Let's chat seriously about PC Animals...

Wow, that's, like elementary school stuff. Everyone knows that, right?

Right? Everyone knows teeth are stronger than bones? It's, like, the hardest substance in the body.

Please use google and educate yourself

Yes and the videos of Sif are the only demos you have presented to show your point of view. Therefore I must judge the validity of your statements on what you present. You don't get to pick and choose what part of the video can be used to prove or disprove your point.

Yes Sif could TRY (AFTER opening his belly up for attack) to stomp on something he can't easily see (look in the video and you will see this and notice that the SWORD in HIS MOUTH limits his head movement even further) let alone focus with both eyes so the odds of him hitting aren't good. Yet he would not even have a belly wound, nor needing to TRY to stomp on the knight if he had used his teeth.

Furthermore he can only try to stomp after the swords momentum has slowed down and he regains his footing. Look at scene 2:33 for and example of this.


One grave weakness of a Wolf with a Sword in it's mouth is ...they have a sword in there mouth...which is attached to their head...which has vulnerable points.

Talk to people who use swords. One of the more common places to be hit is on the limb holding the sword. With humans this is the hand or arm. On a Sword Wolf it would be the face. But unlike a human who with a deft spin of there wrist can bring the guard to defend the exposed limb, the wolf can not. Whether the wolf has a sword or not the face will be a target. And the mass of the sword will slow down the ability of the head to avoid blows aimed at it.

Repeat after me. The Wolf with Sword in Mouth does worse then Wolf using teeth.



Yes and as I have shown it looks like the wolf is at a big disadvantage over it's natural cousin. Adding a piece of Tech onto something may look cool, but it doesn't always make it work better, especially when the piece was not designed for it in the first place.




Misunderstanding. You said supersize the human so I thought you meant that we were discussing the wolf being the same size as a human. Notice that my argument is correct on that basis and that at equal size and close range the wolf is unable to use the sword to real effect while the human still can.

As to your current example of a giant human vs a wolf, that sounds like a sword wielding man vs toy poodle. Since the sword is designed for humans it doesn't matter how close the poodle gets the sword can be speared down and through the poodle Shish-ka-bob! or treated as a golf ball FOUR! or as you pointed out just Stomp. But unlike a wolf a human can use a sword, see any point under it's body and aim using both eyes to easily skewer small animals around it's feet.

Compare that to a wolf with a sword which limits its range of head motion trying to hit a small human at it's feet.

A Natural Wolf would have an easier time dispatching the small humans than the Sword Wolf.

A human does not have same disadvantages using a sword a wolf does!
And a Natural wolf doesn't have them either!

This in respose to the last part of the quote of "And unlike the human the wolf lacks a second appendage to choke up on and so the sword is useless compared to it's natural weapons of teeth."

Please show me where my Bias is and point out the second appendage a wolf has that will allow it while in battle to "choke up on and use a sword effectively.

And once again you have avoided the main point that

"A regular sized wolf would not have that issue as you won't be able to get past that arc of lethality because it's as close to their body as their teeth, which sadly can't be used since it has a useless sword in those teeth."

Is that because you can't think of a way that the Sword Wolf could grow another appendage and so must resort to claiming I am biased?

It see the same sorts of flaws to your argument in that one that that I saw in the one I have quoted. What is the difference that is germain to this conversation?


A fit 6' tall human on average will weigh 20% more at around 180lbs, and a non fit American a whole lot more.

I dealt with every point in the first half of the last post. We then had a point where definitions were unclear so I stopped for clarification since dealing with those elements listed means we need to agree on what normal is.

I am unaware of any points I have dodged.

There are however several places you have chosen to not answer questions and avoid my points. You even try to close on this by saying...

Thanks for closing with this. It is an excelent example of you dodging questions and the issue. Here is that conversation for everyone to follow.

I make a statement that a dogs mouth would be damaged if it fought with a sword in it.


You try to dismiss it with a Strawman Argument of "cartoonish vibrations and amplifications" when I said "torque, impact and vibrations", then you imply that a dogs mouth can hold a metal pipe being hammered on and it would be OK.

I point this out to you and ask you to back up that you honestly think that a Dog would not be harmed by this by asking you to verify that "If you saw someone coax their dog to hold a metal pole and then they hit the pole with another pole would you call the police or take some other action to stop them?"

You dodge the question, i surmise because you know that if someone did that to a dog it would likely injure their teeth and jaws and instead try to divert the topic. to that of a human wrist.


So I will ask once again very specifically. If you saw someone coax their dog to hold a sword in there mouth and then they hit the sword as hard as a real fighter would, are you honestly saying you would sit by and do nothing to stop them?

I have seen Live Steel fighters hold a sword in their hand and block a real stroke with no injury. I have done the same with a hard wood sword. I know that if someone tried to do that to a dog that it would injure them and I would do my best to stop them.

That picture is from the fourth book of a limited series from the 80s titled Batman: The Dark Knight Returns.

Frank Miller wrote and penciled all four books.

If you were to look back at the history of Batman and try to figure out how and when Batman went from the camp of the 60s and 70s to the Dark Knight you see in the 90s animated series or the Bale Batman movies. The change all started in The Dark Knight Returns.

The one handed guy is the Green Arrow, GA only has one hand since Superman took the other one.

It definitely does that. It looks exactly how I imagined a video game wolf would look using a sword -- i.e. like something struggling ineptly to use a tool that was in no way designed for it. A human arm has seven degrees of freedom, and that's what makes a sword dangerous. All the wolf can really do with the sword is thrash it from side to side like it's worrying it, and that's *with* the sword somehow magically being able to switch sides in its mouth in order to complete a swing. Even to make one simple movement, the animators had to cheat. It looks clumsy and silly.

