Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Sir Elton 02-28-07, 01:10 PM	While doing research for Mindblade Combat, checking the Wikipedia on my initial inspiration has revealed the following website. Fighting with Lightsabers (http://www.theforce.net/fanfilms/production/clements_tutorial/index.asp). This guy says that spinning in circles is largely stupid as it can provoke Attacks of Opportunity (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/attacksOfOpportunity.htm) from a fencer who knows what he's doing. So, I guess whirlwind attack isn't an effective feat after all; simply because you are opening yourself up for attack as you spin. BTW: Bacris, did you get my email yet?
Tempest Stormwind 02-28-07, 01:16 PM	You actually envision Whirlwind Attack as holding your sword out and spinning like a top? I always envisioned it as a series of very rapid attacks at everyone around me, like a tempest of blades. When I first saw the new Prince of Persia games, I saw Whirlwind Attack first, Dervish Dance second. I can't access the site you provide, but I can tell you that lightsaber combat was designed to be cinematic. There's far worse offenders than the spin -- the saber lock comes immediately to mind. A fencer who knows what he's doing in a lock instantly disengages to strike the opponent. If you throw any resistance to the opponent's sword (which is what leads to a lock), you're going to be thrown off-balance when he disengages, which leaves you open in the exact spot that his sword's going to end up after the disengage. This would go double for a weapon that can instantly be deployed and retracted, like a lightsaber or a mind blade.
Bacris 02-28-07, 01:17 PM	Yes, but my webmail client is acting up and I can't use outlook currently - so I won't be able to respond until later today :)
Sir Elton 02-28-07, 01:32 PM	You actually envision Whirlwind Attack as holding your sword out and spinning like a top? I always envisioned it as a series of very rapid attacks at everyone around me, like a tempest of blades. When I first saw the new Prince of Persia games, I saw Whirlwind Attack first, Dervish Dance second. I can't access the site you provide, but I can tell you that lightsaber combat was designed to be cinematic. There's far worse offenders than the spin -- the saber lock comes immediately to mind. A fencer who knows what he's doing in a lock instantly disengages to strike the opponent. If you throw any resistance to the opponent's sword (which is what leads to a lock), you're going to be thrown off-balance when he disengages, which leaves you open in the exact spot that his sword's going to end up after the disengage. This would go double for a weapon that can instantly be deployed and retracted, like a lightsaber or a mind blade. Which is why he had such beef with it. So, I instantly thought of the manuals I read. Each showing a grusome picture of where a person precisely struck with this rapier. The illustrations showed nude men, mostly for technical reasons than for homoerotic purposes our culture would ascribe today. The pictures showed peircings through the body at the following locations: eye, cheek, jaw, neck, wrist, hand, forearm, upper arm, chest, stomach, groin, thigh, and shin. The purpose of a real fight is to get it over quickly. So, unless the GM says this is a cinematic campaign, the descriptions of your moves have to be pretty much realistic.
Tempest Stormwind 02-28-07, 01:40 PM	Out of curiosity, would any of the following imply that D&D is anything realistic: 1) Hit Points abstraction 2) Attack roll abstraction 3) Armor Class abstraction 4) MAGIC and similar things 5) The round-based combat system 6) All things Eberron (world-specific) 7) Most special-move-granting feats (including the entirety of the Tome of Battle) I'd generally say that it's a cinematic game pretty much by default. If you take issue with Whirlwind Attack because you envision it as a spin, then either change how you see it or say it provokes AoOs (which means all the PERSON who took that feat would regret it even more).
Sir Elton 02-28-07, 01:48 PM	Out of curiosity, would any of the following imply that D&D is anything realistic: 1) Hit Points abstraction 2) Attack roll abstraction 3) Armor Class abstraction 4) MAGIC and similar things 5) The round-based combat system 6) All things Eberron (world-specific) 7) Most special-move-granting feats (including the entirety of the Tome of Battle) I'd generally say that it's a cinematic game pretty much by default. If you take issue with Whirlwind Attack because you envision it as a spin, then either change how you see it or say it provokes AoOs (which means all the PERSON who took that feat would regret it even more). I do envision it as a spin. Have you played Neverwinter Nights I?
