Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-03-06, 10:28 PM	Someone here has that as thier sig and it feel very fitting today. I just had to ask for thread deletion for the first time ever since I've been on these boards. The reason? 'Realism'. Usually, I'm the guy who likes playing with physics in the game. I like having impact damage. I like fireballs that expand to fill instead of 'burst'. I do. I really do. HOWEVER -- cinematics and fun are far more important to me. Apparently in my quest to develop some giant swords for my setting, I failed to take existing weapon weights into account. And people just woudn't. let. it. GO. But that isn't the topic of this thread. In the course of the gross overcalculation dogpile, someone informed me that because weaponry like Cloud's Buster Sword and Gatsu's sword don't exist IRL, I couldn't make some weapons like that to give to a fictional race in my fictional world. Excuse me? But you know, once I started putting magical elves and floating blobs with laser eyes in my world, I pretty much abandoned any duty to historical accuracy and human-centric ideaology. And that brings me to the topic of this thread: How real, cinematic, or 'fantastic' is your game? Do you strive for historical accuracy? Do you play with 'movie physics'? Is your game swarming with magic robots that defy gravity 'because'? I want to hear about it, partially because I don't want to think I'm alone in running a game where physics is in place, but only so long as if doesn't get in the way of some thrillin' heroics.
stargate525 05-03-06, 10:30 PM	I try to run my campaigns as realistic as I can, ever since one of my PCs asked me how they could disable the magic elevator in the ruins that were covered by an antimagic field. Ever since then, any peice of non-phisics powered device (magic) has a very logical reason for existing, no matter how insignificant.
RadicalTaoist 05-03-06, 10:43 PM	My world follows strict laws. They are NOT the same laws as our world's laws. :D (btw ere psionics remember?:bigeyes::))
Eltharon 05-03-06, 10:54 PM	Reasonable physics. I mean, no-one can carry a glaive with a blade as big as they are, let alone swing it. And the idea of "A really big greatsword" never really came up. And even if it did, I try not to let rules get in the way of the story.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-03-06, 11:02 PM	(btw ere psionics remember?:bigeyes::)) I was literally just about to PM you about it. Angels and Demons AND Religion articles are done, the comic is *finally* updated and I can finally bloody do some work on the rest of the CS. Two weeks of pent up ideas is harsh. I'm flitting between sections, but Psi in the World is PArtially finished now. I think you and the rest of the psi guys will either be intruiged or... unimaginably enraged... Hopefully not the latter.
Chrono Nexus 05-03-06, 11:03 PM	I play and DM as though the setting were a real, physical, dynamic place. Shifting terrain, building instability, and realistic NPC attitudes are all closely tied to PC (and NPC) actions and decisions. To accomplish this... I immediately ditch the grid system in leau of a measuring stick, minis, and spell area templates. Second, I describe what I see... and what I hear, taste, feel, and smell. As for magic vs. reality... I let my players reach conclusions about such things themselves. I am all against the "DM's hand" style of Dming and roleplaying. To me, the DM is not the god of the setting, he is the setting. I want to convince the players that the setting is a real, material place for their pcs... so that the player's imagination and wile can get them out of tight situations instead of me (to the pc's credit). I suspend bad rules in a second if they serve no function but to reduce the pleasure a player derives from the game (summoned monster rules, and others). I would agree with you that DnD's weight system makes no sense... except that DnD's carrying capacity limits don't scale correctly either.
Silverstream 05-03-06, 11:10 PM	Historical accuracy? Aren't we already using weapons and armor from across multiple periods? No, for this I pay almost no attention. Or rather, I assume that there are some differences because of the existence of the "magic" science. Some things are just more possible. As well, there seems to be natural magic inherit in all things and different laws to how the world works (like violating the square-cube law, because realistically, giants could not exist. They'd weigh too much to be able to stand, proportionally). Because the laws of physics now have to include magic, I use that as a reason for things. Don't get me wrong, I don't just say that the mountain hanging upsidedown in the air "Is caused by magic, so don't worry about it." I'll give it some more background than that, such as the site of wizard war, or an epic gravity spell gone awry. And thrilling heroics are much, much more interesting to play/see/hear than knowing that your rogue, "Despite having 15 ranks in Tumble and 22 Dexterity, simply cannot jump off the stairwell, onto the chandelier, then pivot and throw himself up into the loft to get to the diabolical villian. Momentum doesn't work that way, he'd never be able to clear the distance in one move." Game and enjoyment over laws anyday. For specific things that I used to violate physics... a pit that teleported the person who fell into it back to a starting point, sans momentum; a wall that could talk despite having no way to produce wind; a normal, dead whale on top of a mountain, just because.
tiercel 05-03-06, 11:13 PM	On the one hand, I like to stay as closely as I can to a plausible, self-consistent world as I can. Things really should work by a certain set of rules (even if they aren't RL physics) to make the campaign world more believable. On the other hand, we are talking about a game where more-intelligent-than-normal humans can wave their hands and utter a few words and go flying through the air while hurling lightning bolts from their hands at huge, talking, flying, firebreathing lizards with a ridiculous wingspan-to-weight ratio. I think trying to keep *most* things down-to-earth is useful for general believability, and for making the *really* fantastic things stand out. Yeah, I wouldn't have something like Cloud's Buster Sword be common or a standard nonmagical item. That doesn't mean that it couldn't exist as a specific item or set of items used by the elite of a lost race -- magic can do weird and wacky things. If I can level cities with a word or transform myself into a giant, I think that I can magically rebalance a big dang sword. ;)
allenchan 05-03-06, 11:20 PM	Suspension of disbelief. I cannot fathom a human wielding a sword twice their size unless its made out of some uber-rare, mysterious metal that is near-weightless. Fictional or not, I consider it stupid. Do you strive for historical accuracy? The game setting's history, yes. Do you play with 'movie physics'? General movie physics, yes. Anime physics, no. Is your game swarming with magic robots that defy gravity 'because'? No. Its called permenant Levitate, not just 'because'.
