Non-human enemies

I know that the system is for human vs human combat, before someone says anything, but hear (or read) me out.

In the early stages for my campaign, i have my players go to a jungle planet to invade a smuggler hideout that have been stealing weapons and intel from their House, and while going through said jungle, they might have to fight off minor and major creatures, from venomous bears to flying boas.

So, while their fighting styles and “natural assets” are a no brainer, I’m having trouble figuring out their character sheets, since I want a couple of them to be mini bosses (aka taking a few hits before being killed), and since there isn’t a HP bar in the system per se, I’m thinking about instead of giving them drives + skill values, just give them skill values that go up to 16, or perhaps even giving them an actual HP bar with values uo to 20.

This could even be relevant in their homeworld, since they have giant sea creatures there like huge marine hydras (let’s say they were inspired by shai-hulud, but made an 180 on the concept).

What do you guys think? Is it a good idea?

You might think in terms of a skirmish rather than a duel when it comes to animals.
D-Wolves and Laza Tigers are certainly a part of the canon and they are not fun to meet.
They might also work better as assets under a character’s control rather than characters with stats.

Were you running the twins being chased by the Tigers I’d do a series of zones with the children PCs moving from zone to zone trying to avoid the tigers. The tigers would be assets used by the baddie working in ‘architect mode’ to control the tigers as they chased the children.

1 Like

I was thinking of those animals as something like a natural/environmental defense, but they would attack anything that enters in their territories.

And yes, i was thinking about using them in skirmishes, rather than dueling. The idea of having to outrun those creatures is fine, but this course cause the players to find themselves between a rock and a hard place against the creatures on their back, and a group of smuggler/mercs in front of them.

And I talked about the architect gameplay, and they didn’t like it very much, so I’d like to avoid it as long as I can.

How about Beasts being defined with a simplified Charactersheet such as…

SKILLS: Battle, Speed, Stealth, Awareness (with 1 or 2 focuses that seem sensible)
DRIVES: Hunger, Territory, Power, Rage (with 1 or 2 statements that seem sensible)

*Rather than use Determination, the Drive Statements also act as Focuses. *
“Power” could come in when asserting dominance over a rival (usually same species)

TRAITS: as required
TALENTS: as required
ASSETS: as required eg. Claws, Horn, Thick-skin (defensive)
FLAWS: as required eg. Afraid of Fire, Skittish, Water-bound

Example Tiger

SKILLS: Battle 8 (savagery), Speed 7 (chasing), Stealth 5, Awareness 6
DRIVES: Hunger 5, Territory 6 (defend cubs), Power 7, Rage 8 (when wounded)
TALENT: Hunting
ASSETS: Claws, Fangs
FLAWS: None

Example Wolf

SKILLS: Battle 6 (as a pack), Speed 7 (chasing), Stealth 5, Awareness 6
DRIVES: Hunger 5, Territory 7 (defend cubs), Power 5, Rage 5
TALENT: Hunting
ASSETS: The Pack
FLAWS: Afraid of Fire

Example Sandworm

SKILLS: Battle 8 (size), Speed 6, Stealth 3, Awareness 5 (vibrations)
DRIVES: Hunger 4, Territory 8 (defend spice), Power 4, Rage 4
TALENT: Burrow through Sand
ASSETS: Gaping Maw Quality 4 (adds to damage), Massive Size Quality 4 (adds 20 to the Requirement Score)
FLAWS: Sand-bound (cannot leave the sand)
Alternatively something like a Sandworm could be defined as a Platoon-level foe and can only be fled from, not meaningfully attacked

5 Likes