Claws...

[ahzad]

nothing really to add to this thread other than this has been one of the most interesting threads to follow lately.

i like raven's points and will be adopting the AP1 for a lot of the bigger animals. my players just haven't been threatened by animals not like i think they should've been. i don't know if it's just bad rolls on my part but the few critters i've tossed at them might as well have been stuffed animals for all the damage they managed to do to them. i considered going the finesse route for a few of the top of the line predators b/c of their tendancy to go for the weak areas on their prey, hamstringing to hamper their movement, necks, ect., but didn't want them to total bypass the armor b/c lets face it humans aren't their natural prey so they wouldn't necessarily have learned to avoid the armored spots. so i'll try the claws AP1 and see if that doesn't give them some teeth.

 

[Sutek]

The fact is that if a Saber-tooth had AP1 claws, then the actual AP total would end up being AP9 (because of STR bonus + base AP) and the best AP a man made, low quality steel weapon in the list is AP8 - the Pollaxe. Now, I know large wild cats are scary, but a broadsword (AP3) is not 3 times more dull than the claws of a Saber-tooth. No way that makes sense.

Sutek,

A human with a 26 strength (equivalent to a saber tooth tiger) wielding a broadsword would have an AP of 11 (3 + str bonus). The fact that the saber tooth tiger's claws have an AP 1 implies that its claws are 3 times duller than a broad sword. The strength is what makes up the difference.

argo,

The discussion about quality of armor came up because people were using modern day comparisons of steel armor to zoo bred creatures to demonstrate that those creatures’ claws can't tear through the armor. Raven's point is that this comparison is fallacious. The creatures in the Hyborian age are more fierce, and the armor at the time is not as strong as modern conceptions, therefore the argument that creatures couldn't cut through armor and thus have 0 AP is invalid.

The conception that a 26 strength saber tooth tiger couldn't cut through a brigandine coat is ridiculous. But with giving the tiger's claws an AP 0, that is exactly what the rules mechanic implies.

I'm not sure why you're under the impression that a zoo lion has different claws somehow compared to a wild lion. Now maybe there are special, powerful lions ouf there that have special, powerful claws, but, as has been mentioned, this would be some sort of lion-varient like a dire-lion or something.

In terms of the example citing a strength 26 character with a sword versus a strength 26 Saber-tooth with a claw...well, you've forgotten that the Saber-tooth gets three attacks (claw/claw/bite) from a pounce, ideally from being hidden or something, so the target's caught flatfooted. If any claw attack hits, the Saber-tooth automatically gets to attack with the Rake action, two attacks with it's rear claws. So that's 5 attacks in the surprise round dealing enough damage potentially to easily get 20+ inflicting Massive Damage and dropping any character or other creature. The character with a sword and 26 strength may get 3 attacks, but no other special benefit.

As an aside, a strength 26 character is possible by level 11, I believe: Cimmerian Barbarian. At that level, killing a Sabertooth ought to be fairly easy to manage. Trouble is, if the Sabertooth goes first, it doesn't matter because of Massive Damage.

It isn't rediculous to think that a Sabertooth cat couldn't slice through the armor plating of Brigandine. What happens it that the impact is strong enough that the cat's claws find purchase through the plates. This would be a Finesses attack, but the Sabertooth's damage is bound to be high enough that Finesse Attacks aren't necessary anyway.

I just think that if your animal encounters aren't happening to turn out deadly enough, you might need to alter the behavior of the animal, not the AP of the claws.

Now, to vipers attacking boots: they don't. They are trying to attack the leg, but hit the boot and don't inflict damage. That's a "miss" or that the DR of the boot was high enough to stop a damaging blow. Viper bite attack specifically says it is a Finesses Attack, whereas a Sabertooth's claws do not - they don't try to Finesse. They just brute it out and slam into thier prey, digging in claws where they may. The Rake is actually what wild predator cats do by leaping on the back of some gazelle or something, sinking thier jaws in around the throat to snap the wind-pipe of the animal, and the raking with thier hind claws to gut the quarry. It's very fast and very deadly, but if they dont' manage to pull it off, the gazelle either gets away clean, or gets away wounded enough for the cat to track it down.

It's the special ramifications of animal attacks and the tactics the animals use to make those attacks that really matter. Not AP.

