Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Zepherdragon 08-14-05, 10:34 PM	IMHO: There needs to be some fine tweeking to better balance and create more realistic damages associated with weapons. It seems to me that there isn't a whole lot of appeal towards other more exotic weapons because they require feats, no threat range, lowered damage, and other penalties associated with them. Below are my ideas towards a potental D&D 4.0. I know full well that my ideas wont see the published light of day, but I would like some feed back and other IDEAS on this matter. There are some classifications that haven't been explained concering weapons. These things will be explained in other 4.0 Think Tank threads. I've gone into as much detail as I could on why I have chosen the following vaules. Medium Slashing Weapons- 2d4 (5.0 average damage), low piercing ability Medium Hafted Weapons- 1d12 (6.5 average damage), medium piecing ability Medium Piercing Weapons- 1d6 (3.5 average damae), high piercign ability Medium Bludgeoning Weapons- 1d4 (2.5 average damage), low pierchign ability Slashing weapons: these weapons have a large cutting surface area in comparison to their size and weight. The blades tend to be thin and sharp, which is best suited to slice through flesh and muscle. Slashing classes (long sword, katana, bastard sword, scimitar, etc...) have a consistant damage range, meaning when you hit your target, there's nearly a guarantee that the blade will make contact with the target. Because of the large cutting surface, they are poor at breaking through hard surfaces like steel armor. Hafted weapons: Aka, axe class weapons, are usually in the form of a thick heavy weighted blade at the end of a stick. These have the potentail to deal a massive amount of damage, and aslo deal nearly no damage at all. This is beacause the wielder may strike their target with the haft or only part of the blade. Because of this, they have a large range, but still average out to deal more damage than swords. Axes are also very good at piercing through hard surfaces, thus why they cut trees down with an axe rather than a sword. Piercing Weapons: These have a low damage because when they deal damage to a target, the area in which the damage is taken is confined to a small point. With less surface area they dont damage as many vital parts. The piercign weapons are perfect for getting through typical defences and have a high piercing ability. Bludgeoning Weapons: Most inferior of all weapons. These are the most primitave and simplest weapons, becides your hands, that NPC/PCs will use. They deal very little damage and have a minute ability to pierce through armor. Size increments: I propose a doubling of the damage a weapon deals when it increases in size. It's 2x as large and 8x as heavy. Granted a being has the strength to wield it they should 'at least' be able to deal 2x the damage (force=M*V^2, a weapon 8x as large has 8x the force as a weapon half it's size). Thus a medium sword that deals 2d4 damage would deal 4d4 as a large sword, 8d4 as a huge, 16d4 as a Gargantuan, and 32d4 as a Colossal. Aslo the size increases are not simple doubles, they are doubling the orginal size in three dimentions. This increases the volume x8. Doubling a cube requires a very obscure explanation http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/history/HistTopics/Doubling_the_cube.html, and is the basis of this reasoning. Simply doubling a cube, doubles the volume, weight, etc... So simply doubling the damage a weapon deals is a generous compromise compared to the other established dice incriments. As you will notice there is no threat range associated with the weapons. This is because striking a vital part on a target has more to do with the attacker and less to do with the weapon. Corse magical abilities can alter it like keen did in 3.x (enchantments like heart seeker, head hunter, etc...). Piercing is an expirment in realism and I admit, complicates combat a little. In the thread 4.0 Think Tank: Armor Class, I go into more detail about why there is a need for a piercign ability. The piercing ability a weapon grants multiplies the strength bonus in over coming damage reduction. Low is X1, medium is 2x, high is 3x, and very high is 4x. Damage reduction is a very large player in my vision of 4.0. Hopefully I put in everything I had on this matter and I'm eager to read responses.
