The Speaker in Dreams wrote: DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote: "Guns don't kill people. Apes with guns kill people." - discuss. Let's change that a bit ...
"Guns keep apes from killing people." Yeah ... sounds about right.
I would still say *any* comparison of strength of an ape (gorilla is what I've been thinking mostly - not the chimps) to a human will always favor the ape. I don't care *what* way you want to chunk up/divide strength - the human will ALWAYS lose this competition.
As for the speed thing - our best trained, life-time athletes hit those 25 mph+ rates, and only in very brief spurts ...
The apes recorded ... are just being apes. Think about that for a bit.
An ape, w/no "lifetime training" in speed can hit the speeds of the fastest and most dedicated of humans.
They also run w/all 4 limbs, no? That *alone* is going to make them faster (more limbs dedicated to the same task - even if it's just 3 limbs, they've got more of their body naturally dedicated to this task than we do - can't argue w/physiology very much).
As for the trained man w/a bat or a fencer vs. an ape ... the guy w/the bat will lose big-time. EVEN if he *times* thing right, IF he hits, he's not likely to do much damage to the ape, nothing enough to phase it, or slow it down honestly, let alone permanently damage it. The ape's musculature is far more dense than a humans and a blow that would shatter an arm would likely just bounce off or jostle an ape (maybe it *could* rock a chimp's world, though - not a gorilla, IMO). So, now it's closer and the bat guy smacked him, pissed him off, and it's going to now grab him and pummel the hell out of him, or (more likely) just swing it's fists down upon him multiple times. Given that a single swing of an ape's arm is enough to shatter and crush human bones, or the spine of a jungle cat ... it does NOT bode well for Mr. Bat.
W/the fencer, his weapon is at least lethal based around his skill and timing more so than raw damage and force output (ie: something paltry in humans compared to... I've been mostly using chimps as there is more data available, and they're clearly more likely to violently attack someone as opposed to just trying to scare them off. However, I did just watch quite a bit of video of mountain gorillas doing things like casually snapping banana trees in half, and doing the same to fresh bamboo thicker than my arm, so...
Magicdealer wrote: So why are humans at the top of the food chain? Because humans have the better time sense. We can spend a few hours making something because we might need it next month. We can dig pits with the intent of luring enemies there. We can create ambushes and wait for our allies to lure some targets there.
We can think ahead, even in stressful situations, and use that knowledge to our advantage.
One of the wrinkles though is that for an ape to wield a weapon they need to be at least 4th level and have an Int 3 in order to take the weapon proficiency. That one point of intelligence is supposed to represent a profound shift in the animal's consciousness as reflected in the rules. They act as characters at that point and without any need for handle animal checks.
So the problem in this debate is that we're already off in fantasy land over armed apes because we can't assume a normal ape that is handed a bat and trained to fight, instead this is a cognizant creature that performs on a higher level than an Int 2 animal.
Of course the rules are anemic in really detailing what low Int really means in the game. I'm sure if we wanted to make simulationist arguments about houserules that it could be said that animals ought to have a range of intelligence beyond just 1-2, but go up higher. But for RAW the profound leap occurs at Int 3.
Man ... this is SO far off of the D20 rule discussion it should probably just go away.
I mean, *meachanically* no one has made a claim on the "humans are better side" that is untrue at all.
I won't even argue mechanics - the game favors heroes (ie: humanoids) and that's it.
HOWEVER, IRL a gorilla will DEVASTATE anyone trying to fight it in melee because they are THAT much more powerful and durable than we are.
That's just a fact and outside of D20's "PC protection" niche that the rules carve out for 'em.
:shrugs:
It is so hard not to post a link to an 'X-tacles' episode that sort of tangentially touches on this, but I think it might be NSFW, and I'm not sure of the policy on that.
So, in RL situations where humans armed with melee weapons fought gorillas, who won?
The new pathfinder compatible book The Noble Wild: an Animal Players' Handbook has rules on this.
note - "Noble animals" are not normal animals and have a much higher intelligence.
"Unlike most animals, monkey and other primates hae hands to grasp tools. While their "natural" cousins still have not grasped the higher concepts involved in using tools, a Noble Monkey [(tiny sized) and Noble Apes (Chimp, Orangutan, Gorilla]) can use tools and weapons of the appropriate size without any problems.
Noble Baboon species - can use tools and weapons with a -2 awkwardness penalty.
AvalonXQ wrote: So, in RL situations where humans armed with melee weapons fought gorillas, who won? There is no documented case of a gorilla attack other than charging displays that I've heard of, and most of those happen in zoos from the other side of plexiglass, apparently, so I wouldn't really count them as they're just trying to spook people. They were easy prey for poachers for a long time as they're relatively easily approachable, though the only reason that's changed is that there are so few of them now.
DM_Blake wrote: Obviously, if primates were really wired for tool-use, they would use them. You would see bands of gorillas in the mist, walking around with big old clubs they can use to fight rivals and drive off predators. But they don't. You see a band of gorillas wandering around, and they won't have anything in their hands. You see a band of gorillas surrounding a watering hole where a rival band of gorillas is currently splashing around, and neither band has weapons or tools. When the newcomers attack to drive off the rivals, it's natural weaponry, not tools, that are the weapons of choice.
