|
Maybe I'm just in the most incredible games imaginable, but when someone says their PC is attractive we say "ok" and move the f+!~ on with our lives and not obsess over making it a stat or trying to minmax it or getting way autistic over what kind of bonuses that should have.
Or maybe I just play with rational adults.
I'd comment on the rest but the kvetching about charisma is the dumbest g~$@%~n thing I have ever seen on these forums.
Once again someone who takes the "Wizard God" argument hand waves...
I am noticing a trend here...
Maybe I'm just in the most incredible games imaginable, but when someone says their PC is attractive we say "ok" and move the f+!~ on with our lives and not obsess over making it a stat or trying to minmax it or getting way autistic over what kind of bonuses that should have.
Or maybe I just play with rational adults.
I'd comment on the rest but the kvetching about charisma is the dumbest g~$@%~n thing I have ever seen on these forums.
Once again someone who takes the "Wizard God" argument hand waves...
I am noticing a trend here...
Stop babbling. What you have typed has absolutely nothing to do with the pure insanity that lies in making people mechanically optimize how their character looks.
Maybe I'm just in the most incredible games imaginable, but when someone says their PC is attractive we say "ok" and move the f+!~ on with our lives and not obsess over making it a stat or trying to minmax it or getting way autistic over what kind of bonuses that should have.
Or maybe I just play with rational adults.
I'd comment on the rest but the kvetching about charisma is the dumbest g~$@%~n thing I have ever seen on these forums.
Once again someone who takes the "Wizard God" argument hand waves...
I am noticing a trend here...
Once again someone who takes the "thing Ciretose has said" argument hand waves...
I am noticing a trend here...
Hey look I can be uselessly cryptic too.
|
It's always important to remember from the Gamer's Bill of Rights...
"Awesomeness must not be denied"
Let's go with this example:
The characters are 12' tall (enlarged) + dual wielding falcatas.
The dungeon corridor is 6' wide x 10' tall.
Sorry: your awesome melee is denied. Your barely going to squeeze through the corridor, must less swing those swords.
That is the typical dungeon built to the human scale. I won't even touch a dungeon built to the gnome scale.
It's always important to remember from the Gamer's Bill of Rights...
"Awesomeness must not be denied"
Let's go with this example:
The characters are 12' tall (enlarged) + dual wielding falcatas.
The dungeon corridor is 6' wide x 10' tall.
Sorry: your awesome melee is denied. Your barely going to squeeze through the corridor, must less swing those swords.
That is the typical dungeon built to the human scale. I won't even touch a dungeon built to the gnome scale.
Of course, a "normal" sized greatsword is 5' long. Good luck using that in a dungeon "built to human scale."
Yes, as a large creature, you have to squeeze through a 5' corridor. But whether or not you can attack is not addressed by actual freedom of movement because then no one could do anything at least 50% of the time.
Bombing is about targeting something from afar. And while I'm not a military buff, I haven't heard of any instances of an army sending soldiers in to fight while bombing a bunch of targets that aren't an immediate danger.
Try watching Dam Busters, or any other war film or documentry. There were soldiers fighting during WWII while the bombing goes on. In a Pathfinder setting though, sending out multiple minions on differing missions is something any reasonable high level NPC enemy could do.
Yes but why would the book be so much more vulnerable than the wizard? Do books in your campaign suddenly grow wings, fly out and start glowing while screaming “Destroy me, destroy me!”? The book in most cases is on the wizard.
As I have already said, if the NPC has the opportunity to get at the spell book then they probably would. Opportunity, to me doesn't mean having to go through, face off and put yourself in the line of fire of the danger that you are trying to circumnavigate by destroying the book.
The hypothetical situation of it being possible to destroy or steal the book while somehow leaving no opportunity to steal or destroy any other equipment or kill the PCs.... well I guess it's possible somewhere, I have just never experienced it, or heard about it anywhere.
In my replies and posts to you only you have suggested that ONLY the wizards spellbook would be a target. I have been suggesting that it would be ONE of the viable targets, and that it should not be ruled out on the grounds that YOU don't like the idea.
it is a legitimate strategy that a real flesh and blood person would employ in the same scenario. it is up to the player to safe guard an achilles heel, like for instance the core feat that allows the players INT in saved spells that dont require a book. this is one of the BEST feats for any level 10+ wizard to invest in.
