Because a mace will pulverize bones. It's the closest thing you have to a hammer.
Yes, if I put a bone on a table and hit it with a hammer, it will pulverize the bone. It does not work that way against a standing creature.
For reference, I picked green bamboo because that is supposed to the same hardness and density as cutting through human bone.
A mace in that same situation would have knocked the bamboo aside without really damaging it.
A full set of human bones only weighs 20% of what a normal human does.
So again, why the mace instead of the longsword?
If nobody in the party can make a DC 6 untrained knowledge check, then the characters are either stupid or ignorant, and should be played accordingly. To play it otherwise is metagaming. I suppose you have all your int 3 characters running around inventing gunpowder and solving the universal field theorum?
Clearly trying to stab things without flesh is the intelligence equivalent of quantum physics.
Yes, they are held together by magic, not flesh, but it stands to reason, that it requires more magic to hold together two pieces of bone where the joints meet than it does to hold a single piece of bone together. The joints are still a potential weak point, because there is only magic holding the creature together at those points. If you separate the bones enough, the magic holding the bones together fails. So how do you know that the joints aren't the weak points?
How do you know they are? Stop metagaming.
MORE avoidance of my point and the question it brings. You see a walking pile of bones, you have a rapier, a longsword, and a mace. Lets assume for a moment that is is obvious that the rapier is a bad choice(although I have some doubts on that point, see above). A longsword/broadsword is NOT a stabbing weapon, it is a very sharp blade that is designed to cleave through flesh and bone alike. A mace is designed to kill by causing internal bleeding via bruising and tissue damage. Yet you pick the mace over the sword, and claim it is common sense to do so, why?
Mobile goalposts. You brought up the longsword after the fact of me shooting down your argument. I already stated that longsword or mace is irrelevant. What is relevant is you would have the character keep using a RAPIER vs a SKELETON instead of switching to ANYTHING else because the character somehow can't figure out stabbing a skeleton to death when it doesn't have flesh is stupid.
Says you. The RAW says otherwise.
Check
Answering a question within your field of study has a DC of 10 (for really easy questions), 15 (for basic questions), or 20 to 30 (for really tough questions).In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s CR. For common monsters, such as goblins, the DC of this check equals 5 + the monster’s CR. For particularly rare monsters, such as the tarrasque, the DC of this check equals 15 + the monster’s CR or more. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information.
Looking at a skeleton and seeing it doesn't have flesh needs a DC 10 knowledge check? Really?
The RAW says that knowing something about the vulnerabilities of a skeleton is a DC 6 knowledge(religion) check.
I need to know two things about a skeleton's vulnerabilities to know that stabbing it is going to be pretty ineffective. Those two things being jack and squat. A DC 0 spot check will reveal to you that there is nothing to stab but bone itself.
YOU are the one factoring a skeleton's resistances into the fight by saying the rapier user wouldn't switch weapons when faced with a skeleton because he wouldn't know the creature's resistances. He does NOT need to know the skeleton's resistances to see it has nothing to stab.The only way you could possibly continue to not understand this is to be trolling simply to prove my point for me. Thanks.
Looking at a skeleton and seeing it doesn't have flesh needs a DC 10 knowledge check? Really?Says you. The RAW says otherwise.
Check
Answering a question within your field of study has a DC of 10 (for really easy questions), 15 (for basic questions), or 20 to 30 (for really tough questions).In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s CR. For common monsters, such as goblins, the DC of this check equals 5 + the monster’s CR. For particularly rare monsters, such as the tarrasque, the DC of this check equals 15 + the monster’s CR or more. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information.
If you want to figure out a way to bypass any DR or discover special abilities or weaknesses, yes, according to RAW. You actually need to make a knowledge check for a lot of things according to RAW.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to figure out a way to bypass any DR or discover special abilities or weaknesses, yes, according to RAW. You actually need to make a knowledge check for a lot of things according to RAW.Looking at a skeleton and seeing it doesn't have flesh needs a DC 10 knowledge check? Really?Says you. The RAW says otherwise.