Tempest Stormwind 02-28-07, 02:00 PM	I do envision it as a spin. Have you played Neverwinter Nights I? Yeah, and that's not a whirlwind attack, it's a dance move. Come on, NWN is hardly a faithful rendition of D&D -- look at the auto-5'-step, for instance, or the lack of good illusions or enchantments. I maintain that Whirlwind Attack works equally well if you envision it as attacking multiple people in a quick flurry of attacks. This gets the exact same mechanical effect, shows you why the feat requires Combat Expertise (as to do a sequence of attacks like that, you have to be able to defend yourself as you dart in and out of multiple opponent's threat zones -- and this is in real-world terminology), solves the AoO non-problem, and fits with Whirlwind Attack's test-based prerequisite description in Unearthed Arcana. Considering how many places this fits with that NWN's pirouette doesn't, I'd say it's a solid solution. By the way, when I include two points in a post, I'm hoping for a reply on both, not just the one I present last.
Red12 02-28-07, 02:14 PM	I generally turn off my ears (or eyes in this case) when people try to bring in "fencing experience" into the D&D game. Especially considering it seems that EVERYBODY has some. Fencing is NOT D&D- in fact, it has little to do with actual Medieval combat. Regardless, saying Whirlwind attack is a "Spin Move" is a matter of FLAVOR. Yes, FLAVOR. Mechanically, it is the same whether you say you do a leg slash in a circle verses a series of rapid thrusts to all the enemies around you.
Sir Elton 02-28-07, 02:14 PM	Tempest Stormwind: Even when I don't want to get into a debate? :) I'll be happy to debate this with you on the proper forum. There is an Arms and Combat forum or a Feats forum we can take our debate on Whirlwind Attack to. ------------------------------------------------------------ To alter the subject back to what I was trying to say in the first place, I got the core principles down for seven forms of mindblade combat, and I've ideas for a few more. Especially mindblade combat techniques that come from my own campaign: Atlantis (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=189571). I've even thought up some styles for Yaun-ti* soulknives. ======================================== ======= * in a Third Party Product, they would be known as Ophidians according to Ari Marmell's alternative Iconic Bestiary.
Sir Elton 02-28-07, 03:24 PM	I generally turn off my ears (or eyes in this case) when people try to bring in "fencing experience" into the D&D game. Especially considering it seems that EVERYBODY has some. Fencing is NOT D&D- in fact, it has little to do with actual Medieval combat. Would it make you feel better that all the practice I had with sword swinging is one lesson with a falchionated Tai-qi sword? Regardless, saying Whirlwind attack is a "Spin Move" is a matter of FLAVOR. Yes, FLAVOR. Mechanically, it is the same whether you say you do a leg slash in a circle verses a series of rapid thrusts to all the enemies around you. Yep. Sometimes people need to know some flavor stuff to spark their imaginations more.
calronmoonflower 02-28-07, 04:07 PM	A soulknife might do better charging their psychic strike whenever possible and making a single attack if nessessary. The Mind Cleave feat would allow more than one on a full-attack. As for a soulknife using a whirlwind attack, they have their own special attack called Bladewind. It should look far diffent from a whirlwind attack. As for whirlwind being just a big circle. Image it with a piercing weapon (rapier) and it would likely look more like a pentagram or similar figure. I see no reason you couldn't do that with a slashing weapon (long sword).
Rageheart 02-28-07, 06:08 PM	An intresting feat for a soulknife might be the ability to "flicker" a mindblade off and then back on again after doing a "saber lock" basiclly reapearing on the other side of the opponent's block as he falls forward. mechanics: You are able to make a single AoO if the opponent misses you by 1 on his attack roll.