Nom 08-15-05, 03:25 AM	Size increments: I propose a doubling of the damage a weapon deals when it increases in size. It's 2x as large and 8x as heavy. Granted a being has the strength to wield it they should 'at least' be able to deal 2x the damage (force=M*V^2, a weapon 8x as large has 8x the force as a weapon half it's size).In practice, a large weapon won't be 8x the volume of a medium one. Firstly, strength is usually proportional to cross-sectional area. As a general rule, creatures need to get stockier as they get larger, simply to support their own weight. You can re-engineer the biometry, of course, but a human who was simply "twice as big" would have serious physical problems. A similar argument applies to swords (and other weapons). If you double the mass of the blade, you're going to need to increase the cross sectional area sufficiently to counteract this. Since volume increases cubicly while cross-sectional area increases as a square, the shape must change, becoming stubbier. Finally, note your equation: F = M*V^2. Mass doesn't count as much as speed. If you want to increase damage, increase speed, and only add enough mass required to keep the weapon stable and stop it breaking. While I see where you are coming from, there seem to be a lot of simplisitic assumptions, which makes me question whether your ideas are any more "realistic" than the ones presented in the PH. Or any more playable.
Yanagita Kunio 08-15-05, 04:20 AM	I think you're drastically underestimating the power of bludgeons and piercing weapons. Your logic makes superficial sense on a physics level, but breaks down when one looks at the damage utility of weapons relative to physiology. A piercing weapon is good because it penetrates deeper into the body than slashing cut, and also because the point does not glance off bones, particularly the rib cage, but rather slides around [unless one hits a bone dead center]. As for the utility of bludgeons...I direct you to the existing thread in this section on why clubs and staves do lethal rather than subdual damage....
roetroc 08-15-05, 04:32 AM	One fencing master (Silver IIRC) mentions that that piercing weapons would do little damage to their victims in the short term and would frequently be able to fight on despite the wounds. Now these wounds might kill later on if on the torso (ie pierced internal organs) so perhaps a light amount of damage is the way to go but a secondary amount later on, asssuming the damage results in wounds such as I have described. Just a thought
Yanagita Kunio 08-15-05, 12:14 PM	Your fencing master is right...if you're talking about the low penetration and slender cross-section of a rapier. Yet a well-placed rapier could kill in short duration in the hands of a talented bravo. A spear thrust will make a wound about one to two inches across, three if the blade is leaf-shaped, as well as penetrate deeper...four to five inches in. The result is bleeding out, especially if one goes for the natural target of a spear...the ribless expanse of the abdomen and the aorta-femoral artery junction. Furthermore, many spears--and later, bayonets--were designed to leave a gaping wound that was hard to close, having a blade cross-section closer to a triangle, diamond, or ellipse than a than a clean-cut line. The same is true of non-spear stabbing weapons...stiletto/estoc/pick has a circular cross-section like an awl; kunai/dorje/dokko have a triangular one; many swords in the rapier family (primarily thrusted) had a square cross-section the length of the blade, with only the terminal four to five inches tapered. Military arrows and bolts likewise had fat, stubby heads nothing like the narrow broadheads ued for hunting. Furthermore, a standard tactic in knife, spear/bayonet, and thrusting sword training is to twist the blade before pulling it out, thus further widening and deforming the wound. Also, in terms of a strategy, it bears remembering that in a fight the object is not a clean kill, but the removal of a combatant...certainly, killing does this, but often it is more efficient on the field to cripple or immobilize and keep moving [particularly if mounted] to clear the field...then come back and deliver the coup de grace later. I previously found the proposed mechanic dubious because it makes poor assumptions about the use of weapons, and is ultimately an argument from ignorance; the author is nerfing weapons he does not understand the utility of. I now add that actual "realism" [not what is presented above] with weapons is significant only if the game mechanic also includes "realism" in terms of the anatomic composition of combatants. Weapons are tools designed relative to a specific need: the killing of endoskeletal vertaebrates with a complex nervous system, an extensive circulatory system, and a complex arrary of vital organs. If early man had been threatened by sponges rather than mammalian predators and other hominids, then he would a developed weapons to kill a creature with undifferentiated anatomy...funnily enough, it didn't really come up. A game with combat realism would be nasty, brutish, and short...most people would die in ugly, squalid ways...and be almost wholly unheroic by fantasy terms. "Realistic" damage would hamper the PCs constantly even with magical healing, while the brutal immediacy of death would sap the fun of creating a character. Certainly, one could have a morbidly-descriptive field day capturing internal hemorrhaging, concussions, suffocation from crushed ribs, paralysis from spinal damage, superrating burns, the cold sensation of bleeding out through a nicked aorta...but who would want to play that more than once?
