|
I was playing in a society game this past weekend. My greatsword-wielding half-orc barbarian attacked some undead that had DR/not slashing.
I asked if, since I had noticed that my attack wasnt as damaging as it normally was, if I could use the broadside of the sword to attack, and count it as bludgeoning dmg, instead of slashing.
His response was yes, but since I wasnt using the sword in its intended manner, Id take -4 att for it being an improvised weapon, and get to deal 1d6 dmg instead of 2d6.
Basically, it would become a club that I wasnt proficient with.
I know he is in the right to rule how he feels is correct, but Im curious as to how others might see this, or might rule it.
Thoughts?
|
I was playing in a society game this past weekend. My greatsword-wielding half-orc barbarian attacked some undead that had DR/slashing.
I asked if, since I had noticed that my attack wasnt as damaging as it normally was, if I could use the broadside of the sword to attack, and count it as bludgeoning dmg, instead of slashing.
His response was yes, but since I wasnt using the sword in its intended manner, Id take -4 att for it being an improvised weapon, and get to deal 1d6 dmg instead of 2d6.
Basically, it would become a club that I wasnt proficient with.
I know he is in the right to rule how he feels is correct, but Im curious as to how others might see this, or might rule it.
Thoughts?
I used to say just take a -4 for using it as an improvised weapon, but after doing that, I'm actually thinking along the same lines as your dm, using the flat side of a greatsword will not do as much damage as the blade. So yeah, i agree 100% with your DM and that's even how I rule it in my games.
|
I was playing in a society game this past weekend. My greatsword-wielding half-orc barbarian attacked some undead that had DR/slashing.
I asked if, since I had noticed that my attack wasnt as damaging as it normally was, if I could use the broadside of the sword to attack, and count it as bludgeoning dmg, instead of slashing.
His response was yes, but since I wasnt using the sword in its intended manner, Id take -4 att for it being an improvised weapon, and get to deal 1d6 dmg instead of 2d6.
Basically, it would become a club that I wasnt proficient with.
I know he is in the right to rule how he feels is correct, but Im curious as to how others might see this, or might rule it.
Thoughts?
I'd thought about that in the context of rapiers, actually (having a rapier with an edge and a heavy basket hilt able to do, e.g., 1d6 piercing or 1d4 slashing or 1d3 bludgeoning like an armored gauntlet; no double weapon-type attacks possible), and decided that although it was reasonable I'd have the person take an exotic weapon proficiency to be able to do that w/o penalty.
|
I was playing in a society game this past weekend. My greatsword-wielding half-orc barbarian attacked some undead that had DR/slashing.
I asked if, since I had noticed that my attack wasnt as damaging as it normally was, if I could use the broadside of the sword to attack, and count it as bludgeoning dmg, instead of slashing.
His response was yes, but since I wasnt using the sword in its intended manner, Id take -4 att for it being an improvised weapon, and get to deal 1d6 dmg instead of 2d6.
Basically, it would become a club that I wasnt proficient with.
I know he is in the right to rule how he feels is correct, but Im curious as to how others might see this, or might rule it.
Thoughts?
A GM who's actually doin' his job in interpreting the rules for his campaign? +1! And a +1 to you, godsDMit, for not halting the game for not halting the game to argue with him.
Oh, and the ruling seems fine to me.
Sounds like a good call to me, too.
I see two problems here.
DR #/slashing means that slashing weapons are good against that DR and penetrate it (were these zombies?). Was the DR actually #/bludgeoning like with skeletons?
I would also have said that a weapon as big as a greatsword, used in a club-like fashion, should model out closer to a greatclub rather than a simple club. So It should have done 1d10 damage instead of 1d6.
I wouldn't have counted wielding a weapon strangely as improvising a weapon, so -2 instead. Also, 1d6 is equivalent to a club, a well crafted stick basically. I would've said 1d8 at least; a greatsword's heavier than a club, that should count into the weapon's damage. And since a greatclub's 1d10, 1d8 wouldn't step on any toes. I don't think your GM shafted you, but I just would've handled it differently.
|
(Beaten to the punch by Bill)
Yeah, that bothered me, too.
If the creature actually had DR/slashing, then you had the right weapon to start with. (eg zombies)
If it was a skeleton, it would have DR/bludgeoning, then you'd change to the blunt side.
I don't have a problem with non-standard use of weapons, but I'd rule out any benefits of their enhancements, which would be designed to affect them being used as designed. Keen edges obviously shouldn't work with the flat side of the blade.