Sir Elton 03-01-07, 09:50 AM	http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/5083/big1dh9.jpg I think you might find this pic from YuYu Hakusho to be very interesting.
InkBlot 03-01-07, 12:42 PM	Kuwabara is always what I think of when I think of soulknives (and of crystal-hilt-like magic items). An intresting feat for a soulknife might be the ability to "flicker" a mindblade off and then back on again after doing a "saber lock" basiclly reapearing on the other side of the opponent's block as he falls forward. mechanics: You are able to make a single AoO if the opponent misses you by 1 on his attack roll. FLICKERING MINDBLADE [PSIONIC] You lock blades with your foe, then quickly drop your mindblade and rematerialize it within his defenses. Prerequisites: Combat Expertise, Free Draw class feature, Mind Blade class feature Benefit: To use this feat, you must use Combat Expertise to increase your Armor Class by at least one. When an opponent misses your Armor Class by an amount equal to the bonus you gain from Combat Expertise, you can make an attack of opportunity against that opponent with your mind blade. You can only use this feat once per round. Using this feat does not count against the number of times you can attempt to manifest your mind blade in a round. This feat does not grant you more attacks of opportunity than you are normally allowed in a round.
tallforadwarf 03-01-07, 04:47 PM	FLICKERING MINDBLADE [PSIONIC] You lock blades with your foe, then quickly drop your mindblade and rematerialize it within his defenses. Prerequisites: Combat Expertise, Free Draw class feature, Mind Blade class feature Benefit: To use this feat, you must use Combat Expertise to increase your Armor Class by at least one. When an opponent misses your Armor Class by an amount equal to the bonus you gain from Combat Expertise, you can make an attack of opportunity against that opponent with your mind blade. You can only use this feat once per round. Using this feat does not count against the number of times you can attempt to manifest your mind blade in a round. This feat does not grant you more attacks of opportunity than you are normally allowed in a round. Good feat, although I'd drop the 'once per round' restriction as you have to use another feat (expertise) to make use of it *and* the opponent has to miss by a narrow margin; 1-5 max. I'd say the feat is balanced by it *not* allowing you extra AoO per round. Great work though - ACE! - I'll be using this! Thanks, tfad
InkBlot 03-01-07, 07:25 PM	Have you heard of the feat Karmic Strike from Complete Warrior? It gives you an attack of opportunity every time someone hits you, and gives you a penalty to AC when you use the feat. My feat gives you an attack of opportunity when someone misses you, and it's used in conjunction with a feat that raises your AC. It's better in every way, except that you can only use it once per round. If you take away that limitation, it's just better in every way. That's the very definition of overpowered. And thanks for the compliment, but thank Rageheart too. It was his idea in the first place.
Rageheart 03-02-07, 09:14 PM	Thanks Inkblot, I had always been confused by Starwars Lightsabers being a beam of light but solid... and had thought a button or trigger that would allow the blade to flicker would be a worth while addition. Oh, and ... <sigged> :)
Jaid 03-02-07, 10:10 PM	Thanks Inkblot, I had always been confused by Starwars Lightsabers being a beam of light but solid... and had thought a button or trigger that would allow the blade to flicker would be a worth while addition. Oh, and ... <sigged> :) i had always assumed it was actually a stream of plasma held in place by a wacky high-tech (probably impossible) magnetic field. or something like that. certainly they aren't lasers, since they have some ability to interact with each other, not to mention various energy type weapons (incidentally, star wars weapons in general are not lasers. lasers fire beams of light, which means you would simply see a beam, not a 'bolt', between the gun and the target. presumably they are plasma weapons also, or possibly ion weapons (in fact at least some of them are supposed to be ion weapons)... not 100% sure what an ion pulse would look like actually. but yeah, definitely no lasers. i'm not sure what you would call the death star's blast. in fact, i'm pretty sure it just plain couldn't happen. but if you have to call it something from modern sci-fi type things, maybe it's a bunch of particle beams? (again, not laser, because as i understand it lasers would not interract the way the death star's blast does anymore than pointing flashlights in the correct pattern will cause them all to shine in the same direction... ) of course, i don't think particle beams also generally don't react like the death star's blast (though i'm certainly no physicist). maybe i'll just call it a "BS cannon" and leave it at that...