Would they??
Why?
I guess it depends on the situation... IF the party is all camped outside the BBEG's base... then I could imagine him sending a ninja in to swipe the caster's backpack.
But in an average battle? Why would someone DO that??
1)It doesn't stop the wizard from killing you NOW... it only stops him from recharging TOMORROW... Therefore it's not a valid strategy TODAY.
2) How are these people RECOGNIZING wizards? Do they look fundamentally different then the Sorcerers/clerics/witches? Even if they have component pouches... (Which as a player I've tried to attack on wizards before...) What reason would an average encounter have to go after guy #3's backpack?
If a wizard walks into a fight with a book under his arm that's ONE thing... but it seems VERY metagamey on the DM's part to only have sunder attempts on teh Wizards backpack and not the rogues or monks....
The only reason I could see it being legit... is if 'getting the book' was the REASON for the encounter. Someone is targeting the wizard in particular. with some kind of 'end-game' strategy in place.
Let's go with this example:The characters are 12' tall (enlarged) + dual wielding falcatas.
The dungeon corridor is 6' wide x 10' tall.
Sorry: your awesome melee is denied. Your barely going to squeeze through the corridor, must less swing those swords.
That is the typical dungeon built to the human scale. I won't even touch a dungeon built to the gnome scale.
Ooo ooo, I can play, right?
HP are partly abstract, it says so in the book! This extends to the damage weapons deal. While you might be right about the amount of space necessary to wield a greatsword effectively, it doesn't matter because the 2d6 damage represents everything from broad slashing to pommel-strikes to shoving with your off-hand on the blade, to straight-on spearing someone with it.
This changes how people ought to account for fighting in a cramped space. I say, stick to the squeezing rules, they make enough sense, and there is enough abstraction built into the system that you don't need to sweat the details.
While I would say that a GM timing a "random" encounter to purposely interrupt a cleric's prayer time is questionable, I also wouldn't ensure that his prayer time was "protected". If players know that nothing attacks between 07:00 and 08:00 then everyone can get a cup of tea and takes out the Beano, no need to keep watches.
You know that doesn't work right?
Time of Day: A divine spellcaster chooses and prepares spells ahead of time, but unlike a wizard, does not require a period of rest to prepare spells. Instead, the character chooses a particular time of day to pray and receive spells. The time is usually associated with some daily event.
If some event prevents a character from praying at the proper time, she must do so as soon as possible.
If the character does not stop to pray for spells at the first opportunity, she must wait until the next day to prepare spells.
"Dear god. Sorry i'm late, but the venomous field mice you had chewing on me were occupying my attention...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Theres just no way jabbing someone with the end of a staff is going to do the same damage as whacking them with it properly.
The same goes for this two handed sword used as a thrusting weapon stuff, you just aren't going to be doing the same damage. Yes you still get to use your muscles, but nowhere near the effectiveness of also getting to use your bodyweight and leverage correctly.
That's what the dice do.
You'll notice you NEVER do the same damage with the weapon. Heck, even if the guy is tied up and I cut his throat, I don't do the same damage as the LAST guy I tied up and cut his throat.
Honestly, rules like that just bog things down. If I thrust with my greatsword and do minimum damage... It's because I wasn't using it the way it was intended... if I do MAX damage, I got lucky and found a chink in their defense.
We don't need rules for things that dice already cover.
Weapon damage is one of the most overrated concepts in this game. If I stab a guy with a dagger, He will die. Probably in one hit. If I stab him with a greatsword... same thing.
Along with things like Table legs, rocks, and pushing them down the stairs.
People are tremndously fragile. Arguing about whether that should be D6 damage or D4+1... is really pointless.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe I'm just in the most incredible games imaginable, but when someone says their PC is attractive we say "ok" and move the f+!~ on with our lives and not obsess over making it a stat or trying to minmax it or getting way autistic over what kind of bonuses that should have.
