Search Posts
...and then there's the Overland Float spell, I know (sorry, but if I don't move faster than I'd do by walking I'm floating, not flying) You can move effectively 2x foot movement speed. You can hustle without nonlethal damage from fatigue. They list it that way to fit the regular movement rules.
People are regularly revived with pitiful sparks of electricity and feeble fumbling with primitive tools in our emergency rooms, staff trying to find and stitch up internal damage. Magic should be able to bring back "dead" characters on a regular basis because it heals without need for such discrimination.
It's one of the major weaknesses of D&D mechanics. Blocking or deflecting blows with your weapon is your first line of defense, not something tacked on as an afterthought. That's why D&D originally had 1 minute combat rounds, assuming lots of blocking, parrying, feinting and jockeying for position went on during that minute. The more one tries to simulate a fight blow-by-blow the worse the system is (yes I'm talking about GURPS).
The size modifiers alone don't work. You aren't just trying to hit a smaller physical area, you are passing up opportunities to hit elsewhere to concentrate on your chosen target. If your called shot is to the head or center of mass, you still have to get through all the active defenses of your target. It's more like attacking a smaller target with concealment or cover.
No, I'm saying that the quarterstaff described in Pathfinder isn't a real English quarterstaff either. And somebody mentioned a real quarterstaff would be iron-shod; that is called a tipstaff. It is slower but has obvious advantages. The real quarterstaff, even a shorter 6' type, you can't use practically one-handed. It would be too slow and too weak powered predominantly by the forearm. Unlike a short spear you don't have a sharp part to threaten an opponent who tries to knock it aside and step through. Used halfstaff, both ends would qualify as a two-handed weapon, because it is a two handed weapon. You move it with both hands and with the body. It would do less damage (shorter moment arm) but still would get 1.5 bonus. In the real world giving up the length advantage isn't worth it: double weaker attacks while your opponent can reach you vs single attacks with the opponent out of range. Having 1-2 foot greater weapon reach lets you get the equivalent of AoO whenever the opponent tries to step up to get you. d20 mechanics are gimped, and making the q-staff work properly would break the system.
For the record, those are all halfstaff techniques, and short staffs around 6' at that. The quarterstaff technique is more like a spear. Think "battering ram." For strikes you have weight, leverage, and all the strength of the torso and hips, so short quick movements are enough. Big, sweeping moves are cinematic but not practical except as a follow-through from something that leaves your opponent vulnerable.
Generally speaking, as far as I recall a gem of the 'standard' (or average) gp value is 1 carat weight of valuable rock, with 144 carats-weight equalling one pound. So, if you're not lucky, you're looking at 1 pound of cruddy 25gp gems being worth 3,600 gp. If you're toting diamonds at an average value of 5,000 gp per carat, you're looking at REAL money: 720,000 gp. Or, more cash worth that the entire gear allowance of any player character is supposed to be in 3rd edition before around ... 20th level or so. 1 carat is 3 grains, roughly 2,270 to a pound.
Dude, the price list in D&D is so messed up it should be funny if it weren't so sad. The pot and ladder subsidies are just the two most obvious examples. D&D assumed a "gold rush" situation for the adventuring environment. Weapons and general adventuring equipment pricing was inflated by a factor of 5-10 and armor pricing was inflated by 10-20. But the key to the inflated prices of the gold rush was not the presence of gold, it was the absence of supply. In the California gold rush the nearest cities from which food and tools could be imported were about 1000 miles away. In the Yukon gold rush the nearest city of any size was about 1000 miles away, accessible only by boat. This was aggravated by making gold the functional monetary standard instead of silver, thereby making silver almost worthless for buying price-bloated armaments, not to mention magical items. Second, spices were not outrageously expensive, ever. They were costly compared to the pitiful discretionary spending money available to peasantry. Only a few (saffron, maybe ambergris) were as valuable per pound as silver, most were about one tenth of that. PS: Saffron in bulk (not packaged in fractions of a gram at a supermarket and then multiplied) is around $1500/lb.
That's because the staff type they use isn't a "quarterstaff" it is a "bo staff" with about half the weight per foot, and typically 2 feet shorter.
