So what am i missing?

The modifiers. Same as everyone else. They aint there

 

[EDG]

For weapons, try changing it to 1d6+7 for a Carnivore, 1d6+4 for an Omnivore, and a straight 1d6+0 fo a Herbivore.

For armour, try 2d-7+(size roll) (like you would for planet rolls). That means that bigger creatures generally have more armour (from thicker skin to armour plates). Add a DM of -2 if a Carnivore, +0 if Omnivore/Scavenger, +2 for Herbivore. And say that that 13-14 is Armour 5, and 15+ is Armour 6.

Dunno if those will work, but I think they'd produce more reasonable results.

 

[lemmy the lurch]

The Armour table runs from 1 to 13+ on a 2D6. But I cannot find any modifiers for amour ? So what am i missing?

The modifiers. Same as everyone else. They aint there

 

[GypsyComet]

The second part of the Example Animal sidebar applies the Omnivore's +4 to the Armor roll. The text is a bit ambiguous, but seems clear that carnivores get +8 only on the Weapon roll. Despite the suggestion, I suspect that herbivores should be using an unmodified roll, as a -6 would leave the vast majority unarmored. That has certainly not been the case on Earth, however.

For comparison sake the CT tables had carnivores getting a +6 and herbivores getting a -6 on the armor roll, but all the armor results were in the low numbers, so herbivores were much more likely to be armored.

Also of interest is that the MGT tables have completely dispensed with the exotic weapon types. It was quite possible in CT to have animals with attack forms that were the equivalent of a pistol...

 

[phild]

I think you'll find that most heavily armoured creatures on Earth are herbivores, which are slow moving grazers, whereas fast moving carnivores are more likely to be lightly armoured. So if Omnivores get a +4, I'd probably look to give Herbivores a +6 or something of that order.

 

[nezeray]

I'm glad that I found this thread, I was just looking over this information to create a Yeti and some smaller doglike creatures for my demo adventure.

I was looking for the information on what exactly thrasher was and what kind of damage it did.

Also haven't found a good MGT monster/animal sheet. May have to create one.

James / Nezeray

 

[lurker]

In regards to weapons, armor, speed, diet and whatnot, there is no reason why animals on another world would mirror those on earth. Is there? That would be kinda boring.

 

[phild]

In regards to weapons, armor, speed, diet and whatnot, there is no reason why animals on another world would mirror those on earth. Is there? That would be kinda boring.

No, and the dice allow for plenty of variation - and GM fiat allows for infinite variation! But science kinda underpins Traveller, and this should be as true with biology and evolutionary science, as it is with physics. There is a significant energy requirement on an animal in creating an armoured as opposed to unarmoured hide, and unless there's an evolutionary advantage for doing so, no animal would develop it. As such, you would expect to see armour on predated animals but not on predators, and predated animals are more likely to be at the lower end of the food chain, ie herbivorous.

There are exceptions tho - sharks have a relatively strong hide for fish, for example. But I imagine there are environmental reasons for this relating to protecting their innards from high pressure.

I think that even with Traveller's random system, a good GM should always try to consider evolution when they're making a creature - why would this feature have evolved? This can then actually help shape a world or add more detail to an environment, as well as improving the verisimilitude of the setting. YMMV of course!

 

[GypsyComet]

In regards to weapons, armor, speed, diet and whatnot, there is no reason why animals on another world would mirror those on earth. Is there? That would be kinda boring.

True, but on the flip side the tables should be able to produce an Earth-like distribution of animals.

The 77 edition of CT had a separate re-roll table for really unusual results, while the 82 edition appears to be where the "+8 for carnivores" started. In that edition, the weapons table goes to 20, with DMs similar to what MGT has. The armor table also goes to 20, but no animal type has more than a +2. The trick is that there are several "reroll with a further +6" spots in the armor table, providing access to the higher end armor equivalents (a result of 20 is the equivalent of Battledress).

The 82 edition also has this to say about animal weaponry "Weapon types should always be considered to be descriptive of result rather than of strict process." I'll further note that "Thrasher" has no penalty DM vs battledress (and high bonuses vs all other types) and gets an incredible HTH range bonus DM. As such, the cartoon gorilla, despite being an omnivore weighted toward herbivorous habits, is a good candidate for Thrasher. "AnkleGrab-WHAM-WHAM-WHAMWHAMWHAMWHAM!"

 

[EDG]

As such, the cartoon gorilla, despite being an omnivore weighted toward herbivorous habits, is a good candidate for Thrasher. "AnkleGrab-WHAM-WHAM-WHAMWHAMWHAMWHAM!"

Again, this is an incorrect interpretation of "Thrasher" - Thrasher is a weapon type, not an animal type. It has nothing to do with throwing or shaking the victim around - thrashers are things like "big tails", or appendages that the creatures thrashes about to damage other animals.