Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh yes. As always, this is something that is devilishly hard to code, but really adds something to the game when done right. Heck, Skyrim is the first computer game to really have a physics engine in fantasy combat, and look at what they can do with it! This may be too much to put into an MMO, but a decent physics engine is a much better use of computer power than simply adding more polygons or more antialiasing. (In my opinion, anyway...) At the very least, add knockback into the game... that always makes fights more fun. "That's a very nice castle wall you're standing on - BULL RUSH!"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I encountered a club-wielding giant in real life, I would run away as fast as possible. It would be nice to have incentive to flee from things that our characters could never *actually* subdue in one-on-one combat.
Like Arbalester said, at least a knockback would be a nice touch. I don't really feel epic when I single-handedly take down a behemoth of an opponent. I just feel like I'm cheating. (Unless I'm climbing all over it and stabbing in in soft places, a la Shadow of the Colossus!)
Feeling actual fear for my own pretty hide is a rare gem of delight in a video game. It's fun to encounter things that take a lot of creativity and resourcefulness to defeat, as opposed to "who can last longer while dealing damage." It's even more fun when, under a lot of circumstances, that opponent is one swing away from grinding my bones into meal to make his bread.
Being able to zone out and mow your way through enemy after enemy has its merits. But I am of the opinion that a little fear and uncertainty in an encounter is the better option any way you, dare I say, swing it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
OTOH, RPGs, whether computer or table top, are simulating genre rather than real life.
Too strict adherence to realism and physics breaks genre conventions and that isn't good.
For example, that giant swinging the huge sledge hammer at you collapses under his own weight before he hits you. And if you propose he avoids that fate by some innate magic, why not let use the same approach to let the hero fight him?
Well obvious exceptions apply, but actual knockbacks etc... would be interesting. I also wouldn't be opposed to there being some enemies where dodging, cutting in cutting out, fighting from range etc... to be manditory if you are to defeat them. Tanking does not need to be the universal way to defeat any foe.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are some serious issues with the physics of giant humanoids. That much mass vertically stacked would likely result in their own body weight crushing their internal organs. This is a real threat that elephants have to deal with. Zoo keepers go into panic mode if an elephant has been lying on its side for more than a half hour.
The atmosphere is considerably thinner today than it was even just a few million years ago, and thus provides less buoyancy to organisms, a factor that prevents the existence of any land animals today much larger than an elephant being able to survive. This is a big obstacle in trying to create a modern day Jurassic Park.
Most of the thinning of the atmosphere happens from hydrogen loss, blowing off into space: about 95,000 tonnes a year. That is countered by "space dust", which is a mix of solids and gases, but still at only 40,000 tonnes a year the net result is a thinning atmosphere.
Giant insects and arthropods would have to be tossed out as well. One of the first land creatures on Earth was giant spiders. Massive little buggers the size of a large dog. As more and more animals appeared on land and began sucking up all the oxygen, spiders were forced, yes, because of physics, to go smaller. Spiders have no heart nor lungs. They absorb oxygen through their outer surface, which is why their design requires they have such a large surface area to body mass ratio. The absence of a heart means no circulation, so they need to be able to absorb a large enough quantity of oxygen that it can get around everywhere it's needed by absorption and diffusion. It also meant giant spiders were terrible runners, and got exhausted very quickly after trying to chase their prey - thus the evolution of spider webs. This explains why the spider's and the scorpion's aquatic cousins are still today so much larger than their land relatives.
Anyways, just want to point out that you need to be careful how much you want to focus on proper physics when discussing a fantasy setting.
And discounting the abilities of what +5 Armor can do, or a +5 sword.
Why couldn't you raise a +5 sword and parry that hammer?
Why couldn't +5 armor bounce a hit from it?
As a hero you're already stronger then any human that ever lived...is that strength from muscle power, or more like touchteke (what Superman has)?
Physics works from levels 1-6, and then after that you really gotta let magic step back and do its thing.
==Aelryinth
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Blaeringr, I'm well aware of the effects of our thinning atmosphere, but that's not even the main thing that makes animals much larger than elephants unlikely. We are exposed to a significant amount of Gamma Radiation which makes us roughly 2/3 the size/health we would potentially be just without that exposure. Given that there are actual human beings in the last century on earth that were over 8 feet tall, that makes a rational case for giants around 12 feet tall being not that wildly impossible in this real world.
@Aelryinth, What if the giant's hammer is +6? *grins*
I understand the point y'all are trying to make: that the fun and flavor of the game shouldn't take a backseat to physics. I even agree with it, to a point.