Orayn, Elvish Blademaster 08-15-05, 12:35 PM	Piercing, eh? If you were to implement it as a house rule right now, I'd just make it decrease the enemy's AC by a set amount. In that area, maybe you could let the players choose between a slash and a thrush with weapons capable of both. A slash would be more accurate, but couldn't take advantage of piercing. A thrust would have piercing ability, but would provoke attacks of opportunity upon a miss.
Zepherdragon 08-15-05, 06:57 PM	Yanagita Kunio you need to be careful about calling someone ignorant when you yourself are being ignorant. In my quantification of weapon damage, you accuse me of "nerfing weapons he does not understand the utility of. " When I didn't do anything of the sort. In all your ranting you failed to observe the obvious. D&D 3.x Longsword: 1d8 dmg for an average of 4.5 damage. My D&D 4.0 Longsword: 2d4 dmg for an average of 5.0 damage. D&D 3.x Battle axe: 1d8 dmg for an average of 4.5 damage. My D&D 4.0 Battleaxe: 1d12 dmg for an average of 6.5 damage. D&D 3.x Shortspear: 1d6 dmg for an average of 3.5 damage. My 4.0 D&D Shortspear: 1d6 dmg for an average of 3.5 damage. It pains me to be accused of something that I didn't do and you can't possibly prove. Also, bludgeoning weapons are infearior to swords, spears, axes, etc. There is no question about that and I'm suprised that someone is actually tring to say otherwise. Nom, D&D 3.x implies that when something grows from medium to large, it become twice as tall, wide, and deep. My proof, look at page 131 in the 3.5 PHB and compare the sizes. Also see page 246 under Righteous might, there is explains that when you increase your size from one to the other "Mass increases by a factor of eight". Granted, doubling the size of a 3d object is doubling the volume of it, in the terms that D&D using, is what I explained above.
Sh0t 08-15-05, 10:15 PM	inferior against which target? Swords are not very useful against Plate Heavy war hammers are Usefulness depends on the job at hand
Tyler Do'Urden 08-15-05, 10:21 PM	I'd first like to say that the combat system as it is now is plenty good enough for most situations. It's generic and it's supposed to be. Now... You'll want to look at previous editions' armor effectiveness vs. different kinds of damage (i.e. bludgeoning, slashing, or piercing). Chainmail is very effective against a cut, but won't do much to stop a mace or arrow at close range. A combination of these old rules and the Armor as DR variant presented in Unearthed Arcana should be a nice dose of realism everyone can enjoy.
Zepherdragon 08-15-05, 10:51 PM	In my defence, I never compared the damage relitive to armor. All the damage is based off of an unarmered level 0 citizen with 4 hps. In all cases, one attack is capable of dowing it. Weapons VS armor: All attacks made with any object are all subject to a law of physics. F=M * V^2. The different types of weapons all function the same, they just effect different surface areas. Swing a sword that weighs 2 lbs and hit a sold steel breast plate at 100 meters per second. You will have 2,000 newtons of force acting on the target at the end of the weapon. Swing a 2lb hammer and hit a sold steel breastplate at 100 meters per second, and you have the same amount of force acting on the target. In a sword, the surface area is smaller and operates like a simple machine, thus having less resistance when breaking the surface tention of the steel and increasing the work ratio for energy put in. The narrower the plane, the less work it takes to break through the surface. With the inclined plane for an axe or sword, the force is at an angle, not direct as with a bludgeoning weapon. To determine the surface tention. γ=F+A(dF/dA) or g = Dr g R02 /b using the Pendant drop shape analysis. A sword would have an easier time breaking through the steel granted the sword doesn't brake. A piercing weapon such as a spear or rifle round, which resembles a cone in some ways, would have even less resistance. A heavy hammer is just that, heavy. More mass, same constant speed, more force. Have an axe the same weight as a hammer and it WILL break through armor better. I've split enough logs for fire enough to know an axe cuts them better than a sledge every time.