Last City 05-03-06, 11:26 PM	Hmm... tough one... whats important is that i run my world where its "believable enough" to the PCs and me. We just understand that some stuff in DND are not meant in the real world so at times we just assume we are in an anime world kinda genre... ... ... when PCs crack jokes: Big Eyes small head... ... and the infamous anime sweat ~ -.-"
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-03-06, 11:33 PM	Suspension of disbelief. I cannot fathom a human wielding a sword twice their size unless its made out of some uber-rare, mysterious metal that is near-weightless. Fictional or not, I consider it stupid. The creature in the woods over there can regenerate wounds at a speep that would mean its metabolism is a nuclear fusion reactor on par with a small star. That lady over there? He father was a small, burrowing humanoid with magical powers and her mother was a being formed of the pure base lust and evil of the universe. That guard over there? It is physically impossible for him to hit you with the butt of his glave. The guy down the street? He can fall from orbit and not show any evidence of injury. And yet... the guy with the bigass sword is unbelievable.
allenchan 05-03-06, 11:38 PM	And yet... the guy with the bigass sword is unbelievable. Pretty much. Its a matter of choice. I dont want to believe that. And thus, when it exists, it ruins the disbelief I've set for myself, and makes me disinterested. Its bias, plain and simple, nobody is saying it isn't. btw, your examples seem to border on mechanical issues of dnd and fantasy issues, which is a whole nother topic.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-03-06, 11:46 PM	btw, your examples seem to border on mechanical issues of dnd and fantasy issues, which is a whole nother topic. That's actually the point. Suspension of disbelief doesn't mean that something is plausable, or even if you like it. It means that if you do it right, no one will care. And it works both ways. You can break lots of minor rules for the sake of flavor and get away with it. IMC, people break stuff all the time without strength checks during the course of normal combat just because its cool. Example: "He swings at you and misses because you have cover from the pillar' Isn't as cool as - "He swings fiercely, but his weapon rebounds off the pillar before it can harm you." Isn't as cool as - "He swings and gouges a chunk out of the pillar in his attempt to strike you. plaster dust billows from the destroyed section." Now, in the normal game, he'd have needed a strength check and a damage roll for that -- but who cares? Its badass. No one has ever questioned the fact that things break during fights.
fatal error 05-04-06, 12:25 AM	The creature in the woods over there can regenerate wounds at a speep that would mean its metabolism is a nuclear fusion reactor on par with a small star. Magical in nature, a troll's regeneration doesn't need to make sense. Their strength on the other hand is entirely mundane and thus limited. That lady over there? He father was a small, burrowing humanoid with magical powers and her mother was a being formed of the pure base lust and evil of the universe. I'm not sure what this 'small burrowing humanoid with magical powers' is, but can't succubi shapeshift, thus allowing them to mate with almost anything? So again, magic. That guard over there? It is physically impossible for him to hit you with the butt of his glave. I have no idea what this means, unless you're talking about high ACs of characters. In which case he can hit you all he likes if you don't choose to defend yourself. So this is just a stupid example. [quote] The guy down the street? He can fall from orbit and not show any evidence of injury. 20d6 damage will make anything show evidence of injury. He may survive, but he'll still show injury. But I agree with you here, and find D&D's upper limit on damage too low for my tastes. And yet... the guy with the bigass sword is unbelievable. Unless that 'guy' has some magical powers making him stronger (like a belt of giant strength) then yes, I do think it's unbelievable. Not to mention the fact that it's so blatantly ripped off such a patent character. Yes I strive for historical accuracy when applicable. My world's militaries all are based off sound principals and cultures of warfare derived from the real world, with magic integrated according to level of the setting. I'm not sure what else 'historical accuracy' would really affect. Yes I play with 'movie physics', when appropriate. A normal man swinging a sword into a pillar? Not going to really do anything. BBEG Deathknight, knocks a bit away. Giant wielding a flail? Smashes it to a million fragments. Why? Because these are things that make the combat feel fun and dynamic. The moment these things become 'mundane' to the group is the moment they lose their reason for existance. No, I don't find magic and robots mixes all that well. If it was a future game with floating robots, they would be driven off the same things that make the hover-cars work, which would have a scientific sounding name in the tradition of Sci-Fi settings. Of course that's not realistic, but it's the future, anything is plausible. But if a robot can float, so can anything else with the requisite power, which is an important bit of consistancy.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-04-06, 12:31 AM	Not to mention the fact that it's so blatantly ripped off such a patent character. I can name at least ten characters that use this. You might as well say that a character who uses a cutlass is a rip off of Jack Sparrow.
WolfHati 05-04-06, 12:46 AM	I try to keep things coherent and believable foremost, because for me it's hard to get into a story if I can't imagine it happening. And since I'm a physicist by trade, that means generally following the laws of physics. Though that is not quite so restrictive as it may seem, because for one, I am not a biologist, so that means I can make humans beasts and what have you capable of more than they've any right to be. And it also means I know how to work around pesky laws of physics. You can't go faster than the speed of light? Bah. Shows what you know. All you need is a rather large space of negative energy density configured in just the right way. And if you have magic, no problem!
EvilSqueegee 05-04-06, 12:54 AM	As a DM, in all things... the most important question is (in my eyes): Are the players having fun? I am the setting, I am the NPC's, and I am the referee. With all that in mind, quite a bit of the potential fun to be had in the game (especially with new players) is in my hands. I need to encourage that fun, get it out of the nest and let it start feeding itself. Not only do I play with a lot of anime physics - but, in fact, the buster sword was nothing compared to some of the outrageous weapons I've designed for use in the settings I've run games in. The Zanbato, for instance, puts Cloud's buster sword to shame: The blade itself is -larger- than a person, and the handle was more of a staff than it was a handle. On the other hand, the players I have are all anime fanatics (as am I.) We enjoy, relate to, and understand the concept of 'anime physics' and it shows in the game. Yes, in our games all kinds of things have been known to litterally defy 'real-world' physics without the aid of magic at all. Players jump insane hights into the air while weilding impossibly large swords, kick off the wall and come crashing down on foes. Does it happen nonstop, all the time? No. Does it happen when cinematics and whatnot are important? Yes. Does it happen when I see players' interest in the game slacking? Hell yes. A policy I've always had as a DM: Cosmetically, I don't really care much abotu how you describe your actions, as a player, untill they interfere with the rules. If someone picks up a gun, and fires at you - and they miss, then I don't really care if you want to say it's because you jerked your blade's scabbard in the way just in time. Did he miss? Yes. Do you gain any kind of mechanical advantage because you used your scabbard? No, but you might have some problems pulling your sword out of it (Or putting it back in) due to the denting. Do you strive for historical accuracy? What history? Setting-wise, of course. But history and D&D are not exactly on speaking terms. Do you play with 'movie physics'? Cosmetically, yes. Adds a sense of intensity to the action. Players like it, players have fun, mission accomplished. Is your game swarming with magic robots that defy gravity 'because'? When appropriate, yes. Plot devices are a wonderful thing.
