Why Do Most Animals Only get 1/2 DB on Bite Attacks?

[silent_bob]

Hello,

 

Why do most animals only get half their damage bonus on bite attacks?

 

The jaws are usually the most powerful muscles in the body and many of these animals, wolves, lions, tigers, etc... are walking jaws.

 

BRP page 331 states:

 

Generally, a creature’s claw attack will do 1D6+db,

and a bite or horn will do 1D3+db, unless the natural

weapon is poorly- or well-suited for its form of attack,

which case the damage attack will be higher or lower.

 

 

 

Which seems to say that wolves, lions and tigers should get their full DB when biting.

 

P.S. the alligator gets full DB with it's bite, so the rules seems inconsistent.

[Atgxtg]

Probably because most animal's jaw muscles, while powerful, are not as large as their other muscles and therefore not at strong.

 

Plus most animals are not carnivores, and their mouths are not made to attack with.  

 

Also, a lot of critters get their damage increased but drop their db entirely. This is typical for smaller animals that would normally have a negative db, and so wouldn't do any damage by the rules. Small dogs, cats, and hawks are some examples. .

 

 

As far as the rules being consistent, they aren't. But then, realistically, real animals are not "consistent" . Alligators have an tremendous biting force for thier size, while wolves do not.  

 

 

What you kinda need to do is look at the animals by their niche/function and body type. For instance, alligators are semi-aquatic ambush predators, while wolves are pack predators that chase their prey. So the alligator needs a killer bite attack, while the dogs need more intelligence and endurance. 

[p_clapham]

I was curious if this were the same case with Runequest.  The Avalon Hill edition I have has creatures dealing their full damage bonus on all attacks.  Same thing with MRQ and Legend.  It looks to be the same with Call of Cthulhu too.  I guess the 1/2 damage bonus thing is just a BRP thing.

[silent_bob]

Probably because most animal's jaw muscles, while powerful, are not as large as their other muscles and therefore not at strong.

 

Plus most animals are not carnivores, and their mouths are not made to attack with.  

 

Also, a lot of critters get their damage increased but drop their db entirely. This is typical for smaller animals that would normally have a negative db, and so wouldn't do any damage by the rules. Small dogs, cats, and hawks are some examples. .

 

 

As far as the rules being consistent, they aren't. But then, realistically, real animals are not "consistent" . Alligators have an tremendous biting force for thier size, while wolves do not.  

 

 

What you kinda need to do is look at the animals by their niche/function and body type. For instance, alligators are semi-aquatic ambush predators, while wolves are pack predators that chase their prey. So the alligator needs a killer bite attack, while the dogs need more intelligence and endurance. 

 

I don't agree.

 

According to the California Wolf Center (http://www.californiawolfcenter.org/learn/wolf-facts/):

 

"The wolf's jaw can exert 1500 pounds of pressure per square inch, twice the jaw pressure of a German Shepherd. Wolves can crush large bones in just a few bites."

 

Based on the above, I think wolves should get theri full DB with their bite attack.

 

Also, you didn't answer my question about lions and tigers only getting 1/2 DB on bite attacks,  Surely they have very powerful jaws.

[SokMunki]

I don't have the books in front of me, but at a guess I'd say that the Damage Bonus reflects the amount of Force you can apply in the classical sense: F = (m * a) sorta-kinda translating to DB ≈ (SIZ & STR). Basically, the stronger you are the faster you can push something into something else.

When you bite down you don't get as much acceleration compared to swinging a mace and so the damage bonus gets halved.

 

The straight-up damage, however, should reflect the typical force of the bite on your typical wolf (or baboon or manatee or whatever). A much stronger-than-average baboon is able to leverage that strength into a powerful backhand but it doesn't affect the force of a bite as much -- but it's still a nasty bite.

[Atgxtg]

I don't agree.

 

According to the California Wolf Center (http://www.californiawolfcenter.org/learn/wolf-facts/):

 

"The wolf's jaw can exert 1500 pounds of pressure per square inch, twice the jaw pressure of a German Shepherd. Wolves can crush large bones in just a few bites."

 

Based on the above, I think wolves should get theri full DB with their bite attack.

 

Also, you didn't answer my question about lions and tigers only getting 1/2 DB on bite attacks,  Surely they have very powerful jaws.

 

I doubt the 1500 PSI figure. Other sites list their bite force at closer to 400 PSI. One major reason why I can see wolves having a lower db is that their mouths are not as big as say an alligator shark, and The wolf isn't able to get that much of its mass behind the bite. At least not to the same extent as an alligator. According to http://forums.sherdog.com/forums/f48/top-20-worlds-strongest-animal-bite-forces-new-2393047/ the wolf has a bite force of 406 PSI, the American alligator 2125 PSI, and crocodile has the strongest bite force measured at 7700 PSI. 

 

The same site lists the African Lion at 691 PSI (the weakest bite force for any big cat) and the Bengal Tiger at 1050 PSI (Ouch!).

 

But I think the reason for the reduced db is that the animals' full db is excessive compared to the results against people in the real world. In BRP a 3D6 or 4D6 db is pretty much an autokill, yet in real life people do survive such bites much more often than they would a 4D6 db. Likewise wolf bites aren't nearly as effective as a broadsword swung by an average man.  .  