Or maybe I just play with rational adults.
I'd comment on the rest but the kvetching about charisma is the dumbest g~$@%~n thing I have ever seen on these forums.
Once again someone who takes the "Wizard God" argument hand waves...
I am noticing a trend here...
Once again someone who takes the "thing Ciretose has said" argument hand waves...
I am noticing a trend here...
Hey look I can be uselessly cryptic too.
Two responses to a two line post. Must have hit a nerve...
|
|
Almost every bombing raid is a real life example effectively weakening the enemy while keeping the soldiers on the ground, with the enemy right in front of them, safer.Bombing is about targeting something from afar. And while I'm not a military buff, I haven't heard of any instances of an army sending soldiers in to fight while bombing a bunch of targets that aren't an immediate danger.
You are right, you aren't a military buff.
Every conflict that has involved bombing involved bombing of supply lines, or production centers.
Stuff they don't know about concerning staffs, swords and body mechanics.
I'm not a physicist or a mathematician, so the following is subject to error.
F=MA. In a swing or a jab, the mass is your mass + the staff's mass. So we can ignore this constant and focus on speed.
The question is, how fast is the staff's swing speed compared to how fast you can lunge?
Angular Speed = 2pi/time = velocity/radius
Assume 1 second, and a grip that allows a staff to be used as a double weapon (in other words, the radius is 1 meter):
swing velocity = 2pi = 6.28 m/s
Now, run speed. Basically we're talking about a one-step sprint, which can exert 1000 pounds of force.
The game codifies combat run speed as 30 feet/round (5 feet/second) or 1.67 m/s, but science is fun and the game isn't always realistic:
real life potential human run speed = 30 mph = about 14.67 m/s
Given the same amount of time, you can propel your body (and the staff end) forward TWICE as fast (conservatively) as you can swing it.
This shows that, at least in real life, a jab can deal twice as much force as a swing.
This doesn't even account for force per square inch.
I'm not going to do any math for swords, as I believe I've proved my point. Jabbing is more than viable, realistically. I will however say that holding a 2H sword with both hands on the hilt isn't realistic or viable. It's not a baseball bat. Why do you think they have that huge part of the blade that isn't sharp, or that hand guard halfway up the blade? Holding your 2H sword like a spear is THE way to use it correctly, swinging or thrusting.
You're not trying to say a thrusting staff moves faster then a swinging staff, are you? Because once you have the far end of a staff in motion, it's moving at excess of 100 mph (1 meter past your arm, you can throw a baseball at 100 mph, the staff will be moving faster because it's further out.)
Now, in reaction time, the thrust will be faster then the swing, because you don't wind up and pitch.
--
1) Dump Cha, put points in social Skills, everything's even. Ignore the fact you've got a Cha penalty by 'great roleplaying', not good.
2) The Wizard's spellbook should be as vulnerable to destruction/theft as the weapons, armor, shields and doo-dads of everyone else in the party. It's a hugely valuable item with a lot of resale value. Of course you should have spares and safeguard it if possible!
3) Most AP's assume big rooms now so you don't have to worry about size shenanigans. I'd also like to point out that tight quarters is ONE of the reasons why many later model swords used in battle featured half-grips...so you could use them like a spear, invert them, or short-grip them for thrusting in tight quarters. Someone using a greatsword with his hand halfway up the blade has a very dangerous thrusting tool in his hands.
==Aelryinth
While I would say that a GM timing a "random" encounter to purposely interrupt a cleric's prayer time is questionable, I also wouldn't ensure that his prayer time was "protected". If players know that nothing attacks between 07:00 and 08:00 then everyone can get a cup of tea and takes out the Beano, no need to keep watches.
You know that doesn't work right?
"..quite correct rules stuff removed for ease of reading..."
"Dear god. Sorry i'm late, but the venomous field mice you had chewing on me were occupying my attention...
LOL
The point I was trying to make is that there should be no time, place, or object that the players can assume is "safe" ONLY because it would be deemed an attack on a particular character classes weakness. Intelligent NPCs can, and should, attack percieved weaknesses in their enemies (usually the PCs). This is not aimed, as others have suggested, at ONLY the Wizards spellbook, but should not preclude it either.
