Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-15-2020, 02:51 PM   #11
maximara
On Notice
 
maximara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Sumter, SC
Default Re: Quadruped Golem question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pursuivant View Post
I'd argue the reverse. Golems are basically humanoid or animal-shaped mobile statues. That means you could up-armor golems with a tough body structure like stone or metal as long as you're willing to have an even slower golem.
Yes that is an option. A nasty variant is the Golem-Armor Swordsman from Dungeon Fantasy 2 which is effectively two golems in one. Kill the Flesh Golem and the armor it wears becomes its own golem.
__________________
Help make a digital reference for GURPS by coming to the GURPS wiki and provide some information and links (such as to various Fanmade 4e Bestiaries) . Please, provide more then just a title and a page number.
maximara is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2020, 08:22 PM   #12
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: Quadruped Golem question

Quote:
Originally Posted by maximara View Post
Uh why can't the horizontal Golems move at all on 3 legs?
Keep in mind I'm talking about golems without Extra Legs, which is how they are priced in this article. All golems in this article are priced as 2-legged golems.

If you JUST have horizontal then when you need to be on 4 LIMBS to move about, but the other 2 limbs are your arms.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maximara View Post
I have seen dogs walk and even run on three leg (the fourth injured or missing) snd there are several videos on you tube (such as Three-Legged Dog~Gene Burnett) that also show this
Dogs have "Extra Legs" like anything else having the "Quadriped Metratrait", unlike the "quadriped golem" which is not mentioned as having Extra Legs built into their pricing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maximara View Post
I know William H. Stoddard (who post here from time to time) had a hand in the Basic Set and wish, if that was the additional material he worked on and he still remembers (it's been 14 years), that he would explain the reasoning behind the Quadruped being written up the way it was.

In any case I am going from what Quadruped is in the Basic Set (and in every other book it appears witha point value) not some weird version the author didn't even take the time to explain. First rule of these things, stick to the rules as much as possible.
I am not discouraging designing golems with Extra Legs: I'm saying that in discussing the pricing of golems we should keep in mind that since Ehrbar did not mention buying Extra Legs for quadriped forms, so we shouldn't assume that his calculation of "Q Energy" involved the purchase of that advantage.

I am also pointing out that it is entirely feasible to design a clumsy horizontal creatures that go about on 4 limbs without needing "Extra Legs", so the clumsy "not as well balanced as an actual animal" idea of a golem MIGHT have been what Ehrbar intended.

B263 for example, has Horizontal as part of the "Ground Vehicle" morphology trait, which does not have Extra Legs. It actually has "No Legs (Tracked or Wheeled) [-20]" and "No Manipulators" (no arms, no legs).

B145 doesn't really explain how Horizontal would interact with those two disadvantages...

Now clearly you can move about without your arms touching (ground vehicles don't have arms) so we need to define in what way Horizontal is disadvantage (worth points) by understanding how the default (Horizontal) Ground Vehicle would be outperformed by a non-Horizantal variant on Ground Vehicle morphology.

I think the key aspect here is the 2nd sentence:
You can stand on your hind legs for short periods, but find this very uncomfortable.


I don't know that standing is LITERALLY meant here, considering the following:
You can use .. two hands while sitting on your haunches
This seems to imply that lifting 2 arms off the ground (balancing on 2 legs) requires sitting and can't be done in a standing position. I think this represents the usual cat or dog. They might be able to briefly leap into the air via 2 hind limbs, but to actually BALANCE requires them to sit.

SOME dogs (yes I've seen America's Got Talent) can walk around on their hind legs, but I think that represents them buying up Horizontal to Semi-Upright as an exception to their species baseline template.

I think the idea is that
*no standing on only 2 legs: require at least ONE limb (could be arm or leg) to "stand"
*no move if on only 2 legs: you need at least TWO more limbs (could be arm or leg) to move around
This should mean, for example, that there should be a problem with having using the Ground Vehicle template for a bicycle or motorcycle, since they are able to balance on 2 wheels, so the "Horizontal" disadvantage for a motorcycle doesn't really seem to be present in full...

