Quadruped Golem question

[Plane]

Originally Posted by maximara

So of the sake of a measly 10 energy points the author was effectively crippling his Quadruped golems - they loose a leg they fall over unable to move. Brilliant

It's not crippling unless they're actually crippled...

Someone with Horizontal is not "unable to move" if they lose a leg.

They would follow the standard rules on B421's "Effects of Crippling Injury" - they get Lame (Missing Legs) from B141. This still allows moving around at Move 2 with crutches. In the case of Horizontal I can see "I'm using my arms to walk as normal" as standing in for those crutches. The main issue is that you have 2 additional points of contact, which Horizontal needs anyway.

Plus there is always moving around in postures other than 'Standing', as 'Standing' is the only posture which explicitly requires crutches. So you should be able to (B367) get 1/3 move by crawling/kneeling.

1/3 of 2 is 2/3 but I think you round up fractions. I guess you may as well 'Lie Down' for move 1 in that case though.

As for falling over: losing a limb is a major wound so as per standard B420 you get a HT roll to avoid knockdown.

I wouldn't read "unable to stand" as necessarily meaning "automatic fall if they were standing". Just force them to reduce their posture in the usual way.

[maximara]

Originally Posted by Celjabba

OK

I agree that using quadrupled instead of NFM + horiz make sense, but I wasn't understanding that you were doing so in your calculations.
I was using the article build, and getting the article numbers (with the exception of the adamants, uraniums and a few others golem that are wrong in the article) so I wasn't understanding your numbers.
It is an easy fix to add extra legs to each build.

As has been pointed out before the point totals for many of the golems are wrong and the author's math is way too inconstant.

For example the Adamant golem clocks in at 374 points over my basic golem resulting in i878 but the Gold golem does figure the DR in its cost coming out at the 510 given.

More over even using the [-40] version the author give us results in different Q energy totals then are given. The Adamant golem has an adjustment of -156 if you use the author's formula; ((250+40)*-0.4-40)*2; you get -312 energy adjustment or 506 not the 518 we are given. The the math so messed up it is IMHO saner just to start from scratch and recalculated the Golem's energy cost.

Originally Posted by Plane

It's not crippling unless they're actually crippled...

Someone with Horizontal is not "unable to move" if they lose a leg.

But two of appendages are not legs as GURPS defines them.

Arm - "a limb with which you can manipulate objects is an arm, regardless of where it grows or what it looks like."
It should be mentioned that a "leg" that can manipulate objects is defined as an Arm with the Foot manipulator [[limitation]]

Note that definition says nothing about having hands as part of the package.

Take a good hard look at what Extra Legs says: "Any number of legs above two requires the Extra Legs Advantage"
Quadruped is even blunter "a four-legged creature with no arms (a “centauroid” would simply take Extra Legs."

So two of those appendages of the author's quadrupled Golems are arms not legs per the Basic Set. Also per Lame getting hit in the leg to the point it is cripples for a two legged creature results in -3 to skill regarding the use of that leg. However, if you have Extra Legs (three or four) the only real downside is your Move is cut in half (round down)

[Celjabba]

Originally Posted by maximara

As has been pointed out before the point totals for many of the golems are wrong and the author's math is way too inconstant.

For example the Adamant golem clocks in at 374 points over my basic golem resulting in i878 but the Gold golem does figure the DR in its cost coming out at the 510 given.

If you check the excel file I uploaded, there is only a minority of wrong entries (using the original -40 horizontal build for Q entries).

Every size of Adamant and Uranium are incorrect, and a few others.
http://forums.sjgames.com/showpost.p...6&postcount=15

Using an excel (or libreoffice, google docs, ...) sheet, it is trivial to adjust for the -35 quadruped variant, or to add other advantages/disads.

Regarding the "Extra-leg" discussion, while I cannot read the article author mind, I imagine he just didn't notice that his build should have included extra-legs on top of horizontal and NFM... This is a 2005 article, 4th edition was fresh and mistakes are easy.

[maximara]

Originally Posted by Celjabba

If you check the excel file I uploaded, there is only a minority of wrong entries (using the original -40 horizontal build for Q entries).