One does not need to invent a new, gender-neutral usage, for English already has one. ;)
And with regular black ink costing 8 gp per oz. and other colors costing 16 gp per oz. ... Ah, yes. Here's one case of one ridiculous price that forces all other prices based on it up through the roof. 8 gp = 8/50 lb x 16 oz/lb = 2.56 oz So, ordinary black ink is 2.5 times more valuable than gold. That means after selling it for half price it is still more valuable than gold! [Player:] We search the chamber.
It should probably be more like 8 copper pieces per ounce.
Crafting a wand or staff requires casting the spell a number of times equal to the charges. Why doesn't crafting of Blessed Book require 1000 castings of Secret Page? And are there any Will o'Wisps left in the multiverse after so many generations of wizards had them hunted down by the hundreds for all those castings?
Somebody here suggested making Animated Shield work against only one opponent. And I suggested applying a penalty to attacking offhand or with a two-handed weapon, as the shield gets in the way a bit.
Took over a kingdom? At level SEVEN? Yes, I'd say bad GMing.
I don't see a problem with 100% for heavy fortification, especially if the cost is bumped up. And I agree that a drastic reduction for lighter versions would be nearly worthless. 50/75/100 for +2/+4/+6 would be reasonable. I would make a requirement that 75% fortification must include a helmet, and 100% a full helm. If removed, fortification drops 25%.
No possibility of avatars of your own, but the stock is indeed quite big... Well, not because of the software. And the stock is mainly numerous duplicates (or trivially different copies) of a smaller number of images.
In 1e ya didn't get Con mod after name level, which positively stunk. If you do go with lesser hit points after some level, you'd probably need to make it Con bonus/2 or something. Round up on odd levels, down on even.
Even though dice are rolled, this is still counted as a numerical bonus rather than bonus dice. The value of the number just happens to vary to keep huge bonuses in check.
Roll hit points and add CON/race bonus/penalty as normal, and keep track. Starting hp are (STR+CON)/3 +/- racial adjustments, until the "normal" hit points are greater.
The obstacle to making plate is 1) forge design capable of uniformly heating the large pieces 2) skill level to make large, high quality steel pieces with that forge. Plate is a more efficient use of material and labor. A single master armorer could forge the plates for a full suit in a couple of weeks. A journeymen makes the fittings, and an apprentice polishes and lines the pieces. That adds another couple weeks. By contrast, mail requires months of effort but can be done with very little training and primitive forges. Scale was likewise made of low quality steel (later version of high quality steel should be treated as banded). Banded or splint (or coat of plates, brigandine) requires simple forges and a modest level of skill to make narrow strips or small plates of steel. Some monsters will have the skills to make mail. A few might make scale. A very few might make banded or brigandine. Many monsters will use plundered armor but will not have the skill to maintain it.
However, Straybow, discussing the physics of Str and Con by size and build and whether you have the capacity to lift your own weight is ridiculous when we're already assuming that magic can increase your size and handwave the thermodynamic issues of sudden increase in mass. If you're going to slaughter cat-girls, do it properly, rather than just attacking one equally inconsistent part of the magical process. I'm not attacking an inconsistency of magic, I'm attacking an inconsistency of applying a basic game mechanic (i.e., carrying capacity is determined by STR, not by size).
Here's a thought: I think one of Monte Cook's "Arcana" books has an animate weapon or shield spell that's like 2nd or 3rd level and lasts 1 round/level. ... Spiritual Weapon is only 2nd level. It bypasses DR and can attack incorporeal creatures without miss chance as a force object. Making an existing weapon or shield animated wouldn't be 3rd level unless it had other effects mixed in.
How many nuns could a nunchuck chuck if a nunchuck could chuck nuns?Two words: RAT FLAILWoodchucks!
One does need to control where impact occurs in your swing to control the bounce, and since your opponent is moving that may not be the case. Thanks for a more factual link than some fuzzy memory. 260 ft-lb too high by a factor of 3-4. The velocity should measured at the center of mass of the free branch, which is average of the velocity of the wielder's hand and the velocity of the tip; and with the velocity squared the error is squared. With the CoM moving at 60% of the speed of the tip, energy would be over 80 ft-lb. That is still about 60% more than my estimate, which is a surprise.