Some portion of it DOES seem to be present, on the other hand, since motorcycles can't really drive too well when balancing on their rear wheel (popping a wheelie).

GV might've been intended for bikes (car, tank, ETC.) as "Wheels" does say "Specify how many – one to four, or any higher even number"

So you might even have "Ground Vehicle" for a Unicycle or Bicycle or Tricycle... but I honestly can't figure out how the presence/absence of "Horizontal" would apply to those cases.

Horizontol (B139) keeping in mind the Quadriped Metrrait seems to be applied more broadly like:

1) you must use 1 free limb beyond normal requirements to stand NORMALLY
2) you must use 2 free limbs beyond normal requirements to walk NORMALLY
"Normal requirements" is strange though because normal humans CAN balance on 1 leg, at least briefly. Less than a second, for example, when walking, is automatic. Kicking on the other hand, has some risk of falling.

I imagine the way it might work in practice, if we had rules for odd forms of locomotion is like so:

1) horizontal who are not using the extra limb to stand operate like a human balancing on one leg: it's not comfortable and they can't do it long

2) horizontal who are using 1 extra limb instead of 2 to WALK operate like a human hopping on one leg: it's possible but it's super slow (ie "can carry but not use an object in one hand if moving at half Move")

3) you can't walk at all without 1 extra limb but you could probably still 'Jump' with a Basic Move of 0: B352 allows you to substitute half Jumping skill for Basic Move. B203 doesn't have a default for Jumping, but assume any "horizontal" animal able to move forward using JUST their default leg amount has the Jumping skill and is using that.


- - -

B263 mentions dropping No Manipulators for Vermiform for "snake men" for example. That would mean they could slither around with their arms free. If I gave "Horizontal" to a snake man, then instead of using arm/s to assist legs standing/walking, I think they would use their arm/arms (which could be paws, if you took No Fine Manipulators instead of No Manipulators) to assist the body in slithering instead.

- - -

As best as I can get my head around it, "Wheels" isn't "No Legs" in the sense that Aerial/Bounces is, for example, because it does say "treat each track or wheel as if it were a leg".

RAW that might even mean wheels can kick, except that I think "No Manipulators" probably subtracted that part.

Being able to have things treated like legs and "No Manipulators" I think basically means "you have leg-like things but they can't manipulate things like legs can". So you couldn't for example make a kick attack, use your legs to grapple someone, etc. Otherwise NM would prevent NLW from having wheels to target and that would be strange.

Wheels basically can't manipulate objects, at best the only applicable "attack" I can see for a car would be Overrun/Trampling to represent rolling over a target. You couldn't even do 'stamp kick'.

B55 "Cannot Kick" we know is 5 points, and AFAIK would refer to the basic kick attack so to account for the remaining 15 point gap between No Fine Manipulators and No Manipulators could perhaps be done by identifying other stuff that legs can do but wheels can't. For example:
*"Cannot Knee Strike or Knee Drop with legs-5"
*"Cannot Grapple With Legs -5"
*"Cannot Trip or Sweep with Legs -5"
No Legs : Wheels seems to be a combination of stuff like "Cannot Jump" and "Cannot Use Legs to help Arms Climb" and "Nuisance: Always Leave Visible Trail"

No-Wheels: Tracked is same value yet leaves more visible tracks than wheeled PLUS is noisy... this is offset by the vague "let you handle rough terrain more easily" benefit which I guess the GM can define, hopefully enough to balance out those drawbacks compared to wheeled.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maximara View Post
Yes that is an option. A nasty variant is the Golem-Armor Swordsman from Dungeon Fantasy 2 which is effectively two golems in one. Kill the Flesh Golem and the armor it wears becomes its own golem.
*checks pg 26* that Stone Golem has HP 10 higher than it's ST... supports my theory :)
Plane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2020, 03:07 AM   #13
maximara
On Notice
 
maximara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Sumter, SC
Default Re: Quadruped Golem question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plane View Post
I am not discouraging designing golems with Extra Legs: I'm saying that in discussing the pricing of golems we should keep in mind that since Ehrbar did not mention buying Extra Legs for quadriped forms, so we shouldn't assume that his calculation of "Q Energy" involved the purchase of that advantage.
Considering how the author messed up the math for just the standard Golem (as demonstrated by the Adamant Golem), the math for Q Energy is so messed up we can't figure out where the 518 is even coming from, and you get energy costs closer to the author's Q Energy total (based on his baseline and that seems to be messed up as well) if you used the [-35] Quadruped in the Basic Set rather then the author's [-40] version I think it is safe to say the author didn't know what they were doing either in terms of mechanics or math.