Every size of Adamant and Uranium are incorrect, and a few others.
http://forums.sjgames.com/showpost.p...6&postcount=15

Using an excel (or libreoffice, google docs, ...) sheet, it is trivial to adjust for the -35 quadruped variant, or to add other advantages/disads.

I've gone whole hog with regards to the Golems table using the Split HP of the 3e golems.

Of course some of the Golems are of limited use simply due what they are made of. Salt golem vs high pressure water hose, Ice Golem vs any strong heat source (though it will take a while), and it could be argued the Paper Wood, and Wool golems are good candidates for Fragile (combustable) which would knock off 10 energy points for each of them.

I imagine the Gold Golem is 22k (a 24k version would likely start deforming under it own weight) and is more of a status symbol then anything else. Heck, at the 4000 avoirdupois pounds given and assuming 22k you are talking about 53,472 troy ounces of gold and at around $1000 per troy ounce in 2020 you are talking north of $53 million.

In fact, the price for a Gold golem Magic Item 3 is too low even by 2004 standards ($417.25 per troy ounce), the $21,250 given only gets you 51 troy ounces or 3.497 avoirdupois pounds or 0.087% of the golem is actually gold. Perhaps Gold plated would be a better term and I'm not even sure of that as there is so little gold.

Originally Posted by Celjabba

Regarding the "Extra-leg" discussion, while I cannot read the article author mind, I imagine he just didn't notice that his build should have included extra-legs on top of horizontal and NFM... This is a 2005 article, 4th edition was fresh and mistakes are easy.

It's a strangle mistake to make given how quadruped laid it its components so clearly though you are right about those early days of 4e as GURPS Dragons has a hiccup where is lists Quadruped [-25] (pg 145) and yet uses the correct Quadruped [-35] everywhere else...including the very page the error happened on (oops).

[awesomenessofme1]

Originally Posted by maximara

Perhaps Gold plated would be a better term and I'm not even sure of that as there is so little gold.

Gold can be made very, very thin. Gold plating can be as thin as half a micron. So there's definitely more than enough for it to be gold-plated, although I agree you'd logically expect it to be all gold, but that would be extremely heavy and ridiculously expensive.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by maximara

But two of appendages are not legs as GURPS defines them.

Arm - "a limb with which you can manipulate objects is an arm, regardless of where it grows or what it looks like."

So your concern is basically that someone with the Horizontal limitation has Move 0 if they lose an arm?

I would keep in mind B367 "you have a flat Move 1 while lying down (belly crawl or rolling)."

Does it make sense that a horizontal creature (let's say a dog or other 'Quadriped Template' animal missing TWO legs) can't even roll or belly crawl? Probably not.

This causes me to take a closer look at B139:

You can use one hand (if you have hands) while standing on your other limbs,
or two hands while sitting on your haunches;
in both cases, your ground Move is 0 while doing so.

The "move 0" condition appears to be "when using at least one hand".

So it seems like if a Horizontal creature is NOT using a hand, their move is NOT reduced to 0.

There is also this part:

You can carry but not use an object in one hand if moving at half Move.

This elaborates on the specificity of the verb use. To "use one hand" is not merely meant to mean "carry an object" since we're then told you CAN move while merely carrying an object.

It actually means "to use one hand to USE an object". Meaning you have to do something other than merely keepahold of it. Like you could carry a sword or a pencil but not actually swing the sword or write with the pencil.

If the "you have hands" condition does not apply, then it seems like all these move reductions are actually irrelevant.

The 50% Move seems to be from the awkwardness of "I want to put weight on this arm, but I can't put as much weight on it because it's holding an object".

In which case... I think I've been wrong to argue that losing an arm means a horizontal creature can't move about without using (or while missing) 1 or 2 arms.

The biggest limit here is a soft one:

You can stand on your hind legs for short periods, but find this very uncomfortable.

That's actually not a hard limit at all because "you find this very uncomfortable" is not statistically represented in any way.