Crap . . . someone mentioned a katana in a weapon realism argument on the internet . . . this cannot end well. ;) hehehehe I like ninja's cuz their always flipping out and killing peeple and stuff ;) I directly quoted a website above where the 4,000 ft lbs of energy came from. Where do you think that website got it from? Their own forensics lab, or Possibly the same FBI data? If I missed something you quoted I apologize. All I see is nothing of the sort. You quoted but did not link to this website saying: "The effectiveness of Nunchakus creates over 2,000 pounds of square force." Which doesn't make any sense in terms of physics. I doubt the martial arts organization in question has "their own forensics lab." 4,000 PSI is WAAY more force than 4,000 ft lbs. As for a forensics lab, the physics involved is this: "ft-lb" is energy (also called "work") which is a product of force times distance applied. "psi" is pressure, which must first be applied to an area to become force, and then applied through a distance to become work energy. They don't measure the same thing, so one isn't "WAAY more" than the other. Spoiler:
An impact, as defined in physics, lasts for the length of time required for the shock wave to pass through the smaller object. Shock wave in wood is about 5000 m/s, so the duration of the impact of the nunchuck will be 0.02m / 5000 m/s = 0.000004 seconds. In impact the wood compresses during that split second rather than moves, so movement is calculated at the center of gravity as a round 1/2 the nominal velocity.
During that time the impact pressure exerted by an assumed 2 square inches of nunchuck is high (4000psi x 2 sq in = 8000lb), but the amount of work energy imparted is small. If moving at 100 ft/s (the center of mass, not the tip; see below) the work is force times distance = force times velocity times duration = 8000 x 50 x 0.000004 = 1.6 ft-lb. So it appears my "guess" that maybe it was impact pressure you recall is not correct, the impact pressure should be higher by an order of magnitude. So much for the physics lesson. Here is less simplified example of impact energy covering other material properties involved, etc. The rest of your Jan 28 quote, from some other unlinked source I did not bother to google because it says nothing about nunchucks at all, does mention an 80 grain rifle bullet going 4000 feet per second... maybe that caused some confusion in cut-and-pasting. Again, what part of your citation did I miss that covered the power of the nunchuck? The kinteic force a human can deal with a blunt object for the purposes of "knock back" or "man stopping" power FAR exceeds that of ANY firearm, largely because of the small surface area of the projectile in relation to its target, the softness of that target,and the speed at which the projectile travels, causing it to penetrate an thus lose it's "push" in the equation. I believe I mentioned overpenetration as a factor in diminishing the damage that bullets do to flesh. But if you swing a bat one-handed, as with a nunchuck, and and let your wrist go slack after the impact, as with a nunchuck's link, you will find that the bat doesn't have that much "knock back" power either.
Now back to D&D:
Cuts from a slash of a sharp sword are dangerous due to severed muscle tissue and blood vessels. For the record loosing your people juice is bad. The wounds themselves do comparatively little damage and heal fairly easily. ...[A sword does] some secondary contusion damage from kinetic transfer but not a hell of a lot. Blunt weapons cause massive trauma pulping tissues and tearing muscles over a large area they just tend to leave the skin more intact so you get subcutaneous hemorrhaging. A sword strike delivers the same momentum and kinetic energy as a blunt weapon of the same weight and balance. The difference is that the sword first cuts to the bone. Unless you are talking Samuri-style draw cuts, which are not very effective against metalic armor. If the sword strikes armor it can't penetrate, it transfers momentum and KE just as a blunt weapon of the same weight and balance. Many blunt weapons are heavier and balanced near the head instead of the handle because they must in order to do much damage. That makes them slow and awkward compared to a sword.
The sword also concentrates the force of the blow into a small area: the blade. You know, that sharp part. It would be rare to hit the body at an angle that spread the impact over more than a few inches of blade. Multiplied by the tiny thickness and you get a really small number. Mail spreads out the impact of any weapon, blade or blunt, by the diameter of the link at the very least. Compared to the sword edge or flange point that is a significantly larger area. Any hard blow will break links and push through, but a large portion of its force has been dissipated. Nobody wears mail alone, it is worn over an arming coat. No, not the wimpy things sold to SCA guys with a few layers of cotton fluff, these were filled an inch thick or more with heavy wool batting. It is both resilient and surprisingly tough. A decent blow breaking through the mail might have too little energy left to get through the padding for a dangerous wound. Likewise, the padded armor they used was even thicker. It really could stop blows from a sword or mace, just not as well as metal armor. I recall one period illustration of an archer whose padded vest looked like a pumpkin. Plate armor was so much superior that the padding worn beneath it could be reduced substantially except at the shoulders where the hardest blows land and hips where the edge of the plate can dig in.