BTW, IRL, Chimps form bands of hunting party's, equip themselves with sharpened sticks and clubs and even vines, and HUNT monkeys. That is pretty exceptional tool use.
Gorillas use sticks and leaves to fish out ants and other insects for food. Routinely.
Primates tend to use natural weapons, this is true. They are certainly not profocient with their makeshift weapons. That does NOT prevent them from using them, though. I would say they are only a weapon proficiency away from using that club or spear or mace.
Sothmektri wrote: They were easy prey for poachers for a long time as they're relatively easily approachable, though the only reason that's changed is that there are so few of them now. Only because they're approachable? How about "because the poacher can spot and shoot them with rifles from some 250' or more distant easily?"
Come on man, we're talkin' tool use!!! Guns are *the* primary weapon of poachers and one of the main reasons that humans are top of the food chain just about anywhere.
Screw "approachable" - don't have to approach 'em to kill 'em, skin 'em, and take hides or canine teeth or whole heads to do that. One round from a good rifle with a scope will do just fine.
Or automatic weapons (yeah ... that's fair - even if it charges, it'll be cut like in half before it reaches you w/most modern weaponry used if the poacher has *any* kind of aiming ability) will do nicely, too.
*still convinced humans get their asses kicked EVERY time*
The Speaker in Dreams wrote: Sothmektri wrote: They were easy prey for poachers for a long time as they're relatively easily approachable, though the only reason that's changed is that there are so few of them now. Only because they're approachable? How about "because the poacher can spot and shoot them with rifles from some 250' or more distant easily?"
Come on man, we're talkin' tool use!!! Guns are *the* primary weapon of poachers and one of the main reasons that humans are top of the food chain just about anywhere.
Screw "approachable" - don't have to approach 'em to kill 'em, skin 'em, and take hides or canine teeth or whole heads to do that. One round from a good rifle with a scope will do just fine.
Or automatic weapons (yeah ... that's fair - even if it charges, it'll be cut like in half before it reaches you w/most modern weaponry used if the poacher has *any* kind of aiming ability) will do nicely, too.
*still convinced humans get their asses kicked EVERY time* Yes, of course, they use guns. I'd thought that went without saying. I wasn't using poaching as an example of 'hot man vs ape combat', but as a way of showing that there isn't any.
Poachers walk up, gorillas munch leaves, poachers shoot them. They could probably do the same thing with a melee weapon if they were trying to look like a tough guy to other poachers, I guess. However, it has nothing to do with a gorilla's inability rip off their arms. Gorillas could do so. It has everything to do with their **disinclination** to do so. You can just walk up to groups of them if you know where they are, which is exactly what people do now as tourists in Rwanda. They don't flee at the scent of people, thus they are "approachable"...
I can appreciate the OP incredulity about apes and weapons in RL - they can stand, but not for long, and they walk awkwardly on two legs. But, I would allow it (and have done so as a GM in a 3.5 game). It isn't any worse than a cohort, even with the much stronger apes in that version.
So, if you are going to get away with this as a PC, I would say forget about MWP (greatsword). You would get far more mileage out of simple weapon proficiency (which nets you a lot of decent choices including: longspear, morningstar, crossbows, sickle). you might even get away with sharing a shillelagh spell on a quarterstaff!
also, armor proficiency is not necessary, just go with armor with no acp, like mithral shirt or mwk studded. heck, go nuts and throw in a mithral buckler.
the final thing is to use a skill rank to teach it sign language. 3.5 had drow sign language for this purpose. not sure what PF has to offer. of course, the master would have to learn as well, and the party would be well served to do so as well.
silly good fun
Some thoughts for in-game rules:
Can an ape wield a weapon (assuming he has relevant proficiency)?
-somewhat addressed above, but is there any rule text for or against?
Can a druid in ape wild shape wield a weapon using proficiencies from his human form? Would you/could you take additional exotic weapon proficiencies to allow for this?
Does a druid in huge ape form wielding a weapon accrue oversized weapon penalties when wielding a huge weapon?
I think that this would be game-breaking. Consider Druid takes feat - exotic weapon use Bastard sword for one-handed use at 1d10. He then grabs an oversized one to use two handed (following oversized weapon rules) and hits with a 2d8 weapon at -2 to connect in human form. When he morphs into a giant ape (lev 6 with ape shaman) he could pick up a (med->large->huge) weapon for use with no penalty, or a gargantuan one at -2. Four size increases to 1d10 moves to (->2d8->2d10->4d8->4d10) as best I can figure. Progression by size is contradictory but generally points to that stepping.
These numbers are already kind of nuts.
Then he uses a wand of Lead Blades to bump up to 8d10 (->8d8->8d10).
8 x 5.5 = 44 base weapon damage per hit at level 6.
When cleaving or vital striking, this gets more absurd.
When strength damage (20base+4buff+6size) from a +10 bonus stat and power attack doesn't really matter anymore, the game has been broken.
44 + 15 str + 3 PA = 62 avg damage, or 106 on a VS. Without crits.
As far as I can tell, this would even be PFS legal. THe build allows for 4-6 barbarian levels to build on raging.
Thoughts?
EDIT: the above character would presumably be carting around a gargantuan sword for this to work, and pick it up once in rage monkey form. Same for wand of lead blades (in order to avoid everything melding into monkey).
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