 

[Hyborian Apeman]

I'm not sure why you're under the impression that a zoo lion has different claws somehow compared to a wild lion. Now maybe there are special, powerful lions ouf there that have special, powerful claws, but, as has been mentioned, this would be some sort of lion-varient like a dire-lion or something.

See one of Raven's earlier posts for this part of the discussion.

In terms of the example citing a strength 26 character with a sword versus a strength 26 Saber-tooth with a claw...well, you've forgotten that the Saber-tooth gets three attacks (claw/claw/bite) from a pounce, ideally from being hidden or something, so the target's caught flatfooted. If any claw attack hits, the Saber-tooth automatically gets to attack with the Rake action, two attacks with it's rear claws. So that's 5 attacks in the surprise round dealing enough damage potentially to easily get 20+ inflicting Massive Damage and dropping any character or other creature. The character with a sword and 26 strength may get 3 attacks, but no other special benefit.

As an aside, a strength 26 character is possible by level 11, I believe: Cimmerian Barbarian. At that level, killing a Sabertooth ought to be fairly easy to manage. Trouble is, if the Sabertooth goes first, it doesn't matter because of Massive Damage.

All of this is beside the point. Your argument was that the AP 9 of the saber tooth implied its claws were 3 times sharper than a broadsword. I pointed out your logic was incorrect because you were comparing a base AP + Str to a base AP. This is not a valid comparison. When you make an appropriate comparison, you see the broadsword is indeed considered sharper than the claws for purposes of game mechanics.

It isn't rediculous to think that a Sabertooth cat couldn't slice through the armor plating of Brigandine. What happens it that the impact is strong enough that the cat's claws find purchase through the plates. This would be a Finesses attack, but the Sabertooth's damage is bound to be high enough that Finesse Attacks aren't necessary anyway.

Here is the heart of our disagreement. I would argue that the above description is the saber tooth piercing the armor. Brigandine armor is not just the metal plates, its the leather adjoining it along with other rings and padding that help protect the user. I would argue a finesse would go after a throat, face, groin and under arm (where the padding, leather, rings, etc are not as thick to allow for flexibility) to avoid the best defenses of the armor. The fact that the shear strength of the saber tooth is able to tear through parts of the armor indicate an AP ability. The metal plates that it can't tear through represents the half DR that is still subtracted from damage even after AP beats DR.

I just think that if your animal encounters aren't happening to turn out deadly enough, you might need to alter the behavior of the animal, not the AP of the claws.

It's not about animal encounters being 'hard enough', its about them being as hard as they could be. Its also about consistently applying a game mechanic through all encounters, even ones where creatures have enough other abilities to compensate for not being allowed a AP (as in the ghoul, son of set, and saber tooth examples you mentioned).

Now, to vipers attacking boots: they don't. They are trying to attack the leg, but hit the boot and don't inflict damage. That's a "miss" or that the DR of the boot was high enough to stop a damaging blow. Viper bite attack specifically says it is a Finesses Attack, whereas a Sabertooth's claws do not - they don't try to Finesse. They just brute it out and slam into thier prey, digging in claws where they may.

Exactly! They don't finesse! They cut right through everything with their claws. Implying an AP bonus. This paragraph sounds like we are on the same page.

It's the special ramifications of animal attacks and the tactics the animals use to make those attacks that really matter. Not AP.

Its the ramifications of animal attacks and the tactics animals use to make those attacks combined with not in place of AP that makes animal encounters what they should be in Conan.

 

[Sutek]

All of this is beside the point. Your argument was that the AP 9 of the saber tooth implied its claws were 3 times sharper than a broadsword. I pointed out your logic was incorrect because you were comparing a base AP + Str to a base AP. This is not a valid comparison. When you make an appropriate comparison, you see the broadsword is indeed considered sharper than the claws for purposes of game mechanics.

Of course it is, and it takes advantage of the wielder's Strength because of that fact. Claws are not sharp like a sword, they merely focus the brute strength of the animal at those points. I suppose you could argue that a sword does the same thing, but a sword is also essentially a lever with the productive end multiplying the force generatied by shere strength. Claws don't work that way.

Damage dealt might not penetrate, but it may do enough to incapacitate the wearer of the armor plus damage that armor. AP isn't needed, and that's why it isn't assigned to claws and other natural attacks.