Since I didn't have any "real world" numbers of flail damage. I used the nunchuck (which is quite similar) as a basis as I remembered the "4,000 ft lbs" of energy from an FBI report I read. A figure from a memory, something you read decades ago? You're so sure it was 4000 ft-lb? Couldn't possibly be confused about some part of it, after all these years? So sure it couldn't have been 4000 pounds per square inch, a very realistic peak impact pressure? (Impact forces are huge, but they are so transient the net energy is comparatively small.) So, tell me, where does all this 4000 ft-lb delivered by the mythical uber-nunchuck come from? There is this inconvenient thing called "conservation of enegy" at work which defies this figure. I'd bet you've been to a science museum and climbed onto a stationary bike to pedal madly, seeing how many bulbs you can light up. The limit of sustained human energy output is fairly low, 100 watts for an average person, maybe better than double that for an athlete. Let's turn it around and look at from the back end. What would happen to a person hit with a 4000 ft-lb blunt weapon that doesn't waste most of it in overpenetration as do most bullets? A 200 lb man would could be knocked twenty (20) feet in the air, vertically, by that much energy! Sorry, that wouldn't even cut it in those anime with the metamorphosing giant weapons. Let's look at a real example. A basketball player dunking the ball might send his 200 lb body 2.5 ft high (10.5 ft to reach over the rim less his 8 ft flat-footed reach), a stunning 500 ft-lb of energy in the vertical jump. Note that only the freakishly tall can dunk without a running start. The mechanism of the running start uses the resilience of the muscle tissue to momentarily store more energy than the muscle produces on its own, transfering a portion of the forward momentum into vertical motion via conservation of angular momentum and a few other physics tricks. That simple example is about the muscles doing what they're designed to do best: moving the body. Transfering muscle energy into an outside object is much less efficient. An Olympic level javelin throw is around 30 m/s. With a 0.8 kg mass, that comes to 360 N-m or 265 ft-lb, roughly half the basketball dunk example. Note that the javelin event completely ignores accuracy, allowing any throw in a ~30 degree arc to count. Also, the javelin thrower is left staggering off-balance after the effort. Not something you're going to do when swinging your nunchuck at somebody who can hit you back. Lastly, you generally want to keep your grip on the weapon. Each of these factors requires the wielder to hold back, rather than attempting to wring every last joule of energy from his effort. A combatant would be doing really well to get half that energy (120-150 ft-lb) using a two handed weapon. At least one source I can't find at this time says the maximum is under 100 ft-lb. Using a one handed weapon would be significantly less, and with a light weapon like the nunchuck less still. In fact, it is probably not in the 53 ft-lb range necessary for an incapacitating wound in terminal ballistics (sorry I said 58 ft-lb earlier; my bad). And at that, I'm not sure that a blunt hand weapon has anywhere near as low an incapacitating damage threshold as that for a penetrating bullet. Not to pick on you personally, you may go on believing that the nunchuck mystically creates 70-80 times as much energy, if you like. But please don't expect anyone with a modest knowledge of ergonomics and physics to swallow it whole after a careful examination of the figures.
The original statement was the wound capacity/deadly effectiveness of the nunchuck was more so than the .45 ACP. So why then did Japan arm their soldiers with lousy guns? Clearly they could've won WW2 if only they'd stayed true to their martial arts heritage and used nunchucks instead. Wait, nunchucks are Okinawan. The Japanese were foiled by their own cultural prejudice. Another question for inquiring minds: why exactly was the FBI so worried about nunchucks that they would conduct the study and release the findings to the breathlessly awaiting public? And what happened since then to make the report disappear? Perhaps they formed an anti-nunchuck task force, and perhaps it was successful in purging the deadly rice flail from the streets of America. Saved again!