You're not trying to say a thrusting staff moves faster then a swinging staff, are you?
I didn't TRY to say it. I proved it. A staff is not a baseball. You're using the wrong equation.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a wizard walks into a fight with a book under his arm that's ONE thing... but it seems VERY metagamey on the DM's part to only have sunder attempts on teh Wizards backpack and not the rogues or monks....
hi im the antagonist, i have a 23 INT, im smarter then any real person outside of this rpg. im trying to do something bad, and these pesky pc's are trying to stop me. so i will GATHER INFORMATION on the pc's then i will do everything in my power to stop them from killing me.
i think you have the wrong idea. a DM is not a person playing himself. a DM is playing NPC's that have there own personality. so its not meta gaming if they are walking through a town and a ninja/theif pick pocket snatches their haversack with the spell book in it.
in no way would i ever, as a dm, go " john you're pissing me off with your fireballs, im going to steal your book" but if the npc that i was role playing was methodical enough, i would steal the wizards book,disrupt the clerics meditation, poison the fighter, etc...
never would i do something without giving the players a chance to stop it, IE perception to stop the pick pocket, sense motive against the waitress serving the poisoned food etc... but this is how a dm should whack players into realizing how important non combat skill are. every action has a reaction, and that reaction is what stops the npc from taking the book.
|
This is just one of the moments I'm grateful for PDFs. They allow me to easily retcon those small (and not so small) bits of ruleset that took the gamist plunge with too much of a nosedive, at just the cost of professional layout.
Cover, for example, has stayed the 3.0 way despite the various semplifications brought on by successive revisions.
While I won't like a system that burdens the game with excessive simulationist rules and subrules, I also prefer a game with a clear approach on verisimilitude.
|
|
While I would say that a GM timing a "random" encounter to purposely interrupt a cleric's prayer time is questionable, I also wouldn't ensure that his prayer time was "protected". If players know that nothing attacks between 07:00 and 08:00 then everyone can get a cup of tea and takes out the Beano, no need to keep watches.
You know that doesn't work right?
"..quite correct rules stuff removed for ease of reading..."
"Dear god. Sorry i'm late, but the venomous field mice you had chewing on me were occupying my attention...
LOL
The point I was trying to make is that there should be no time, place, or object that the players can assume is "safe" ONLY because it would be deemed an attack on a particular character classes weakness. Intelligent NPCs can, and should, attack percieved weaknesses in their enemies (usually the PCs). This is not aimed, as others have suggested, at ONLY the Wizards spellbook, but should not preclude it either.
If players fall into patterns, it could be noticed. If the wizard goes to the same place every day at the same time to study spells, it could be noticed.
It is rarely an issue in games we play, as GMs generally give a heads up that such things may become issues. GMs always ask where you are sleeping, who is on what shift guarding, where everyone is sleeping, when you are meditating, etc...
We don't expect long write ups, but we want players thinking about it so they know we are thinking about it. And if they take reasonable precautions all is fine. If they don't...bad choices lead to bad outcomes.
This thread is dumb.
It started dumb and has degenerated into a dozen mini arguments with people shouting over each other about things inconsequential to the game.
Go away dumb thread!
Go away dumb thread!NO U
And you win the award for the most cogent post on this thread.
hi im the antagonist, i have a 23 INT, im smarter then any real person outside of this rpg. im trying to do something bad, and these pesky pc's are trying to stop me. so i will GATHER INFORMATION on the pc's then i will do everything in my power to stop them from killing me.
i think you have the wrong idea. a DM is not a person playing himself. a DM is playing NPC's that have there own personality. so its not meta gaming if they are walking through a town and a ninja/theif pick pocket snatches their haversack with the spell book in it.
in no way would i ever, as a dm, go " john you're pissing me off with your fireballs, im going to steal your book" but if the npc that i was role playing was methodical enough, i would steal the wizards book,disrupt the clerics meditation, poison the fighter, etc...
never would i do something without giving the players a chance to stop it, IE perception to stop the pick pocket, sense motive against the waitress serving the poisoned food etc... but this is how a dm should whack players into realizing how important non combat skill are. every action has a reaction, and that reaction is what stops the npc from taking the book.