I would ask that y'all try to actually understand the point I'm trying to make and not pretend like I'm saying something I'm not.
All I'm askin' is for a little constraint... (C-O-N-STRAI-N-T, find out what it means to me)
There are some serious issues with the physics of giant humanoids. That much mass vertically stacked would likely result in their own body weight crushing their internal organs. This is a real threat that elephants have to deal with. Zoo keepers go into panic mode if an elephant has been lying on its side for more than a half hour.
The atmosphere is considerably thinner today than it was even just a few million years ago, and thus provides less buoyancy to organisms, a factor that prevents the existence of any land animals today much larger than an elephant being able to survive. This is a big obstacle in trying to create a modern day Jurassic Park.
Most of the thinning of the atmosphere happens from hydrogen loss, blowing off into space: about 95,000 tonnes a year. That is countered by "space dust", which is a mix of solids and gases, but still at only 40,000 tonnes a year the net result is a thinning atmosphere.
Giant insects and arthropods would have to be tossed out as well. One of the first land creatures on Earth was giant spiders. Massive little buggers the size of a large dog. As more and more animals appeared on land and began sucking up all the oxygen, spiders were forced, yes, because of physics, to go smaller. Spiders have no heart nor lungs. They absorb oxygen through their outer surface, which is why their design requires they have such a large surface area to body mass ratio. The absence of a heart means no circulation, so they need to be able to absorb a large enough quantity of oxygen that it can get around everywhere it's needed by absorption and diffusion. It also meant giant spiders were terrible runners, and got exhausted very quickly after trying to chase their prey - thus the evolution of spider webs. This explains why the spider's and the scorpion's aquatic cousins are still today so much larger than their land relatives.
Anyways, just want to point out that you need to be careful how much you want to focus on proper physics when discussing a fantasy setting.
Dude, I really love your science. If you were talking like this in any other circumstance, I think we would be fast friends. But if you're suggesting that large insects (a staple of D&D, Lord of the Rings and other fantasy) should be banned because of issues of scientific internal consistency, I have to fervently disagree. Personally, I want to tame a giant spider! At the very least they would make fun enemies. I doubt that the design team will be so anal as to ban anything that couldn't exist due to natural law. After all, what is magic?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My only real request for this issue is that the world be consistent with itself. I don't mind there being physics that aren't compatible with our reality, as long as they're compatible with PO's reality. I don't mind a universe that has rules that are different from ours, but I really hate to see a universe bending its own rules.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Dude, I really love your science. If you were talking like this in any other circumstance, I think we would be fast friends. But if you're suggesting that large insects (a staple of D&D, Lord of the Rings and other fantasy) should be banned because of issues of scientific internal consistency, I have to fervently disagree. Personally, I want to tame a giant spider! At the very least they would make fun enemies. I doubt that the design team will be so anal as to ban anything that couldn't exist due to natural law. After all, what is magic?
I'm pretty sure he isn't calling for a banning of D&D staples, he's just making a joke on referencing that 100% true physics is incompatible with D&D, which of course is true, if half the things in the D&D universe were possible, we'd have them in the real world. Neither the OP or anyone else is actually asking for 100% true real world physics.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Still get a +1 from me. And my PF "heroes" (and the campaigns I run) tend to be heroes by circumstance and the choices they make, not because of their uber attributes.
Real 3m (10ft) hominids lived up to 300k years ago. I realize this is a far cry from the 18ft of a cloud giant, but we (on Earth) also do not have minerals like mithril or adamantium with which our body could use to make light weight composite materials for bones and the such.
There were also the 12 feet tall standing birds (Moa) several hundreds years ago. Assuming an ostrich's kick may drop a lion, a Moa might be able to drop something mightier?(not sure)
ps. Didn't Witcher 2 also integrate some "impact physics" into the game? I remember using signs to knock enemies off cliffs and such.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As for size of giants, I'd assumed a "Giant towering over me with a sledge hammer with the business as big as I am" was a little bigger than 10' tall or even 18'.
Then you would not be in Golarion. Giants range from 10 ft tall (Hill Giants) to 21 ft tall (Storm Giants).
EDIT: I think those heights are adult averages.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If we used physics and base it off average Strength (as the last poster did here), a Cloud Giant's Morningstar would weigh 1344 lbs (they can wield Gargantuan weapons). Being hit by a full swing of a 1344 lbs weapon would be like being hit by a car.
This is well within their base encumberance allowance of 3,680 lbs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If we used physics and base it off average Strength (as the last poster did here), a Cloud Giant's Morningstar would weigh 1344 lbs (they can wield Gargantuan weapons). Being hit by a full swing of a 1344 lbs weapon would be like being hit by a car.