So you've conducted an exhaustive study of blunt weapon battery and can conclusively report that center of mass blows with clubs and nunchucks are more effective than CoM handgun hits? Again, I'd like to see that report. "Data" is not the plural of "anecdote." I can tell you stories of guys who took devastating physical punishment and kept coming. They paid for it later with permanent injuries to knees, eyes, etc. But in the heat of the battle the pain wasn't quite enough to make them curl up and crawl away. I know all about the development of the 6.8mm and ensuing controversy. The famous "FBI murders" case showed that many of the baddies had multiple hits that should've been incapacitating, but they stayed alive and kicking just long enough to pump a few rounds into the wounded FBI guys for a TPK. That's reality. There is no "magic bullet." The jist of the FBI report stated that the kinetic force delivered by a hand held "melee" weapon exceeds that of the "well known" killing power of the .45 acp. (in this case the nunchuck with it's 4,000 ft lbs of force.) Oh, so now it's gone from "2000 pounds of square force" (still not sure what they really meant) to "4000 ft-lbs," ten times the energy of the .45 ACP and more energy than a 300 Win Mag? So now you'll tell me you'd rather hunt bear with a nunchuck than with a big game rifle? Do tell, I really want to know where these statistics come from.
Yes, as I said there is no magic bullet. That, and the body and will to live can be amazingly resilient. A bullet may pass right through without hitting anything vital. A bullet or nunchuck may hit something vital but it will take a bit of time before the victim knows he's done.
A .45 ACP round has 350 ft-lb of energy. Perhaps if swung with wreckless abandon the nunchuck might match that, but after you hit your opponent it will bounce off and crack your knuckles or the hand bones. This is also a fairly common injury among nunchuckers. Only with people that don't know how to use a nunchaku. Really one of the first things that's taught is how to avoid the nunchaku bouncing back uncontrolled. In a real fight you can't control everything, and the opponent's movements often turn what you intended into something less than controlled. It's like boxing. The proper way to hit protects you thumbs, but most boxers can't even button their own shirts because their thumbs have been broken so many times. The opponent is not a static target.
It's a roleplay issue. As long as the invisibly party is making reasonable attempts to stay out of reach (passing on the opposite side of the other's weapon arm, etc) then no AoO. Brazenly crossing directly in front of the other guy... you takes yer chances.
Ah, a very good solution.
Impose a stacking -2 penalty on the off-hand weapon for TWF with Animated/Dancing Shield. It gets in the way a bit. Same for using TWF with a (third) Dancing weapon.
The charts are based on average humanoid frame, which would include allowance for normal body weight. There is an adjustment for four-legged frames, and that also assumes normal body weight for those creatures. While there is no rule for obesity in d20, a PC should not be able to gain weight like a hog and it not be counted against encumbrance. Typically, your 350 lb lineman would run rings around a 350 lb obese person, and would move as well as a "normal" person as long as the weight is muscle. The added muscle compensates for his body weight. That's because the added weight takes up less of the lineman's allowed carrying capacity. The only way your body weight = encumbrance argument makes sense is if the PC is, indeed, obese - meaning all of the extra weight is fat. And if that is the case, then they should not be adventuring in the first place. Read again what I said [emphasis added for clarity]. A person with a STR 20+ could indeed be considered normal with 250 lb body weight. But there are plenty of people with lesser STR who have difficulty keeping weight off, and there is no reason why adventurers couldn't be 30+ lb overweight and suffer that load penalty. Except that wouldn't be min/max... can't allow roleplaying in d20/PF ;) NFL linemen like extra weight in fat because it helps them in their role of blocking (and no, abs exercises do absolutely nothing to adipose belly fat except in burning calories less efficiently than larger muscle masses). The extra weight does indeed encumber them, as they typically can't run the length of the field without becoming exhausted. That's one reason why football players only run 40 yards to test their speed.