Check
Answering a question within your field of study has a DC of 10 (for really easy questions), 15 (for basic questions), or 20 to 30 (for really tough questions).In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s CR. For common monsters, such as goblins, the DC of this check equals 5 + the monster’s CR. For particularly rare monsters, such as the tarrasque, the DC of this check equals 15 + the monster’s CR or more. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information.
I'm not trying to figure out a way to bypass DR I don't know exists. I am not trying to identify the skeleton, know its strength nor its weaknesses. I - my character, for you supposed anti-metagamers - am physically observing my opponent and seeing it has no flesh nor organs. I don't need to know that it has DR 5/bludgeoning to see that trying to physically stab it is idiotic, at best. I may switch to a mace, or I may switch to a handaxe. Anything but a damn piercing weapon. Now if a handaxe is subsequently observed as being ineffective, then I would switch to a mace, but I don't have to observe a piercing weapon being ineffective to know it will be versus a creature WITH NOTHING TO PIERCE.
It is you "anti-metagamers" factoring in DR your character doesn't know exists in order to say your character wouldn't change tactics despite faced with a creature that their chosen attack is going to be ineffective on. DC 0 Knowledge (anything) check - stabbing something with nothing to stab is ineffective. As is trying to stab a wall. Or bludgeon jelly. Or grapple something covered in spikes or on fire.
If you want to figure out a way to bypass any DR or discover special abilities or weaknesses, yes, according to RAW. You actually need to make a knowledge check for a lot of things according to RAW.Looking at a skeleton and seeing it doesn't have flesh needs a DC 10 knowledge check? Really?Says you. The RAW says otherwise.
Check
Answering a question within your field of study has a DC of 10 (for really easy questions), 15 (for basic questions), or 20 to 30 (for really tough questions).In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s CR. For common monsters, such as goblins, the DC of this check equals 5 + the monster’s CR. For particularly rare monsters, such as the tarrasque, the DC of this check equals 15 + the monster’s CR or more. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information.
I'm not trying to figure out a way to bypass DR I don't know exists. I am not trying to identify the skeleton, know its strength nor its weaknesses. I - my character, for you supposed anti-metagamers - am physically observing my opponent and seeing it has no flesh nor organs. I don't need to know that it has DR 5/bludgeoning to see that trying to physically stab it is idiotic, at best. I may switch to a mace, or I may switch to a handaxe. Anything but a damn piercing weapon. Now if a handaxe is subsequently observed as being ineffective, then I would switch to a mace, but I don't have to observe a piercing weapon being ineffective to know it will be versus a creature WITH NOTHING TO PIERCE.
It is you "anti-metagamers" factoring in DR your character doesn't know exists in order to say your character wouldn't change tactics despite faced with a creature that their chosen attack is going to be ineffective on. DC 0 Knowledge (anything) check - stabbing something with nothing to stab is ineffective. As is trying to stab a wall. Or bludgeon jelly. Or grapple something covered in spikes or on fire.
If that's the case, then why do all of the things still take damage when attacked using such means? You may have to bypass an annoying amount of CR, but it's still doable. Ineffective and inefficient are not the same thing, and that may be where the accusations of metagaming are coming from.
I'm not trying to figure out a way to bypass DR I don't know exists. I am not trying to identify the skeleton, know its strength nor its weaknesses. I - my character, for you supposed anti-metagamers - am physically observing my opponent and seeing it has no flesh nor organs. I don't need to know that it has DR 5/bludgeoning to see that trying to physically stab it is idiotic, at best. I may switch to a mace, or I may switch to a handaxe. Anything but a damn piercing weapon. Now if a handaxe is subsequently observed as being ineffective, then I would switch to a mace, but I don't have to observe a piercing weapon being ineffective to know it will be versus a creature WITH NOTHING TO PIERCE.