Edit: Ninja'd while looking for the reference.
Usually, a certain type of weapon can overcome this reduction (see Overcoming DR). This information is separated from the damage reduction number by a slash. For example, DR 5/magic means that a creature takes 5 less points of damage from all weapons that are not magic.
But besides that, I personally agree that there should be some type of penalty for using a weapon outside its intended type. -4 to hit sounds fair enough, but dropping the damage by a whole d6 seems a bit harsh.
I would have given it 1d8 damage, but otherwise I agree; it's an improvised weapon.
|
|
Sorry, mislabeled the DR type. It was probably over bludgeoning or piercing, as my greatsword didnt do as much, lol.
Anywho, I did argue it a bit, but he is a close friend, we have had this arguement before, and I wound up not doing it anyway, just to move along.
I can understand the -4, though I think that if my character had (which he doesnt) Weapon Focus with it, that penalty should definitely be lessened, if not negated entirely, as I see that as extreme proficiency with the weapon, no matter what you do with it.
As for the damage, I also found that odd that he wasnted to make it a d6. The sheer size of the sword I think should, as others have said, at least give it a d8 or d10, as the greatclub would get.
I think I'll talk thsi over with him before the next session. We are the primary gms for PFS in the area, with him being the coordinator, and we play in a home game as well, so it might be a good idea to get us on even ground, so there isnt as much difference in our rulings.
I can understand the -4, though I think that if my character had (which he doesnt) Weapon Focus with it, that penalty should definitely be lessened, if not negated entirely, as I see that as extreme proficiency with the weapon, no matter what you do with it.
Well, to be fair, your Weapon focus feat is extensive training with the weapon as it's intended to be used. I don't know if it should lessen the penalty when you start using it in an unorthodox method that isn't within your training. I think the -4 penalty is dead on, as you aren't proficient with this non-standard use of your weapon (effectively making it another type of weapon).
Now, if I were DM, I'd still let you apply the +1 from the weapon focus feat, which would already be helping to off-set the -4 for it's unintended use.
As for the damage, I also found that odd that he wasnted to make it a d6. The sheer size of the sword I think should, as others have said, at least give it a d8 or d10, as the greatclub would get.
This is a stronger argument in my opinion. The greatsword is definitely bigger than a regular club.
So as a rule if we were going to make it one using a weapon in a way that is unintended but posiible i.e. Stabbing or bludgeoning with a greatsword ect. it would be -4 to hit and do damage as a weapon 1 size smaller?
So as a rule if we were going to make it one using a weapon in a way that is unintended but posiible i.e. Stabbing or bludgeoning with a greatsword ect. it would be -4 to hit and do damage as a weapon 1 size smaller?
My personal ruling would be to treat it as an improvised weapon (i.e. -4 to hit) that does 1d4/1d6/1d8 damage (less for Small PCs), depending on whether the object is light, one-handed or two-handed.
So as a rule if we were going to make it one using a weapon in a way that is unintended but posiible i.e. Stabbing or bludgeoning with a greatsword ect. it would be -4 to hit and do damage as a weapon 1 size smaller?My personal ruling would be to treat it as an improvised weapon (i.e. -4 to hit) that does 1d4/1d6/1d8 damage (less for Small PCs), depending on whether the object is light, one-handed or two-handed.
The only problem with that is weapons like the lance is already 2 handed and does a d8 so you can use it as a blunt weapon for the same damage.
The only problem with that is weapons like the lance is already 2 handed and does a d8 so you can use it as a blunt weapon for the same damage.
And at only a -4 penalty to hit. What a bargain! ;-)
The really ironic part is that a great sword is, in reality, a bludgeoning weapon. The idea was you put 10 lbs of steel into a shape that concentrates all the damage along a thin contact surface and smash the armored knight with it.
It never 'sliced through' the enemy knight, it bent his armor and shattered his rib cage (same as hitting with a big maul). Shaping it like a sword was just a force multiplier to get all the pressure down to a small area. So technically, the great sword should be a bludgeoning weapon, not a slashing on. :)
|
|
You know, I'm going to disagree that the heavier weight of a greatsword automatically = greater damage. The flat of a blade of a greatsword is actually a piss poor way for it to do damage, yeah in total the sword weighs more, but a vast majority of that weight is in the length an handle. Using the flat of the blade as a club your actually striking with the most flexible, and lightest part of the blade. A club on the other hand is weighted on the striking end and isn't as flexible. Now if your character had been using a greataxe instead of a greatsword, then I'd be more on your side, as a greataxe being used with its flat side is still a non-flexible shaft and hitting with the weighted end. So for a greataxe a d8 or d10 makes sense, a greatsword, I'm with your DM as it being a d6.