Let me restate that last point (as if the bolding wasn't enough): you get values closer to the author's if you use the [-35] version of Quadruped then his own [-40]. How messed up is that?

Things are so FUBARed that I have basically thrown out everything in that article but the Stats and recalculating everything (and showing my work)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plane View Post
I am also pointing out that it is entirely feasible to design a clumsy horizontal creatures that go about on 4 limbs without needing "Extra Legs", so the clumsy "not as well balanced as an actual animal" idea of a golem MIGHT have been what Ehrbar intended.
So not only is the author messing up his Energy cost math he is effectively creating inferior quadruped Golems with 4 limbs just to save a measly 10 energy points. Wonderful. I am seriously wondering if that authpr had any idea on what he was doing either in concept or math.

IIRC there was a usenet comment about the point costs being wrong.
__________________
Help make a digital reference for GURPS by coming to the GURPS wiki and provide some information and links (such as to various Fanmade 4e Bestiaries) . Please, provide more then just a title and a page number.

Last edited by maximara; 02-16-2020 at 04:11 AM.
maximara is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2020, 09:31 AM   #14
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: Quadruped Golem question

Quote:
Originally Posted by maximara View Post
Considering how the author messed up the math for just the standard Golem (as demonstrated by the Adamant Golem),
Eh, forgetting to charge for DR isn't a HUGE messup. Would be interesting to sit down and check the add-up for all the other DR golems and non-DR golems to see if there were other instances in the 1st (non-Q) column...

Quote:
Originally Posted by maximara View Post
the math for Q Energy is so messed up we can't figure out where the 518 is even coming from, and you get energy costs closer to the author's Q Energy total (based on his baseline and that seems to be messed up as well) if you used the [-35] Quadruped in the Basic Set rather then the author's [-40] version
To refresh, we would expect (based on attributes alone) because of 10+25 ST [250] and 10+2 DX [40] that by applying a -40% limitation to [290] that the Q-template would be [-116] fewer character points and thus 232 fewer energy points.

814-232=582
subtracting 60 energy for NFM [-30] brings us down to 522
subtracting 20 for Horizontal [-10] brings us down to 502

The final result of 518 (Q Energy) is 16 more energy than that, so we would expect to see 8 more points of advantages.

As such I agree with your point: Extra Legs [5] would move us in the right direction... but we'd still be missing 3 points of advantages.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maximara View Post
I think it is safe to say the author didn't know what they were doing either in terms of mechanics or math.
I wouldn't go that far, the math is pretty sound at least in the 1st column for the Adament golem except for a single (easily identifiable criteria) which is the DR.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maximara View Post
Let me restate that last point (as if the bolding wasn't enough): you get values closer to the author's if you use the [-35] version of Quadruped then his own [-40]. How messed up is that?
That's not messed up at all. It could in fact support the argument that he calculated "Q Energy' using the -35 metatrait but for some reason, instead of just calling out the metatrait in the info, he called out its components but forgot to mention Extra Legs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maximara View Post
So not only is the author messing up his Energy cost math he is effectively creating inferior quadruped Golems with 4 limbs just to save a measly 10 energy points. Wonderful.
Saving energy should never be considered measly. That's 10 days of production time if using Slow and Sure Enchantment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maximara View Post
I am seriously wondering if that authpr had any idea on what he was doing either in concept or math.
Obviously he had some idea, as mentioned the basic pricing of the Adamant was completely accurate except for a minor (easily corrected) oversight. I'm sure that's the case for other basic pricing.

