Make Animals Threatening [Basic]

[AlexanderHowl]

Would Attribute Substitution (Tactics based on Per) and Attribute Substitution (Leadership based on Will) be appropriate for animals? I think those two perks would allow for some of the instances of more clever pack hunters without giving them unrealistic levels of IQ.

[Gold & Appel Inc]

Originally Posted by martinl

I used Romero-Zombie Hippos in my GURPS - Hungry Hungry Hippos one shot and it was a huge success.

Unless Publisher's Clearinghouse knocks on my door, I am confident that this will be the best sentence I hear today.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

I have seen horses eat the foam off a steering wheel, they are attracted to the salt, but it is not good for them. In the case of cooked hamburger though, it has been broken down chemically and mechanically, so it would likely not cause them any major issues. I would personally not allow any horse to make a habit of snacking on hamburgers though, as it might cause them to colic if they ate too much of it too frequently.

Individuals of any species may have bizarre unhealthy appetites. I think many of us have had pets that loved bad odd foods.
I had a cat that would steal hot peppers and sauce rather than the meat nearby, and his sister would steal my prunes.

But from what I've heard, many strict herbivores won't say, "no" to free meat.
I believe there's even footage of a wild giant panda and hippos eating carrion.

[AlexanderHowl]

Carrion is an interesting case because the decay makes it easier to digest, and herbivores can benefit from the minerals contained in the flesh. Some herbivore though do find animal flesh toxic (donkeys come to mind).

[Flyndaran]

Now that is bizarre. It's often fatal to donkeys but not nearly as bad for horses.
I was going to make a joke about imagining if potatoes were toxic to chimps. But then I saw that they're also toxic to donkeys.
Famous for being able to eat what horses can't subsist on, this is some ironic news to me.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Would Attribute Substitution (Tactics based on Per) and Attribute Substitution (Leadership based on Will) be appropriate for animals? I think those two perks would allow for some of the instances of more clever pack hunters without giving them unrealistic levels of IQ.

You can give them skill levels however high you want without attribute substitution.

[mr beer]

Originally Posted by Jefepato

Does an animal's threat level go up substantially if the animal is unrealistically intelligent?

How might a competent team of PCs fare in the woods against a pack of wolves who are as smart as they are?

Originally Posted by Anthony

A smarter animal will be better at ambushes, traps, and the like, but it won't help for winning head to head fights.

I think it would help. Humans are better at head-to-head fights than our physical attributes would suggest because of our intelligence.

Like for example if we had to fight a guy with a knife, we know to try to get hold of the knife arm and not let go. A wolf may go for the legs and ignore the knife, allowing the human to gut the animal assuming they can tough out being mauled during the process.

I've seen videos and read accounts of humans being attacked by large, dangerous animals such as big cats, bears etc. Often the animal doesn't go for the kill in the same way that a human would when facing a potentially lethal foe. It may injure the human and then retreat before returning or snack on a limb and then leave; it may be driven away by shouting and loud noises; a bear with human intelligence would never maul a human but leave them alive given they will certainly come back with several heavily armed humans who will hunt down and kill that bear.

[dcarson]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

(It does work if you've got an unnatural coalition of animals, where small and offensively weak animals prepare targets for attack by more powerful but less stealthy types.)

Many years ago my family went camping to the same campground every summer for most os a decade. For several years there was a team of a raccoon and a skunk that worked together. You would hear a noise at night and when you went to investigate the raccoon was trying to open food storage and would knock some of it on the ground for the skunk. The skunk would stand between your tent and the raccoon and make I'll spray if you come closer signs.

[Michele]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Most tactics I can think of that I couldn't see animals using wouldn't work for them anyway, because they're dependent on particular tools that don't fit animal anatomy. A phalanx of wolves makes no sense because wolves can't use spears.

I wouldn't link any tactics so closely to any one weapon or technology. A phalanx works ideally with some long-reach weapon, but the gist of it isn't the weapon; it's that a close-packed formation drilled to move and operate as one entity can defeat some other tactics better than an open formation in which every warrior moves on his own.
Some species of ants do use phalanx-like formations, for instance.


In turn, the tactics that the phalanx is ideal for defeating is the cavalry charge. You could say this relies on, well, a horse. But if you see the basics of it, it relies on speed and turning momentum into energy, which you might achieve with anything heavy that you can move quickly.
A buffalo charging uses the same basic device of a cavalry charge. Granted, a cavalryman is more versatile and has other tactics up his sleeve; but if we are looking at the charge alone, then the buffalo does it.

If you see things in this way, then the basic components of some human tactics are used by different animals. Animals can't build a ballistic missile, true, but monkeys do use thrown objects as weapons, and so on.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Michele

I wouldn't link any tactics so closely to any one weapon or technology. A phalanx works ideally with some long-reach weapon, but the gist of it isn't the weapon; it's that a close-packed formation drilled to move and operate as one entity can defeat some other tactics better than an open formation in which every warrior moves on his own.
Some species of ants do use phalanx-like formations, for instance.


In turn, the tactics that the phalanx is ideal for defeating is the cavalry charge. You could say this relies on, well, a horse. But if you see the basics of it, it relies on speed and turning momentum into energy, which you might achieve with anything heavy that you can move quickly.
A buffalo charging uses the same basic device of a cavalry charge. Granted, a cavalryman is more versatile and has other tactics up his sleeve; but if we are looking at the charge alone, then the buffalo does it.

If you see things in this way, then the basic components of some human tactics are used by different animals. Animals can't build a ballistic missile, true, but monkeys do use thrown objects as weapons, and so on.

I think for the most part such stretched descriptions lose all useful meaning.

Ants don't use close-order formations: they fight in dense crowds, but there's no formation there. And a phalanx isn't just any close order formation: it's one with moderately to very long spears, and possibly shields. Some modern animals can approximate short spears...

The charging quadrupeds I'd suggest is actually something of the reverse case - they have a fairly decent analogue to the 'weapon' of shock cavalry, but little use for the associated tactics because buffalo don't care about breaking infantry lines...