If you want to persuade people that animals could look tolerable in-game using a sword by holding it in their mouths, that's a terrible video for it. There has to be something better out there. At least, I hope so, for the sake of your argument.

I agree. I consider it to be one of the 10 best stories DC has produced and quite possibly has had more of an impact on the main stream popularity of comic movies then any other single book.

Released in 1986, I feel it influenced and opened the door for the Dark Comic Book Hero to enter main stream. From the death of Robin in 1988; the Jokers psychpathy including sexual violence found in "The Killing Joke" 1988; or the pure psychopathic portrayed by Jack Nicholson including the Gas bombs, attempted mass murder on a city level, in a disfunctional world seen in The 1989 Batman Movie; The Dark Knight Returns has all of these elements and blended them in a way that made them acceptable to the fans.

A word of caution. If you are too young or not knowledgeable enough to understand 1980's culture, politics, and society then you might sadly miss out on many of the references, jokes and commentary.

I assumed the smiley meant the question was rhetorical. It isn't often I see someone anywhere within a hundred miles of the comic book genre that isn't familiar with it.

To me, there will probably never be a cover cooler than the very first DKR cover:



I remember just staring at it when it first came out, not even opening it for a while, and deliberately setting it aside to read separately from everything else, just because of that cover. I wasn't as thrilled as the next two, but the last one:



Oh yeah.

Because that's entirely beside the point, maybe?

I mean, a human with armor and a sword and shield is better than a human with just fists, right? Or a human with power gauntlets is better than a human without advanced tech, right?

You seem to be making the argument I'm avoiding something when you're basically disregarding the fact that I can make a point for either case. It's the same point Golden Girl had tossed aside, wanting a 'how?' that satisfies her 'why?' and if it doesn't it's invalid.



And why not? I pointed to the video to demo animations. You're theorycrafting as if this concept is using that video as a bible to go on. Hell, I originally posted pictures to demonstrate what it'd look like and the video is to demonstrate to those that do not understand what I was saying when describing the movements.

Case in point, people imagined a dog swinging their head around to swing the sword and I described them using their whole body in the movement, not just their neck. That video is to show, more visually, what I was attempting to describe...because the opponents of my suggestion could not visualize any decent amount of impact or arc from the attacks.


*rolls eyes*

You're going around in circles because you're trying to put words in my mouth that I never said. But in the case that a blow is aimed at the head of a dog, it's ability to block is non-existent.



More like trying to kill an aware and intelligent mouse with a +80lb 12ft sword that has to contend with wind resistance. It's like a dinosaur hunting small mammals...they're too frikken big and the mammals so small they'd be lucky to hit them at all. Remember, things scale up with size.

Now I don't know what you're talking about. Do we do this in game? How does this relate in any way? Are we pointing out the things an animal with a weapon in their mouth can't do? While ignoring that it's not done in any animations in the game?

But let me save you some trouble and point out where you've got some loopy tangent stuck in your head:

I am not opening a school to teach animals to use swords in their mouths. This, most likely, will never be a reality because animals are not intelligent enough to use tools in an advantageous way like us humans. So going on and on about what human swordsmen can do and what an animal cannot is rather beside the point and ultimately side-tracked me in my answers. But it's all a waste of time to attempt to rationalize fantasy unless you have more time on your hands than you have to do with.



Well the average man varies by race but it's generally 5'10 and 160lbs but that's splitting hairs. The length of the average wolf that I mentioned, 1-1.5 of those feet is just their tail. So comparing to a relatively similar sized human of 5ft, they're going to weigh similar (average weight of a man that size is also around 120-140lb). Things blur when you use median sizes or max sizes or fantasy sizes. A buff man is going to weigh more than just an average/unfit person and a buff man is probably the type of guy that'd be using a sword. *shrugs*


Well first of all, I said nothing of the sort nor implied it. You keep saying things then trying to move my mouth as if I said them. Put a metal pipe in a dog's mouth and hammer it? It'd shatter their teeth? Yeaaah...I totally explained that that's how things work...and you say *I'm* using strawmen...


I didn't dodge the question, I pointed out how ridiculous the original statement was. About as ridiculous as splintering a man's wrist by the same technique.

But I'll add a point that dogs injure their mouths a lot. They can harm their teeth by biting things that are too hard or even have them pulled out by gripping something that is yanked out of their mouths (like large prey that fights to escape). But it's more going on a tangent mentioning this since my point wasn't to explain that swords are better than bites.

And I will finish this post with this quote.

This is sooo much a waste of my time. You're lucky I'm playing CoH right now as I probably wouldn't even bother. But I'll answer the sentiment of this question with this:

I have never, not ever, expressed a wish to teach a dog or any animal to wield a weapon in its teeth. Creating a character that does it is not equivalent to expecting such to happen in real life or else I'd expect to shoot lasers from my eyes and breath fire and ice.

Because if your question did matter, I'd have to call a GM whenever I see a Beast/Traps MM using detonator on their wolves.

He was able to slash up and down as well by turning his head sideways while moving his body. But yeah, opinions are opinions. You say it looks bad, other say it looks alright, I simply enjoy the concept.

Well, Titan Weapons looks pretty clumsy too but that's mostly due to size and speed. But there aren't many examples of the concept. I'd more imagine the concept of the animal using the weapon in a similar fashion that a human would use a reverse grip blade while also using their forepaws to claw, basically giving them 3 bladed weapons.

Slacker.