I wonder if perhaps we should move on from the Adamant Golem to analyzing the energy of other kinds of golems. Perhaps we might notice a pattern there that could inform us further?

I feel like we're fixating too much on it since it's conveniently the first one presented to us.

It may be that the author worked in certain traits for these golems included in his pricing, but neglected to mention those features in the chart or do an 'under the hood' for them.

For example, I notice there is a "Glass Golem" and "Paper Golem" in this list. I would expect Fragile: Brittle for a golem made out of glass and Fragile: Flammable for a golem made out of paper. So I'll take a look at their basic costs to see how that works out... I'm going to ignore Q Energy for now, we could approach that later if need be.

Glass is 470 energy. Relative to the Clay baseline (ST 15 DX 11 IQ 8 HT 14 DR 0 Skill 10) glass is +4 DX [80] +1 IQ [20] +2DR [10] for a total of 110 extra character points, which should mean it should cost 220 energy to make more than a Clay Golem does. 250+220=470 so this works out... which is bad for me because I totally think glass should be prone to shattering... but we can see in this case the author DID include the cost of the DR, so Adamant just might be an isolated instance?

Paper is 210 energy. Relative to the Clay baseilne they are -2 ST [-20] so 20 less CP is 40 less energy, which works out (250-40=210). IE the author is competent usually, so let's be nice :)

I of course don't like this, because I think paper should be flammable, so I would apply Fragile to get a further energy discount.
Plane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2020, 11:09 AM   #15
Celjabba
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Luxembourg
Default Re: Quadruped Golem question

I just inputed the table in Excel.
At first glance, and without doublechecking :

Of the 175 biped golem, 14 energy cost are wrong:

All uranium are off by -10

Bakelite SM -2 is off by -20

Marble SM +1 is off by +100
Marble SM +2 is off by +100

Titanium SM -2 is off by -100

Adamant is off by -64
Adamant SM +1 is off by -64
Adamant SM +2 is off by +56 (delta 120 from other adamant ?)
Adamant SM -1 is off by -64
Adamant SM -2 is off by -64

Of the 175 Quadruped golem, 19 energy cost are wrong (adding horizontal -10 and NFM -30, and -40% on DX and ST, only above 10):

Adamant is off by -48
Adamant SM +1 is off by -48
Adamant SM + 2 is off by -48
Adamant SM -1 is off by -48
Adamant SM -2 is off by -48

Aluminum is off by -18
Aluminum SM +1 is off by 30

Lead SM +2 is off by -80
Marble SM +2 is off by -80

MMC is off by -30
MMC SM +1 is off by -30
MMC SM +2 is off by -30
MMC SM -1 is off by -30
MMC SM -2 is off by -30

Uranium is off by -10
Uranium SM +1 is off by -10
Uranium SM +2 is off by -10
Uranium SM -1 is off by -10
Uranium SM -2 is off by -10

Edit corrected a mistake - I was counting the -40% on ST below 10.
Edit 2 : the energy delta are = 2* cp delta, so my justification were wrong ...



the file : https://drive.google.com/open?id=1oh...qktcwaJSwgUkFO

Last edited by Celjabba; 02-19-2020 at 05:29 AM.
Celjabba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2020, 02:07 PM   #16
maximara
On Notice
 
maximara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Sumter, SC
Default Re: Quadruped Golem question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Celjabba View Post
Just thrown the table in Excel.
I've been using the Spreadsheet of LibreOffice (Calc) to recalculate the Golems energy totals as doing it manually resulted in med missing something or doing something wonked that resulted in a total that, upon rechecking, was way off.
__________________
Help make a digital reference for GURPS by coming to the GURPS wiki and provide some information and links (such as to various Fanmade 4e Bestiaries) . Please, provide more then just a title and a page number.
maximara is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2020, 02:12 PM   #17
Celjabba
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Luxembourg
Default Re: Quadruped Golem question

Quote:
Originally Posted by maximara View Post
I've been using the Spreadsheet of LibreOffice (Calc) to recalculate the Golems energy totals as doing it manually resulted in med missing something or doing something wonked that resulted in a total that, upon rechecking, was way off.
Sorry, bad english from me. I meant I did thrown the table in Excel, and I was giving the results.

