Is there something about the slam rules I'm missing?

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by WingedKagouti

I would never give a skittish prey animal the benefit of the +5 "Heat of Battle" bonus against one of their default predators unless they're defending their offspring. And the +1 for familiarity also seems way out of place, any predator should still be counted as a dangerous monster when looking through the eyes of a prey animal. However, the Fight or Flight rules are much more suited to the situation than the Basic "Do Nothing" rules.

What makes sense here is extremely dependent on which effect rules you're using. Obviously, skittish prey animals don't tend to freeze inappropriately when threatened by predators - if they freeze, it's because in their evolutionary history that tends to work out for them, likely because their predators have issues sensing non-moving targets. Normal GURPS fright checks are largely about freezing when you shouldn't!


Though under normal circumstances I'm not sure I'd want a fright check to see whether a skittish prey animal flees when faced with a scary predator, because why would they ever not? Unless they're doing something like defending their offspring as you say, running away would be their default behavior.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Getting wounded, being under fire, etc. always count if using those rules from High-Tech and Tactical Shooting.

Indeed. A lot depends on how gritty you're getting - I'd say if the rules you reference are in play, being pounced upon by a predator should similarly trigger a Fright Check.

As for prey animals fleeing on a failed fright check, GURPS Animalia (when you have houserules turned on) assigns the Panic Disadvantages to a lot of prey species; this means many unexpected situations have a risk of causing you to flee in a blind panic (beating yourself against walls and similar if you have no way out), and has the side effect that most cases of being mentally Stunned (including from failed Fright Checks) automatically cause this response. Many animals take this a step further, with Panic Reflexes, which is essentially a lesser version of Combat Reflexes with Panic as a prerequisite.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Phil Masters

Trip seems indeed to be their opening attack of choice, and the rules should probably allow them to execute a full Move and Trip with a fair chance of success.

Possibly a "Running Trip" maneuver that allows a Move and Attack maneuver combined with a Trip?

Alternately, a variation on the Sweep technique, but where the attack uses their body rather than a limb to take down their foe.

Originally Posted by Phil Masters

(Not guaranteed success, of course. Most big cat hunts end in failure and all that.)

On stat that I've heard repeatedly is that the failure vs. success rate is 20:1.

Even odds of success with Stealth-12 to 15 vs. Vision or Hearing 12-15 gives a failure rate of 50%.

After that, any technique or attack which succeeds on a 6- (~9% total chance of success) with no defense allowed by the defender or 7- (~16% chance of success) vs. Dodge 9 (~37% chance of success) gets you into the right statistical area.

Given that a big cat's initial attack is going to be devastating (~1d cut biting and/or claws + slam/pounce) and possibly provoke a Fright Check, combat is going to be one-sided unless the feline badly messes up its Grapple attack, the prey animal Breaks Free, and gets in a good kick or strike with its horns or teeth on its way to safety.

As for Fright Checks, while getting stalked or chased by a predator, or seeing other animals (even "close friends or loved ones") getting killed, is "normal scary" for animals actually being the on the Menu Special is on another level. Animals which regularly get into scraps (anything with Combat Reflexes, or generally ornery like baboons, pigs, or cape buffalo) should be immune to Fright Checks if they're attacked by a predator unless they're Surprised. Animals who don't regularly engage in combat except for dominance fights might easily panic.

I agree that "flailing" is usually a Break Free attempt, but sometimes you see a prey animal just give up if a predator's got it in a hopeless situation (i.e., pinned and with a solid grapple to throat or muzzle). This might be an attempt to Evaluate or conserve its energy, or the effects of Shock, but it could also be a failed Fright Check.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Talonos

A female cheetah uses a pounce (B372) against a partially surprised male impala, as the description of pounce suggests. ("This is how some animals attack, especially cats: they knock down their foe and then claw or bite.") The cheetah is running at speed 24. The cheetah easily makes her attack roll and the impala fails to dodge. They "each inflict dice of crushing damage on the other" (B371). The impala takes 2d crushing damage (2.16, round down) and the cheetah takes 3d. (2.64, round up as per B371.)

