Opponents with more than 2 arms

[MonkeyWrench]

How would you handle an opponent with more than 2 arms, say like your classic 6 armed demoness? They would obviously be deadly in combat. Would they need to make terrain rolls for fighting more than one opponent? Would you add to their CP due to extra arms? I was thinking of adding 2 Cp per extra arm, that would give the demoness a CP of 20 (Ref=6, Prof=6, Arms=8). What do you think.



(P.S. sorry if it sounds a little random, I've been up all night for reasons I can't really seem to remember)

[Mike Holmes]

The extra CP could represent being able to attack from tricky angles, etc.

OTOH, if you want the creature to be way more deadly, simply count it as more than one opponent, though ones that have to occupy the same space (but can't be "terrain rolled" into not being able to attack). So, basically, like any two opponents (or three if you're really mean), they get two maneuvers per one everyone else makes. Represents a superhumanly co-ordinated, creature, however. That just might make sense in this case depending on your definition of the creature.

Anyhow, better tag team it or pool splitting will make it really hard to survive. :-)

Mike

[Lxndr]

Having it act as two separate combatants gives you the ability to set different CP values for different sets of arms, too.  The upper-arms, which are really strong and agile, might have a higher Reflex value than the middle- or lower-arms, which are constrained and smaller.  :)

[MonkeyWrench]

But how would it's split it's attention, it's still only got one head. Unless for some fiendsih reason it's got 2 heads and 4 arms.......<evil laugh>. Seriously, how could it split it's attention to justify a whole new CP?

(Keep in mind I still haven't slept since the last time I posted.....)

[Mike Holmes]

Attention? I'm not sure what you mean. I agree that it's not at all realistic to have a creature have more attacks because it has more arms. But the idea is that this is a special case. In GURPS the character would have to take the (very expensive, 100 points, IIRC) Total Co-ordination power to be allowed to do it. What we're presupposing it a creature that might as well have two brains for purposes of the combat. Could even happen genetically, I suppose, under the right circumstances.

I mean, other than the extra heads idea, how about independently focusing eyes? Like a chameleon.  :-)  Rationalize it however you want. Maybe it's just fast and can look back and forth so quickly that it's not a problem.

OTOH, co-ordinating all those arms could be difficult, I suppose. You could also lower each "set's" CP to represent that...though I sorta assumed that you'd be setting it arbitrarily anyhow. I mean, make it as dangerous as you need it to be to be an appropriate challenge for your players.  

What, are they going to claim that you statted out a demon "unrealistically"? ;-)

Mike

[kenjib]

One way you might be able to do it would be to give a very large combat pool bonus for extra limbs, like maybe +50% per extra pair.  Then let them split their attacks like with case of rapiers.  Finally, give a maximum CP allocation for any one pair of arms at their original CP pre-bonus.

So, a four armed creature might have reflex 8, proficiency 8, for 16 CP.  The extra limbs give him another 50% for a total of 24 CP.  He can split this CP for actions between the two sets of limbs each round, but can't use more than 16 on any one pair of arms.

I think it would capture the notion of a creature gaining extra attacks, but losing some focus by having to dedicate attention in more directions.  One head, four arms.  Is it too complicated though?

[MonkeyWrench]

Attention? I'm not sure what you mean.

I was just wondering how a creature with one head could perform maneuvers as two seperate people, how could it keep it's attention focused on more than one combat?

I like the idea of independantly focusable eyes, so I guess my question is answered.

I think I'll work out a way to mix the 2 whole CPs and what kenjib suggested.

[Brian Leybourne]

Surely a creature couldn't evolve (or whatever) with more than two arms unless its brain had similarly evolved to be able to cope with them.

I quite like the idea of treating it like multiple opponents.

Heh. Makes me think of the silly 100-armed creature in D&D's eipc level handbook. Going by D&D's own rules, the laws of averages say that every round it's going to critically fumble with 5 of it's arms, so I can picture this monstrosity marching toward a party, arms flailing about and chopping off other arms etc until it reaches them and collapses from bloodloss :-)

Brian.

[Nero's Boot]

If a creature had more than two arms, and could use each equally well (i.e., with swords and other melee weapons), it will chop into tiny bits whatever poor, stupid human it happens to be fighting.

--methinks the game suffers somewhat from being TOO deadly NB

[Valamir]

Again NB, there are plenty of threads on this forum you can find which will explain in great detail why that is not the case.  You have to work pretty hard to get yourself killed in TROS.  Its extremely difficult to die accidentally.  90% of all character deaths come down to getting into a fight you had no business getting into, or making a stupid mistake...which usually means being too aggressive.

Overly aggressive players used to huge hit point buffers and just wading in to the middle of the enemy and starting to swing will die fast and messily.  Once the learning curve is passed, however, caution and tactics and well timed aggressiveness will become the rule and life expectancy is extended quite on par with any other game...meaning its highly dependent on how nasty the GM makes the opposition.

[Nero's Boot]

Valamir, the system's broken.  It literally could not handle high-powered fantasy.  If a "Seneschal" (why the hell couldn't it just be called "Game Master", btw?) tried to import half of the monsters from your typical fantasy system, TROS would snap in two.  Take an average monster, like a medusa.  With TROS, that's a campaign killer right there.  Non-magical people have virtually no defense against magic, and since I know of no natural way that a woman's gaze can turn a man literally into stone, I would assume that it's magic.

