Do strength/2 apply to the DV of natural weapons for critters? It seems not for most critters. They seem to already be somewhere around str/2+1 (Dog), str/2+2 (great cat, wolf, ...) or str/2 (Vampire) so it "matches" or is somewhat similar to cyber/bio implant weapons or regular wielded ones.

Natural weapon power says critters without natural weapons may still be able to deal str/2 S like normal people.

But, glancing at dracoforms I noticed that dragons have DV 10 even though most variants of "regular" dragons have strength exceeding 30 and that they would punch for 15+ S. What happened to the dragons' claws that made them into a str/2-5 to str/2-8 for western dragon (strength 35)?

If a dragon, even at mere non-greater dragon size, hits something I can't see how a regular dude wearing formfit + camo suit, helmet and decent body can take a hit without even getting knocked down. (Even with ap -2, you'd roll 13-20 dice to soak up most damage from an attack coming from a creature several times your weight and strength).

It's not that important I suppose, you're more likely to get mob mind on your party and shoot yourself in the head if you try to fight it, given that you even meet one but it still seemed a bit inconsistent to me (unless of course you add the str/2 but then critter claws are way more poweful than cybered ones or even wielded weapons)

We noticed this as well. It became a running gag in our group, actually. The mental image of a dragon with two-foot claws being much scarier when it pulls out a six-inch knife was the source of much humor. There's something endlessly funny to me about the idea of a shiv-dragon.

Haha, I didn't even think about that. I guess their claws aren't good at wielding a weapon though but let's not ruin the fun. ^^

...or stat one out as an adept instead of a magician. Give him Killing hands and watch the fun...

Information broker: Watch out for this one. He likes to tussle up close.
Runners: Yeah, thanks for the tip. Dragon claws scare the crap outta me...
IB: No, don't worry about the claws. As long as he's using claws, it's all fun and games. If he balls up his fist, then he's serious...
Runners: WTF?

Hehehe.

So funny. Made my day soo much brighter!!

I always liked reading the part about dragons being accomplished mages and having most spells known. Take an Element Aura flavoured to your liking, and tail-whipping or wing-buffetting people.

While it looks really cool, I do doubt the plausibility of it being a seriously damaging attack (D&D has this at an extreme where it does nearly the same damage as a claw swipe!). The bones won't be strong enough to stand up to that kind of abuse (relative to the claw digits). Distraction, sure (or in the case of Elemental Aura: some good burny-burn too).

Of course, we do have to consider that they're flying somehow without snapping the bones (magic, dur), as any dragon over about 15 feet in length would have a wingspan so huge (for the square-cube law) that they'd collapse under their own weight.

Don't think physics play that large a role, old boy.
Hmm... Maybe the claws are like fingernails - kind of not really used for cutting things up, more for protecting the tips of their digits? I dunno, not much explanation for this sort of thing happening. or Dragon fingers are really, really weak. Try challenging one to a thumb-war.

Under a rationalization for the weirdness on why they don't do STR/2 clawing damage, perhaps.

You also have to consider that swans can break your arm with a wing-buffet. That's right, this isn't something D&D invented. It's something that happens in the real world, and it works pretty well.

Birds I see no problems with them doing it, it's the 40+ foot wings with the 2" bones that make me go, "But! That'd fracture!"

And I'm not making up the 15 foot maximum length on a dragon, that realistically is the limit on biological structures supporting themselves due to the square-cube law ("as size doubles, area squares, and mass cubes").

Swans are only three feet long with an 8 foot wingspan. The physics don't hold up at 10 times that size (a 30 foot "swan" would need a wingspan of 1000 feet to lift its 33,000 pound body! There's a reason the longest wingspan of a bird ever recorded is from the albatross at 12 feet--anything larger simply breaks).

First: There are prehistoric reptiles larger than your hypothetical 15' limit. Unless you suggest they were ground-bound with wings and dinky little legs, your math is off.

Second: Dragons can fly. Obviously magic makes things different. If the dragon wing is strong enough to lift the dragon, it's strong enough to hit you. Any universe that allows flyers to scale up that way also allows the wings to still hit you and not snap.

Third: Let's call it Hardened Armor 8. That would go a long way towards maintaining the structural integrity of the creature under impact, no?