On average, the impala takes 6 damage and the cheetah takes 9.5 (because both have DR 1). The impala takes less damage, so remains standing, unless he takes a major wound and fails his knockdown roll. The cheetah is more likely to have a major wound, as likely as not to be at 0 HP or lower, and must make a DX roll or fall over because of the special rules on flying tackle. (If the impala rolls twice as high as the cheetah it's possible the cheetah's down anyway, depending on your interpretation of "On a success, you stay on your feet!" under pounce on B372)

It seems like unless you can manage to arrange your velocity such that your damage is above a rounding breakpoint and your opponent's is not (hard to know unless you exactly know your foes HP) then a slam of any kind is a really bad idea, unless you have armor (which limits your velocity) or a shield or spear to absorb the damage. Even if you can manage to arrange the damage around a breakpoint, if you're an unarmored martial artist, you're risking a major wound even at 1d, and therefore at risk of getting stunned or knocked over.

Is there something I'm missing here?

Aside from the combat rules themselves, you have a 40 kg cheetah attacking a 45 kg impala. It's not impossible that that happens in real life, but given the range of weights for cheetahs given in Wikipedia and the average prey size for cheetahs also given in Wikipedia, it is possible that the problem is less in the combat rules (though Wikipedia does mention that cheetahs trip their prey and then bite to suffocate) and more that the example cheetah is overmatched and should be preying on a juvenile impala, somewhere around 27 kg.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Aside from the combat rules themselves, you have a 40 kg cheetah attacking a 45 kg impala..

It shouldn't be an Impala at all. It should be the smaller Thompson's Gazelle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomson%27s_gazelle

Wikipedia even mentions cheetahs as their principle predator.

Weight is given as 30 to 35 kg for males and 15 to 25 kg for females. Only predators who attack in groups like lions go after prey bigger than they are.

Sorry I didn't catch the 'impala" thing earlier.

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Sorry I didn't catch the 'impala" thing earlier.

Neither did the cheetah.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Only predators who attack in groups like lions go after prey bigger than they are.

Or the occasional male that thinks they're tougher than they actually are - there are credible reports of adult male lions deciding it'd be a bright idea to ambush bull cape buffalo that are napping and have a go. It usually ends badly for the lion.

[zoncxs]

Originally Posted by Rupert

Or the occasional male that thinks they're tougher than they actually are - there are credible reports of adult male lions deciding it'd be a bright idea to ambush bull cape buffalo that are napping and have a go. It usually ends badly for the lion.

OR honey Badgers, cause they don't care.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by Varyon

That would be up to the GM. And it doesn't even need to be larger than you - a wolf suddenly slamming into you, knocking you down, and then trying to eat your face could readily result in a Fright Check.

True, although if I leveled up my skills as a seasoned adventurer at some point a wolf trying to eat my face wouldn't be that scary, especially if I had some kind of magical DR the lessened the damage of face bites.

Fright checks should definitely be linked to the perception of being in danger, which can be related to how accurately you assess the damage capabilities of opponents and your own defensive abilities.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

p. B360

The basis here is distinguishing between "ordinary" frightening things (no fright check) and "so unusual and terrifying they might stun or star".

It then goes on to tell us that what is ordinary depends on chars/setting which is basically waiving the issue.

We're given the example that battle-hardened commanders don't need to roll for dead bodies - can we not reflect that somehow as an advantage?

You get bonuses or penalties depending on the state of a dead body so it seems to me like the battle-hardened commander would just have a high will or fearlessness or even some kind of limited fearlessness which only applies to corpses but not to other stuff like ghosts/demons.

It also seems like stuff like the 'heat of battle' bonus could be meted out in degrees.

We have penalties for hordes of monsters and then a suggestion of anywhere from -1 to -10 ... are these free advantages for monsters who don't buy terror?

There is a +1 preparation bonus with previous experience w/ a threat ... at what point does this take on a point value? Seems like item familiarity where it's an unstatted benefit.

[Inky]

Possibly monsters causing Fright Checks isn't meant to apply to PCs unless they pay for Terror? (But it doesn't seem to say so). Otherwise it does seem weird. Terror seems to be basically the ability to force a Fright Check, and if this is the case, then PCs that are monsters get Terror (Always On, -20%) for free for being monsters. I checked for an Advantage of the Week thread for Terror, but that one seems to have been forgotten.