Cantankerous 05-04-06, 01:06 AM	Someone on another board here asked to sigi this line from me last week. D&D is not realistic folks. Not in the least, not in any signfigant way. Adding realism to it is like adding a screen door to a submarine...not only is it useless, it's counter productive. That is my feeling on real world physics in D&D. Cinematic physics though...the kind that let a helicopter crash and thrash it's way through several hundred meters of tunnel in almost pursuit of a speeding train while guys jump back and forth between them... that's dead ok. ;) I strive for one thing in my RP feel wise: reasonability. I don't want something so over the top that even Hollyweird wouldn't do it special effects wise, but beyond that, I play with the whys and wherefores a great deal. If it seems reasonable, it's in, as long as it also fits balance wise and doesn't just gratuitiously change the RAW for the sake of changing it (like adding special effects manga like energy blasts to a Paladin's weapon when he use Holy Smite, or the same to anyones weapon when they are using the Magic Weapon/Greater Magic Weapon spells) and no other. Playing with the rules, within the rules, is fun though. Alchemy lets you add so much to a world stylisticly. There are, in my game, simple Alchemaical products that will change hair color, roughen or smooth the skin, promote or retard hair growth, act as contrasceptives or abortitives, act as soporifics or any number of other homely uses that work with low level spells, or the legendary correspondences of minerals and plants (the basis for legendary alchemy). Fireworks, even as silly advanced as those from LotR, or smoke producing products that form the smoke into sigils or glyphs that can then be invested with a spell that uses those in the same way that those spells presently do with more physical items. Swords and (my favorite) spears that are "variable" in length and configuration, show up at higher levels. Tri-bladed, spring loaded swords (can you tell I like really bad old movies ;) ) and other such idiocy make steady appearances. The big, manga swords...I don't have them, but not because of the believability factor. They're ten times more reasonable than a flying multi ton creature. I don't include them because I think they look friggin' silly as sin personally, even more so than spring loaded tri-blades, but are they reasonable in a game like D&D, hell yes. Having the "sound principals and cultures of warfare derived from the real world, with magic integrated according to level of the setting." included seems weird to me. How do ANY of those sound principals survive first contact with a fireball and remain sound? Throw in a few demons or other such standard fantasy fare on either side and the entire thing goes to hell in a handbasket (pun intended). Grand armies, such as constantly appear in the Forgotten Realms are a MUCH greater anathema to the consistency of the setting than over sized manga swords and THEY are the closest thing to a "just because" that make it into my game. They make ZERO sense in a magical world, but they are just too much a part of the fabric of the fantasy genre to NOT include them, so, just because, they are there in my game too. Isshia
scienceman47 05-04-06, 01:20 AM	Some aspects of fantasy rub people the wrong way, and thats perfectly fine. Not everyone has the same suspention of disbelief threshold, or SODT, that others might have. Some have a higher SODT, some lower. The problem is low SODT people wont shut up about it. All you ever hear is, "Anime people are t eh suck", and "you cant be cloud, its not realistic!". Stop whining! If you dont like it at your game, dont allow it at your game. When you come on these boards to complain, you are enforcing your ideas on others and its offensive. Any idea that has bears the slightest resemblance to anything that didnt come out of 80's fantasy is rejected as anime, and blasted with harmful comments on how lame it is. Most good posters will go out of thier way to avoid anime flavor. Congrats, you suppression of ideas has succeeded.
tsuyoshikentsu 05-04-06, 01:29 AM	I'm an actor. My job requires suspension of disbelief. That being said, I basically wing it, working with the question "Is it fun?" in mind.
Cantankerous 05-04-06, 01:32 AM	One thing I forgot to note: In my campaign there is NO SEPERATION between what the PCs and the NPCs are capable of doing (as long as the requirements are fulfilled). *So, if a NPC is running around with a tri-bladed, spring loaded sword, if the PC wants to look that mentally challenged, he can too; all he has to do is design the bloody thing. This is accomplished merely by making a series of craft-weaponsmtih skill rolls, some of them pretty high though. **If an NPC is casting the gee-super-whizz-bang spell, a PC capable of a spell of that level can learn to cast it too. ***If an NPC Necromancer has found a way to have five times his hit die in undead under his command, a PC who fulfills whatever requirements the NPC needed to fulfill can do it too. There are NO exceptions and no BSing around about well, it's just because, in this case. Those requirements can be stiff though. They might include an exotic race or class, the performance of rituals taking years, whatever. The point here is, that if the PC wants to go through the trouble (or in the case of class, the player who does for his character) to do it, can. Isshia
Lokathor 05-04-06, 01:39 AM	How real, cinematic, or 'fantastic' is your game? Fantasmagorical!! Realism be damned, the campaign world is a hunk of rock in space left over after the planet was bombarded with stars. With magical "climate controls" regulating the weather keeping things alive. That's my baseline. After that, giant swords are fine by me. Do you strive for historical accuracy? Internal historical accuracy only. Do you play with 'movie physics'? Sure, who wants to not? Is your game swarming with magic robots that defy gravity 'because'? No, but between Incarnum, Magic, Psionics, and all the monster manual basties, i'm sure you could find something.