Furthermore, take a hecatonchiere, as was mentioned earlier.  This thing would be so overpowered using TROS that stats simply become meaningless.  The way wounds are recorded becomes utterly meaningless for something like this.

--say it with me now: "broken system" NB

[MonkeyWrench]

I run TROS like in a high fantasy setting. In the next session it moves to Planescape the definitive high fantasy setting. After 6 sessions of play there have only been 2 serious injuries.

As to how you wouls kill such a creature..
-Magic
-pikes, longspears, dopplehanders
- bows and crossbows
-ambush
- kill it with kindness or harsh language

Hopefully by next post I'll have the write up on this beast.

[Brian Leybourne]

MW - I look forward to that writeup.

NB - You're not alone in your impression that the TROS system is very deadly. Are you prepared to discuss it rationally? I know there are a lot of people here who have varying opinions on the matter.

If you are, then I will make a new thread for that discussion, I think it would be a valuable one. If you have already closed your mind about the system and are not interested in discussing it, well, that's fine too. I just want to know.

Brian.

[Valamir]

Valamir, the system's broken.  It literally could not handle high-powered fantasy.  If a "Seneschal" (why the hell couldn't it just be called "Game Master", btw?) tried to import half of the monsters from your typical fantasy system, TROS would snap in two.  Take an average monster, like a medusa.  With TROS, that's a campaign killer right there.  Non-magical people have virtually no defense against magic, and since I know of no natural way that a woman's gaze can turn a man literally into stone, I would assume that it's magic.

Furthermore, take a hecatonchiere, as was mentioned earlier.  This thing would be so overpowered using TROS that stats simply become meaningless.  The way wounds are recorded becomes utterly meaningless for something like this.

--say it with me now: "broken system" NB

It is certainly possible that the system is not to your taste.  But one has to look no further than the dozens of successful campaigns that are being played right now for proof that is not broken.  There are several groups here that are on their third or fourth mini campaign...which certainly would not happen with a "broken" system.  Some of my best roleplaying experiences in recent memory are with this system which is clearly not broken.

So lets start by agreeing that "broken" is a pretty pointless and loaded term to be throwing around.  Its nothing more than gamer hate speech and there for completely useless to any rational discussion.

Then lets continue with trying to nail down exactly what you're looking for.  You start by referenceing TROS doing Conan.  Which it can do, VERY easily.  You then suddenly switch to "high fantasy".  News flash, Conan ain't High Fantasy.  Not even close.  So what would you actually like to play...and what do you really mean by "high fantasy".  Most people mean some bastardized amalgam of different tropes exemplified by D&D which borrowed from everywhere and so created its own kitchen sink genre of fantasy.  Is this what you're looking for?  To run a D&D style monster bash.

Then lets go back and revisit what TROS's strengths and design goals are.  Realistic, man on man combat based on actual historical fighting manuals and techniques to give players tactical combat decisions that actually reflect to the extent paper and dice can actual dueling decisions, and create an initiative system more reflective of the natural flow of a real fight.  Well...goal achieved.  In spades.

What that does mean is that monster bashing does BY DESIGN take a back seat to man vs. man.  We don't know what a real fight with a monster would look like because no man ever actually fought a monster.  But with basically human looking monsters (orc and ogre-esque) it works quite well.  For an occassional battle with a mythical beast its doesn't work AS slickly, but it still is quite functional.  I don't imagine you can come up with a reasonable monster that we couldn't figure out how to model effectively.  It was tried before with some crazy tentacled displacer beast thing but even that we figured out how to handle the moves effectively in TROS terms.

Further, you have an odd idea of what heroes should and shouldn't be capable of.

Take an average monster, like a medusa. With TROS, that's a campaign killer right there. Non-magical people have virtually no defense against magic, and since I know of no natural way that a woman's gaze can turn a man literally into stone, I would assume that it's magic.

A medusa is not an average monster.  Medusa was a gorgon.  One of only 3 in existance.  And non magical people HAD no defense against her.  It took a hero of mythological proportions armed with magic items FORGED BY THE GODS to defeat her, and even then it was more by guile and luck than any kind of fight.  Seems to me, TROS would handle that just about right.

I'll have to ask again what you are really looking for, because your cavalier treatment of a Medusa as an "average monster" suggests "dungeon hack" to me.  I for one am tremendously thankful that TROS doesn't do dungeon hacks well.  That's what D&D and Hack Master are for.

If you have some specific facet of the game mechanics that don't seem like they'd function in the way you'd expect them to, by all means start a thread and lets discuss.  There are plenty of people who know this game in far more depth than you can from a days worth of reading the book who would be happy to discuss its nuances with you.

[kenjib]

There's a Conan story where he fights a giant slug.  He sees the thing and runs away to save his life.  They go tearing through the ruins, the thing trying to kill him as he runs for his life.  Finally he kills it, if I recall, by pulling down an entire building on top of the thing.  TROS models the reality of large creatures being very, very, dangerous pretty well.  A person would have a really hard time fighting something like that giant slug, if it really existed, with a sword.  You have to fight smart, and be creative to take down such impressive enemies, like Conan did.

It's not broken, it just doesn't play like D&D does, where high level characters can take down a couple of massive grizzly bears barehanded without breaking a sweat.