What are some interesting ways to kill large monsters other than hitting them until they fall down?

We talking about Shadow of Collossus here, or the rock Golem from Breath of the Wild that totally wasn't a nod towards the former?

No, you gotta sneak up their anus and do it.

Hit them until they leave the atmosphere

Some rope and a big pathway.
Trip that motherfucker and tie him up.

Tear them apart and use the part to defeat them

I was thinking big, but not that big. Sort of like...two bears maybe?

A bear is the standard unit of measurement for magical creatures right?

I'm going to start measuring things in bears.

How many bears is a black dragon?

"Excuse good sir! How far is the nearest town?"

>"Eight bears sir. Seven on a good day."

"Forsooth!"

I guess it depends on why mythos you're talking...maybe like 10 or so?

Take their measurement in bears and then apply the correct amount of bear for the job.

bear measurement is, I would have thought, actual bears. So if the nearest town was only seven bears away why couldn't he see it?

It's only seven on a good day though.

Maybe they were measuring calories in bears? Bear lifetimes?

>It is actually healed by damage and have to use heal spells it to kill it.

This is so very dumb. Unless you're talking about using the element which makes up the elemental, this is shit-tier DnD nonsense.

They're measuring the amount of bears you can expect to see during your voyage there. So it's actually pretty far.

Guerilla warfare with mobile artillery while luring it away from the population and into traps.

What if it's like one mile away but also seven bears away.

Sounds like an unbearable road.

Giving them crippling depression to the point where they are willing to take their own lives

No.

Dig a big hole, monster falls in. Add gelatinous cube(s) as required. Problem solved.

Ain't nothin' that can't be beaten with a big enough pitfall.

Making them fall down and then hitting them.

Fuck off, Taylor.

Who is Taylor lol

Causing them some sort of harmful condition, such as bleeding or ongoing poison damage, then playing defensively until they collapse.

Are the bears stacked vertically, horizontally, or laterally? This is important.

More like multiplied.

So imagine a bear and then double it in all respects.

meant for

Yo

Wouldn't that be cubic bears?

Exactly. You're looking at something at least the size of eight bears in that case. Check this handy picture for reference.

This is one of those threads isn't it.

The glorious ones.

your maths don't add up. you are doubling at least 3 times there.

You start our with one bear. and then double it. How many bears is that?

I was trying to answer the man's question as to whether it was vertical or horizontal; but I was saying its more abstract than that.

BTW pic related is what happens when you double a bear...it is in fact 200% bear.

Climbing the monster to hit the back of its neck, or knees or its weak parts

...

You said it was double in all respects so I assumed you were talking about it being double a bear's horizontal, vertical and lateral dimensions as to maintain correct bear ratios.

A bear isn't perfectly tesselatable like that, a cubic bear would be at least three bears deep because a bear is slimmer wide than it is tall, and longer than it is tall.

4bearsx3bearsx2bears is I think the proper ratio for a cubic bear.

(assuming a metric bear and not an imperial bear)

oh right I get you where you're coming from now...but no I was thinking more in terms of doubling the amount of bear present rather than strict dimensions.

Dammit you're making this way more complicated. You're overcompensating for the bears dimensions, which would be preserved through squaring the x, y, and z dimensions anyway. This is way too long and tall now.

That's because you're fucking up the axis!

TWO bears long from nose to tail
THREE bears tall from paws to back
FOUR bears wide from shoulder to shoulder!

What other units of measurement exist in fantasy>
If we assume bears=metric then do uncultured swines use mountain lions instead of imperial?

Fuck me you're right.

I've got stuff to do what the fuck am I making these goddamn pictures for I swear to god

Give me five fucking minutes.

STOP POSTING IN THE FUCKING THREAD TAYLOR

Mountain Lions are only used for time increments (sometimes called "puma-seconds"), not spacial ones.

Okay this is better.