Sir Elton 03-03-07, 12:21 PM	The problem with "LightSabers" is that: a. They are plasma, not "solid light." b. A force field is used to make it hold a specific shape. Force Fields are the hardest things to generate, because we understand some physics about force, just not the right physics. Right now, Nuclear Physicists can tell you that there are four forces in the Universe: Electromagnetism, Gravity, the Strong Force, and the Weak Force. One of these forces can be used to generate a force field capable of holding plasma together. Gravity won't work, because its strength depends on mass (Black Holes are so compressed together and so massive that they exit the universe). Electromagnetism can work, but it has to be very powerful and charged in the right places. So, Electromagnetism won't conceivably make a lightsaber. That leaves the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force. Although through studies in Nuclear Physics, physicists found the gluon, a particle bigger than a proton, apparently. The gluon helps glue atoms together, so its a particle of the strong force. I think a psychokinetic field, and the lightsaber force field are created by the Strong Force; as it is the logical choice. Star Trek force fields are a whole different animal, however.
Tempest Stormwind 03-03-07, 12:49 PM	Except gluons only work between matter, and the blade of a lightsaber has NEVER been called plasma (which is a type of matter). It's been called "pure energy". Furthermore, even assuming it WAS a plasma (which is an ionized gas, not energy), the strong nuclear force only works on such small scales that it only appears inside the nucleus of an atom. Thus, if it worked on a lightsaber, the nucleii of the atoms comprising the blade (which don't exist, since it's energy and not plasma, but I'll humor you a bit here) would have to be touching. You know what else has touching nucleii? NEUTRON STARS. The blade would be so massive it would have its own gravity well and would be too difficult to swing, while the movies make it quite clear that the blade is essentially weightless. I'm willing to pass on the confusion of plasma and energy, since that depends on knowing a bit of Star Wars, but on the physics? I said it before when you tried to bust out quantum mechanics -- please learn a bit about what you're trying to discuss before bringing it up. If you get it wrong, you may as well say "It works by magic."
Sir Elton 03-03-07, 01:18 PM	Tempest Stormwind, I wish you study interpersonal relationships before going around accusing me of not studying physics. You accusing me of not studying physics is getting really annoying. I'm about ready to dump you on Sauvie Island (if I ever get my hands on you). So, if GL said that they are pure energy, then a technology exists somewhere in those lightsabers that separates photons from light waves; since photons are particles of light. It has to be a miniature technology that does it and is easily and cheapily manufactured. Such a technology has to exist in the lightsaber, or the Jedi will have to use the Force to give their lightsabers form and definition. This is simply because our technology can't make a "power sword" yet. It's not impossible, it's just improbable given our level of technology. "Movie Magic," yeah. Movie Magic. The original Lightsabers are plastic rods with an animated effect rotoscoped over them. The lightsabers in the prequels are digital effects. ---------------------------------------------------------- said it before when you tried to bust out quantum mechanics -- please learn a bit about what you're trying to discuss before bringing it up. About that -- this is what A Lazy Layman's Guide to Quantum Physics (http://www.higgo.com/quantum/laymans.htm) said about Quantum Physics: [quote=A Lazy Layman's Guide to Quantum Physics] If you dare to think about it (you're not really supposed to), you have to believe one of the following things: Your consciousness affects the behaviour of subatomic particles Particles move backwards as well as forwards in time and appear in all possible places at once The universe is splitting, every Planck-time (10 E-43 seconds) into billions of parallel universes The universe is interconnected with faster-than-light transfers of information So, I think you have a chip on your shoulder whenever someone tries to explain D&D in the physical sciences. Just say, "I don't want my D&D explained in Physics terms by imposters who go to the library and check out Physics for beginners, read physics on Wikipedia, and studies how to become millioniares because they can't afford to take an actual Physics class at their local University" if that's the case.