Thank you. At least another person can differentiate between the GM and the NPC they are playing. NPCs should not be paper targets. A memorable NPC has personality, resources and motivation.
You're not trying to say a thrusting staff moves faster then a swinging staff, are you?I didn't TRY to say it. I proved it. A staff is not a baseball. You're using the wrong equation.
No, you're using the wrong numbers. You're ignoring the radius of the arm the staff is attached to, and you're also ignoring the fact the same person can be STEPPING FORWARDS, just like your thrusting guy.
Slings propel stones faster then thrown. Why? Because they add distance to the throwing radius of your arm.
Staff slings propel things faster then thrown objects. Why? Because they REALLY add throwing radius to your arm. In both cases, velocity equals the speed of the outside arc of the staff, i.e. the head. The only difference between a thrown object and one in hand in terms of velocity is that you LET GO.
A swung object is moving faster, but because it covers an arc, has to travel more distance, and has to do the 'wind up and swing' thing. Having to travel 3/4 of a two meter radius circle can take much more time then making a 2' lunge. That does NOT mean less force. It means 'easier to react to'.
What you're trying to argue is that making a full circle swing-and-hit with a staff is 'less powerful' then merely snapping it at someone. I think common sense and use of a weapon, say, a sledge hammer trying to crush a concrete block, will instruct you otherwise. Thrusts are known for speed more then power, they tend to do damage by slipping past defenses and hitting vulnerable areas. Swings involve massive kinetic energy buildup and do damage by pounding THROUGH a defense, and shock and blunt trauma doing damage as the massive amount of energy is dumped into the unfortunate recepient.
i.e. you can put a nice dent into a pole with a thrust. You can put a BIG dent into the pole with a swing (and might break your staff, if you aren't careful).
===Aelryinth
I ignored the radius of "the arm" because that's not how you wield a staff. (EDIT: Generally the center of the staff is near your center of gravity. I could increase the radius by about a foot before it would cease to be a double weapon, and that would only increase the swing speed to about 8.2 m/s.) And sure, you can step into the turn, but "stepping into" and launching yourself forward are not the same by a long shot. To clarify, in my jab scenario the character's feet both leave the ground as he takes his one-step sprint forward. That's how you get the 1000 lbs of force.
Also, every example of weaponry you give is a heavily-weighted end, like a golf club or baseball bat, which is held and swung at the very opposite end, which as I said before requires a different equation to calculate. A staff is a uniformly shaped and weighted weapon which only requires the much simpler equation I used.
What you're trying to argue is that making a full circle swing-and-hit with a staff is 'less powerful' then merely snapping it at someone.
That's not what I'm trying to argue. Merely snapping a jab doesn't account for your body moving forward. I'm talking about launching yourself forward into the jab. I'm ultimately only trying to argue that using the end of the staff is viable compared to a swing. But I ended up showing if you do it right it's much more powerful.
I didn't TRY to say it. I proved it. A staff is not a baseball. You're using the wrong equation.
Damn mathematicians...
The ends do indeed move MUCH faster on a swing than on a thrust, even if you're dual wielding with it robinhood on the bridge style. I think the thing your math is missing is that you have two hands moving in opposite directions and one is essentially a pivot point for the others leverage. Also you're adding force over a longer period of time
The damage from a thrust is from the small surface area and the fact that there's NO Give in the staff, at all*, when you thrust. When you hit someone with a pool cue there's a lot of give, the stick bends (and possibly breaks) taking away a lot of the force you'd like to be applying to someone's brainpan. A staff not so much, but the same thing does happen on a smaller level. With a thrust physics tries to bend the entire 6 foot length of the staff and compress it.. and thats not going to happen.
Its why you can roll up a piece of paper into a tube and have the tube hold a book.
.
..
...
....
.....
Without the real threat of failure
The demands of real challenges
Of succeeding when the odds are against
::
Winning a knife fight with a jelly bean makes LEGENDS
Damn mathematicians...
I'm really not, so if someone can do better math than I did on the subject I'd like to see it.