[SDLeary]

Basically there is no mass behind a bite, thus everything relies on the strength of the animal. 

 

SDLeary

[silent_bob]

Basically there is no mass behind a bite, thus everything relies on the strength of the animal. 

 

SDLeary

 

I am not sure there is no mass behind the bite.  Wolves, tigers, lions, etc... don't just squeeze their jaws together when they bite.  They also use their neck, legs and body to pull and rend the victim. I don't see whey the full DB shouldn't apply.

[silent_bob]

I doubt the 1500 PSI figure. Other sites list their bite force at closer to 400 PSI. One major reason why I can see wolves having a lower db is that their mouths are not as big as say an alligator shark, and The wolf isn't able to get that much of its mass behind the bite. At least not to the same extent as an alligator. According to http://forums.sherdog.com/forums/f48/top-20-worlds-strongest-animal-bite-forces-new-2393047/ the wolf has a bite force of 406 PSI, the American alligator 2125 PSI, and crocodile has the strongest bite force measured at 7700 PSI. 

 

The same site lists the African Lion at 691 PSI (the weakest bite force for any big cat) and the Bengal Tiger at 1050 PSI (Ouch!).

 

But I think the reason for the reduced db is that the animals' full db is excessive compared to the results against people in the real world. In BRP a 3D6 or 4D6 db is pretty much an autokill, yet in real life people do survive such bites much more often than they would a 4D6 db. Likewise wolf bites aren't nearly as effective as a broadsword swung by an average man.  .  

 

 

 

Those tests may only be showing warning bites and not full strength bites.  The people at the California Wolf Center are experts in wolves.

 

As for BRP game mechanics, the average BRP wolf has no DB.  Therefore, only large/strong wolves would get a DB.  I don't think this will be an instant kill for most characters. Larger animals like tigers should be able to kill an average man fairly easily.  They don't call them man eaters for nothing.

[tooley1chris]

I have to agree with SB on this one. When doing my Manual of Monster conversions it was so hard to follow the same formulas for creatures because of this theory. A kobold stabbing your character with a knife might not hurt as much as Conan the barbarian, but a dagger is a dagger. Tigers are several hundred pounds of kitty cat sinking in many little daggers and RIPPING. There should be a minimum damage based on the attack type...or at the least lower the STR/SIZ variable for damage penalties. IMO, which counts for little.

[Atgxtg]

Those tests may only be showing warning bites and not full strength bites.  The people at the California Wolf Center are experts in wolves.

[SDLeary]

I am not sure there is no mass behind the bite.  Wolves, tigers, lions, etc... don't just squeeze their jaws together when they bite.  They also use their neck, legs and body to pull and rend the victim. I don't see whey the full DB shouldn't apply.

So, they attack and bite and hold on (1/2 DB). Unless the victim is able to free themselves (Grapple rules with a penalty to the victim) then the attacking animal puts all their body into the attack on their next round (full DB).

 

Now, considering the above, and the fact that a combat round in stock BRP is about 12 seconds, I could easily be convinced that the attacking animal deserved a second attack at 1/2 DEX where they could put their body into getting their prey down. I might not be so easily convinced in other d100 systems that use shorter time scales for melee.

 

SDLeary

[SDLeary]

Those tests may only be showing warning bites and not full strength bites.  The people at the California Wolf Center are experts in wolves.

 

As for BRP game mechanics, the average BRP wolf has no DB.  Therefore, only large/strong wolves would get a DB.  I don't think this will be an instant kill for most characters. Larger animals like tigers should be able to kill an average man fairly easily.  They don't call them man eaters for nothing.

 

 

This is something that has always troubled me. Though short of totally revising Damage Bonus and perhaps even the entire damage system, I don't see any way around it other than simply adjusting base bite damage for creatures. 

 

SDLeary

[p_clapham]

This is something that has always troubled me. Though short of totally revising Damage Bonus and perhaps even the entire damage system, I don't see any way around it other than simply adjusting base bite damage for creatures.

SDLeary

Adjusting the base damage for creatures seems to work for Call of Cthulhu, Runequest, and Legend.

[Atgxtg]

This is something that has always troubled me. Though short of totally revising Damage Bonus and perhaps even the entire damage system, I don't see any way around it other than simply adjusting base bite damage for creatures. 

 

SDLeary

I did just that awhile back. Basically what I did was assign bite damage based on the creature's SIZ, shifted up or down by diet (carnivores have teeth designed to rip flesh). It worked pretty well, and matched up pretty closely with the creature stats in RQ3 and BRP. I can dig up the table if you'd like. Roughly the max damage kicked up 2 points for every 8 points of SIZ.  

[SDLeary]

Adjusting the base damage for creatures seems to work for Call of Cthulhu, Runequest, and Legend.

Yes, but then Str and Siz still don't matter as a creature without a DB is still a creature without a DB. 

 

This is the way BRP has always been, so I don't mind the fact. It is still one of those things that I try to work out in my mind once in a while. Pendragon solved this problem for example, but as a consequence reduced the differences between melee weapons, which is probably more "correct".