Modify both 2nd level spells and add some others: Continual Flame Permanent if the listed 50gp ruby material component is used. With a lesser material component (pinch of guano, vial of lamp oil, etc) it lasts 1 day/level. Overlapping area of effect with Darkness has both effects canceled. May be cast to dispel Darkness if the darkness source point is identified and targeted. Darkness Cloudy darkness emanates from the point of origin. Bright light from mundane sources and lower level spells is supressed to faint illumination out to a half-foot radius within the effect. Normal vision and low-light vision can see no other objects within the effect, while darkvision suffers 20% concealment of objects within the area of effect. Similarly, mundane or lower level bright light sources from outside the effect, including direct or reflected beams of sunlight, are perceived as faint glows from within the effect. No outside objects can be seen from within with normal or low-light vision, and darkvision suffers 20% concealment for spotting or attacking outside objects. Suppressed light sources can be spotted from 120' (doubled for creatures with low-light vision or darkvision). Light sources seen by line of sight passing through Darkness are similarly dimmed. The spell can target an object, which can be enclosed to contain the spell effect as with Light or Continual Flame.
Note: Light sources serve to locate targets within Darkness without giving them any benefit of seeing attackers, incoming missiles, etc.
Magic Torch
Effect mimics a natural flame as described for Continual Flame. When cast upon a usable candle, torch, fueled lantern, etc, the duration of the fuel is added to the spell duration and consumed as the spell is cast. Larger fires and fuel sources (campfires, spilled oil, etc) cannot be converted/consumed by this spell. Wall of Darkness (Illusion - glamer)
No mundane light or magical light of lower or equal level passes through the wall; darkvision cannot penetrate it. Segments must be contiguous (one 5' edge matching another segment's 5' edge) and coplanar (all vertical or all horizontal). The primary effect area (60') of a Daylight spell that crosses the Wall of Darkness is reduced to dim illumination on the other side; lesser extended illumination does not cross. Objects in the full illumination of Daylight can be dimly seen through the Wall, while objects in the dim illumination of Daylight can be faintly seen through the Wall. True Seeing sees clearly through the Wall. The Wall of Darkness is immobile unless cast within a vehicle of size equal to or larger than the area of effect. Total Darkness (Illusion - glamer)
No mundane light or magical light of lower level manifests within or passes through the area of effect; darkvision cannot penetrate its area of effect. The primary effect of Daylight (60') cancels Total Darkness where they overlap, while Total Darkness completely overrides the dim extended illumination from Daylight. True Seeing sees clearly through Total Darkness. The center of effect can be a moveable object, but covering or enclosing the object does not suppress the effect.
Most of the vaunted killing power of the "slug thrower" comes from the civil war and post civil war era. Physicians beleived in amputations as the main source of saving someones life and were more butchers than doctors. .50 to .80 caliber soft lead shattered bones and tore through flesh. No antibiotics => deep tissue infection and edema => grangrene => death was the expected course of events, if bleeding could be stopped at all. Only a "flesh wound," or when the bone could be cleanly set, was there any reasonable chance of healing before infection required amputation. WW1 was predominantly copper jacketed rounds of ~.30 caliber, a horse of a different color. The wounds were more easily treated at the forward field aid stations and surgical hospitals. Add in the general acceptance of antiseptic theory to the medics' training and the comparison is apples-to-oranges.
Medieval period swords typically had a chisel-like edge (the razor-sharp grossmesser being a rare exception). Reproductions are usually rebated, that is, both flattened and thicker on the "edge" for heavy practice. As one who practiced metal on metal, on top of years of training, only this very square-edged basket hilt backsword was tough enough not to suffer serious damage. Four other blades from a variety of manufacturers got chewed up over a few months. The flail/mace and to some extent the hammer had great tactical advantges against the plate armors of the era because their inertia with a focused head served more to make the actual armor itself into the mechanic that damaged the wearer. The sword will do it just as well with proper technique. I'd tell you some stories, if time permitted, of what a rattan practice cudgel can do. The effectiveness of Nunchakus creates over 2,000 pounds of square force. I'm not sure what "square force" is, nor (after a bit of googling to the source) is that an FBI report... I'm always a bit skeptical about claims on websites like that. It isn't like they compare it to the impact force of a sword, or even a fist. Back in the 17th-18th century some English barefist champs would show off by punching the bark off trees. and let me just say, at point blank range Id take the nunchuck over the .45 any day of the week Yes, point blank is where the nunchuck can reach the opponent without having to close the distance, and in that case it is marginally better to have a gross-motor-skill hand weapon than a fine-motor-skill handgun. All depending on "other factors being equal" (skill of wielder vs skill of guy with the .45, etc). Me? I'd take the sword over the nunchucks any day of the week. =)
Ah, yes, this is why our emergency rooms are staffed by nunchuck wound specialists... no that would be bullet wound specialists. If the nunchuck doesn't hit you on the head, you aren't going to die. Again, it only takes a fraction of the bullet's energy to make an incapaciting wound, whereas it takes all the nunchuck's energy to do that. I'd really like to see a citation on this mythical FBI analysis. Sounds like an urban legend to me, parallel to the old "katana cuts through machine gun barrel" myth.