First off, such creatures were mere 2 to 3 feet long and weighed in in a unit measured in ounces (eg. less than 5 pounds). It's aspect ratio (wing length to chord length) is extremely high (9:1), unlike how dragons are portrayed (closer to 1:1 to 2:1, even if you truncate the tail and the neck you're still looking at only 4:1).



Magic.



Tensile strength vs. toughness.

Also, notably, hardened armor is mostly from scales, not from bones. Increasing bone density (making flight harder due to increased weight) increases "armor" value, yes, but you can only have one (less weight or tougher). Notably scales with a toughness rivaling steel armor plating would like be extremely heavy, also reducing flight capabilities.

There's evidence to suggest that the air had more CO₂ at that time, which would make it heavier, which would make it able to support more weight, which would change the ratios. Hmmm...maybe I should suggest that CO₂ is the source of all magic in that other thread...

Incorrect. Quetzalcoatlus



Damage is damage. Hardened armor stops damage. If it brotects the wing from being hit with a bat, it protects the wing from hitting you in the skull.


My rulebook doesn't say the Hardened Armor mostly comes from scales. Oh, and you can have something tougher and lighter. For example, steel is both tougher and lighter than gold. Hence, gold makes shitty armor, while steel makes pretty good armor (before guns, of course). That goes for bones and scales. If you don't have lighter and tougher at the same time, you don't have dragons. Period.

Again - if you have dragons at all, the things which are required to make them exist will also make the wing buffet a plausible attack form. Anything you point to that prevents it from working will also prevent the dragon from existing in the first place... Unless you want to say the dragon flies entirely my magical levitation, and the wings are merely decorative. If you're saying that, that's a perfectly valid stance, I suppose, but you should tell us so while arguing. Unstated Major Premise isn't kosher in polite society.

Actually, there's evidence that the pre-flood (I can't believe "scientists" still refute this indisposable fact - 85%+ of the world's mountains are sedimentary rock, the world shows extremely obvious signs of water erosion, fossil graveyards are best explained by a global flood.. the list can easily go on) world had 50% more oxygen (as well as carbon dioxide) as well as 2-3 times the air pressure. This does a whole number of things, including causing all creatures to greatly increase size, it allows for the plasma in blood to become super-oxygenated, reducing the amount of gas exchange needed by breathing, and would mess around with air pressures, making other certain things plausable.

Also, don't forget pteryodactyl (....spelling?) fossils of ~16 foot wingspans have been found.

I'm going to go with: this is not the place for the creationism argument.

One quick OT...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...Quetzscale1.png

Am I the only one who thinks those dinosaur outlines would make awesome starfighters, or other space faring dogfighter?

I don't think dragon flight is all magic levitation by Shadowun RAW. Under the description for Drakes, it explains the sirrushes non winged flight as magical levitation, and does not on the others.

For space opera, they would be awesome as Hell.
For Sci-fi, they would be a glaring hole in scientific plausibility.

Never heard of it. I am mistaken. Still, does not achieve anywhere near the size and mass of a non-great dragon.



Only in a game system. In the real world there are many many kinds of damage.



Correct. Which is why I am of the opinion that dragon scales do not protect better than skin (see: reptiles), however, game systems make that out to be the case.



I was pretty sure I was in fact arguing as such.



I'm not sure its creationist, really. There is evidence to support a flood during ancient times which covered "most of the known world" (eg. Mesopotamia's "fertile valley"). Native Americans, Greeks, Egyptians, and other ancient religions all had a flood story (heck, Native Americans had a world destroyed by fire just after that--sound familiar? God said he'd destroy the earth next time by fire).

Still, the argument for a denser atmosphere is strong, as a higher CO2 content would raise atmospheric density, and it was the high CO2 content that gave birth to all life (starting with protoplants).

No, but it's pretty clearly well above the size you listed. Using only meat and bone without magic or other Sixth World Awesomeness.



ShadowRun does not take place in the real world.


I don't see where the game system indicated anything of the kind. I see Hardened Armor 8, but nothing about it being granted by the scales. Oh, and scales are slightly more protective than skin, but pretty much only against slight, incidental damage (see pretty much everything with scales being immune papercuts).