I imagine you can open the file I linked in libreoffice.
Celjabba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2020, 02:52 PM   #18
maximara
On Notice
 
maximara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Sumter, SC
Default Re: Quadruped Golem question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plane View Post
Eh, forgetting to charge for DR isn't a HUGE messup. Would be interesting to sit down and check the add-up for all the other DR golems and non-DR golems to see if there were other instances in the 1st (non-Q) column...


To refresh, we would expect (based on attributes alone) because of 10+25 ST [250] and 10+2 DX [40] that by applying a -40% limitation to [290] that the Q-template would be [-116] fewer character points and thus 232 fewer energy points.

814-232=582
subtracting 60 energy for NFM [-30] brings us down to 522
subtracting 20 for Horizontal [-10] brings us down to 502

The final result of 518 (Q Energy) is 16 more energy than that, so we would expect to see 8 more points of advantages.

As such I agree with your point: Extra Legs [5] would move us in the right direction... but we'd still be missing 3 points of advantages.
I realized that I was making little mistakes and so drew up a Calc (LIbreOffice) spreadsheet. As far as I know everything is set up correctly. The HP is to handle a handful of Magic Item 3 golems that didn't appear on the list and the changes to Stone Golem since the article was written. Sadly I can't maintain the table format here but the order is the same. The extra Energy line is a cross check

ST DX IQ HT HP DR Skill Point adj Energy Q Adj Q Energy Adj
Adamant golem 35 12 9 15 35 12 14
Points 250 40 20 0 10 60 4 374 878 -151 -302 576
Energy 500 80 40 0 0 120 8 NA 878

So it is off by 64 energy. As I mentioned before the Adjustment for DR (Ablative) +2 (10*-0.8) is 2 points but it is in the wrong direction [-2] rather then [+2] But, and this is where things get interesting, I realized the Adjustment applied to the entire DR 12 but the math cranked out [-48] [60*-0.8)

As I said I really wish the author had stepped through the energy calculation process
__________________
Help make a digital reference for GURPS by coming to the GURPS wiki and provide some information and links (such as to various Fanmade 4e Bestiaries) . Please, provide more then just a title and a page number.
maximara is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2020, 01:52 AM   #19
maximara
On Notice
 
maximara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Sumter, SC
Default Re: Quadruped Golem question

Oh I looks like the author used some of the specs from the Golem table in Magic Items 3. The problem with that is every golem had split HT; Bakelite Golem has ST 12 HT 12/17 for example. That really throws the calculations off. I noticed that many of the HT stats are higher then they were in Magic Items 3.

As for why we would use that second stat, well that is what the did for the Stone Golem in Dungeon Fantasy 2: Dungeons.

To be fair to the author the Clay Golem in Magic didn't adjust its HP (it was 20 not 15 in Magic Items 3) so I can excuse that hiccup.
__________________
Help make a digital reference for GURPS by coming to the GURPS wiki and provide some information and links (such as to various Fanmade 4e Bestiaries) . Please, provide more then just a title and a page number.

Last edited by maximara; 02-17-2020 at 02:00 AM.
maximara is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2020, 08:31 AM   #20
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: Quadruped Golem question

Quote:
Originally Posted by maximara View Post
Oh I looks like the author used some of the specs from the Golem table in Magic Items 3. The problem with that is every golem had split HT; Bakelite Golem has ST 12 HT 12/17 for example. That really throws the calculations off. I noticed that many of the HT stats are higher then they were in Magic Items 3.

As for why we would use that second stat, well that is what the did for the Stone Golem in Dungeon Fantasy 2: Dungeons.

To be fair to the author the Clay Golem in Magic didn't adjust its HP (it was 20 not 15 in Magic Items 3) so I can excuse that hiccup.
Nice catch, didn't know it was adapted from earlier tables.

So how much of the pricing discrepancy is corrected when we add the HP column (exceeding default HP from ST) and pay the 2/level for it?
Plane is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.