goldjas 05-04-06, 01:41 AM	Did I like, miss the memo that stated that the laws (meaning physics, hwo gravity works, etc.) of my campaign world need to be in any way similiar to the real world? One of the more common things people seem to complain about is giant swords...I have to wonder why? Using giant weapons makes perfectly good sense and there are rules for it (albeit, they are actually very weak character optimisation wise and your better off just using power attack, but thats something different entirely...) Anyhow, when one player in the team is a druid that turns into a raptor, another a gnome gunslinger, and another a ninja elf from god knows where, in the middle of Ysgard where death isn't even close to permanent....it's pretty simple to say that, yes, realism has no place in DnD. at all.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-04-06, 01:49 AM	Swords and (my favorite) spears that are "variable" in length and configuration, show up at higher levels. Tri-bladed, spring loaded swords (can you tell I like really bad old movies ;) ) and other such idiocy make steady appearances. I've actually got an mechanical expanding staff in my CS right now (A loving tribute to Gambit) This tri-sword however intrigues me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. If you like spring loaded swords though, we need to talk fantasy clockwork. You know, the kind that you wind up and its suddenly semi-sapient, capable of fighting foes and following orders? Sweet stuff.
Alynn 05-04-06, 02:03 AM	Personally I go with movie style... How else did the rogue attempt to run 10 feet, use the palidin as a springboard (since he was blocking just inside the doorway) to travel another 5 feet up and 10 foot horizontally to land on the walkway above to keep the Hobgoblin Wizard and his goblin flunkies from getting away with the holy symbols they have been spending weeks trying to find... (FYI he made the first jump roll, but the second roll he missed by 3, allowing him to reflex save to catch the banister, at which point he took loads of AoO climbing up to the walkway, but while standing on the banister he failed his balance check, and the d100 stated he fell off the long way, not the short way onto the walkway) Sure absolutly couldn't happen, but after all, this dude was agile, he was quick he was sneaky... and the thought of reducing the palidin to a pommel horse was funny. My players tried this crazy stuff because they knew that I will allow just about anything to be attempted, as long as nothing explicitly denied such things. Nobody ever bothered with the huge sword thing, because I enforce weapon size penalties (ask the wizard who realized she never picked up a ranged weapon, and was walking around with a small sling for 4 levels... she just had better things to spend her money on than a new sling, like spells, heh). The Move Physics Quality is what I go for, If I wanted realism, I'd play Shadowrun or similar, where a single lucky gunshot from someone can kill you. That's what I've always loved about DnD, the movie/book quality of the story.
Always-Late 05-04-06, 02:12 AM	Ehh, I used to suppress my players. No giant swords, no anthropormorphic elephants for a Str of 30+, no base land speed of 90, no one-hitting the stone and steel wall into powder. They don't make any sense. Then I figured I might as well let them run nuts. Of course, this gives me the exuse to start throwing invisible flying kobolds and intelligent advanced dinosaurs and swarms of intelligent items. It's all good.
sdragon1984 05-04-06, 02:46 AM	realism? didnt that get thrown out the window when elves and dwarves were included? heres how i see it: Unless that 'guy' has some magical powers making him stronger (like a belt of giant strength) then yes, I do think it's unbelievable. who says he doesnt? and even on saying he doesnt, who says the sword itself doesnt have some magical property to it that allows a normal person to carry it? as far as suspension of disbelief is concerned, how is the buster sword any less believable then darkwood? if it truely bothers you that an adventurer with 14 STR is carrying such a big sword, just say that its mithral, one size category larger then what the PC normally carries, and balance out the normal stats for the weapon by giving it the normal price. all of that, of course, can be summed up with the two simple words: "its magic".
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-04-06, 02:51 AM	she just had better things to spend her money on than a new sling, like spells, heh). ... slings are free.
Solaris 05-04-06, 03:05 AM	I think giant swords are really, really stupid. But if you don't, then I'm not going to tell you you shouldn't use them in your game. They seem to be rather popular in certain types of anime, or whatever, and if that's the feel you want to go for in your game, it bothers me not at all. I don't buy the argument that as soon as you sacrifice any realism, by introducing some fantasy elements, you shouldn't mind sacrificing all realism by introducing arbitrary fantasy elements. There are different styles of fantasy, with different "realities", and elements from one might not be consistent with another. For example, elves and dwarves are entirely consistent with Tolkienesque fantasy, but comically huge swords aren't. And no doubt there could be some fantasies which feature comically huge swords, where elves and dwarves would be out of place. Ultimately, your kind of fantasy might not be my kind of fantasy, but it doesn't have to be. It's silly to argue about it.
Amon_WinterfallIV 05-04-06, 03:42 AM	What is important. above all, is that the game makes sense. The physics behind magic, Psionics, divinity, and extraplanar travel is certainly beyond the ken of anyone short of Int 40--and even they would only be able to glean tiny pieces from it, as they would have to piece toghther a framework from middle age knowledge and math. (Example--trying to do something with calculus in my game is a DC 30 Knowledge:Math check) Basically, I don't have to tell my players how physics works in my game. And those physics start with RL, and deviate as things become more exotic. I also believe that besides physics, history (created on your own), economics, psychology, and anthropology are very important. Accordingly, my world is fleshed out so that it conforms with these requirements. I have never had the validity of my world challenged, but I consider it a matter of personal strength to create worlds and the people who live in them (indeed, I have almost as much fun creating the worlds and people as I do actually playing.) If anything, the best critique of my world and my people is that they are perhaps too consistant and too ordered--the BBEGs are always highly motivated callous types, or they are somehow insane, and history flows predicatably. Good topic, VA.
Senevri 05-04-06, 03:51 AM	...You _do_ realize that a half-orc with a lucky 18 placed in strenght score, who happened to do the Bard/Dragon Disciple thing, has a strenght score of 32 at level 16? This means he can lift 2080 pounds over his head, as a move action. So... A light car would be okay, but not, say, swinging a 50 pound sword? ...This guy can drag 10400 pounds. Oy. Now, with _magic_, we can hit... lift over head of 14720 with a half-orc Bard2/Cleric8(Strenght Domain)/Dragon Disciple 10, for a single feat of strenght. But that's not here nor there. IIRC, there is an actual legend about some chinese warrior famous for using an equal (50 pound-ish) blade (extremely heavy - not extremely large.) Realism-wise... Stick to whatever rules you're using, be constant, be fair and be realistic enough so that people can try stuff that _logically_ should work.
