Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[thvaz]

We have a problem now regarding creature's bites - a cow for example has a bite more powerful than a dog because of its size; because of this, even a human has a more powerful bite than a dog.

In GURPS there is a trait called Weak Bite that means that a creature with it couldn't use his full strengh in a bite. It was used mainly for herbivores, and it worked really well. With a "Weak Bite" tag we sholud represent properly creatures that did not evolve to bite in combat.

And it looks like every creature has [ATTACK_FLAG_EDGE] in his bite attack - only carnivores should have it, or they would need a tag to imply they have a more damaging bite than a non-carnivore.

We would need a tag for stronger biters too - a example that come to mind is the wolverine - a small creature with a remarkably strong bite for its size. This could come when the wolverine gets implemented on the animal donation drive.

[Neonivek]

Don't we already have a way to do this through the "bite" tags already present for natural weapons?

*checks*

Hmm apperantly not. Though it is hardly a problem exclusive to biting attacks.

only carnivores should have it

The tag determines how sharp the tooth actually is. Herbivours would have a fairly high value (except for gnawers who would have a very low value)

[nil]

bites definitely need fixing generally, but personally I think actual strength of the bite is the least wrong thing about it.  flat teeth vs. sharp teeth definitely need differentiation, but otherwise the difference between a predator and a herbivore isn't really the damage that bite does, but "what it is capable of biting" and most of all "how good it is at connecting with that bite."  anything a cow managed to bite would be in trouble, but in practice they're not even going to try because anything bigger than a tennis ball won't fit in their mouths and they lack the strong and agile neck of a animal that habitually bites things.

[Funk]

the mian thing is that the sizes of teeth and heads need to be set up.
note that in RL not all teeth are the same,size or shape i.e. canines vs molars

[Neonivek]

the mian thing is that the sizes of teeth and heads need to be set up.
note that in RL not all teeth are the same,size or shape i.e. canines vs molars

From what I understand... Creatures tend to bite things with but a single tooth.

An impressive feat I know.

Anyhow the major problem with the teeth sharpness would be fixed if the game unified blunt and sharp.

[Farmerbob]

Human bites are actually some of the most powerful bites in the animal kingdom.  We have large jaw muscles, short jaws, and our teeth are powerful and chisel-shaped.

Turtles and some other very short jawed creatures have stronger bites than humans, but most carnivores do their damage not with the bite as much as with the tearing AFTER the bite.  A alligator snapping turtle will simply snap your fingers off - human jaws can do the same, but not as well.  An alligator, dog, wolf, lion, whatever, will bite, then shake and twist or rip to do enough damage to tear off or rip soft tissues.

If it's organic and will fit in a human mouth, the human jaw can probably break it.

I believe that weapons already use a system where pressure and area are considered?

Sounds like pressure and area ratings need to be applied with animals, and then adjust for herbivore, omnivore, or carnivore teeth.

[thvaz]

Human bites are actually some of the most powerful bites in the animal kingdom.  We have large jaw muscles, short jaws, and our teeth are powerful and chisel-shaped.

Turtles and some other very short jawed creatures have stronger bites than humans, but most carnivores do their damage not with the bite as much as with the tearing AFTER the bite.  A alligator snapping turtle will simply snap your fingers off - human jaws can do the same, but not as well.  An alligator, dog, wolf, lion, whatever, will bite, then shake and twist or rip to do enough damage to tear off or rip soft tissues.

If it's organic and will fit in a human mouth, the human jaw can probably break it.

I believe that weapons already use a system where pressure and area are considered?

Sounds like pressure and area ratings need to be applied with animals, and then adjust for herbivore, omnivore, or carnivore teeth.

Indeed, I had forgot about this fact. Some time ago I had to measure by jaw strength for a tooth treatment and it was way stronger than that of a crocodile. 1200 kgf, I think.

However, we don't have mouths designed to bite in combat. It is difficult to bite something without holding it first, and it happens all the time in DF.

[Supercharazad]

Human bites are actually some of the most powerful bites in the animal kingdom.  We have large jaw muscles, short jaws, and our teeth are powerful and chisel-shaped.

That's actually pretty funny too:

A screwed up gene in all of us messes with out skull bones. The muscle that goes to out jaws has to fit through a much smaller hole, so it's smaller. This meant that because there wasn't as much muscle there, our brains could grow much bigger.