The ends do indeed move MUCH faster on a swing than on a thrust, even if you're dual wielding with it robinhood on the bridge style.
Again, true for golf clubs and baseball bats. Not true for a uniformly weighted object.
I think the thing your math is missing is that you have two hands moving in opposite directions and one is essentially a pivot point for the others leverage. Also you're adding force over a longer period of time
You're right about the other hand, it would add pivot. I'm not sure how much that would affect the speed. It would depend on how it's wielded--more if held like a spear, less if held as a double weapon.
The damage from a thrust is from the small surface area and the fact that there's NO Give in the staff, at all*, when you thrust. When you hit someone with a pool cue there's a lot of give, the stick bends (and possibly breaks) taking away a lot of the force you'd like to be applying to someone's brainpan. A staff not so much, but the same thing does happen on a smaller level. With a thrust physics tries to bend the entire 6 foot length of the staff and compress it.. and thats not going to happen.
Its why you can roll up a piece of paper into a tube and have the tube hold a book.
Yes, the staff is structurally strong along its length. That's why it can break on a swing but you'd have to be superhuman to break it on a thrust.
|
|
As for your *Tracy's martial arts* training, I hope you realize that many of us have taken martial arts training. I, myself, have studied a lot of martial arts (from systema to silat, kempo to kali, boxing, aikjutsu, taijijuan, and on) and have a black belt and have been a certified teacher. I'm just one of many. A lot of people who play RPGs do martial arts as well.
congratulations? i happy you studied martial arts, but i dont see what that has to do with someone who has no clue what they are talking about... acting like they know what they are talking about. oh under normal circumstance i would inquire as to what a black belt has to do with anything, but i will let that slide. also i am also certified to teach martial arts so we share that in common.
|
|
My point was that claiming to study martial arts doesn't carry any weight here.congratulations? i happy you studied martial arts, but i dont see what that has to do with someone who has no clue what they are talking about... acting like they know what they are talking about.I ignored the radius of "the arm" because that's not how you wield a staff.Depends on the staff. The kind of staff used in martial arts forms competitions doesn't get swung. Shorter staffs like what might actually be used in a serious, one-on-one combat -are- swung.
As for your Tracie's martial arts training, I hope you realize that many of us have taken martial arts training. I, myself, have studied a lot of martial arts (from systema to silat, kempo to kali, boxing, aikjutsu, taijijuan, and on) and have a black belt and have been a certified teacher. I'm just one of many. A lot of people who play RPGs do martial arts as well.
and my point is that i wasn't doing anything more then correcting someone who had a misconception about how a weapon is used. how that involved you needing to tell me that my martial arts background means nothing... was unnecessary because that opinion carries no weight with me.
I ignored the radius of "the arm" because that's not how you wield a staff.Depends on the staff. The kind of staff used in martial arts forms competitions doesn't get swung. Shorter staffs like what might actually be used in a serious, one-on-one combat -are- swung.
As for your Tracie's martial arts training, I hope you realize that many of us have taken martial arts training. I, myself, have studied a lot of martial arts (from systema to silat, kempo to kali, boxing, aikjutsu, taijijuan, and on) and have a black belt and have been a certified teacher. I'm just one of many. A lot of people who play RPGs do martial arts as well.
You must get what I'm trying to say about the jab?
The shorter staff, while swung, isn't a double weapon. Sure you can take a shorter staff and swing it like a bat and have it go faster than my example. Once per round, 2H with PA if you swing it like a bat. But still, the end is unweighted, and would use the equation I used.
4' staff + 3' arm = 2.33 meters:
v = 2pi x 2.33 = 14.65 m/s
Same as my jab example.
So point taken. Perhaps we can agree on equal effectiveness under certain circumstances?
Again, true for golf clubs and baseball bats. Not true for a uniformly weighted object.Wrong. Any firm stick that moves in a circle will have the end move faster than the center. This is most noticeable when the grip is on the end of the stick (such as with a golf club or baseball bat), but applies equally to when the grip is in the middle. The only thing that matters is that it's a firm stick moving in circles.