Lokathor 05-04-06, 04:13 AM	Example--trying to do something with calculus in my game is a DC 30 Knowledge:Math check Why on earth that high? I'm a Com3 at best, and barring the possibility of me having an absurdly high Int score (which I won't deny is obviously very huge) then there's no way I'd ever be able to ever do anything in calculus. And yet, I managed to scrape though the class by sleeping and doing nothing continually. Do you give some kind of huge circumstance bonus for things? Now, with _magic_, we can hit... lift over head of 14720 with a half-orc Bard2/Cleric8(Strenght Domain)/Dragon Disciple 10, for a single feat of strenght. But that's not here nor there. And remember, even worse if you give him 4 or more legs....
TarlSS 05-04-06, 05:11 AM	Alot of people don't like certain aspects because they don't enjoy the aesthetic. I don't like the imagery of stupid giant swords from godberidden animes, so I will ban them. I don't really think there's anything wrong with it if you're honest; if the DM simply doesn't like buster swords he's at rights to get rid of them. Just like if he had a fear of..I don't know, cats, all cat things would be evil and you'd never have any good cats. I don't know why people feel the need to justify these things by delving into history or physics.
Senevri 05-04-06, 06:56 AM	Indeed. And remember, even worse if you give him 4 or more legs.... Roight! Needs 4 levels of Bard, though. But, then ya can Alter Self into a wyrmling, Copper most likely... Too bad you're then Tiny, not to mention invalid target for Enlarge. Oh well. Hmm. Half-orc Bard 4/Half-orc Paragon3/Human Paragon 3/RDD10 for a total strenght of 20+4+2+2+8 = 36 naturally, +rage 1/day for a total of 40 STR.... 46 with the boost item... O_o; Whoah, looks like I'm getting too deep into this "optimizing strenght" thing. To stay on-topic... Yah, I guess too-too large swords are a bit setting specific. I don't see mechanical reasons _not_ to allow them, but I can see how, if one is going for a grittier campaign, one might want to avoid them...
Alynn 05-04-06, 07:19 AM	... slings are free. Which is why that was funny, because that's a direct quote from my wife... (the wizard in question)
stargate525 05-04-06, 07:42 AM	I can name at least ten characters that use this. You might as well say that a character who uses a cutlass is a rip off of Jack Sparrow. I don't know if someone said this already, but just for reference, Jack Sparrow does not use a cutlass.
Ut-Napishtim 05-04-06, 08:32 AM	Well I'm not familiar with much anime so I don't really know anything about the character around which this "big sword" concept is based, but I think as the DM you're perfectly entitled to work it into your game, VA. Yes, versimilitude and suspension of disbelief are important, but in this case the rules actually already actually allow for this sort of thing: medium character w/large sized weapon and Monkey Grip. Then you simply come up with a house rule for Mithril weapons that eliminates the remaining penalty. Considering Mithril armor is already allowed it seems perfectly reasonable to me. As long as the DM is well-versed enough in the RAW (as you have demonstrated on these boards you are) to give it the proper balance nod I've got no qualms with it. Yeah, it costs a Feat and extra gold on the weapon (which also obviously then suffers from the drawback of not being able to be a silver or adamantine weapon for DR) but in the end the coolness factor is achieved with a respectable foundation in RAW mechanics. :twocents:
mojorooks 05-04-06, 08:42 AM	I think anything is acceptable in D&D as long as there is a good explanation to it. NOTHING is impossible. You can just say "it's magical" to expain almost anything. Example: Cloud Buster's sword may be too large to hold, but it has some sticky substance on it, so it stick to your hand. Or it just magically stays in your hand. or there is a 'little handle' on the big handle meant just for gripping.
Cantankerous 05-04-06, 09:06 AM	I've actually got an mechanical expanding staff in my CS right now (A loving tribute to Gambit) This tri-sword however intrigues me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. If you like spring loaded swords though, we need to talk fantasy clockwork. You know, the kind that you wind up and its suddenly semi-sapient, capable of fighting foes and following orders? Sweet stuff. De Cajun has good taste in le femmes. I too have a long term soft spot for the little theif. It's (putting a spike end on a telescoping stave in Shadowrun) where my variable spear thing got started. The Tri-Blade (mein gott what a stupid movie that came from: LINK TO POSTER from the movie (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/B000059PP2/002-6788447-7959255?%5Fencoding=UTF8&n=130&s=dvd) had spring loaded blades and the sword itself, one of the most idiotic pieces of work this side of fifth grade drawn anime swords, was a nightmare of sillyness... but somehow it always seems to show up in the hands of some wannabe evil princeling if I want a moment of light silliness somewhere in the story line. Talk about a weapon you'd need Monkey Grip to use... One of the worlds the PCs are visiting on and off now that they've mastered the ideology of traveling within the Triat of Triats (I'll explain some other time) is very nearly Steampunk in origin and this was where they ran into this campaigns Tri-Blade weilder. He shot the bloody thing at Haclan, who although he is usually much more in your face when fighting an opponent, simply whipped out one of the Etheric Ray pistols (doesn't work off of that world as the metaphysic for it is just all wrong elsewhere; it's basicly a wand of fireballs with a different form) the party usually uses there and burned the "evil prince" down. Almost NEVER do we have such encounters as follows, the game is usually very serious, but too much to drink, playing at 3am and all of us being in weird moods took this way too far. I played the "prince" very broad indeed. "Prince" Silliman: "You've thwarted my minions, but now you'll taste the wrath of my invincible tri-blade! Countless hours went into it's construction and hundreds of thousands of gold marks were spent in it's developement. With it I can not be bested!" *aims and misses badly, almost shooting another of his "henchmen"* Haclan: "Yeah, well I just bought this from the Seers and Roedeer in Chytown... for 200 gold marks. Eat hot Ether!" *shoots him down* Isshia
Arganis 05-04-06, 09:43 AM	I can name at least ten characters that use this. You might as well say that a character who uses a cutlass is a rip off of Jack Sparrow. Werd. Or anyone to bake a cake is a rip-off of Martha Stewart. Cause she was the first person to bake a cake. Ever. Guts (Gatsu) is way cooler than Cloud anyway. My environments allow for such things, but I consider them stylistic elements, not mechanical ones. Therefore, a "Buster Sword" is mechanically no different than a Bastard Sword. Sure the raw damage output you would expect isn't there, but that way I can stick to the Core, as I prefer to do.
