| Kaisoku |
Heh.. that is, of course, the refence I was talking about. I was in a mythbusters mindset I guess (since it was another mythbuster episode that tested that one).
The one in which they made the mistake of not getting a windshield graded for impact resistance and so invalidated their test. The revisit was quite telling though (not-quite-spoiler: it DOES make a difference!).
| Senevri |
Uh, you're presuming damage follows a linear scale instead of, say, logarithmic.
Consider a shortspear: It deals 1d6 damage, weighing 3lbs. Longspear weighs 9lbs (thus having linearily triple the energy when thrust at speed X), and dealing 1d8 damage, not 3d6... Also, tank armor (presuming 12in thickness) would have 400ish HP and probably 15ish hardness. Good to keep in mind.
| Kirth Gersen |
To follow up on Senevri's excellent post, force does not correlate with D&D damage in any meaningful way. Calculate the force of a catapult stone (say a 250-lb. sandstone ball travelling at X velocity). How much damage does that do? In real life, it bashes holes in 10-ft. thick castle walls. In game terms, a direct hit deals 6d6 damage to your intrepid adventurer.
With that kind of game logic, small arms of all calibers deal minor flesh wounds only, and your super-weapon would be correspondingly uninspiring.
One way to reconcile this is by assuming that "hits" against the bulk of your hp aren't literally actual hits, but are rather instances that you managed to parry and/or dive out of the way and took only bruises, scrapes, and abrasions, a la "Die Hard." Gygax says as much, point-blank, in the 1st edition PH.
When is a door not a door? When it's ajar. When is a hit not a hit? Whenever you have more hp left. Therefore, force cannot be meaningfully correlated into damage using math.
| Maeloke |
Uh, you're presuming damage follows a linear scale instead of, say, logarithmic.
Consider a shortspear: It deals 1d6 damage, weighing 3lbs. Longspear weighs 9lbs (thus having linearily triple the energy when thrust at speed X), and dealing 1d8 damage, not 3d6... Also, tank armor (presuming 12in thickness) would have 400ish HP and probably 15ish hardness. Good to keep in mind.
To be fair, nobody ever said every weapon is thrown or thrust or swung at the same speed. Lighter ones result in faster swings, while heavier ones get the same impact energy from a lower velocity. Weapons are just objects designed to optimize the hurt a wielder can transmit with the force of their muscles. Really, the baffling thing is figuring out why the big weapons do so much more damage.
I know there's a degree of historical precedent for it, but I've never been convinced it wasn't simply a product of medieval penis compensation.
As for your formula for tank armor - object hardness and hp is a very abstract system created by D&D people to quantify interaction rules for certain, regularly occurring substances. One can hardly expect it to remain accurate when applied to real life. Moreover, supposing 12 inches of solid steel plate is *ridiculous* for most tanks, ancient or modern. Composites and spacers and all the other impact-resistant nonsense means that a calculation using a single material is largely meaningless.
And... weapons still manage to penetrate them, so clearly we have the appropriate tools. With game rules, 400 hp armor necessitates the existence of 450 damage rockets - or in this case, slug throwers. Personally, I'd sooner avoid that realm.
I prefer "Which is heavier, a pound of gold or a pound of feathers?" Anyone know?
Definitely the pound of feathers.
No wait! The gold. Gold is heavy. Silly me.
| Mirror, Mirror |
Majuba wrote:A pound of feathers, there is only 14 ounces in a troy pound of gold compared to 16 ounces in an avordupois pound of feathers.Kaisoku wrote:HA! Which is heavier, 1 kg of iridium, or 1 kg of feathers!I prefer "Which is heavier, a pound of gold or a pound of feathers?" Anyone know?
*beats answer to death with Metric system*
Whited Sepulcher
|
Majuba wrote:Kaisoku wrote:HA! Which is heavier, 1 kg of iridium, or 1 kg of feathers!I prefer "Which is heavier, a pound of gold or a pound of feathers?" Anyone know?Try this mindbender:
If you drop a ton of lead and a ton of feathers from a plane, which hits the ground first?
Are the feathers kept in a container when released all the way down or dispersed individually?
brock
|
Mirror, Mirror wrote:Are the feathers kept in a container when released all the way down or dispersed individually?Majuba wrote:Kaisoku wrote:HA! Which is heavier, 1 kg of iridium, or 1 kg of feathers!I prefer "Which is heavier, a pound of gold or a pound of feathers?" Anyone know?Try this mindbender:
If you drop a ton of lead and a ton of feathers from a plane, which hits the ground first?
... and has the lead been rolled out into a gossamer thin sheet?
| Mirror, Mirror |
Are the feathers kept in a container when released all the way down or dispersed individually?
... and has the lead been rolled out into a gossamer thin sheet?
Both good questions, especially for a trick question. The lead and feathers are both packed into a spherical container of equal shape, volume, and weight.
Which hits the ground first?
| Cartigan |
Majuba wrote:A pound of feathers, there is only 14 ounces in a troy pound of gold compared to 16 ounces in an avordupois pound of feathers.Kaisoku wrote:HA! Which is heavier, 1 kg of iridium, or 1 kg of feathers!I prefer "Which is heavier, a pound of gold or a pound of feathers?" Anyone know?
Rocks fall, everyone dies.
| Mirror, Mirror |
Mirror, Mirror wrote:Which hits the ground first?How fragile is the spherical container? If it's indestructible, neither the feathers, nor the lead (both of which are in the same container) will ever hit the ground--only the container will.
Oh, the container hitting the ground qualifies. We'll say the container breaks on impact.