I was, too... but you didn't say it. Or if you did, I missed it.

I think in some sci-fi book I read they had a 'dragon' (Ok they didn't call it a dragon but it was a large reptile that flew and breathed fire). And in trying to explain it, they said it accumulated a lighter-than-air gas in gas bladders inside its body from its digestive process. This meant that its wing span ratio could be off (being supported by its gas bladders) and that it burnt off excess gas as a defense mechanism (the fire breathing). Don't ask me how they 'explained' the ignition of the gas

Worst. Rational. Ever.

Do the math. It takes a balloon 36 feet in diameter filled with highly explosive hydrogen to give any meaningful lift to a creature the size of a human being (eg. very small dragon).

This rational is in fact so absurd that it makes me giggle every time someone mentions the "hydrogen balloon theory."

Or you could watch this video.

The movie Flight of Dragons had this. It was loosely based on a speculative natural history book of the same name.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0j0Bjy6hFc...feature=related

... You know I only mentioned a global flood right? Nothing about any deity or anything else.

That aside, it does not negate the multiple points I made. Let me reiterate:

1) A prior environment on earth had 50% more oxygen and two to three times more air pressure. This causes hyberbaric chamber-like conditions, causing creatures to grow much larger, live longer, and have more efficient gas exchange.
2) There are fossils of winged creatures with wingspans ~16 feet. Apparently there are also fossils with wingspans of 33-35 feet, as someone else has linked (I was not aware of/remember those).


There are actually more than 700 flood legends the world over, many having similar parallels (six people on a boat with two of every kind of animal). And please do not mix your religion with good science. I understand many people believe it, but that simple fact alone does not make it fact. In fact, abiogenesis has been proven wrong for the last 150+ years.


I don't know, I think alligator scales are a little tougher than human skin, for instance. Make that alligator ~10 times bigger...


Isn't that with normal pressure? What if this gas is super-pressurized inside special reserve organs? Theoretically that should grand enough lift, if it is pressurized enough. (Please note I do not like this theory either, just that with enough pressure it is feasible. Now, containing a gas with that much pressure on the other hand leads to its own problems...)

You know I( only mentioned creationism, right? Nothing about a deity... Just saying, that sword cuts both ways. But hey, you show me someone who espouses a global flood and NOT creationism, and I'll concede that one point. I, for one, have never met such.


In the vernacular: [citation needed]

Yeah, that was me. I linked that.


...and there are even more legends of the world being created from nothing by a deity. Legends are not facts. They're not evidence. They're legends. Nothing more.

Oh, and you clearly misunderstand that the word "abiogenesis" is not the same as "spontaneous generation." However, as the only alternatives to abiogenesis are life eternal and no life at all, I'm curious as to which you think is true, given that it has been proven for over a hundred and fifty years that life never began.

Rhino hide is tougher than alligator scales, what's your point?



If the gas is pressurized, it becomes heavier, not lighter, as it has become more dense. You'll notice that helium tanks do not float away under the super-lifting capacity of the compressed gases within.

You will however, notice that it is easier to "float" on denser volumes than lighter ones.

Case and point a British Pound floating on mercury.

sure. but that doesn't help if the denser 'stuff' is *inside* the creature that is supposed to be floating on it

Because, you know, birds have an issue with that.

I.E. the increased weight is far, far less than the increased lift of the denser material flowing over an airfoil.

Here's the part about 50% more oxygen, although I highly disagree with the ages given, and here is another interesting article pretty much answering the flight section of this thread.

Nice. I'm going to have to save that. I knew there was math for figuring out the maximum flight obtainable stuff, but didn't know how to find it.

i don't think you looked at the context in which i made that statement.

you cannot compress air, making it buoy stuff up better, than stuff that *inside* a creature, and expect the improved ability to buoy things up to help the creature containing this denser stuff to be able to float better. the compressed, denser 'stuff' that is going to buoy up the creature in question has to be outside the creature to be of any use.