OravennasBrother 05-04-06, 09:44 AM	as they would have to piece toghther a framework from middle age knowledge and math. (Example--trying to do something with calculus in my game is a DC 30 Knowledge:Math check) Someone asked how they could perform Calculus without inhuman abilities. The answer is that calculus was, when first introduced by Newton and Leibnitz, an extremely difficult topic. Not only were there few people exposed to it, there was no standing methodology for spreading that knowledge. Thus what was once extremely difficult has been transformed into a High School subject - granted only a small portion of High School students take calculus yet the offering is in itself significant. Newton was a genius beyond the scope of standard norms. One (possibly apocryphal) story relates him solving a problem over breakfast which had stumped a pair of very capable mathematicians for a month. In a way, the ease with which characters can obtain an intellect on par with that of Newton Einstein or Fermi is more distracting than someone wanting to use an Anime size weapon. I have met Nobel Laureates (at college receptions by the Physice department) and even they would acknowledge their accomplishments fall short of the Giants I named. Yet players, and I have never had a Nobel Laureate play in any of my games, routinely create characters with intellects on par with the greatest genius to ever live. I personally prefer to treat the D&D Int attribute as a Memory and Magical Aptitude attribute, and allow players to bring their own intelligence to the game.
LordofIllusions 05-04-06, 09:59 AM	It is a fantasy world only so much of it can be realistic. Whining 3E players need to understand that or stop playing and go back to their miserable real lives. ~~~
Traevanon 05-04-06, 10:12 AM	I like to use the word "verisimilitude". While I apply it in my campaigns, I really just like to use the word verisimilitude. Internal consistency. Believability. Credibility. Sense. Realism. Historical Accuracy. Movie Physics. Plausibility. All inferior words to verisimilitude. verisimilitude n : the appearance of truth or realism; the quality of seeming to be true or real
StormKnight 05-04-06, 10:39 AM	Real world physics? Well, yeah, my campaign world has them...it might matter if the characters ever need to discuss the physics of the world. I have yet to have a group of D&D characters sit down to discuss physics, but hey, it could happen. I tend to judge that a 1st level commoner is only capable of doing things I think people in the real world could do. Anyone other than that is constrained only by "cinematic" laws. Heck, I've never met a 5th level figher, how would I have any idea what she's "realistically" capable of? My order of priority in a game: 1. FUN 2. Playability 3. Balance 4. Rules consistency 5. Realism I am a believe in internal consistency and logic though. I have no problem saying "magic can do X" or "someone really skilled can do X", not matter how unrealistic X is, but I DO consider it a problem if someone can say "But, if a person can do X, why would Y happen?" and I can't give a reasonable answer. And I am SO sick of the "falling damage" unrealism statment. Normal people HAVE fallen over 30,000 feet and survived.
ChibiQueso 05-04-06, 10:40 AM	It is a fantasy world only so much of it can be realistic. Whining 3E players need to understand that or stop playing and go back to their miserable real lives. ~~~ But, thats just it. Fantasy. I find dragons hard to believe, but are they still in D&D. Yes, yes they are. Oh wait, dervishes that kill swathes of enemies in seconds? yea. Thas far more believable than a guy using a big sword.
Whim 05-04-06, 10:44 AM	My scenarios typically rely a great deal on realistic ideas, but at the same time, it's very easy to stretch the rules of reality just enough to allow something a little bit crazy. As for something like Cloud's (or Guts') big ass swords, those are plausible. I'm not saying it will be easy to twirl the sword over your head with one hand like Cloud does, but once the sword is moving through the air, momentum can keep it going. I would say that it would take a pretty strong person to effectively weild such a weapon, but anyone who can lift it with two hands can potentially do some damage with it. And anyone who can lift it with ONE hand SHOULD be able to maneuver it pretty damn well if they're using two hands. Of course, such a sword would cause almost any warrior to move fairly slowly between each swing. You just have to remember that while the sword IS swinging, it should be moving pretty fast simply because of the momentum. But when the sword is NOT being swung, it's going to take extra effort to put it into that swinging motion. Of course, all this is only if you're trying to be as realistic as possible.
Arganis 05-04-06, 11:03 AM	Oh, I forgot Sagara Sanosuke, who is also cooler than Cloud, and who also predates him. His introduction in the Kenshin series/manga has a lot of explanation about the use of such large swords, and his use of the zanbatou is probably one of the more realistic representation of that type of weapon... long windup, slow delivery, devastating damage.
The White Sorcerer 05-04-06, 11:13 AM	Do you strive for historical accuracy? And limit my creativity? Never. Do you play with 'movie physics'? I play with common sense physics plus the physics as presented in the rules (falling damage and such). Is your game swarming with magic robots that defy gravity 'because'? Only if it's cool.