Zepherdragon 08-15-05, 11:01 PM	I'd first like to say that the combat system as it is now is plenty good enough for most situations. It's generic and it's supposed to be. That's what I said about 2nd edition too, but you either accepted the new system or never experienced any other system of D&D. I'm tired of generic, of the limitations, of the imbalance and inconsistent rules. If you're fine with them, good, drive that Model T and believe the world is flat. More power to you! But I've got a lot of improvements I'd like to see and many of them are contraversial. I could go off and start from scratch and do my own d20 game system but the substance D&D contains is too good to give up.
bigwillt 08-15-05, 11:25 PM	Do we really need a large dose of reality in a fantasy RPG? Too much talk like this and we'll all be acused (accused, even) of devil-worship and animal sacrifices again. I'm 32 years old and have finally convinced my mother and friends that that it's just a game like Monoploy or Clue. I have a 10 year-old and a 7 year-old just starting to play. Isn't that what it's really about, fantasy, role-playing and a break from the 50 hour work week?
Nom 08-15-05, 11:27 PM	Nom, D&D 3.x implies that when something grows from medium to large, it become twice as tall, wide, and deep. My proof, look at page 131 in the 3.5 PHB and compare the sizes.Sort-of. Size categories follow a linear progression in each dimension, which results in an overall cubic growth. That we agree on. My point is that it does not follow that comparing a comparable Large item and Medium item (or, more pertinently, a Large-sized item and a Medium-sized item) will reveal that the large item is merely the medium item doubled in all dimensions. In fact, this will be the exception, not the rule. "Realistically", an ogre will not look like an orc simply doubled in each dimension; nor will his sword look like an orc's sword simply doubled in each dimension. There will be similarities, but a simple "scale up" will not result in a "realistic" creature, nor a "realistic" weapon, due to the linear vs. square vs. cubic issues involved in such a transformation (and possibly other factors also). enlarge person, righteous might, and similar are special cases. The transformation is applied and sustained by magic, and thus not necessarily bound by mundane physical laws. However, it's easier to assume these use the same mechanics as for mundanely bigger creatures, rather than create a unique case.
jim9311 08-16-05, 12:36 AM	bigwillt - the heck with being acussed of devil-worship because of the level of reality we want. I live in fear of being called a geek if I pull out my graphing calculator just to figure out the amount of damage that my weapon will do against a particular piece of armor. The warhammer was most effectively used to continuous pound on an opponents shield until you beat him back or wore him down. Then you could attack the exhausted person who was too tired to hold a shield to wield a weapon in defense. The sword's best shot against plate mail would be to find a crease and by pass the armor. (i.e. armpit, elbow, etc.) Reality in weapons. Okay how does my flaming sword keep from melting my hand or how does my shocking sword keep from electricuting me. I don't mean to rant so much, but it's a game dammit. I mean come on, if you can accept that your mage can shoot energy bolts out of his hand or that in the pitched din of battle the singing of a troubador will make me fight better or ... well, you get the point. I can accept that Colonel Mustard did it in the library with a candlestick, i don't need that quanitified. Okay now i have begun to rant. Anyway, the suspension of disbelief and the fantasy is why we play isn't it. Not to provide ammunition for our thesis on the geometrical physics of a fog giant's maul.
jim9311 08-16-05, 01:04 AM	I could go off and start from scratch and do my own d20 game system but the substance D&D contains is too good to give up. if you have such a problem with combat being unrealistic, how can you accept that D&D has substance. It is the basis of most of the action in D&D. Once you get beyond roleplaying, D&D becomes role playing that is never going to be realistic. I mean let's be real about everything. Shouldn't my skill checks be more realistic. My use rope check should take into effect the age of the rope, the substance being restrained, the humidity and temperature at the time of binding vs. the same at the time someone attempts to break it. My move silently check should take into effect, the surface i am walking on, the flexibilty of my shoes and clothing (which could be affected by temperature: my leather boots aren't as flexible on cold days.) My spot and search checks should be affected my any stigmatisms or glaucoma i might have. For that matter, just my basic stats need to be adjusted. I am living in a medieval society with no indoor plumbing and i adventure in an underground enviroment with stale air, carrion, waste, and who knows what else in it. Should I develop some way of realistically deciding how that affects my reflexes, strength or constitution. And realistically, if I have a high enough wisdom score, aren't i going to be wise enough to not fight all these beasties in the first place. I don't mean to be so rude, but i grow so tired of people trying to put realism in a FANTASY game. I don't want to be a character who has a birth mortality rate of 60%, a life expectancy of 25 years and a no chance of ever elevating above the serfdom that i am in.
