Realistically what would stop fallout monsters?

Discussion in 'General Fallout Discussion' started by NMLevesque, Jul 20, 2017.

  1. NMLevesque

    NMLevesque Commie Ghost

    617
    Jul 2, 2016
    Obviously if you have a lot of time on your hands anything could be used to kill a deathclaw, but....well, switch that out with utah raptor and you see my point.

    What would *stop* such fallout monsters is a subsection of what *could* kill them. Also, while I'm on the subject I suppose a similar question would be interesting. Namely, given what it canonically takes what does that say about the 'characteristics' of said hostiles. Some of those floaters man. They just love the taste of lead...or depleted uranium if you've got any. I mean are they like superorganisms, and if you kill half of them then the other half is still totally alive or something? Do deathclaws have grade 8 bullet resistant skin or do they just have a lot of useless internal organs for me to rupture? You know, like Zoidberg. Man what a great cameo that would have been for him to be in Surgeon Simulator. Then maybe I would have played it for slightly more than ten minutes.
     
  2. Jogre

    Jogre It's all JO'Ger now

    Oct 25, 2015
    New Vegas lists Deathclaw's Damage Threshold at 15, Fallout 1 and 2 list it at 6. That's roughly the same level as Combat Armour.

    Although, the first 2 only list that against Normal and Explosive damage, with ever so slightly lower for Fire, Plasma and Lasers, which have roughly the same as Metal Armour has against physical.

    So basically shooting Deathclaws with ordinary weapons would be the same as trying to shoot a soldier in advanced, military-grade armour. Shooting Deathclaws with Lasers or Fire or Plasma would be roughly the same as trying to pierce metal armour with bullets.

    Or alternatively Deathclaw's have a spot behind there eyes, that if wounded will cause them to run away in terror(First pointed out by Harold in Fallout 1)
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  3. zegh8578

    zegh8578 Keeper of the trout Orderite

    Mar 11, 2012
    First of all, it's not "utah raptor" it's "Utahraptor", it's a scientific generic name, these are written as one single word.

    Secondly, eh, what? What would kill them in reality? Using Utahraptor as an example - I'm guessing ANY hunting rifle? Utahraptor would be the size and mass of a large horse, so... what kills large horses? Rifles I guess, probably handguns too.
    Aligator hunters also use rifles, the armored skin offer next-to-nul protection against high speed projectiles.
     
  4. Einhanderc7

    Einhanderc7 Vat dipped, grown and still oozing with perfection

    858
    Apr 22, 2016
    I'd like to see a deathclaw try and take one of these on.

    I think it would be rather interesting.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 2
  5. Tawûsê

    Tawûsê First time out of the vault

    49
    Jul 20, 2017
    Humans have been hunting large beasts on the savanna for over two million years.

    Personally, I would be far more afraid of taking on a Mammoth with a stone tipped spear than taking potshots at a raptor with a Remington.
     
  6. iridium_ionizer

    iridium_ionizer Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?

    484
    Jul 24, 2007
    A single human with stone age technology is a pretty terrible big game hunter. It is speculated (I think with some archaeological evidence) that when humans were hunting mammoths they mostly tried to isolate a straggler from the herd and then drive it off of a cliff (at night) using spears and torches. They let gravity do the killing.
     
  7. Tawûsê

    Tawûsê First time out of the vault

    49
    Jul 20, 2017
    Of course someone would hunt with a group, and even if you'd be simply driving the mammoth off of a cliff, that's still a mother of a beast to contend with.

    My point is, humanity has been hunting and killing dangerous prey for countless millennia, and seeing as the Fallout setting has quite the vast arsenal of weaponry to provide the wasteland with, I think it would be quite feasible for a wastelander to find a way to kill a deathclaw.
     
  8. Prone Squanderer

    Prone Squanderer A bit of a Sillius Soddus.

    Jan 3, 2016
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 2
  9. ThatZenoGuy

    ThatZenoGuy Residential Zealous Evolved Nano Organism

    Nov 8, 2016
    Large caliber guns like elephant guns loaded with solid bronze rounds should work.
     
  10. Zerginfestor

    Zerginfestor dear god, the scrapping

    405
    Apr 18, 2015
    even advanced armor isn't really amazing when facing high caliber/rifle rounds. Getting hit by 5.56 or .308 rounds is more than enough to topple most critters, and the Deathclaw is no exception, though in reality, it would probably be labeled close to that of the gators and crocs, meaning hunters would ignore hitting the back section and aim for the eyes/ribcage/part of the skull where it will be inevitably softer than the rest of the hard, thick bone. .44 magnum would be more than enough to kill a beast like that, though any smaller than revolver rounds and it would be like shooting pistol rounds against a grizzly: it'll probably just piss it off even further.

    Now cazadors on the other hand is probably more terrifying than a Deathclaw. If there's one thing that irks humans, it's fast, jittery motion that's faster than the human eye can lock on efficiently. Definitely a task for a legit napalm flamethrower or high-powered pesticide that attacks the nervous system of cazadors in seconds.
     
  11. ThatZenoGuy

    ThatZenoGuy Residential Zealous Evolved Nano Organism

    Nov 8, 2016
    Deathclaws are basically covered head to toe with combat armour level skin/scales/plates, which are in Fallout, compable to level III plate.

    You'll need AP rounds to put them down, ball rifle ammo is unlikely to affect them much.
     
  12. Question2

    Question2 It Wandered In From the Wastes

    143
    Jun 20, 2017
    A deathclaw probably has sufficient mass that you need big game rounds to be effective. Its basically the same question as what you would use if jurrasic park was a real thing.