When you look at actual European flails the design either has a longer chain that goes slack after the hit, negating the slap-back effect of the short link in the nunchuck, or it has a longer handle so the head can't strike the wielder's hand.
If you faced an armored foe, you broke out your mace/flail and bashed them to death inside their armor. The main reason is because hitting hard metal with the expensive sword will nick the edge, whereas the mace is cheap and nicks on the flanges don't matter. The mace does have a little mechanical advantage with more weight distributed on the business end, but it isn't as long as a sword which more or less cancels out that advantage. The real weapon of the battlefield is the bill, halberd, and the like. Who cares if the blade gets nicked, grind it out after the battle.
Against an unarmored person the mace is going to hurt them severally even on a glancing blow, the sword is going to leave a gash, some bleeding and maybe leave your guts hanging out, but you still have guts, the mace gets you and you can kiss that area of your body good bye. So really all blunt weapons should have their damaged raised to d10 or d12, because they're so awesome. And these wimpy edged weapons should be lowered to d4 or maybe d6 for a greatsword. I don't have to hit you with force to cut you with a sword. The same tap with a mace will barely bruise you. Lemme ask you a question: when was the last time you got bruised, and when was the last time you got cut?
That ignores his 1500lb body weight, which effectively adds hundreds of pounds to his encumberance since the character is essentially "overweight" for his STR level. I'm sorry but this body weight things has to stop. It was absurd with the elephant and is even more pointless now. A character's own body weight is not factored into encumbrance. If it were most medium sized average humanoids would all be operating under medium to heavy loads. This is really a side discussion regrading how much simulation there should be in the encumbrance rules. Yes, we all know those 350lb linemen are just as fleet-footed as the running backs and receivers. And all that stuff about obesity putting stress on the cardiovascular system exactly as if a normal person were physically loaded with the excess weight is a myth to trick people into wanting to be thin. The charts are based on average humanoid frame, which would include allowance for normal body weight. There is an adjustment for four-legged frames, and that also assumes normal body weight for those creatures. While there is no rule for obesity in d20, a PC should not be able to gain weight like a hog and it not be counted against encumbrance.
Well maybe the problem is a 1st level spell shouldnt MAKE you as big as a giant. Being able to turn INTO a giant should be a spell saved for around the time your character would meet and battle its first giant, so 3-4th level spell? Basically the same problem that led to polymorph being divided into several versions with ranked powers.
No. That to hit and damage bonuses have been increased from 1e/2e means nothing in this context. 12 is a +1 to hit and damage, but it does not have the encumbrance bonus of STR 17 in 1e/2e. It was about +50lbs to light load, which is almost exactly the same as STR 17 in d20srd. STR 20 is now about the equivalent of 18/51% from 1e/2e. Which is beside the point that Carrying Capacity is specifically stated to be a logarithmic function doubling every 5 points of STR, while the spell specifically says weight is multiplied by 8, which is three doublings (squared-cubed law).