Zepherdragon 08-16-05, 01:06 AM	The funny thing is, any proposal I've ever made about the rules has been to make things more powerful. If the physical relm of things in D&D were at least "realistic" to begin with, PC's at low levels would rival the best swordsmen our reality could ever hope to achieve. Epic level 30 hasted furried dual wielding monks can attack 10 times in a 6 second period of time. Jet Lee can kick 30 times in 6 seconds. He may be a Kungfu Master but don't you think your PC, who can summon the minions of hell while wielding a sword that eats souls and talks to you, should be somewhat better than any human's ability in our reality? I think so. If you were to use more relistic rules, your PC's would become more powerful.
Yanagita Kunio 08-16-05, 01:12 AM	Zepherdragon, the misfortune of a posting board is the lack of inflection. I have no reason to insult you ad hominem, and was not trying to, and am sorry for the terseness of my language at times. The term "argument from ignorance" is a formal term in rhetoric for a particular type of fallacy; the phrase "does not understand the utility of..." was not meant to mean "you're dumb," but to state that your argumentation is based in that you don't view certain weapons as effective, and therefore describe/treat them as inferior. I disagree with your analysis and how you translate it into game terms. Your use of basic physics equations is not representative of "real" weapon use. You are mathematically correct, but have not accounted for a large number of inherent variables in the translation of theoretical physics of motion and force in a vacuum to the collision of real objects with material properties. I'm not a good enough material scientist to explain the behavior of steel...the issues of torsion, metal crystallization, elasticity, and deformation...I have only a bit of knowledge. As someone who excavates battlefields and mass graves and spends a lot of time around corpses, though, I can discuss the forensic results of weapons . Simply put, you are not accounting for the behavior of skin, muscle, and bone. As a historian, I can observe that your analysis does not pare with historical developments in the race between personal arms and armor. In either case my intent is not to attack you as a person, but presented relative to the stated intent of realism. I like the D&D books' stats because they make combat fun, options broad, and results easy to track: I don't think changing them to reflect your or my version of "reality" would add to game fun. I like fantastic weapons and fanciful, inefficient fighting, and the campaigns I play in or run reflect that: I cite history to broaden available possibilities in fantasy. But if someone makes a knowledge claim about "what is True" and I disagree...I will disagree and counter-argue. I'm willing to cede a well-argued point, but will not accept that the naked declaration that something is "true" because you insist, or because the majority of people might agree with your position: neither make you right.
Callahan 08-16-05, 01:22 AM	The funny thing is, any proposal I've ever made about the rules has been to make things more powerful. If the physical relm of things in D&D were at least "realistic" to begin with, PC's at low levels would rival the best swordsmen our reality could ever hope to achieve. Epic level 30 hasted furried dual wielding monks can attack 10 times in a 6 second period of time. Jet Lee can kick 30 times in 6 seconds. He may be a Kungfu Master but don't you think your PC, who can summon the minions of hell while wielding a sword that eats souls and talks to you, should be somewhat better than any human's ability in our reality? I think so. If you were to use more relistic rules, your PC's would become more powerful. I'd hate to play any game that requires a player to make 30 attacks each round. The fight would be over in about a week.