My speculation that you need the arms to walk on is basically because if you didn't:

1) reducing move for one of the arms holding something in the hand wouldn't make sense
2) Horizontal (B139) would be less limiting than Semi-Upright (B153) which has "a clumsy gait while upright (-40% to Move), but you must use all of your limbs to run at
full Move."

I think most people's approach is that "Horizontal is at least as limiting as Semi-Upright in every capacity, but also worse" so "must use all of your limbs to run at full" is an assumed requirement.

60% move while upright on just 2 legs IS better than 50% move while upright on 2 legs + 1 arm though.

You could interpret the 50% move while holding an object as "I'm still using my object-holding hand's arm to move, but I'm only putting 10-40% of my weight on it" but for simplicity I think we could just say that 50% Move under Horizontal represents a 1-armed walk because the other arm you would normally use for full move is completely in the air, clutching the object.

"Carry" is the key verb here. I picture that as keeping something consistently airborne. Carrying is something you do after lifting it off the ground, and constantly touching your carrying limb to the ground as part of locomotion doesn't suit my image of carrying something.

I do know that Gorillas sometimes do that (keep something in their hand while still knuckle-walking) so the 50% could be meant to represent that. Just really not sure.

Originally Posted by maximara

Take a good hard look at what Extra Legs says: "Any number of legs above two requires the Extra Legs Advantage"
Quadruped is even blunter "a four-legged creature with no arms (a “centauroid” would simply take Extra Legs."

So two of those appendages of the author's quadrupled Golems are arms not legs per the Basic Set. Also per Lame getting hit in the leg to the point it is cripples for a two legged creature results in -3 to skill regarding the use of that leg. However, if you have Extra Legs (three or four) the only real downside is your Move is cut in half (round down)

I don't think a horizontal golem being as vulnerable as a non-horizontal golem in respect to needing their legs is 'crippling', TBH

Admittedly it would be more useful for creatures lacking extra legs to merely be Semi-Upright (like a Bear, and I think intended for Apes but omitted) rather than Horizontal.

SU gives better mobility (60% speed) when you can't use your arms.

Horizontal's mobility is basically vague in some respects. Like if the 50% move represents "I'm just using one arm, the other is 100% occupied carrying something" or "I'm STILL using both arms, but one of their hands is occupied carrying something so I can't fully utilize the arm".

What would really help is if I could find an example somewhere of a Horizontal creature who doesn't pair it with No Fine Manipulators... it's written as if this could exist but I can't remember any templates that do it.

[maximara]

Originally Posted by Plane

What would really help is if I could find an example somewhere of a Horizontal creature who doesn't pair it with No Fine Manipulators... it's written as if this could exist but I can't remember any templates that do it.

While not a template there is the Elephant with its Quadruped (but replace No Fine Manipulators with One Arm); Trunk (Extra-Flexible; Long, +1 SM; Weak, 1/4 ST) as part of its traits in the Basic Set. (pg 460)

[Plane]

Originally Posted by maximara

While not a template there is the Elephant with its Quadruped (but replace No Fine Manipulators with One Arm); Trunk (Extra-Flexible; Long, +1 SM; Weak, 1/4 ST) as part of its traits in the Basic Set. (pg 460)

I guess I mean an example without 'extra legs'.

Like if the elephant lacked that, in theory it would be able to stand on it's trunk and hind legs (though it would need a 2nd arm to walk)

Obviously the "weak" aspect should probably cause some problems there (I can't envision an elephant actually doing this), but Horizontal doesn't actually seem to require your arms to have any particular strength to support the torso.

[maximara]

Originally Posted by Plane

I guess I mean an example without 'extra legs'.

I've been going through the 4e bestiaries and so far I haven't seen anything like that.

Originally Posted by Plane

Like if the elephant lacked that, in theory it would be able to stand on it's trunk and hind legs (though it would need a 2nd arm to walk)

Obviously the "weak" aspect should probably cause some problems there (I can't envision an elephant actually doing this), but Horizontal doesn't actually seem to require your arms to have any particular strength to support the torso.

That last part may be the whole reason for the "Extra Legs" part of the package.

[Plane]

Right, but hypothetically we should know how to work it if a one-armed man with 1/4 strength get zapped with Affliction (Horizontal +10%)