Jarrad 05-04-06, 11:28 AM	This IS a good topic, thanks VA :) I've already posted about this in other threads, and at length, so I won't belabour it. Having something of a scientific bent (along with others of my group), real-world physics tends to pick up where magic leaves off... unless and until there's a good reason for it not to :D What always tickles me about these debates is that much of the stuff people think is "impossible" is actually not only possible but happens on a regular basis. Many of the things that people argue *would* happen in RL they're actually dead wrong about (see the Antimagic Field thread for an example of certain folk getting their physics utterly confused). Magic overrides both of these things, but I never extend the effect of magic beyond what it's stated it applies to. The DnD rules in my campaign get tweaked to deal with stuff that several of us in the group know about: bows, for instance, don't work quite the same way because three of us are mediaeval re-enactors who have been shooting period bows for a decade or so and, frankly, we know better. There's no reason why anyone who *doesn't* know better shouldn't use the standard rules, but it would constantly grate like fingernails down a blackboard for us to use some of the rules as they stand because we know they're just out-and-out silly. Movie physics tend to crop up most often when a PC or NPC tries to do something that their skills allow them to do but couldn't possibly come off in the real world, and that's where the suspension of disbelief bit comes in because it's *cool* and because it's fun. Sometimes you just have to look the other way and let what happens, happen. A good reason to stick to RL physics as closely as possible most of the time is that when you *want* to get weird you've got somewhere to go. If it's commonplace for things in your game world to do impossible stuff (in the absence of specific magical effects designed to achieve it, which is different) then how are the players to know when something truly fantastical is happening. Falling damage is one of the things that people mention a lot. I have a house rule for falling damage that my players love; somewhat surprisingly as it tends to shaft them more than it does me. Falling damage in my game is 1d6 per 10 ft per 10ft: 1d6 for a 10ft drop, 3d6 for a 20ft drop, 6d6 for a 30ft drop, 10d6 for a 40ft drop and so on... capped at 120d6 for a 150ft drop! In slight mitigation of this, the rules are changed for flying creatures with wings: they take damage as per a fall of half the distance. This is because the DnD rules are just a shade too far for us to suspend our disbelief, and it works out better this way. Class features like "Slow Fall" and things like Tumble and Jump checks to reduce distance fallen suddenly become HUGELY valuable (there's a 10d6 difference between a 90ft and a 100ft fall, for instance) and both PC's and NPC's are very scared indeed of falling! I suppose this is an instance of taking "movie physics" and turning them into something more approximating reality. On the other hand, the day that one of my players fluffs a Climb check, drops 100ft down a ravine and *doesn't* die is the day that he knows something very strange indeed is going on :) Do we strive for historical accuracy? No. Do we use our knowledge of real-world historical economics, attitudes, social structures, architecture, textile manufacture, arts, crafts, music and other elements (I did say we were mediaeval re-enactors, didn't I?) to add verisimilitude to the game? Oh yes. We're not uptight about it at all, but if there's something we know ought to be a particular way in a late Mediaeval / early Renaissance setting then we'll use it for "colour" even if it has no influence whatsoever on the game mechanics :D
Sulaco 05-04-06, 11:42 AM	I don't give a rat's ass about realism, but I adhere with an almost religious zeal to verisimilitude. This works far better and produces much more enjoyable results. Indeed I find the entire notion of adhering to real-world physics in D&D to be a Sisyphean task as the D&D universe operates under a fundamentally different set of physical laws than does our own.
Androcus Divinicus 05-04-06, 11:44 AM	I tend towards using physics ... and fireballs that expand to fill a volume. I'm enough of a realism freak that I've actually stopped in the middle of combat to have a PC act out a certain action with me to decide whether or not it'd work. Because I'm just a nerd like that. Of course, I don't stop combat often ... afterall, no one wants to get shot with a hammer. As to the uber-sword ... I wouldn't allow it in my game ... because it'd throw off the continuity. Of course, things do happen in my game that are just as "unbelievable" as an anime sword, but they're consistent with the rest of my game world. Your sword wouldn't be, Vaalingrade. However, if it's consistent with the world you play in, then more power to you. *EDIT* The DnD rules in my campaign get tweaked to deal with stuff that several of us in the group know about: bows, for instance, don't work quite the same way because three of us are mediaeval re-enactors who have been shooting period bows for a decade or so and, frankly, we know better. There's no reason why anyone who *doesn't* know better shouldn't use the standard rules, but it would constantly grate like fingernails down a blackboard for us to use some of the rules as they stand because we know they're just out-and-out silly. This is exactly why I've never gotten into D20 Modern ... because the weapons rules just destroy my suspension of disbelief. Excellent point. Falling damage is one of the things that people mention a lot. I have a house rule for falling damage that my players love; somewhat surprisingly as it tends to shaft them more than it does me. Falling damage in my game is 1d6 per 10 ft per 10ft: 1d6 for a 10ft drop, 3d6 for a 20ft drop, 6d6 for a 30ft drop, 10d6 for a 40ft drop and so on... capped at 120d6 for a 150ft drop! In slight mitigation of this, the rules are changed for flying creatures with wings: they take damage as per a fall of half the distance. Awesome ... I think I'm going to steal this from you. */EDIT* Regards, Justin.