Now, to vipers attacking boots: they don't. They are trying to attack the leg, but hit the boot and don't inflict damage. That's a "miss" or that the DR of the boot was high enough to stop a damaging blow. Viper bite attack specifically says it is a Finesses Attack, whereas a Sabertooth's claws do not - they don't try to Finesse. They just brute it out and slam into thier prey, digging in claws where they may.

Exactly! They don't finesse! They cut right through everything with their claws. Implying an AP bonus. This paragraph sounds like we are on the same page.

Correct. As I've been saying, if you want to, then allow them to Finesse, but AP1 is overdoing it. AP0 is appropriate.

 

[Raven Blackwell]

Just to let you know, I ain't continuing this arguement. I'm not giving up, but the time required to post on this was starting to cut into my other projects. It is also kinda silly to me be debating physics of a completely fictional world. If I want AP 1 Claws and AP 2 Bite I'm gonna damn well use them. If Howard wants a hero capable of pulling himself of a crucifix and riding off into the desert without dying or permenant injury, he can do that too. I ain't picky, I just want a good story.

Raven, tuning out.

 

[argo]

argo,

The discussion about quality of armor came up because people were using modern day comparisons of steel armor to zoo bred creatures to demonstrate that those creatures’ claws can't tear through the armor. Raven's point is that this comparison is fallacious. The creatures in the Hyborian age are more fierce, and the armor at the time is not as strong as modern conceptions, therefore the argument that creatures couldn't cut through armor and thus have 0 AP is invalid.

First off, I don't agree that metalurgy/armor of the Hyborian age is, of necessity, poorer than modern conceptions. This is not supported either by the rulebook or Howard's writtings. Matter of fact I'd think that I can make an agrument for just the opposite based on Howard's stories, if nothing else there is the example of Aquilonian pate to point to.

But that doesn't matter, which is why I didn't address it in my last point.

The strength of a set of armor is reflected by its DR. AP is the ability of a weapon to penetrate armor (cutting, puncturing or crushing it). If you think that the armor in question is inferior you adjust the DR of the armor, it doesn't justify changing the AP! The two are independent of each other.

And it just doesn't make any sense to argue that the claws of a normal animal could cut through steel. If you give them AP then you are saying that that is a possibility regardless of weither or not you think that Hyborian Plate is made of "real" steel.

As for Hyborian animals being "fiercer" than our modern counterparts. Well this discussion was about "normal" animals to begin with and that I what I was talking about. However, as I said above, I could see giving dire animal AP on their claws. Dire animals certainly fit the bill for "fiercer" Hyborain wildlife but I do believe that hyborian age animals are not exclusively dire, I think normal and dire animals both roam the wilds and as I said in my posts Conan eventually graduated from worrying about normal animals to sweating over dire ones and so should your players.

Hope that helps.

 

[Hyborian Apeman]

argos,

Things got a little side tracked, let me re focus:

The pure steel armor of the hyborian age (plate) has a DR 10. A sabertooth tiger would only have a AP 9 if claws were given an AP 1. Therefore, they wouldn't be able to cut through armor, and the mechanic is consistent for both of our point of views.

I am talking about the other kinds of armor (the ones that are not pure steel) that I believe the claws of the animal can tear through. I agree with you that AP is the ability to penetrate armor. My entire point for this entire thread is that I believe they can! And thus an AP bonus is appropriate.

I do not think we are too far apart here, unless you do not believe claws should be able to penetrate any type of armor.

 

[Sutek]

The terms "pure steel" and "full plate" are also mutually exclusive - one does not indicate the other. Chain can be made from pure steel, while plate can be made from wrought iron or inferior steel. Temerping hardens metal and animal horns, antlers, claws and teeth are not tempered - they are simply either modified hair or skin or bone.

Swords and other weapons are made to chop through armor. Animal natural weapons are "made" to cut into flesh. If a bite is somehow able to crack through armor, it's because the creature inflicting that damage is very strong or has an exceptional sort of attack (as in the case of the crushing attack of a Son of Set). This is why AP is assigned to specific kinds of attacks in each animal profile (Sabert-tooth bite, Son of Set constriction, etc.)

Making stuff like this AP1 or more breaks the system.

In other words, I'm sure this was playtested out because certain animal attacks have AP and others do not. Certain animal attacks are listed in the profile as being Finesse attacks and others are not.