I believe that the rules for improvised weapons indicate that you calculate damage by taking the weapon that it is most similar to and reducing it by one size category.
I would hazard a guess that the weapon an improvised greatsword is most similar to is a greatsword, so while I certainly would have given the -4 to attack I would have called the damage 1d8; 1d6 seems a little much of a drop.
Even if you call an improvised greatsword most similar to a greatclub, it still does 1d8 damage. Calling it "basically a (regular) club" feels wrong for several reasons, the most prominent being that it implies an improvised greatsword can be wielded one handed.
Nope, I thought that too. I was a little surprised that it was a greatsword in question!
Also, +1 to the GM for an excellent ruling. I agree completely that applying the improvised weapon rules was the right call.
From the PFSRD:
Improvised Weapons
Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses an improvised weapon in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object. To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to find a reasonable match. An improvised weapon scores a threat on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. An improvised thrown weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.
I was playing in a society game this past weekend. My greatsword-wielding half-orc barbarian attacked some undead that had DR/not slashing.
I asked if, since I had noticed that my attack wasnt as damaging as it normally was, if I could use the broadside of the sword to attack, and count it as bludgeoning dmg, instead of slashing.
His response was yes, but since I wasnt using the sword in its intended manner, Id take -4 att for it being an improvised weapon, and get to deal 1d6 dmg instead of 2d6.
Basically, it would become a club that I wasnt proficient with.
I know he is in the right to rule how he feels is correct, but Im curious as to how others might see this, or might rule it.
Thoughts?
This is how I would have handled it. And Bravo to you and your GM for coming up with a quick ruling and keeping the game moving instead of arguing or saying "Nope. It's a sword, you're out of luck."
reducing the damage to d6 seems fine to me. a sword bends along that axis so it makes perfect sense to do less dmg, against dr5/bludgeon
2d6-5 -3 to +7 range avg2
1d6 +1 to +6 range avg3
I probably would have continued attacking it with it normally, but my characters almost always carry one of each piercing, bludgeoning and slashing weapon. (melee characters, not casters, except bards)
Closely related... my DM has a rule along the lines that weapons such as longspears can't be used fully to deal non-lethal. So in addition to taking a -4 penalty to attacks trying to deal non-lethal damage, the weapon gets treated as a quarterstaff. So in my world precedent is already set for imposing double penalties.
Maybe because you read Oglaf?
|
|
I don't know what everyone is talking about that you said it wrong in the original post. You said "DR not slashing" because as a player you don't know what the dr is, but you did know it wasn't dr slashing. Seems to me that you worded it just fine. And yeah when you use a sword like that it's now an improvised weapon (although I'd give you strength and a half for damage since its still being used two handed). Good job to your DM.
I actually went back and corrected it, as I was still able to, but then forgot to note it in my second post.
|
|
I probably would have continued attacking it with it normally, but my characters almost always carry one of each piercing, bludgeoning and slashing weapon. (melee characters, not casters, except bards)
I dont think I got another turn. I think the party Alchemist dropped it just afterwards, so it didnt matter anyway.
Also, I generally do the same thing with carrying multiple weapons, though I didnt have a bludgeoning one atm.
I always carry a dagger too (unless ive got claws), in case I get 'swallowed whole' by something, lol. Hasnt happened yet, and its not likely against my lvl 4 barbarian, but still, its a rule. ive passed it on to everyone else I play with, lol.
The really ironic part is that a great sword is, in reality, a bludgeoning weapon. The idea was you put 10 lbs of steel into a shape that concentrates all the damage along a thin contact surface and smash the armored knight with it.
It never 'sliced through' the enemy knight, it bent his armor and shattered his rib cage (same as hitting with a big maul). Shaping it like a sword was just a force multiplier to get all the pressure down to a small area. So technically, the great sword should be a bludgeoning weapon, not a slashing on. :)
Except that not every target is an armored knight. Thus, heavy weight of metal + narrow edge = slashing weapon. It's the armor that changes the effect of the weapon's attack, but I assure you the greatsword is a slashing weapon rather than piercing or bludgeoning.
|
|
The way I view Bludgeoning v Slashing v Piercing is that bludgeoning has a notably 2d contact area, slashing has a notably 1d contact area and piercing has a notably 0d contact area. A greatsword has a notable 1d surface, at least for its size, and thus counts as slashing.
