Re: Housecat-sized octopus vs. SCUBA-equipped commoner
 

I guess I only know people with really weak grips. ;) It's hard to imagine how tentacles would not take a penalty for lack of piecemeal leverage that anchored digits have let alone the bones themselves. Snakes have bones though. It would be more like a... something that probably doesn't exist as largish hydrostatic skeletons on land are used by just earthworms.

Re: Housecat-sized octopus vs. SCUBA-equipped commoner
 

Well, I imagine it as comparable to a ring of rubber, or a ring of leather that contracts as it dries up: it doesn't have a bone-like structure, it just gets narrower and narrower. If octopodes are bad at that sort of holding on, maybe this is the reason behind their Bad Grip?

Re: Housecat-sized octopus vs. SCUBA-equipped commoner
 

How would you characterise their accessibility limitation, if any? (Which surfaces are valid targets, which are meh, and which are not at all?)

Re: Housecat-sized octopus vs. SCUBA-equipped commoner
 

The only accessibility limitation I can think of would be Not In Vacuum. Perhaps also Not On Mesh because something with holes in it would just let in fluid from the other side to negate the suction effect. Although on most mesh surfaces the flexible, muscular part of the suckers could just grab the surface rather than suck on to it, which would have the same effect.

Luke

Re: Housecat-sized octopus vs. SCUBA-equipped commoner
 

Uh, do I read that right to mean that they are good enough to stick to wood, wallpapers etc.? I was expecting cloth to be at least as bad or even worse than mesh.

Re: Housecat-sized octopus vs. SCUBA-equipped commoner
 

The live octopodes I have physically interacted with have been powerful, if small, lumps of muscle with considerable strength. My experiences are limited and not recent, but reports from aquaria workers also state that octopodes are quite strong. Certainly they are able to restrain animals of similar size with rigid skeletons (sharks, crabs) and remove tightened lids from jars.

Luke

Re: Housecat-sized octopus vs. SCUBA-equipped commoner
 

Of course. I don't know why it didn't occur to me that volume not taken up by bones can instead by given to even more muscle. I've never even seen a cephalopod in person, so I can't give any such hands on input.

Re: Housecat-sized octopus vs. SCUBA-equipped commoner
 

Wood and wallpapers would allow easy stickage, as do rocks, corals, skin, shells, boat hulls and most other things. Cloth would negate the suction effect because of the holes, but the suckers could pinch the cloth to get a grip (this may be less effective, though).

Luke

Re: Housecat-sized octopus vs. SCUBA-equipped commoner
 

Well I am not talking about crushing the larynx ;)
Pushing down on the carotid artery is one (and arguably the best) form of the GURPS choke hold. Suffocation by crushing the throat takes more ST but is doable, though it takes no strength to simply cover the mouth and nose.

Why are bones needed for leverage? I am not seeing it.
You can strangle someone with a piece of rope. the material needs to be moderately strong to resist tearing and leverage is not about how strong the material is (though a weak leaver will break more easily) and more about spreading the load over a larger surface area.
Or am I using the term wrong?

EDIT: Oh and of course it need not be said (but I am anyway) that Technical Grappling addresses this in what I consider a better way.
It still misses a couple of the details were talking about here since it is more human focused but there is a way to model the suckers, it just is not called out directly.

Re: Housecat-sized octopus vs. SCUBA-equipped commoner
 

I'd say that an elephant's trunk counts as a muscular hydrostatic manipulator. Those are rather capable things.