It is you "anti-metagamers" factoring in DR your character doesn't know exists in order to say your character wouldn't change tactics despite faced with a creature that their chosen attack is going to be ineffective on. DC 0 Knowledge (anything) check - stabbing something with nothing to stab is ineffective. As is trying to stab a wall. Or bludgeon jelly. Or grapple something covered in spikes or on fire.
You really think your average medeval peasant knows enough about anatomy to make a reasoned decision like that? Do you think they know enough about weapons to know how they do their damage? Do you think they would be perfectly calm and level headed and think everything through when facing an walking set of animated bones that wants to kill them?
What you keep failing to understand is just how stupid and/or ignorrant the average pesasant in a world like Pathfinder is. That is represented in the rules by having an int of 8 or 9, and no ranks in any knowledge skills.
Now, I would hope adventurers know more than the average peasant, but if they didn't put ranks into knowledge skills or have an exceptional int score, they don't.
If that's the case, then why do all of the things still take damage when attacked using such means? You may have to bypass an annoying amount of CR, but it's still doable. Ineffective and inefficient are not the same thing, and that may be where the accusations of metagaming are coming from.
It is irrelevant to my argument if they would take damage or not as I am making a non-metagaming argument to prove that everyone metagames, either to their benefit or detriment. They still take damage from the attack because this is a game. Shh, it's a secret though. Don't let your character know.
If that's the case, then why do all of the things still take damage when attacked using such means? You may have to bypass an annoying amount of CR, but it's still doable. Ineffective and inefficient are not the same thing, and that may be where the accusations of metagaming are coming from.It is irrelevant to my argument if they would take damage or not as I am making a non-metagaming argument to prove that everyone metagames, either to their benefit or detriment. They still take damage from the attack because this is a game. Shh, it's a secret though. Don't let your character know.
Clearly, we disagree on this.
You really think your average medeval peasant knows enough about anatomy to make a reasoned decision like that?
1) The average medieval peasant is not a fencing specialist - ie, likely a well-educated, well-trained noble. Please stick to your original scenario.
2) The average medieval peasant is going to run away from the walking dead.3) The average medieval peasant is not blind and can STILL see that there is nothing on a skeleton to stab with a stabbing weapon.
Do you think they know enough about weapons to know how they do their damage?
I presume anyone who has ever wielded anything ever can guess how it does damage. Things with edges do damage by slicing. Heavy things do damage by crushing and bludgeoning. Pointy things do damage by piercing and causing internal injuries (generally evidenced by obvious things, like bleeding).
Do you think they would be perfectly calm and level headed and think everything through when facing an walking set of animated bones that wants to kill them?
Please see both points 1 and 2 above.
What you keep failing to understand is just how stupid and/or ignorrant the average pesasant in a world like Pathfinder is.
What you keep failing to understand is that was not your first, second, or THIRD argument. You aren't even trying to be consistent. Every time I make a successful argument against your most recent one (every time), you make a counter argument only tangentially related to your previous one.
Now, I would hope adventurers know more than the average peasant, but if they didn't put ranks into knowledge skills or have an exceptional int score, they don't.
DC 0 check Knowledge (I-specialize-in-stabbing-things-to-death) - stabbing something where there is obviously nothing to stab is ineffective.
Are people seriously suggesting adventurers would try to stab at fleshless bones?
Not only are they suggesting it, they are insisting upon it on the grounds the character needs to make a DC 12 Knowledge (religion) knowledge check to know that Skeletons have DR 5/bludgeoning.
Clearly, we disagree on this.If that's the case, then why do all of the things still take damage when attacked using such means? You may have to bypass an annoying amount of CR, but it's still doable. Ineffective and inefficient are not the same thing, and that may be where the accusations of metagaming are coming from.It is irrelevant to my argument if they would take damage or not as I am making a non-metagaming argument to prove that everyone metagames, either to their benefit or detriment. They still take damage from the attack because this is a game. Shh, it's a secret though. Don't let your character know.
On what? That this is a game? That the character's shouldn't know it's a game? That certain things happen in the world in specific ways SOLELY because it is a game and not a real world - like rapiers hurting skeletons? That you are not metagaming to make your characters morons?