 

SDLeary

 

SDLeary

[Robsbot]

I see it mostly as a when would an animal bite situation. An alligator or crocodile is most likely to grab your leg, drag you down, and just snack on you. Dog or cat like animals, like a wolf or wildcat, are much more likely to pounce and scratch you, then rip out your throat with their jaws. They aren't going to be biting a human leg into a death roll. To reflect this, a crocodile is much more likely to severely injure your leg by pure strength alone. Other animals are much more likely to go for softer tissue where their damage would still easily incapacitate or kill the target. They will mechanically still rely on ambush, wear down, and outnumber tactics like in real life. 

Instead of mapping the PSI of bite force of animals into the game, they simply made the mechanics back up how the animal would attack in real life. This may make it so individual numbers do not match up in any sort of linear way, but encourages GM's to map encounters according to real life situations. Like in real life, a lone wolf isn't much of a threat as they wouldn't engage you. However, a pack of wolves is a serious issue. A lone crocodile will still drag you down and completely wreck your day however. This could also be representative of how much tissue an animal can take off. A crocodile is much more likely to rip off a whole limb from a bite, where a wolf or big cat will take off a much smaller chunk using just its jaws.

As a GM, if you're going for realism of combat effects use hit locations and have wolves and large cats more likely to knock down targets and grapple them then go for head attacks. Crocodiles will go for legs, breaking and ruining them, then munch you down from there. The actual numbers on the animals don't matter at that point. 

[Atgxtg]

Yes, but then Str and Siz still don't matter as a creature without a DB is still a creature without a DB. 

 

This is the way BRP has always been, so I don't mind the fact. It is still one of those things that I try to work out in my mind once in a while. Pendragon solved this problem for example, but as a consequence reduced the differences between melee weapons, which is probably more "correct".

 

SDLeary

 

SDLeary

YOu can adjust the base damage without getting rid of the db. 

 

What I did, and what RQ/BRP had already done is adjust the base bite and claw damage based on the SIZ of the creature and applied an db. For instance, large sharks and dragons do more than 1D6 with their bite in BRP.

[Atgxtg]

I see it mostly as a when would an animal bite situation. An alligator or crocodile is most likely to grab your leg, drag you down, and just snack on you. Dog or cat like animals, like a wolf or wildcat, are much more likely to pounce and scratch you, then rip out your throat with their jaws. They aren't going to be biting a human leg into a death roll. To reflect this, a crocodile is much more likely to severely injure your leg by pure strength alone. Other animals are much more likely to go for softer tissue where their damage would still easily incapacitate or kill the target. They will mechanically still rely on ambush, wear down, and outnumber tactics like in real life. 

Instead of mapping the PSI of bite force of animals into the game, they simply made the mechanics back up how the animal would attack in real life. This may make it so individual numbers do not match up in any sort of linear way, but encourages GM's to map encounters according to real life situations. Like in real life, a lone wolf isn't much of a threat as they wouldn't engage you. However, a pack of wolves is a serious issue. A lone crocodile will still drag you down and completely wreck your day however. This could also be representative of how much tissue an animal can take off. A crocodile is much more likely to rip off a whole limb from a bite, where a wolf or big cat will take off a much smaller chunk using just its jaws.

As a GM, if you're going for realism of combat effects use hit locations and have wolves and large cats more likely to knock down targets and grapple them then go for head attacks. Crocodiles will go for legs, breaking and ruining them, then munch you down from there. The actual numbers on the animals don't matter at that point. 

Not quite. Crocs tend to attack from ambush,  bite on an an extremity (easier to grab)  and then drag the victim into the water to drown. Once in the water they will spin, tearing off chunks.

 

Cats are less likely to tear out your throat then they are to hold you down and try to crush your windpipe and kill you from asphyxiation. Dogs and wolves will want to attack in a group, hit you from various sides, and them try to knock or pull you down. 

 

But it all depends on the relative size of the predator and prey. What a Lion can do to a man, a housecat cannot, so the housecat will probably just run away, or if cornered, go from the closest body part and get in a quick nip or slash before taking off.  

[seneschal]

"But it all depends on the relative size of the predator and prey. What a Lion can do to a man, a housecat cannot, so the housecat will probably just run away, or if cornered, go from the closest body part and get in a quick nip or slash before taking off."

 

Unless you're in one of those horror settings where the crazy old rich lady's hidden fortune is guarded by her pet cats, listed first in her will.  The player-characters benefit only after her "babies" pass on.  Any interloper attempting to search her mansion or violate her crypt (where the loot may be buried) will be confronted by a seeming army of feral felines bent on revenge.  Hope you wore goggles and have had your shots. 

[SDLeary]

YOu can adjust the base damage without getting rid of the db. 

 

What I did, and what RQ/BRP had already done is adjust the base bite and claw damage based on the SIZ of the creature and applied an db. For instance, large sharks and dragons do more than 1D6 with their bite in BRP.

 

This is understood. It was in response to someone who had already stated about adjusting the base damage. I was simply interjecting that it doesn't resolve the Damage Bonus issue brought up earlier in the thread. 

 

SDLeary