I might have ruled 1d8 in the OP's case, but otherwise would have been the same.
I always carry a dagger too (unless ive got claws), in case I get 'swallowed whole' by something, lol. Hasnt happened yet, and its not likely against my lvl 4 barbarian, but still, its a rule. ive passed it on to everyone else I play with, lol.
They're also useful if someone draws a weapon in a bar fight while your longspear and crossbow are up in your room.
Except that not every target is an armored knight. Thus, heavy weight of metal + narrow edge = slashing weapon. It's the armor that changes the effect of the weapon's attack, but I assure you the greatsword is a slashing weapon rather than piercing or bludgeoning.The really ironic part is that a great sword is, in reality, a bludgeoning weapon. The idea was you put 10 lbs of steel into a shape that concentrates all the damage along a thin contact surface and smash the armored knight with it.
It never 'sliced through' the enemy knight, it bent his armor and shattered his rib cage (same as hitting with a big maul). Shaping it like a sword was just a force multiplier to get all the pressure down to a small area. So technically, the great sword should be a bludgeoning weapon, not a slashing on. :)
But, any armor at all usually means the great sword is going to usually do more damage as bludgeoning than anything else. Slashing usually implies cutting damage, whereas bludgeoning is blunt force trauma.
|
|
Nope, I thought that too. I was a little surprised that it was a greatsword in question!
Also, +1 to the GM for an excellent ruling. I agree completely that applying the improvised weapon rules was the right call.
From the PFSRD:
Improvised Weapons
Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses an improvised weapon in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object. To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to find a reasonable match. An improvised weapon scores a threat on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. An improvised thrown weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.
Also from PRD:
Nonlethal Damage with a Weapon that Deals Lethal Damage: You can use a melee weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage instead, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll.
Lethal Damage with a Weapon that Deals Nonlethal Damage: You can use a weapon that deals nonlethal damage, including an unarmed strike, to deal lethal damage instead, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll.
I see it could be handled in two ways as per RAI: as in improvised weapon, or as a weapon used to deal different type of damage it was designed for (naturally still lethal damage). In both cases you would take a -4 penalty to your attack rolls, but I'm a bit torn about how to handle damage rolls; I guess half damage (or decreasing the size of the damage dice) would be a bit unfair. Then again, I might swiftly change it to half damage per attack, if PCs started suddenly using, for example, the pommel of a rapier for full bludgeoning damage.
I personally go by the common sense that:
1. The weapon isn't being used as intended
2. The player isn't using the weapon as they were trained
3. A weapon being used wrong is going to be less effective
However, it takes a good bit of houseruling, which is generally why I don't allow weapons to be used in ways not intended. The limits to it would have to be clearly established by the GM, i.e. just because an axe is a little pointy at the top doesn't mean I should be able to poke something for piercing damage.
I was playing in a society game this past weekend. My greatsword-wielding half-orc barbarian attacked some undead that had DR/not slashing.
I asked if, since I had noticed that my attack wasnt as damaging as it normally was, if I could use the broadside of the sword to attack, and count it as bludgeoning dmg, instead of slashing.
His response was yes, but since I wasnt using the sword in its intended manner, Id take -4 att for it being an improvised weapon, and get to deal 1d6 dmg instead of 2d6.
Basically, it would become a club that I wasnt proficient with.
I know he is in the right to rule how he feels is correct, but Im curious as to how others might see this, or might rule it.
Thoughts?
We've always seen it like this: take the -4 to do "nonlethal" which means hitting it with the broadside of the sword or pommel, etc. Makes sense that it would become bludgeoning.
I think the -4 is fair, or turning it into a club, but both is punitive. You would be better off just hoping to roll high and overcome the DR more easily. In fact you might in general.
Am I the only one that sees a problem with this?
If you take the improvised weapon feat, you now have a weapon that does 2d6 slashing damage, 1d10 (1d8) bludgeon or 1d10 (1d8) piercing damage all on the same weapon, all with mostly the same modifiers (as many modifiers are not limited to the edge of the blade).
Ruing the whole idea of damage reduction.
Hyperbole aside, no, I don't have a problem with using a greatsword as a club that does 1d8 damage.
I'd have imposed the -4 penalty and then let the damage be what the weapon normally delivered. After all, you're essentially doing the same thing you'd do to deliver nonlethal damage with that weapon. Why further penalize on top of that?