Hmmm, size category differences are too large to make a mere +2 in STR. TO give an example that is a "pet peeve" about the Enlarge Person spell, which is really just a very limited polymorph function. All polymorphing that enlarges or reduces the subject by such proportions have the same flawed game mechanic. This spell causes instant growth of a humanoid creature, doubling its height and multiplying its weight by 8. This increase changes the creature's size category to the next larger one. The target gains a +2 size bonus to Strength, a -2 size penalty to Dexterity (to a minimum of 1), and a -1 penalty on attack rolls and AC due to its increased size.Compare this to
So, now your 6' human fighter has been enlarged to stone giant size, but only has +2 to his STR (let's say that raises him to 20). His banded armor now weighs 35*8 = 280lb and his backpack now weighs 50*8 = 400lb for a total encumberance of 680lb. He can only stagger around under that load, 5 feet per round, and loses DEX bonus. That ignores his 1500lb body weight, which effectively adds hundreds of pounds to his encumberance since the character is essentially "overweight" for his STR level. By their own carrying capacity rules, +5 STR is a doubling of effective strength. The Enlarged Person has doubled in mass three times, and should have +15 STR if increase is proportional. This raises an average human to 25.5 STR, which is about the same as the stone giant. I would give the subject of the spell the average of [10+size] and [STR+size], where in this case the size bonus would be +15 and the fighter would be [10+15]+[18+15]/2 = 29. I would allow magic enhancement to stack up to [STR+15], so Bull's Strength would raise it to 33 but a Belt of Giant Strength +6 would not increase it above 33. Similarly large creatures would have similarly enormous STR. A black bear might be double the mass and +5 STR, a grizzly doubles mass again and +10 STR.
I really do understand how a sword works, and no way does a "spiked chain" do half the damage of a sword. A sword is a very poor weapon over all. Except for the part about "if I hit you with it, it cuts you." People wouldn't have made swords if they didn't work. The flail is much better, as is the flanged mace. A chain with a weight at the end can very easily cause more damage to a person than a sword can. In extreme cases, perhaps, but not in the average case. It can kill, but that isn't the same as "doing more damage." The flail has its strengths and weaknesses, just as the sword. The quickness of a balanced sword will beat the flail or mace any day.
A .45 ACP round has 350 ft-lb of energy. Perhaps if swung with wreckless abandon the nunchuck might match that, but after you hit your opponent it will bounce off and crack your knuckles or the hand bones. This is also a fairly common injury among nunchuckers. IIRC, it only takes 58 ft-lb to make an incapacitating wound with a bullet. The bullet has a way of channeling much of that excess energy into the body. A nunchuck doesn't. Which is why it bounces off. Momentum is a better indicator of damage when it comes to hand weapons.
Or maybe something imbetween that works better with die sizes we already know and love. Roll the die size nearest half the total bonus, and add enough to equal the bonus on a maximum roll. Static . Dynamic
I really do understand how a sword works, and no way does a "spiked chain" do half the damage of a sword.
Enhancement is always going to be linear: a +5 is a +5, not +5 for Leather but +15 for Plate. Let's flip this idea around: Why doesn't magical enhancement scale with weapon damage? It's unfair that Greatswords don't get the proportional benefit from a +5 that the dagger gets. Average damage:
Max damage:
Oh, pity the poor Greatsword! :p JB has already said that shield and armor bonuses that improve with feats or class features may be in the works, as well as DR.
Spiked Gauntlets don't threaten without a Ready action. Which is little different from needing an action to switch between reach and "short haft."
If you are wielding a (two-handed) reach weapon you can't threaten an adjacent tile with your spiked gaunlets without a ready action. That ready action would unthreaten the reach tiles, because you've let go or seriously changed your grip with the gauntleted hand.
If we can have daern's instant fortress, what's so bad about cirroc's marvelous crossing? One's an instant fortress, the other's an instant bridge...and a fireproof one at that. Instant Fortress is based on the 7th level magnificent mansion. This is based on far lower level spells, too feeble compared to the effect. It seems to duplicate the effect of Shrink Item and Permanency, plus the variable expanded size and the ability to be used by more than the caster, but then starting from a plank instead of casting it on a bridge. Fabricate has to start with the same quantity of materials as the finished product. I'm not familiar with an Enlarge Item spell, but if it is like Shrink Item it is limited to 16x original dimensions (4092 times the mass). That couldn't make a 200' bridge. Semi-broken but could be fixed with enough effort.
I'd make the attack do only half the damage stored. It's still a little bit broken, seeing that it can be "charged" by one's allies so that the first action of the wearer would be to unleash a powerful blow to an enemy at range. I'd add that after releasing the stored energy it becomes dormant for 1 hr per 10 points of stored damage. This would lower its cost.
Way too cheap, and Fabricate doesn't even vaguely approximate the item's powers except for the restorative powers of the small end.
|