Zepherdragon 08-16-05, 01:55 AM	if you have such a problem with combat being unrealistic, how can you accept that D&D has substance. It is the basis of most of the action in D&D. Once you get beyond roleplaying, D&D becomes role playing that is never going to be realistic. I have to make a new thread explaining this one because I tried, and it's not short. My use rope check should take into effect the age of the rope, the substance being restrained, the humidity and temperature at the time of binding vs. the same at the time someone attempts to break it. My move silently check should take into effect, the surface i am walking on, the flexibilty of my shoes and clothing (which could be affected by temperature: my leather boots aren't as flexible on cold days.) My spot and search checks should be affected my any stigmatisms or glaucoma i might have. For that matter, just my basic stats need to be adjusted. I am living in a medieval society with no indoor plumbing and i adventure in an underground enviroment with stale air, carrion, waste, and who knows what else in it. Should I develop some way of realistically deciding how that affects my reflexes, strength or constitution. And realistically, if I have a high enough wisdom score, aren't i going to be wise enough to not fight all these beasties in the first place. I don't mean to be so rude, but i grow so tired of people trying to put realism in a FANTASY game. I don't want to be a character who has a birth mortality rate of 60%, a life expectancy of 25 years and a no chance of ever elevating above the serfdom that i am in. Everything you just said is actually part of D&D. It's called circumstance bonuses and penalties. If you don't know about them as a DM, you're not paying attention to a large area of detail. It says it right in the rules that walking on dead leaves, wearing armor, etc, make it harder to move silently. Speaking of age, your character dies when they reach the end of their age just like anyone else. There's an epic feat that extends your life by like 1.5 times. Again, D&D isn't even as good as reality when it comes to the physics. You're so limited by the rules that you're so vigorously tring to defend. I never made a mention on applying "realism" to magical anything. Thats the appeal to D&D is the magic.
jim9311 08-16-05, 02:13 AM	Again, D&D isn't even as good as reality when it comes to the physics. D&D physics aren't the same as Earth physics, that's part of the fantasy part. If we applied the weapons rules about size increasing damage exponentially. The biggest giants would rule the universe. no amount of armor would protect me against his damage roll. Curious, should these be applied to claw and bite attacks also. Should a gargantuan critical hit from a dragon claw split me in half (even in armor), yes. Would it make a fun game to play, no. The fun is that I have a chance to kill the dragon. I am aware of the circumstance penalties, I was attempting to show how realism can lead to a boring game of dice rolling and math. And seriously, if Jet Li is kicking 30 times per round does he really have time to draw back enough to make any of those kicks count. The 10 kicks are the amount of damaging blow attempts. Perhaps the other twenty were feints and jabs. Anyone can swing a sword more than once per round, but a lot of the swings will be feints, distractions, misdirections and the like to set up the one damage attempt.
Vrellum 08-16-05, 10:20 AM	You're forgetting an important thing. Killing power is not the same as kinetic energy. Momentum is also important and the formula for it is: M=mV. In this equation mass and velocity are equally important. Maces, hammers, etc. are dangerous, in part, because of their large momentum.
dopp 08-16-05, 12:20 PM	Weapons VS armor: All attacks made with any object are all subject to a law of physics. F=M * V^2. The different types of weapons all function the same, they just effect different surface areas. Swing a sword that weighs 2 lbs and hit a sold steel breast plate at 100 meters per second. You will have 2,000 newtons of force acting on the target at the end of the weapon. Swing a 2lb hammer and hit a sold steel breastplate at 100 meters per second, and you have the same amount of force acting on the target. In a sword, the surface area is smaller and operates like a simple machine, thus having less resistance when breaking the surface tention of the steel and increasing the work ratio for energy put in. The narrower the plane, the less work it takes to break through the surface. With the inclined plane for an axe or sword, the force is at an angle, not direct as with a bludgeoning weapon. If you want to prove something using physics, then use the correct formulas. Force is not equal to m*vē.
DarknessEternal 08-16-05, 03:48 PM	Epic level 30 hasted furried dual wielding monks can attack 10 times in a 6 second period of time. Jet Lee can kick 30 times in 6 seconds. Attacks in D&D do not represent every swing you take, they represent legitimate oppurtunities to inflict noticable damage. Anyone kicking 30 times in 6 seconds has exactly zero legitimate chances to damage someone.
Zepherdragon 08-17-05, 01:01 AM	Oh well. I xpected a lot of resistant in being contraversial. Some areguements were compelling while others were pure BS. Unfortunatly no one attempted to help me quantify or do anything other than criticise.