This is well within their base encumberance allowance of 3,680 lbs.
So you go from 6lbs in the hands of a medium creature (approx 6') to a huge mace in the hands of a cloud giant (18') being 1344 lbs?
The thread you referenced was using D&D rules, which as shown here http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Morningstar describe the step from medium to large as 2x. Your assertion then is that from large to huge, we increase mass by 100x. Mind you those rules put the mace as over 2x what they historically actually weighed.
So let's start with the D&D version of the medium sized morningstar at 6 lbs. Since steel weighs 0.283 lbs/cu. inch, that gives us 21.2 cubic inches of steel, which gives us a solid cube 2.76 inches on all sides. Morningstars weren't typically just a simple cube though; by shaping it into a ball with spikes, you'd typically end up with something at least double those dimensions.
So let's apply that to a 1344 lbs morningstar:
1344 lbs = 4749 (rounded down) cubic inches of steel which gives us a perfect cube 16.8 inches on each side. Craft that into a morningstar shape and you're talking a steel ball 3' across.
Compare each to the height of the creature wielding them to get a ratio of comparison:
6" by a 72" creature = the human is 12 times the height the head of his morningstar.
3' by a 18' creature = the cloud giant is only 6 times the height of the head of his weapon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
First point: the system you are using to make these conversions is not accurate. It involves a lot of assumptions, has little grasp of what these figures actually look like, and is not following "physics" very well.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
So let's move on to the force calculations for swinging something like that.
Let's compare the swing of a morningstar to the swing of a bat. Statistically, professional athletes are said to hit with the tip of their bat for 8000 lbs of force. So if we ignore the fact that a cloud giant has longer arms, and thus a faster swing...
f=ma
f1=8000lbs, m1=6lbs, a1=8000/6 = 1333
Now we redo that with a 1344lbs weapon and we get 1791552 lbs of force from a cloud giant with arms the length of Babe Ruth. Longer arms would mean...gah, nevermind.
You can go to this site here to compare it to a car crash: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/carcr.html
In order to get the kind of force you're talking about behind such a swing, you would have to compare it to a car, weighing 3200 lbs, crashing into a person who is standing still while the car is traveling at...calculating...130 mph. I don't care what armor you're wearing or what level you are, that's insta-kill with nothing left for your loved ones to bury.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Second point: Your hypothetical giant, if we were to shrink his arms down to the length of a human's, is still swinging harder than a 3200lbs car moving at 130 mph.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Now let's move on to the scaling of strength. Many people have heard the interesting fact that ants can carry 50 times its body weight. How can a creature with no lungs and no heart manage such an amazing feat of strength?!
Answer: it has nothing to do with their biology, but the physics of size. As mass increases, the amount of force need to move it increases. But this increase is not a straight increase. As the mass increases, the amount of force needed to move it increase exponentially. Same pattern goes for trying to move an object faster and faster, which is why it takes infinite energy to hit light speed.
Here's a link to a graph portraying this: http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/may99/927263695.Gb.1.jpg
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Third point: because of mass scaling, a creature 3x as large as a human moving an object 3 times as big as the object the human is trying to move would need to use 9 times the force. The leap of 100x you're talking about would mean 10,000x the force to swing it. With stubby human arms. More if you want to swing it in the arc of an 18' tall giant's reach.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: we need to find a different system that what that link you gave proposed for determining weapon size and weight for different size categories, cause that aint "physiscs".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
PS. These sizes could be brought into much more manageable ranges by dramatically slowing down the acceleration and end speeds of their attack swings.
PPS. And if you're comparing it to two humans fighting, it doesn't even fare well there as the size scaling is off. The size of the morningstar used by the human is MUCH smaller than the relative size of the morningstar used by the giant. You're talking about increasing the height of the character by 3x and his mass by, what? 10x at most I'm guessing? So if they're using the same rules as two humans fighting, then why is the mass of their weapons scaled by 100x? Even completely ignoring the scaling physics of exponentially greater force for greater mass, that doesn't add up.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ah right, the type of Giant I referenced in my example can use a Gargantuan weapon, a size bigger than even their Huge (this is a racial feat). I was trying to illustrate the point with an extreme case.
To be on par your human would have to be using a large morning star. Any other type of giant would use a 220lb Morningstar. And I also agree with your claim about requiring a slowing swing. This is what I assumed was part of what makes it harder to hit a smaller character. Likewise, humans move slower in turn than diminutive creatures.
|
For example, that giant swinging the huge sledge hammer at you collapses under his own weight before he hits you.