Definitely more of a cube shape here, but it's still off somehow. Still, we're approaching something workable.

wtf are you measuring up a bear in bears now?

nope now i see it. literally a cube of bears

If you're going for a perfect cube of bears it'd make more sense to be

XXX
XXX

where the top is "forward".

I feel like 4 across is too many. 3x3x2 seems about right from looking at that pic...

As far as I can see, we're not going to be able to ever accurately measure how many bears will make a cube, but I think we're asking the wrong questions here.

If we're going on the bear being the basic unit of measurement in this universe, with bears not having identical x, y, and z measurements as they are, we'll either have to create cubic bears or find a way of measuring 3d objects with variable axis.

With this system of measurement, a cube that was 1 Bear long might be 1.5 Bear tall and 2 Bear wide.

I need to draw a workable axis for this...

yeah but then you're dissecting bears...you monster.

The easiest way to do that is to make the air around a bear part of a sq/bear at it's longest points.

no no, this is (bizarrely) a solved problem in physical chemistry - what we need is to slightly off set each layer of bears to form what is known as a "Face Centric Crystaline Stacking Structure", or FCC Stack for short.

>ancient bear burial ground
>not ancient bearial ground

You had one job

All of our problems have been solved!

Introducing the unit of measurement based on an animal that's bearly functional...

It's... The Bear!

7000 bears isnt even enough to make a credible bearcano threat either really.

Alrighty!
Now, how long is a kilobear? In metric bears, not imperial bears

well....1000 bears surely?

Square cube law

That really depends on what direction you're heading in relation to the bear. Noseward, you're looking at maybe 400, maybe 450 Bears. Crosship, it's around 700, depending on the age and gender. For a female bear, take off three bears for every month it's been pregnant, four if it's carrying twins.

you beautiful bastard!

About 10,000 metric cubs

Note the distinction between a bear, the carnivoran mammal of the family Ursidae, and a Bear, the unit of measurement derived from the aformentioned animal.

The concept of the 'Cub' is a common misconception. According to the latest Bear studies, the unit of a Bear cannot be used to measure an object smaller than a bear. This is because it is impossible to divide the bear into smaller pieces without sacrificing the mathmatical integrity of the bear, and therefore the Bear in question.

So there are ten cubs in a bear?

making them actually impossible to kill by any means the players are capable of.

They must be talked to death.

By making them think too hard on riddles.

The strongest of them are also the smartest, they know riddles.

Just because ivory-tower intellectuals refuse to measure anything in less than Bears doesn't mean colloquial units such as cubs have no weight. A carpenter is hardly going to build a home out of whole bear materials is he? No, he has to be precise down to the cub and, sometimes, even the claw.

It's only a matter of time before academia accepts what works for the rest of the world.

Make hacking at the legs a viable tactic. I'm serious.

Give limbs their own pools of health and have the monster fight until it's dead. Clip a dragon's wings and it's still a goddamned fire-breathing apex predator.

A giant can still take devastating wild swings if his leg is broken at the knee.

The head of a dire cobra can still bite even if severed.

It's laissez-faire attitudes like this that are causing modern standards for usage of the Bear to slip. Do you really think that a cub, an creature that grows to quickly, would be able to provide anything approaching the mathmatical consistancy that the Bear does? Additionally, with their inconsistant rates of growth, what's to stop a stonemason using a smaller cub to measure bricks intented for designs measured according to a larger cub? Such miscommunications would have drastic implications for all spectrums of the Bear sciences as we know them. Best we stay true to the faithful, reliable Bear, lest the whole world comes crashing around our heads.

Maybe the world crashing around your head is what you need. I don't want to sustain a world where there is only the bear.

Oh? What's to stop one intellectual from doing the exact same thing as the stonemason, using a polar bear where another uses a Kodiak?

no a bear gives birth to 1-4 cubs. so there are at a maximum 4 cubs in a bear.