    It kind of bothered me that deathclaws in NV were so easy to kill...you only had issues if there were enough deathclaws to tank your damage to get in close (or if you melee). Realistically speaking though, you cant just do VATs + headshots in real life and getting headshots on a charging deathclaw would probably be pure luck. And backpedaling doesnt work in real life either.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  13. ThatZenoGuy

    ThatZenoGuy Residential Zealous Evolved Nano Organism

    Nov 8, 2016
    Deathclaws in NV are tougher and nastier than the ones in Fallout 1-2.

    If anything I think they were wanked too hard in Fallout NV.
     
  14. Question2

    Question2 It Wandered In From the Wastes

    143
    Jun 20, 2017
    NV allows you to very easily hit 500+ damage per shot without even using the most powerful guns in the game. Largely because it is very easy to stack critical chance in NV with things like critical multipliers and items that boost critical chance. The lack of DR also means that everything takes a lot of damage from high powered weapons like sniper rifles, brush guns, etc because DT mainly affects automatic weapons (or HP rounds).

    Killing deathclaws before they get into melee range is a lot harder in FO2, but they arent as effective vs power armor as in NV.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  15. ThatZenoGuy

    ThatZenoGuy Residential Zealous Evolved Nano Organism

    Nov 8, 2016
    That's more an issue of the critical systems and certain weapon damages though.

    Also, the lack of DR...
     
  16. Zerginfestor

    Zerginfestor dear god, the scrapping

    405
    Apr 18, 2015
    Uh, no. That's not how that works. If we're going with realistically, the newest edition of the Deathclaw, whether ya like it or not, is like that of the croc. Combat armor is akin to modern armor, albeit overkill with shoulder pads and whatnot, but again, that's not really going to protect you from Rifle rounds. Polymer armor tends to absorb one rifle shot or a high powered magnum and then after that, you're on your own. Deathclaw's thick hide and overall thicker bone mass on the back is what would stop hunters from trying to hit it there, and ATTACK the ribcage/belly and eyes/nose. There, like any croc or large reptile, would belly up if hit there, thus why a .44 magnum and up is highly suggested, with the .44 magnum as a backup once it begins to charge at you and rear up for his belly to be exposed.
     
  17. ThatZenoGuy

    ThatZenoGuy Residential Zealous Evolved Nano Organism

    Nov 8, 2016
    The DR and DT of Deathclaws is comparable to combat armour.

    Deathclaws aren't normal creatures, they're not only FEV mutated, they were further refined by the master, who's super mutants can have DOZENS of embedded bullets in them without irritation.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  18. NMLevesque

    NMLevesque Commie Ghost

    617
    Jul 2, 2016
    Um...all Harold really says is that you should go for the head, maybe the eyes, but that if you look into them they'll hypnotize you, so...I don't think that was anything more than general advice/his usual sarcasm. It's not exactly a revelation that you should aim for the head or eyes if possible. Kinda seems like a reference to aimed shots to be honest, since that applies to everything. Also I was tired when I typed 'utah raptor'. I'm usually pretty good about taxonomy. Anyway, I love how now I'm even less sure of what would work. It's actually pretty funny in a way.

    What might help to mention is that what would 'stop' a Deathclaw isn't the same as what would kill it. Fatal wounds don't necessarily stop a charging beast. As bullets don't quite have the 'stopping power' that most people expect. There's no telling what something will do if shot, and if the target has at least twice the mass of a human, then I then I think it's safe to say that they would react better than a human to gunfire. So comparing deathclaws purely to humans in combat armor is flawed, but still a useful detail. Though I'd like to point out that given how Fallout represents the functionality of armor that it's safe to say that either Fallout armor is far more durable/resilient than it's real world counterpart, or that we can safely deduce that Deathclaws aren't quite as bullet spongey. Given how unarmored foes stand up to punishment I'd side more with the latter, but there's no sense in completely discounting the former (so an uneven mix of the two).

    Moreover, how resilient ones body is to penetration by a projectile is not the same as how well that organism would stand up to a given injury. Obviously the larger the target, the larger the wound has to be in order have the same affect. It doesn't scale up linearly though. A creature twice as big doesn't need twice as big a wound. And though a bigger heart is a bigger target, there would be more tissue in the way. I suppose in videogame terms this would be HP, because nothing represents an organisms capacity to withstand injury like horsepower...or whatever.

    As for which version of the Deathclaw is tougher I have to give it up to NV, because of Lone Road. You have to crank up your DR/DT about as high as you can get it, and have a lot of health to take more than one hit from those ones. So even with a max level character and a strong build you can still get recked by them in NV, whereas you sort of just become invulnerable in the originals. There's also Rawr and the lesser variants, legendary, mother, uncle grandpa, etc which push them to extremes. Overall though, relative to the player's late-game strength it's kind of a wash since you can cheese through both fairly easily. You definitely spend more time getting scratched by Deathclaws in the classics, but while taking barely if any damage. Whereas in NV you either kill them quickly or they do the same to you--barring certain absurd builds. I think from a narrative perspective this favors the latter, but that just seems like a consequence of game mechanics. As in, how it would have to be represented in turn based--and real time combat respectively. Kind of makes for an impossible comparison since you can't evaluate them on any kind of consistent or particularly meaningful metric.
     
  19. ThatZenoGuy

    ThatZenoGuy Residential Zealous Evolved Nano Organism

    Nov 8, 2016
    Dude...Fallout 1-2...Deathclaws basically have combat armour level armour.

    Not only are deathclaws hard to put down even with direct shots which penetrate, due to their mass and biology, they're simply fucking hard to damage in the first place.