You don't know?
Oh, that's right. Hmm, in Forbidden Archaeology they talk about giant fossilized human skeletons that have been exhumed. In the Early 1900s, a Norseman traveled to Ultima Thule (Agartha) with his father on his boat, and they met giant human beings about 15 feet tall.
You really think they can collapse under their own weight? According to Eyewitness testimony of this Norseman, they looked spry and agile. Until you've seen a giant for yourself, I really don't think you should be making comments like that. They may be versed in Scientific Fact, but then again, those experts in Biology haven't seen an actual giant either. So, right now, until you've seen an actual giant -- I will treat your statement as fact based on opinion rather than eyewitness testimony.
In other words, I actually have to see a giant before I accept it as truth.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@GM Elton are you suggesting these giants, which you are accepting as fact on nothing more than a single eyewitness, wielded a perfectly scaled weapon, nevermind the hugely exaggerated scaling being suggested here? If the story you read suggests such a man was really able to swing a hammer with a 6 foot head then you might want to reconsider the reliability of your source. Consider even the scaled down, 3 foot (not full volume as the 6 foot hammer) morningstar head. To swing that keep in mind what Newton said that any action has an opposite and equal reaction. For any creature to swing what the OP was suggesting at a speed not so slow to make it very very very very easy to dodge, they would have to use enough force to snap their own arms off.
@KitNyx you're still suggesting that though the rules state medium to large morningstar goes from 6 lbs to 12 lbs, the next step up is 220 lbs? That's 2x for one step and 36.6x for two steps?!!
All you, and the author of the post you linked, have succeeded in demonstrating is that the official rules' system for scaling maximum encumbrance (which by the way works completely the opposite of how it works in reality, in that the D&D rules increase what you can carry exponentially as you get larger, rather than marginally) is not at all an effective measuring stick for scaling weapons.
I'm all for the fantasy of bigger monsters with bigger weapons, but please try to imagine what 220 lbs of steel looks like next to 6 lbs of steel and ask yourself if that scale makes any sense whatsoever for what you're suggesting.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Lets consider this request for a moment. What monsters would that leave to fight, without ending a bloody smear by implied forces alone?
Giants? Out
Dragons? Babys maybe, but mostly out.
Demons? Some fit in, but mostly out.
Bears? As long as they don't move too fast... maybe.
Enemies would have to be either "PC races" or extremely carefully selected, and many opportunities for the players to "feel heroic" would be out from the get-go.
Many players want ridiculous sizes. Looking at popular MMOs, most have "group enemies" many times the typical player size for very practical reasons: Players feel more important, while at the same time, the enemy is not completely hidden by PCs, so it can still be seen, targeted, ...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So any close-range class is excluded from a significant chunk of encounters, standing by and cheering as their long-distance friends have all the fun? Sounds like a bug to me ;)
Seriously, though - I have the utmost respect for Goblinworks' attempt to balance all the possible combinations available in their "classless classes" system. Adding significant chunks of content that more or less requires deep investment into maybe three paths would make it quite hard to argue for not taking these paths to their extreme.
In addition, have you ever heard about elephant hunting with bow and arrow. In short, it is not done. Elephants used to be taken down with spear-slings and insane amounts of traps. At the most suicidal, long spears were used. Now blow that elephant up around 4 times, and you get a dragon worthy of the name. What weapon is going to even get past the scales and flesh to pierce something more than just annoying?
Some realism needs to be traded in for fun. That is why EvE (which this game seems ever closer to copying) is taking far reaching liberties not only with lots of physics, but also with economics (free unlimited storage in every station), criminal justice (capsuleer criminals losing a ship, but nothing beyond that from police action) and general logic (why do the space zombies stop shooting at my pod, instead of hauling it in and trying to convert me). Having large enemies seem to be a very acceptable tradeoff to me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What TerraNova said. It should be ridiculously obvious at this point that focusing too much on good proper physics is going nowhere.
That aside, @KitNyx you still want to stick to a system that goes:
6' guy has 6 lbs weapon
12' guy has 12 lbs weapon
18' guy has 220 lbs weapon, but could conceivably use 1344 lbs weapon just as easily because of a feat?
If that makes any remote kind of sense to you, use what rules you feel comfortable with.
How about add in the awesome blow feat for large monsters? Make it an attack enemies can use or happen when they crits on the target. No complex physics required(?), and your character still can be sent flying by enemies.
Truth.
I always like to say that a +1 Weapon is effectively almost doubling the hitting power of the weapon (with the +1 converting to 2 pts of damage). It's also emulating the power of +2 Strength.
