I have an idea for a ridiculous, stupid powerful summoner synthesist, he will likely never ever see the light of day but, for my curiosity's sake, what would the dimensions of a huge elven curve blade be?
At least 3.
-Kle.
LMAO seriously that's a fantastic answer. But more seriously how many kobolds could you skewer over an open flame with one?
42.
No one knows... *makes spooky hand gestures with eerie theremin noises*
Seriously though, probably in the 4-5 foot range, like the other two handed swords in the books, would be the medium size. So...I guess scaling up from there would make it about 3 times the size to be proportionate? So 12-15 feet? Except they don't give any additional reach...
Are there any rules to figure out the size for this kind of thing? >_> <_<
Assuming humanoid form, Large size begins at ~8 feet. Huge begins at ~16 feet and goes to around ~32 feet I think before becoming Gargantuan.
What are the dimensions of a typical falchion? How does it compare to a 6-foot tall humanoid?
From there it's all about ratios. For example, if your typical falchion is 5 feet long and an inch thick at the widest point such as the handle (numbers pulled from my bumm), and your huge form is 30 feet, then it stands to reason that a falchion built for your huge form would be 25 feet long with a 5 inch wide handle.
Are there any rules to figure out the size for this kind of thing? >_> <_<
Nope. As far as I know, no weapon has dimensions listed. Weapon length has no meaning beyond "Is this a reach weapon?", which actually has nothing to do with a weapons length but its stats instead. If a Fine sized (6 inch tall max) creature found a way to wield a colossal creatures greatsword (which, if proportional in size to a medium creatures greatsword would be 64 feet long minimum), the fine creature still has a reach of 0 ft, and must enter a creatures square to hit it.
your question has a few answers.
Beware, heavily approximated math ahead-
generally when you increase by one size category, you increase mass by x8.
So, a curveblade for a medium creature would be sized up twice, or mass x64. A curve blade is listed as weighing 7 pounds. 7x64 is 448. So there's your approximate weight.
As for size, it's a little trickier. A curveblade is about 2/3rds the length of a medium creature's body. since they're specifically elven, we'll use that. Given average elven height we can guess that a curve blade is 3.5 feet long. I'll buy that as a good length for a Katana like weapon made to be 2-handed by a short race.
We'll assume a smaller height for a Huge creature as well since elves are short. Say, 16 feet. 2/3rds of 16 is a little more than 10, so that's going to be the approximate length of a Huge curveblade.
The width of a curve blade looks to be about an inch, which is about 1/42 it's length. That means a Huge curve blade is about 3 inches wide.
Thickness will be about a quarter that, making it 3/4ths of an inch thick.
Now, the weight measurement from earlier is completely at odds with the size measurements we have just extrapolated. A piece of steel ten feet long, three inches wide and a little less than an inch thick would be nowhere near that heavy.
Steel weighs apx. .28 pounds per cubic inch.
our curve blade is about 360 cubic inches of steel. That's actually only about 100 pounds.
A blade of similar dimensions weighing as much as the rules say it should would actually be 15 feet long, 4.5 inches wide and 1.5 inches thick.
So take your pick. Personally, I'd go with the 100 pound, 10 foot long version.
Nope. As far as I know, no weapon has dimensions listed. Weapon length has no meaning beyond "Is this a reach weapon?", which actually has nothing to do with a weapons length but its stats instead. If a Fine sized (6 inch tall max) creature found a way to wield a colossal creatures greatsword (which, if proportional in size to a medium creatures greatsword would be 64 feet long minimum), the fine creature still has a reach of 0 ft, and must enter a creatures square to hit it.
Are there any rules to figure out the size for this kind of thing? >_> <_<
Yeah, the rules work kinda weird for that. Actually though, the greatsword says it's "about 5 feet in length" - that's what I was going off of for the 15ish.
@ Doomed Hero
I think I like your 100lb, 10ft version, as the character I'm building wields 5 of them. So the follow up question becomes how does he carry them when he isn't sync'd with his summon. They are definitly too large for any bag of holding i know of...I could keep them all in a portable hole though, Thematically I'd prefer 5 sheaths of bladestealth but I don't think I can wear that many, nor would I want to kill 5 magic item slots that way.
Any thoughts?