Uniform weight has got nothing to do with it.
Halfway down.
I'm really not, so if someone can do better math than I did on the subject I'd like to see it.
I think a better solution would be to stick an accelerometer on the end. (SCIENCE!) Failing that,If i put sparklers or small flashlights on the end of my staff i can't get a staff to blur on a thrust, but if i'm spinning it, even two weapon style, its a piece of cake.
Again, true for golf clubs and baseball bats. Not true for a uniformly weighted object.
Its not a matter of weight its a matter of length. if i have a baseball bat or a staff held at the very end in one hand and move my wrist x degrees the far end moves x amount of distance depending on the length, weight doesn't really enter into it.
I think the thing your math is missing is that you have two hands moving in opposite directions and one is essentially a pivot point for the others leverage. Also you're adding force over a longer period of time
You're right about the other hand, it would add pivot. I'm not sure how much that would affect the speed. It would depend on how it's wielded--more if held like a spear, less if held as a double weapon.
In practice, the differences between swinging and jabbing are too complex to boil down to a set of simple equations. Remember, physics isn't the only thing to consider. Physiology, to pick just one example, plays a bigger role.
Ergonomics and human factors experts use sophisticated computers and imaging and even they get stuff wrong from time to time.
The best way to approach this is through heavy lab work. That being the case, take your stick and swing it at your heavy punching bag and then jab it at your heavy punching bag and see which one most effectively transmits the most force.
I would be very interested to see lab results like that.
If one can push off the ground with 1000 lbs of force, it follows that a jab could deliver 1000 lbs of force. Maybe more, factoring in extension of the spine and arms. It would depend on the skill of the jabber. The swinger, not as much.
Someone in the weapon thread said the average male can swing a greatsword with 2500 lbs of force. But that's a greatsword--much more mass. I wonder what the actual swing force could be with a staff.
You must be using Oriental style staves. The default stave for PF is a Quarterstaff, which is heavily weighted towards one end, not equal. Even for wizard's staves, it assumes one end is carved/adorned, and so heavier then the other.
But that is besides the point, weighting towards one end has nothing to do with more speed...if anything, it will slow an object down, because it takes more energy just to get it moving. A tip heavy object is harder to get moving then an equal weight object. Moment of inertia refers to the release of energy on impact, but also to the energy required to get the damn thing started.
Look, just do a sample study.
You're jumping forward when you jab.
Fine, jump forward when you swing. That momentum is now equal between the two styles.
Thrust forward with your arm while you jump. Fine. Bring your arm forward when you swing. Same thing.
Now, on top of those two things, spin the weapon you are using around and hit with the end, instead of jabbing where the staff doesn't move, your arm and body do.
Thrust is x + Y. Swing is X + Y + Z.
Arguing 'concentration of force' is completely up to the area of the impact site. It has nothing to do with speed.
A light martial art staff held in the middle can be snapped forward by your wrists much faster then a thrust, which requires your whole arm. Again, speed, not force. circular motion also plays into human physiology, our bodies are not adapted for straight linear motion as well as circular effects.
And we're not talking lateral vs ductile strength of a staff here, either.
A swung staff moves faster and carries more inertia. That is just truth. Whether it is more or less effective is a completely different story.
==Aelryinth
In the first case, all the characters' wealth should regularly disappear, if their enemies have pickpockets that good. A party which has just earned a load of money are on their way to becoming more dangerous, so it makes sense to steal it. The same goes for weapons (and unless the weapon is huge, stealing something from a sheath at someone's belt should be as easy as stealing a book they carry around on their person), not to mention equipment (skilled pick-pockets can take off people's rings without them noticing). And in the second case, someone who can sneak up on the party while people are sleeping should be able to steal much more, as well as slitting some throats.
There is a risk vs. reward thing to consider. Spellbooks are expensive (potentially -very- expensive), easily portable, and easily sellable. That is to say, they offer a high reward for anyone willing to take the risk of trying to steal it. That is to say a higher reward than other similar risks might offer. The bigger the potential reward, the bigger the risk the thief is going to be willing to take.