Are people seriously suggesting adventurers would try to stab at fleshless bones?
They would if they couldn't make the knowledge checks. Most adventurers would make the check though.
Are people seriously suggesting adventurers would try to stab at fleshless bones?They would if they couldn't make the knowledge checks.
What knowledge check do you propose they make to know that stabbing something with neither flesh nor organs is ineffective?
Are people seriously suggesting adventurers would try to stab at fleshless bones?They would if they couldn't make the knowledge checks. Most adventurers would make the check though.
Actually, I disagree with this to an extent. They wouldn't automatically pick up a stabbing weapon and make with the shank just because they didn't make a check, they simply would not know of the creature's DR against certain forms of damage.
Are people seriously suggesting adventurers would try to stab at fleshless bones?They would if they couldn't make the knowledge checks. Most adventurers would make the check though.This makes me think of having players roll up a Perception check to see if, as they walk across a field on a clear and sunny day, they notice the cliff directly in front of them that drops into a mile wide canyon hundreds of feet deep...
...Or am I the only one that thinks the perception DC for that would be the same as the (whatever skill) DC to think "that thing is just bones - better try something heftier than this rapier."?
I personally think they should have to make knowledge rolls just to know what a rapier is.
You really think your average medeval peasant knows enough about anatomy to make a reasoned decision like that?1) The average medieval peasant is not a fencing specialist - ie, likely a well-educated, well-trained noble. Please stick to your original scenario.
2) The average medieval peasant is going to run away from the walking dead.
3) The average medieval peasant is not blind and can STILL see that there is nothing on a skeleton to stab with a stabbing weapon.
You do realize that we are talking about a a rapier, and not a practice foil. Most rapiers have sharp edges along both sides of the blade. Yes, the proper style of fighting with a rapier is mostly stabbing, but it has sharp edges and 6 pounds of weight. It can be used to cut just fine, although using it this way is sub-optimal.
Do you think they know enough about weapons to know how they do their damage?I presume anyone who has ever wielded anything ever can guess how it does damage. Things with edges do damage by slicing. Heavy things do damage by crushing and bludgeoning. Pointy things do damage by piercing and causing internal injuries (generally evidenced by obvious things, like bleeding).
See above.
Do you think they would be perfectly calm and level headed and think everything through when facing an walking set of animated bones that wants to kill them?Please see both points 1 and 2 above.
What you keep failing to understand is just how stupid and/or ignorrant the average pesasant in a world like Pathfinder is.What you keep failing to understand is that was not your first, second, or THIRD argument. You aren't even trying to be consistent. Every time I make a successful argument against your most recent one (every time), you make a counter argument only tangentially related to your previous one.
To successfully counter my arguements, you would have to actually understand it. So lets go back to that then.
I am a rapier using weapon finesse fighter. I see a skeleton, and I immediately swap to using a mace because I have a hunch it will work better. Nevermind the fact that I have trained with the rapier all my life, and it is an heirloom passed to me through generations, I have a hunch I should use a mace, because maces break bones. That is metagaming. Now if after taking a few swings at the skeleton I am finding that my rapier is less than effective, then I might think to try a different tact.
I rephrase it to clarify, because you obviously didn't understand the first time. Either that, or you are intentionally misunderstanding just to troll.
You are a level 1 fighter, you are specialized in using a rapier(you have weapon focus rapier). You have the weapon finesse feat, and you have a dex score that is significantly better than your strength score by a significant margin(say 18 dex vs 12 strength). Your rapier is an heirloom weapon(as per the trait that gives you a +1 with that weapon) passed down through several generations. You have trained your entire life using that rapier and using any other weapon is significantly suboptimal(You would be +2 to hit with the mace, and +7 to hit with the rapier).
You see a skeleton, and you immediately switch to the mace on a hunch. That is metagaming.
My point was more about a fighter who abandonded their favorite weapon in the middle of a fight with no really good explaination. My other examples were attempts to clarify why I consider this metagaming in what I view as similar situations. For example, An orc barbarian who would rather use his trusty axe that he is specialized in over a maul even when faced with a situation where the axe is sub-optimal.