Basically, if you messed with that gene in an ape, we could make it highly intelligent.
If you fixed it in a human, they'd be stupid, but their bite would be seriously powerful.

[Farmerbob]

Human bites are actually some of the most powerful bites in the animal kingdom.  We have large jaw muscles, short jaws, and our teeth are powerful and chisel-shaped.

Turtles and some other very short jawed creatures have stronger bites than humans, but most carnivores do their damage not with the bite as much as with the tearing AFTER the bite.  A alligator snapping turtle will simply snap your fingers off - human jaws can do the same, but not as well.  An alligator, dog, wolf, lion, whatever, will bite, then shake and twist or rip to do enough damage to tear off or rip soft tissues.

If it's organic and will fit in a human mouth, the human jaw can probably break it.

I believe that weapons already use a system where pressure and area are considered?

Sounds like pressure and area ratings need to be applied with animals, and then adjust for herbivore, omnivore, or carnivore teeth.

Indeed, I had forgot about this fact. Some time ago I had to measure by jaw strength for a tooth treatment and it was way stronger than that of a crocodile. 1200 kgf, I think.

However, we don't have mouths designed to bite in combat. It is difficult to bite something without holding it first, and it happens all the time in DF.

That would make the carnivore / omnivore / herbivore tags even more useful.

Carnivores would be more likely to be able to hit, then would do damage based on mouth size, body size, and strength.

Omnivores would be unlikely to hit, but if they did hit, their damage would be based on mouth size and strength.

Herbivores would rarely hit, and if they did, their damage would be based solely on mouth size.


In essence:

Carnivores use their whole body to do damage with their mouths by shaking or twisting with their entire body.

Omnivores would likely use some part of their body to assist in doing bite damage (grabbing and holding or twisting with arms while biting)

Herbivores, if they bite, will generally not try to tear or twist, they just bite, bite, bite.

[Neonivek]

The problem is those find tons of easy exceptions within the animal world.

Some Carnivours don't have powerful bites. (in fact many don't)

While some have a bone crushing ability.

Which is another thing. The difference between a "snap" and a "Crunch"

[thunktone]

This kind of thing could lead to a lot of work on animal anatomy. Cows don't have upper front teeth for example. They just have something called a dental pad there.

[Farmerbob]

The problem is those find tons of easy exceptions within the animal world.

Some Carnivours don't have powerful bites. (in fact many don't)

While some have a bone crushing ability.

Which is another thing. The difference between a "snap" and a "Crunch"

There are exceptions to any rule, no doubt, but if you want a reasonable set of rules that can be implemented, you have to simplify.

I was trying to come up with a system that would allow different animal mouth damage that could be tied into the current weapon system.

[thvaz]

The problem is those find tons of easy exceptions within the animal world.

Some Carnivours don't have powerful bites. (in fact many don't)

While some have a bone crushing ability.

Which is another thing. The difference between a "snap" and a "Crunch"

There are exceptions to any rule, no doubt, but if you want a reasonable set of rules that can be implemented, you have to simplify.

I was trying to come up with a system that would allow different animal mouth damage that could be tied into the current weapon system.

And then we come to the point of the suggestion: with just two tags, we could simulate bites a lot better than we can now.

[WEAKBITE] for large animals that have mouths not designed to bite in combat. This tag would make them use only a fraction of their size when accounting for damage dealt by bite. We could use them for most large herbivores and humanlike creatures.

Large Animals with no particular strong or weak bite should pass without any tag.  Most large omnivores and carnivores would have them.

[STRONGBITE] would serve in general for small creatures with jaws or vicious bites: creatures with bites stronger than their body size would indicate.

[Farmerbob]

Ah, I see, you want to add a creature tag.  I want to weaponize their mouths.

Either way would work I suppose, the creature tag would be simpler and less flexible, but might well be the better choice.  It would certainly be the easier choice.

[Neonivek]

Id rather there not be a "Weakbite" and "strongbite" tag of weirdness

A simple "Strength" tag that starts at 100 (for 100%) for natural attacks works just fine and fulfills the roles of making claw, kicks, and punches more powerful for creatures who have better versions available.