So, take a man with a 23 strength, give him a +5 longsword. He's effectively hitting/stopping/parrying stuff with that thing EXACTLY like someone with a 33 Strength.
If he's got a strength of 30 due to buffs, that's a 40 Strength.
He's STRONGER then the giant swinging that weapon. Because of the magic of the weapon.
So, yeah, I could see that gargantuan warhammer come crashing down...and bounce/get knocked aside. I imagine the expression the giant has on his face will be pretty impressive as that happens, too.
==Aelryinth
The problem lies with the abstraction of damage not differentiating between a skillful cut, a massive blow, and an intense burn...
Dot
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Square-cube law. If you increase one dimension to three times base and keep the proportions the same, surface area goes up to nine times, and volume/weight goes up to twenty seven times.
None of the above necessarily applies to magical beasts, creatures with an origin other than 'natural', or anything that already breaks physics, like oozes or undead.
The other problem lies with the abstraction of HP. A good GM in a tabletop can describe what happened based on the attack and the amount of damage it dealt in comparison to the hp the victim has total and/or left. To get the realism that you'd like would either need a extremely powerful AI with creativity or a different gaming system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Screw realistic physics and being smart about what is or is not possible. It's simple -
Can we push/shove/knock and be pushed/shoved/knocked about?
Can massive things squish proportionately smaller things?
@Blaeringr, I'm well aware of the effects of our thinning atmosphere, but that's not even the main thing that makes animals much larger than elephants unlikely. We are exposed to a significant amount of Gamma Radiation which makes us roughly 2/3 the size/health we would potentially be just without that exposure. Given that there are actual human beings in the last century on earth that were over 8 feet tall, that makes a rational case for giants around 12 feet tall being not that wildly impossible in this real world.
@Aelryinth, What if the giant's hammer is +6? *grins*
I understand the point y'all are trying to make: that the fun and flavor of the game shouldn't take a backseat to physics. I even agree with it, to a point.
I would ask that y'all try to actually understand the point I'm trying to make and not pretend like I'm saying something I'm not.
All I'm askin' is for a little constraint... (C-O-N-STRAI-N-T, find out what it means to me)
Most people that tall had a health problem that would not regulate their height, such as Robert Walding(fist person in your link) and Andre the Giant(WWF/WWE wrestler). I don't think a medical condition is the same as normal height.
Phyics won't work. If you get hit by a giant your armor and shield are in bad condition, and your arm would probably break from trying to block the blow.
Now if you just want to see people flying across the screen due to being that is cool, but that is not the same as actual physics being in play.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Phyics won't work. If you get hit by a giant your armor and shield are in bad condition, and your arm would probably break from trying to block the blow.
Indeed. Maces, morningstars and picks are shaped the way they are to do a job for which role playing games do not give them adequate credit: effectively and easily punching holes in armor. It's a fact with which my family has personal history. The Hussite wars were fought by poorly armored bohemians against heavily armored German crusaders, and they successfully repelled 4 crusades largely by using weapons that doubled as can openers - war picks. Hussites would frequently carry several small picks to punish any German foolish enough to be carrying a shield. They would punch a spare pick through that shield, pinning it to the soldier's now crippled arm, and turn it into deadweight rather than defense.
You drive 1,791,552 lbs of force behind the single spike of a morningstar, less than a square inch, as in the example above, and you'll have no trouble punching a whole through the armor of a modern tank, as well as right out the other side, nevermind a silly little knight.
And once you interject with magic, exactly how are you going to justify the fact that items enhanced by magic are Totally Invulnerable to mundane items or weapons with lesser enhancement?
That 2 million lbs of force club smashes into the +1 shield, and it will BOUNCE harmlessly...it simply can't do ANYTHING to it. Ditto the parry +1 sword. No force flows through...the item is simply unaffected! You actually have to beat the armor class to make it happen.
Isn't magic wonderful?
==Aelryinth
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
TANGENT ALERT!!!
Because that's really where this thread has gone.
I really don't want to interrupt everyone's suspension of disbelief. Fantasy is a wonderful thing. Without it, Spiderman would no longer be able to support his own body weight on his weak spider legs, and the troll in the Lord of the Rings would have his arms fall off at the elbows when trying to pick up that stupidly huge hammer he was swinging around.
But we love seeing Spiderman leap across roof tops, and we love the protagonist dodging such supernatural danger.
So, shut up, Blaeringr! Let them have their cursed quasi physics. Let them discuss crafting scenarios where absolute real world rules don't have to totally apply, but can apply enough to create a fun of its own. Shut up, me!