Rate my "Big Bad Evils"

[Alonsua]

Originally Posted by mr beer

I'd make them however I'd want them and handwave realistic problems as 'genetic engineering'. Say they've been spliced in with proper lungs or super-efficient spiracles or an oxygen reserve organ or something. It's not a problem unless you intend to literally engineer your own 30lb ants.

Right. Sometimes it seems like you need to literally engineer your own 30lbs ants though.

[Alonsua]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

If I remember correctly, the 'poison' of an ant is actually formic acid, which suggests that it would be better represented as a corrosive attack that follows up a bite. A 1d-2 cutting bite would a 1d-2 corrosive attack as a follow-up would seem about right for a 'realistic' 30 lb ant. I would give them DR 2 though, as their physiological design, when scaled up, would not allow them to move with such a thick carapace. I would also make them really, really slow, since they lack lungs that would allow them to oxygenate their scaled up bodies properly (Basic Move 1).

They had formic acids previously, but wouldn´t it be more effective to use a more deadly poison?

[Alonsua]

Originally Posted by Daigoro

They're equally strong to the guard dog. Lifting ST and Striking ST are the only measures of strength. Effectively they have a few lower HP; you may as well say that they have the same ST with -3 HP.

So as soon as HP is a part of Strength, they are not as strong as the guard dog XD

[Alonsua]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

That's pretty much it. Any criterion for "bestness" a hypothetical human breeding program has will be subjective.

Yes, like when you make physical or intelligence tests to children. Seriously? And I even pointed out how eugenics is not exclusively restricted to selective breeding.

[Alonsua]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

If I remember correctly, the 'poison' of an ant is actually formic acid, which suggests that it would be better represented as a corrosive attack that follows up a bite. A 1d-2 cutting bite would a 1d-2 corrosive attack as a follow-up would seem about right for a 'realistic' 30 lb ant. I would give them DR 2 though, as their physiological design, when scaled up, would not allow them to move with such a thick carapace. I would also make them really, really slow, since they lack lungs that would allow them to oxygenate their scaled up bodies properly (Basic Move 1).

Is the following any better?

Follow-up [1d-1 tox 1d-1 cor terrible pain; secondary choking] (HT-2 to resist) every 10 seconds for 1 minute [110]

DR 2 is what they´ve got already, however and since their respiratory system was radically redesigned with book lungs and super-efficient spiracles and tracheaes they´ve basic move 7.

I´ve also reduced their weight to 15 lbs, which makes their x-heavy maximum load over x10 their own weight, and lowers their size to that of a house cat.
Remember than on top of the formic acid these "ants" are using solenopsin.

[AlexanderHowl]

That is far too corrosive for any living creature based on Earth genetics to produce (it is equivalent to Essential Acid in corrosiveness). You might as well just make it a xenomorph from the movie Aliens because it will need to come from another planet to justify that, as no amount of genetic engineering would create that level of corrosive damage. As it is, it is a laughable threat because it is 1950s B-movie science without the giant insects being a realistic threat.

If you want dangerous creatures, why not genetically engineer a higher animals? Imagine facing a pack of ST 12, DX 12, IQ 5, HT 12 genetically engineered guard dogs that were trained to follow intelligent tactics when facing humans? Or how about a genetically engineered crocodile with ST 20, DX 14, IQ 5, HT 14 and cybernetic implants that give it DR 30 and allows humans to control it remotely?

[Maz]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Or how about a genetically engineered crocodile with ST 20, DX 14, IQ 5, HT 14 and cybernetic implants that give it DR 30 and allows humans to control it remotely?

Because thats much more realistic than super corrosive ant acid?
Honestly why are people even trying to limit thia to what is realistic?

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Alonsua

Yes, like when you make physical or intelligence tests to children. Seriously? And I even pointed out how eugenics is not exclusively restricted to selective breeding.

It's not that you can't objectively test those things. It's that you don't have an objective criterion of which things to test for.

Let us say, for example, that we can test for height, weight, symmetry of body form, lifting strength, grip strength, breath holding time, endurance, reflex speed, running speed, swimming speed, visual acuity, tactile sensitivity, auditory acuity, sense of smell, ability to taste cilantro, sense of balance, general intelligence, numerical ability, memory, theory of mind, emotional stability, agreeableness, extraversion, conscientiousness, openness to experience, musical ability, fertility, and expected lifespan. (Without loss of generality, that is, this is an illustrative list, and not intended to suggest that other traits are unimportant or should not be included.)

Which of these traits do you include? Which ones do you minimize, or maximize, or try to set to an intermediate value? (It might be thought, for example, that there is an optimum height above which increases are undesirable. But is there? Taller people are preferred over shorter in many ways; there is evidence, for example, that each inch of height is statistically associated with an increase in income.)

If you can improve trait A, or trait B, which one is more important? What if improving one trait leads to making another trait worse?

This is why I brought up dogs. There are many different breeds of dog; their breeding has optimized different things—strength, speed, fighting ability, keen sight, keen scent, pointing ability, herding ability, intelligence, diminutive size, cuteness (definable, if you like, by neotenous features). There is not one concept of "best canine"; if there were, we would not have nearly so many breeds. Is there one concept of "best human"?

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Alonsua

Yes, like when you make physical or intelligence tests to children. Seriously? And I even pointed out how eugenics is not exclusively restricted to selective breeding.

And I don't think that's an accurate use of the term. Try calling it something that isn't historically tied to a specific movement and set of methods, and that doesn't invite misunderstanding of what you're talking about.

[Alonsua]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

That is far too corrosive for any living creature based on Earth genetics to produce (it is equivalent to Essential Acid in corrosiveness). You might as well just make it a xenomorph from the movie Aliens because it will need to come from another planet to justify that, as no amount of genetic engineering would create that level of corrosive damage. As it is, it is a laughable threat because it is 1950s B-movie science without the giant insects being a realistic threat.

If you want dangerous creatures, why not genetically engineer a higher animals? Imagine facing a pack of ST 12, DX 12, IQ 5, HT 12 genetically engineered guard dogs that were trained to follow intelligent tactics when facing humans? Or how about a genetically engineered crocodile with ST 20, DX 14, IQ 5, HT 14 and cybernetic implants that give it DR 30 and allows humans to control it remotely?

How´s 2.5 average damage points too corrosive?

Guard dogs and other creatures are also under design and they may come in a couple of years, but they´re more plausible because I just need to extrapolate human genetic upgrades to their species.

Could you please design your own corrosive attack? Thank you.