As for "why not just kill the wizard in his sleep?" A wizard can survive a coup de grace, then he's actively engaged in casting "hurt you" spells at the thief. It's far safer for the thief to not risk an attack on the wizard.
Plus, as a GM, it's a pretty dick move to just tell the wizard PC "you're dead". Stealing the spellbook gives the wizard an opportunity to do something in reply.
Spellbooks? Expensive? potentially -very- expensive?
No, no under the current rules, even if it had a ritual accompaning it no.Of course if the spellbook is a blessed book then yes it would be quite expensive but most of it's cost would come from being a wondrous item than from being a spellbook.
Really? Swinging a stick does more "damage" to the body than stabbing? Please sir rethink this statement. I swing and hit your arm. Ouch. Maybe you have a broken arm. I stab and hit you in the EYE. Now which did more "damage"?
Really? Swinging a stick does more "damage" to the body than stabbing? Please sir rethink this statement. I swing and hit your arm. Ouch. Maybe you have a broken arm. I stab and hit you in the EYE. Now which did more "damage"?
You need to read the full post. He's talking swinging a staff vs thrusting with a staff.
As for the whole thrusting vs slashing debate, that's something else.
And thrusting vs a guy in full armor is totally ineffective unless you hit him in the eye. If you take a weighted quarterstaff shod and cored with iron, and hit him in the arm, he's going to lose the use of his arm. If you hit him in the head, he's going to get a concussion or break his neck...right through his helm.
So, 'swing and hit your arm' is actually 'swing and paralyze your arm, making you drop your little rapier', or 'swing and break your arm'.
yes, ouch. You do know that a Marine clouting you with his assault rifle can break your skull, right?
===Aelryinth
...Loads of stuff which amounted to... "I have not listened to you, nor will I."
I know you enjoy your game, I enjoy mine. Sleep well, I intend to.
|
|
Spellbooks? Expensive? potentially -very- expensive?
No, no under the current rules, even if it had a ritual accompaning it no.
Of course if the spellbook is a blessed book then yes it would be quite expensive but most of it's cost would come from being a wondrous item than from being a spellbook.
You do realize that the worth of a spellbook is far more than the 15 gp to buy a blank one, right? Assuming you have the kind of lenient GM that let's you just go into MunchkinsRus and say "Gimme all the 1st-3rd level wizard spells available in this campaign setting" and then pay Core Rules value for them, that's an ENORMOUS investment. Not that even after buying this crapload of scrolls and your blank spellbook, you then have to pay the price to enscribe them into your spellbook, investing even MORE money and lots of time.
You do realize that the worth of a spellbook is far more than the 15 gp to buy a blank one, right? Assuming you have the kind of lenient GM that let's you just go into MunchkinsRus and say "Gimme all the 1st-3rd level wizard spells available in this campaign setting" and then pay Core Rules value for them, that's an ENORMOUS investment. Not that even after buying this crapload of scrolls and your blank spellbook, you then have to pay the price to enscribe them into your spellbook, investing even MORE money and lots of time.Spellbooks? Expensive? potentially -very- expensive?
No, no under the current rules, even if it had a ritual accompaning it no.
Of course if the spellbook is a blessed book then yes it would be quite expensive but most of it's cost would come from being a wondrous item than from being a spellbook.
When you sell a spellbook you don't take into account the way the spell was accuired, so it doesn't matter if the spels in a spellbook comes from the two free spells per level or buying scrolls or paying someone else to look in their spellbook, the value of a spellbook is the cost of scribing the spells in the spellbook (the table shown in p.219) and the price of the book and any other extras it might have (lock's, magical traps etc.).
For example let's take a look at the UM's spellbook called library of the dancer of the skins, without the ritual the book's cost* is 16,420 gp, and that's 19th level wizard's spellbook. As you can understand at 19th level 16K gp are pretty much pocket money.*the cost of some of the spellbooks might not be correct, iirc SKR has said that. but even then the costs can't be off by more 2K gp up or down even at such high levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're not trying to say a thrusting staff moves faster then a swinging staff, are you?I didn't TRY to say it. I proved it. A staff is not a baseball. You're using the wrong equation.
polymorph any object disagrees.