Tempest Stormwind 03-03-07, 01:33 PM	I apologize for my rudeness, but the message still holds. If you're going to speak on something, speak on something you understand. Don't just make **** up and claim it's based on science. First, light isn't what you think. Light isn't a particle or a wave -- it just behaves as one or the other in particular experiments (the most dramatic is Young's double slit diffraction). The reason behind this lies deep in quantum physics and would be impossible for me to explain here without a background in the field (particularly Schroedinger's work and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle), though. The lazy man's guide is, as the name implies, missing the point. The first of those four interpretations is a BADLY misunderstood Copenhagen Interpretation (the most popular interpretation amongst physicists), the second MIGHT work but means that quantum physics will NEVER be unified with any other physical theory, the third is the Many Worlds hypothesis (which is second-most-popular), and the fourth deals with entanglement, which isn't mutually exclusive with any of the other three. The Copenhagen Interpretation says that things exist, but until they're observed it cannot be determined how they exist -- the "probabilisitic waveform has not collapsed" in proper terminology, and the waveform itself isn't real (just a mathematical tool -- thus, there is no "absolute existence state" or anything. A particle is NOT both decayed and not decayed, it's one or the other, but without observation, we have only probabilities (this waveform) to guess which state it's at). However, some arrogant putzes back in the early days of quantum thought that this meant that our conciousness affected things, since we are the observers! Schroedinger himself shot this down -- what matters isn't that WE observe things, but rather that something interacts with something else. I mentioned reading up on the Copenhagen Interpretation last time; this time, I'd suggest the same. Wikipedia's article on it is quite readable even without a quantum background. I don't mind if people explain things in physics terms. What I mind is when they get the physics *wrong*. What's even worse is when the explanation RELIES on the incorrect physics. The information is out there, even in layman's terms -- and yet people insist on getting it wrong. Willing ignorance of any sort is my single biggest annoyance in the world today (even over global warming, hate crimes, mass poverty, and corporate greed/corruption). You know what it looks like to me? The people in this comic (http://xkcd.com/c202.html) who pretend they know what they're talking about. Now, you're nowhere near that bad, but it's every bit as frustrating nevertheless.
LuciferNietzsche 03-03-07, 02:08 PM	Actually, they are supposed to be lasers...sort of. As I understand their descriptions, they're "packets of coherent light" Blaster bolts, that is. Lightsabers are identical to blaster bolts except that they're "frozen" in place. As for why they react more solidly than normal laser beams, they did have a lot more power behind them, and they probably had a much higher photon density within the beam, with much higher coherence of the beams. The blasters being in pulses is strictly for cinematic benefit. They're not in pulses because they're lasers or particle beams, they're in pulses because it looks cool on the screen. There is absolutely NO other reason for it. None, period. Genuine high-energy lasers aren't even visible anyway. They're usually well beyond the microwave part of the spectrum. The only reason you can even see them in the movies is because it would be boring and pointless if you couldn't...again, it's pure cinematics, period. As for Lightsabers, they do have something to do with manipulating and focusing electromagnetic fields. This was accomplished with Force-attuned crystals with the unique and inherent property to manipulate magnetic fields in a tightly constricted fashion. The beam of the blade was folded on itself until becoming nearly solid. So, it's partly technology, and partly magic, because Lightsabers only existed because of the Force. The technology doesn't work right without it. As for whether or not the technology is probable...who knows? We certainly don't know much about physics, and technology is largely about creating and/or exploiting loopholes or similar conditions, and we know even fewer of those.