to backtrack, someone (it appears to be neraph) proposed compressing a lighter-than-air gas and cramming it into a creature to provide greater buoyancy for the creature. someone else (it appears to be rystefan) pointed out that compressing gas makes it more dense, and therefore makes it less able to float, indicating that stuffing a creature full of compressed hydrogen or helium would actually make that creature less buoyant than if you were to stuff that creature with uncompressed hydrogen or helium. then you came along and pointed out that it is easier to float on top of denser materials, which i then came along and pointed out is not a valid counter-argument, because we're discussing filling the creature with said more dense substance, and stuffing a creature with a more dense substance will in fact provide less buoyancy than stuffing the creature with a less-dense substance. the state of the substance the creature in question is floating on was never relevant to the discussion about the compressed vs uncompressed gas filling the creature, which is what the quote you quoted was dealing with.

or, to put it another way: yes, it's easier to float in water or mercury than it is to float in air. however, a creature full of uncompressed helium or hydrogen will always have superior ability to float as compared to the same creature full of compressed hydrogen or helium, regardless of whether it is floating on air, water, mercury, or any other fluid.

now had you quoted the segment about the air being denser at a prehistoric time, i would have acknowledged your point as being completely relevant to the material you quoted (or, more likely, i would have simply let it stand on its own, since it would not get any more true because i agree on it). your point was correct, it merely was not relevant to the point you were quoting, presumably in an attempt to provide context, in much the same way that many other facts are true, yet have no particular bearing on the discussion. i could argue that my hair is brown, and as true as it may be, it has absolutely nothing to do with a discussion on whether filling a creature with a given gas compressed vs uncompressed provides more or less buoyancy.

Actually, it doesn't answer the flight section of the thread. It says that if atmospheric pressure was higher, that would resolve some of these problems. That's not the same as saying that atmospheric pressure was higher. To say that, you'd need more evidence than long necks and big flyers. Since there are other hypotheses put forward to explain these things, it is obviously not simply fact that this is so. You also didn't touch on the "growing larger, living longer" part at all. If you're going to make assertions like that, you're going to have to back them up.

Maybe if the creature weighed ounces it might matter. Ever tied down a helium balloon? It takes roughly the weight of two quarters to keep it from floating away. Two quarters worth of size to a 1 foot diameter balloon is ludicrous to think that a creature (the size of the coins) would have a helium (or hydrogen*) air sack the size of the balloon.

*Which I might at is mother fucking explosive and would be a very bad idea for a fire breathing creature to have inside its body. Does no one remember the Hindenburg?

In fairness, they painted the Hindenburg with thermite. Although the point about breathing fire and explosive gasses is a valid one.

I did not know.
(Knowledge is power!)

I exaggerate somewhat, of course... but the paint apparently reacted during the crash in such a way that there was a thermite-type reaction. At least, that's my understanding. The chemistry is slightly beyond my level, in that I can understand it when a person explains it to me, but it's outside my ability to explain it to someone else, if that makes any sense.

Edit: To clarify - the paint was most certainly NOT actual thermite, but was of a composition that could have contributed the the speed of burn. MythBusters did an episode on this.

I learned how to make thermite in gradeschool, I understand what goes on well enough to get the picture. I also "liberated" some magnesium strip from HS chem class should I ever decide I want to make some.
(Of course, I have no idea where it is anymore...)

Here's how I handle the dragon flight problem: Fuck it. They're magic.

Edit: I have no idea how this thread got off of the "natural weapons" subject and onto "how would realistic dragons work?"



First link - You "highly disagree" with a critical part of the information USGS is presenting (the time period during which oxygen was at a greater concentration) yet you're presenting it in an attempt to support your argument anyway?

Second link - That's a nice link to some family's obscure website. Wait, is he seriously comparing his dinosaur flight napkin math project to Wegener's theory of continental drift? Hahahahaha.



You mean "case in point". Yes, this is pedantry.

Edit again: by the way, it seems like spirits get a better deal than dragons on Natural Weapons. Most spirits with Natural Weapon have DV = Force, and it combines nicely with Energy Aura.

Bad science makes me wish I could shock people with the power of my mind.

Also, maybe the dragons have a Levitate spell with the Geas "Flap wings" the flapping doesn't really give lift, just meets the criteria for the spell. That would also allow the dragons wings to be like tree tunks with a tarp over them.

In summary, FUCKING MAGIC LIZARDS.

Wow, some people are so mean here.

The GM is giggling madly, right now.

Hehehe.