You do realize that we are talking about a a rapier, and not a practice foil. Most rapiers have sharp edges along both sides of the blade. Yes, the proper style of fighting with a rapier is mostly stabbing, but it has sharp edges and 6 pounds of weight. It can be used to cut just fine, although using it this way is sub-optimal.
I wholly agree. But you realize we are talking about a rapier and not a longsword. It can cut, but it is not balanced or built for chopping.
I rephrase it to clarify, because you obviously didn't understand the first time.
Apparently my repeating OVER AND OVER that a thrusting weapon, that just happens to be bladed, is obviously ineffective against an opponent with nothing to stab or slice. A chopping weapon might be effective. I picked a mace at random. Moreover, I admitted a longsword makes sense too. Any player whose character would continue to use a rapier against a skeleton instead of switching to anything that does not damage by piercing the body simply because the player knows the creature has DR but the character doesn't is metagaming because the character can see there is nothing to pierce with his weapon.
You are a level 1 fighter, you are specialized in using a rapier(you have weapon focus rapier). You have the weapon finesse feat, and you have a dex score that is significantly better than your strength score by a significant margin(say 18 dex vs 12 strength). Your rapier is an heirloom weapon(as per the trait that gives you a +1 with that weapon) passed down through several generations. You have trained your entire life using that rapier and using any other weapon is significantly suboptimal(You would be +2 to hit with the mace, and +7 to hit with the rapier).
You see a skeleton, and you immediately switch to the mace on a hunch. That is metagaming.
Your very skilled fighter being COMPLETELY unable to recognize that his preferred fighting style is ineffective against certain types of opponents because he has a better to-hit ratio with a certain type of weapon in general is METAGAMING. Why does your Fighter with the - insert all of the game context stuff that the character knows nothing about - think stabbing or slicing a rock is effective? Or trying to stab a 2 inch diameter piece of bone waving around is effective? Your Fighter has an intelligence of what? 3? Animal intelligence is the only way that your argument makes sense.
Your argument is "I hit better with my piercing sword, so I will continue to use it even against opponents with nothing to pierce." Please explain how that is not metagaming. And remember to take into account that your character has no idea that he can hit better with a rapier than with a mace.
Your very skilled fighter being COMPLETELY unable to recognize that his preferred fighting style is ineffective against certain types of opponents because he has a better to-hit ratio with a certain type of weapon in general is METAGAMING. Why does your Fighter with the - insert all of the game context stuff that the character knows nothing about - think stabbing or slicing a rock is effective? Or trying to stab a 2 inch diameter piece of bone waving around is effective? Your Fighter has an intelligence of what? 3? Animal intelligence is the only way that your argument makes sense.
Your argument is "I hit better with my piercing sword, so I will continue to use it even against opponents with nothing to pierce." Please explain how that is not metagaming. And remember to take into account that your character has no idea that he can hit better with a rapier than with a mace.
In this case since the character in question took a feat specifically associated with said weapon, they would indeed be more comfortable with that weapon than something else. Not to say that they wouldn't pick up something else if the situation called for it, but the character would know they can use a rapier better than a mace in this situation.
And remember to take into account that your character has no idea that he can hit better with a rapier than with a mace.OK, now you're getting silly.
Of course, the character knows he can hit better with a rapier than a mace. He's specifically trained in rapier and in using light weapons. He doesn't know the game mechanics that represent that better skill, but he certainly knows that he's more skilled with his favorite rapier.
Or would you claim he shouldn't be aware of his own abilities and thus it's meta-gaming to make use of them?
He's better at making more exact blows with a rapier. But it's a mace. I mean, you swing it at something. This is not rocket science. Why would he know he can hit better with a rapier than a mace? A rapier would require more precise skill to injure with - as primarily a thrusting weapon. Where a mace, as a bludgeoning weapon, simply requires a hearty contact.
PS. A light mace is a light weapon and benefits from weapon finesse.