Do you honestly want to go back to the dark days before the Bear was established, the days of the Snake and the Antelope and the Mouse? Don't you remember having to walk ten billion Fleas to market every day? Don't you remember the Swallow Catastrophe, where confusion between African and European varieties lead to a newly-constructed church to collapse, killing seventy nine people? I think not.

I don't know where you're getting your facts (probably one of those yellowsheet, pro-Claw rags) but Ursus arctos has been the established, Offical Unit of Bearsurement for twenty five years. Anybody measuring their Bear from Ursus maritimus needs to get their head checked.

Ok, obviously you guys are having trouble here so I'll help you out. The size of a bear is a highly variable but for the spatial unit we will base it off the average grizzly or brown bear. Additionally the one dimensional unit itself varies depending upon whither you are measuring height, width, or length, when you say some thing is X bears high you are stacking bears on top of eachother as previously shown, width really isn't used, but length is nose to tail. The two-dimensional unit is square-bears is the area of the average bear rug(length times width). Finally the unit of volume is either expressed as "the size of X bear(s)" or "x bears big". Cubs are the subunit of bears there are 4 cubs to the bear(linear).I hope this helps. Note that is is only for spatial measurement and not for the unit of currency, the unit of Time, or any other bear unit.

If we're want to figure out the currency equivelent of the Bear, we only need to look at the only bears that matter:

The Chicaco Bears.

Currently, the Chicago Bears are valued at $2,700, with a total of 67 players on their current playing roster. Therefore, we can calculate that each of the 'Bears' has a dollar value of $40,298,507.46.

Dollars don't mean a lot in fantasy, so we'll convert that into gold. THe current trading value of gold is $38,728.47 per kg, so a Bear is worth now 1,040.53 kilos of gold.

From this, assuming a gold coin weighs about one ounce, this brings us to a Bear being a total of 36,684 GP, with a Cub becoming 9,171 GP.

Suffice to say, Bears represent some serious dosh.

>$2,700

Should be $2,700,000,000

>Bearsurement

Dragon's Dogma, then.

Uncultured swines use black bears.

If you double the mass of a bear you're increasing all its dimensions by cube root 2 = 1.26
So it really won't look that much bigger from double the mass. Again, if you want it to *look* twice as big in every respect you need to increase its mass 8x

Fuck I love this board.

I've been spending my time wisely.

So what's the conversion rate of imperial bears to metric?

Burrow into their skull through the eyeball.
If it worked for Ender it'll work for you.

Some cases of humans wiping out creatures like some of the larger land bird it believed to have involved a large amount of egg-stealing as much as direct hunting. In a way the spirit of that is carried into many myths and fantasy settings where the eggs of monsters can be great treasure in their own right.

The conversion ratio is 7:2.8

One time early in a campaign a green dragon attacked a barracks while we were just level twos and threes.
>My character is a strong and dumb dwarf that works as a miner
>We are all melee characters
>The dragon keeps flying to avoid many attacks
>Decide to throw my grappling hook at it to slow it flying down
>Hit it, manage to hold the rope
>Three mates immediately drop their shit and grab hold, we mange with our combined strength to pull it out of the sky into the ammunition shed
>Light it up, dragon no more

Can't it just be the volume of a bear as a multiplier or are we working in a universe where the bear is the only concept of size known to man? In the second case I propose the size of objects are simply specified by how many bears it takes to approximate them and how they are oriented, for simplicity and precision.

We have three bear-segments.

We define an L-bear (longitudinal) to be a bear facing the direction of the axis it lies on, the axis splitting it in half. A T-bear (transverse) is a bear facing perpendicular to the axis it lies on, with any of the close pairs of feet lying on the axis. An S-bear (sagittal) is a bear, again, facing perpendicular to the axis it lies on, but this time the front feet to the rump on its back is on the axis. The distance specified by these bear-segments is how much "bear" there exists along the axis they lie on.

With this we can approximate the size of a bear to a reasonable degree of precision with three bear-segments: An L-bear, a T-bear, and an S-bear all perpendicular to each other.