According to RAW, the weapon's weight doubles each time it increases in size. Therefore, a huge falchion would weigh a "mere 32 pounds."
that would make the curve blade 28 lbs then? that definitely doesn't sound right, easier to carry granted but still sounds wrong
According to RAW, the weapon's weight doubles each time it increases in size. Therefore, a huge falchion would weigh a "mere 32 pounds."
Where are you getting this?
According to Enlarge Person, a character's weight increases by x8 when they go up a size category. I would assume the same thing happens to all their gear.
As for carrying them, the shrink object spell would work. Just enchant them to shrink as a command word, dismissible at will, just like the spell effect.
Another option is to sheath them all into a bag of holding.
According to Enlarge Person, a character's weight increases by x8 when they go up a size category. I would assume the same thing happens to all their gear.
This is not the case for equipment ... from the footnote of the equipment - weapons table:
1 Weight figures are for Medium weapons. A Small weapon weighs half as much, and a Large weapon weighs twice as much.
This seems to be the case for armor as well. RD was on the right track, and I think we can extrapolate the table listed as Armor for Unusual creatures and find the weight of our Curve Blade.
Size---------Humanoid------Nonhumanoid
------------Cost/Weight-----Cost/Weight
Small:-------[×1/×1/2]----- [×2/×1/2]
Medium: ----[×1/×1]------- [×2/×1]
Large: ------[×2/×2]------- [×4/×2]
Huge: -------[×4/×5]------- [×8/×5 ]
Gargantuan: [×8/×8] -------[×16/×8]
Colossal: ---[×16/×12]----- [×32/×12]
You can see that the weight increases at an exponential level in regards to equipment. I would have used a weapon specific table, but couldn't find one.
So a Huge elven curve blade should weigh five times as much as a normal elven curve blade (35 lbs) and a huge falchion would be 40 lbs.
This is not the case for equipment ... from the footnote of the equipment - weapons table:1 Weight figures are for Medium weapons. A Small weapon weighs half as much, and a Large weapon weighs twice as much.
Ok, weapon weights have *always* been pretty off, but that seriously makes no sense.
Seems like some designer didn't really do his research on how volume increases work, and no one since has bothered to correct the mistake.
This is not the case for equipment ... from the footnote of the equipment - weapons table:1 Weight figures are for Medium weapons. A Small weapon weighs half as much, and a Large weapon weighs twice as much.Ok, weapon weights have *always* been pretty off, but that seriously makes no sense.
Seems like some designer didn't really do his research on how volume increases work, and no one since has bothered to correct the mistake.
Well, it depends on the weapon I guess. When it comes to something like a mace it makes no sense, but when it's a bladed weapon I could see it being increased less, because you wouldn't need to increase width propotionally to length to retain a working blade. If a blade is 2' long and 2'' thick, that doesn't mean a 4' blade has to be 4'' thick, I guess. I could very well be wrong, I'm no good with physics, but the daggers I've seen has had about 25-30 cm blade and maybe .7 cm thickness, while the arming swords I've seen have been maybe 60-75 cm blade with about 1 cm thickness.
EDIT: Oh, and that would work for maces too somewhat I think. You wouldn't need to double the thickness of a mace's handle just because it's for a larger creature.
EDIT2: The design reason is pretty obvious though. You can't have small characters being limited to 1/8 carrying capacity or the halfling wizard couldn't lift his spellbook. You can't have large characters with x8 carrying capacity or an ogre could carry around a house.
Seems like some designer didn't really do his research on how volume increases work, and no one since has bothered to correct the mistake.
I will concede the point that the numbers are pretty small, but it's the best I've got rules wise.
Seems like an area where the rules are at odds with the real world results of what they are trying to simulate, and also seemingly at odds with each other.
Might be worth making another thread and asking the devs.
Also, umm...Doomed Hero - nice calculations, but elves aren't short. Not in Pathfinder - elves are taller than humans, and fairly noticeably so on average especially (higher base height, smaller modifier dice, but adding up to higher max and average). In fact, elves are on average taller than half-orcs even, and only barely shorter at max height, with half the height variation half-orcs have.
Also, umm...Doomed Hero - nice calculations, but elves aren't short. Not in Pathfinder - elves are taller than humans, and fairly noticeably so on average especially (higher base height, smaller modifier dice, but adding up to higher max and average). In fact, elves are on average taller than half-orcs even, and only barely shorter at max height, with half the height variation half-orcs have.
Hmm. Well that's new. Thanks. :)
The formula works for any numbers. Math is cool like that.