Anyone looking for a forest in all these trees?
Anyone looking for a forest in all these trees?
If they were, they would see they are in the great Metagame Wood.
And remember to take into account that your character has no idea that he can hit better with a rapier than with a mace.OK, now you're getting silly.
Of course, the character knows he can hit better with a rapier than a mace. He's specifically trained in rapier and in using light weapons. He doesn't know the game mechanics that represent that better skill, but he certainly knows that he's more skilled with his favorite rapier.
Or would you claim he shouldn't be aware of his own abilities and thus it's meta-gaming to make use of them?He's better at making more exact blows with a rapier. But it's a mace. I mean, you swing it at something. This is not rocket science. Why would he know he can hit better with a rapier than a mace? A rapier would require more precise skill to injure with - as primarily a thrusting weapon. Where a mace, as a bludgeoning weapon, simply requires a hearty contact.
PS. A light mace is a light weapon and benefits from weapon finesse.
Well since I stated that he would not get the benefits of weapon finesse, then it is obviously not a light mace.
Well since I stated that he would not get the benefits of weapon finesse, then it is obviously not a light mace.And remember to take into account that your character has no idea that he can hit better with a rapier than with a mace.OK, now you're getting silly.
Of course, the character knows he can hit better with a rapier than a mace. He's specifically trained in rapier and in using light weapons. He doesn't know the game mechanics that represent that better skill, but he certainly knows that he's more skilled with his favorite rapier.
Or would you claim he shouldn't be aware of his own abilities and thus it's meta-gaming to make use of them?He's better at making more exact blows with a rapier. But it's a mace. I mean, you swing it at something. This is not rocket science. Why would he know he can hit better with a rapier than a mace? A rapier would require more precise skill to injure with - as primarily a thrusting weapon. Where a mace, as a bludgeoning weapon, simply requires a hearty contact.
PS. A light mace is a light weapon and benefits from weapon finesse.
Really.
You do realize that we are talking about a a rapier, and not a practice foil. Most rapiers have sharp edges along both sides of the blade. Yes, the proper style of fighting with a rapier is mostly stabbing, but it has sharp edges and . It can be used to cut just fine, although using it this way is sub-optimal.
Please tell me that your finger slipped when you typed that. ^_^;
My Rhienfelden sword rapier indeed cuts quite well . Just like what I'd expect an adventurer to use, it's a military design rather than something a nobleman would duel with. Still, it cuts well against something with the same resistance as leather or flesh. Bone would present much more of a problem I suspect.
Regardless, even with the sword in its scabbard, the scabbard on its baldric, and a statesmetal hip flask attached, it still weighs nowhere near 6 pounds. Hell, neither of my bastards swords/long swords even weigh 4 pounds, and my katana is barely a shade over 2...
Sorry if this was off-topic, but the weapon weights in D&D/Pathfinder have always grated on my nerves because they are so ridulously inflated. Seeing that though just made me pass a brick from a very uncomfortable place. Please, resume! ;)
former Supreme Court Justic Potter Stewart famously said "I know it when I see it."
That remains one of the stupidest things ever uttered -- the first time my mother found a Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue, she blurted out, "This is HARD CORE pornography!!!" Obviously, she knew it when she saw it, right?
The stakes are a lot lower in a game, but the attitude is equally counterproductive. What I consider to be "role playing an intelligent character," a lot of people lazily assume is "metagaming." For example, if I try 10 different spells and 6 different weapon materials on a monster, and keep track of which ones seem to work, some people will yell "OOOH!!! METAGAMER!!!!!" when I use that weapon or spell the next time I meet one of those monsters.
I'm good at perceiving patterns and figuring out cause-and-effect relationships. Sometimes I like to play a PC with high Intelligence who is also good at those things. Unfortunately, I find that, for a lot of people, "I know metagmaing when I see it" means that any attempt at using intelligence, any attempt at learning anything about the game world, and any attempt at all to make cause-and-effect relationships, will automatical get one branded as a "metagamer."