aotrscommander 05-04-06, 12:34 PM	Basically, I don't have to tell my players how physics works in my game. And those physics start with RL, and deviate as things become more exotic. I also believe that besides physics, history (created on your own), economics, psychology, and anthropology are very important. Accordingly, my world is fleshed out so that it conforms with these requirements. I have never had the validity of my world challenged, but I consider it a matter of personal strength to create worlds and the people who live in them (indeed, I have almost as much fun creating the worlds and people as I do actually playing.) If anything, the best critique of my world and my people is that they are perhaps too consistant and too ordered--the BBEGs are always highly motivated callous types, or they are somehow insane, and history flows predicatably. My campaigns are within the same sort of boat. I always try to make my worlds reasonable and consistant. I try to find a pseudo-plausible reason for everything, more for my own sense of personal consistency than anything else. For fantasy, I have strong Tolkeinist leanings, and in general I avoid what I consider the more 'wibbly' end of the spectrum; a particular point is all those funny antropmorphic races (especially the races from the splatbooks) which grate heavily on my sense of suspension of disbelief. Weird for the sake if weird is bad; wierd for the sake of being cool is perfectly acceptable, however. That said, one of the two RPG groups I am with consist of engineers or those who have engineering mindsets, and the other was influenced heavily by me and my leanings, so it's never been a problem! As a reasonably knowledgable (lay) student of natural history, I have a tendancy to categorise the world's monsters into taxanomical groups, and rationaise their physiology. My lastest campaign world is some two years in the making, and I have only just started adding cities to the map. Mind you, I did start from complete scratch with the monsters; the MM will only be used for animal stats, as even the cosmology has had a rewrite (instead of just four elements, there's nine!) i have even rationalised the 'sceince' of magic so that it has some basic underlying principles. While I try to make things as reasonably historically accurate as I can, there comes a point where I just give up and ignore the glaring errors. I find the weapon weights, for example, to be unrealistic, but it's just not reallly worth the effort of re-writing the entire encumberance system which works well enough. In the end, the effect would be broadly the same, so I'm not going to lose any sleep about it. Things like the Cloud syndrome, much as I love Final Fantasy, I cannot reconcile with my game worlds; it's too unbeliveable for me. That said, I have absoultely no qualms as soon as the possibilty of special effects come in; the more over-the-top the better. As soon as you get to magic or psionics, big, great neeming stuff is just more fun. I struggle a little to visulise people (ask me what my character/the NPC is wearing, and you're likely to get a helpless look and the responce 'err..generic sort of leather armour?') but I can visualise spell effecs until the cows come home. Or (if playing Sci-Fi) weapons/starships and alieny thingies. So, I can't handle Cloud with his giant sword (outside of FF), but am quite prepared to believe Goku can blow an entire planet up with a ridiculous super-neem (but wonder why everybody doesn't just thwack him while he's spending the requiste 3000 epidodes charging up)! Most of the this work, by the way, is almost totally wasted, since my players pay only passing attention to it all. Or annoyingly ask awkward questions on things that I haven't even considered. But I think they do appriciate the amount of work I put in, and world building is as much fun as playing. In fact, I would say world building is as much fun as one can have by oneself with D&D!
LazyPeon 05-04-06, 01:08 PM	I disagree, even in a world with magic, elves, and dragons, a human being cannot wield a sword twice their size. If they can, then they arent human. Call them something else, thats fine, give them a strength that justifies it, but having a normal person carrying a FF style sword is just stupid. You can say that trolls and whatnot can regenerate, but the difference lies in the fact that trolls dont exist in our world. There arent trolls that cant regenerate in our world, they are an addition. A human is still a human with exactly the same capabilities as we have, and unfortunately that doesnt involve wielding a sword larger than yourself. As far as magic goes, that is a property of the world that humans utilize, not an innate power of the species itself. At the end of the day, if you want to put the sword in, nobody will stop you. But it's going to cheapen the game setting because suddenly, it has no ties whatsoever to a believable reality. You will have completely detatched it from the world we live in.
Milandros 05-04-06, 01:34 PM	I find it's campaign consistency and suspension of disbelief that's the important thing, not "realism" as such. But it is important. I don't have anime weaponry in my game. I have plenty of other stuff; it's just that my players, who were not raised on anime stories, would find it silly. They'd expect consitency. If their PCs can easily lift, block, parry and swing one and a half tons of sword, then surely they should be able to carry at least that much other stuff? If you can wave a ton or two around your head in one hand, then merely picking up and moving a two or three ton boulder should be easy. Throwing half-ton rocks should be easy too. And so on... By saying "no, the swords can be massive but if you try to use your strength for anything else it suddenly dribbles away" would break that suspension - meaning that I then have to make the big swords somehow special and magically light, so anyone could wield them. Then there would be the arguements about whether a 8' long sword could be swung when the walls are only 5' on each side... for my group, it wouldn't work. Most of all, they would think it just looks silly - people waving around swords bigger than they are? How do they carry them? Don't they get stuck in doors? As I said, my players weren't raised on anime (they're mostly in their mid to late 30s). Cinematic fighting, great. LOTR-Legolas type stunts, swashbuckling swinging from the chandeliers, might Conan-style feats of strength, all these fit well into their minds, despite being unrealistic, but leaping 50' into the air and then hacking with 8' long 3' wide swords would ruin it for them. They'd expect consitency - if they can leap 50' into the air to attack, they'd expect to be able to leap 50' over the castle wall. If you want to run an anime-style game then that's different, of course. Use all the genre staples you wish. If you want to run a Final Fantasy-style game where many character abilities, like the huge leaps, only work in combat, then fine. You just have to maintain internal consistency within those worlds. Tolkein or Raymond Feist-style fantasy with megabig swords doesn't work, any more than serious elven political discussions and combat-free adventures fit in well with a Final Fantasy game.
mlund 05-04-06, 01:49 PM	I require some sort of consistancy. That's all. If I want to apply a particular physics principle to the world, then violating it requires magic. If one person can do something, someone else can do it the same way. As to the giant swords, at a certain point the weight of an object vs. the size of the wielder makes it impossible to gain the leverage to wield it effectively, or even to lift it. While the size of the object is theoretically unbounded, the weight vs. size has a cap based on leverage. Some things will tip over even a Strength 999+ 2-legged, 185 lbs. human over before he can lift it off the ground. Make the thing out of Mithral and it weighs less. Of course, if it weighs less its raw size isn't going to factor into the damage as much - since it carries the same momentum as a weapon with half the size made of steel. Those are just my house-rules to add verisimitude that I like to have in my campaigns. You can goof on the physics of your world as much as you want, but make sure your players are on the same page as you on "cinematic privilege," or be prepared to have not-so-good-natured fights over how it is unfair that Player A can wield a Giant Sword but Player B can't beat his opponents to death with a cow-on-a-stick. - Marty Lund
StormKnight 05-04-06, 01:51 PM	Its odd the things that do or don't seem "unrealistic" to people. I just love these wacky computers that they must make just for TV/Movies that have a "Print" and "Delete" button right next to each other, and hitting the "Delete" button wipes out your whole file. I'd sure hate to use a computer like that. These things always offend my sense of "reality", while the fact that the movie has people who can fly and dodge bullets doesn't bother me in the slightest. I have no idea what super-powered humans can do, so I'm willing to accept that they exist in the fictional reality and do whatever they appear to. However, I'm VERY familiar with computers, and since this fictional computer in what is supposed to be a reality very much like my own seems to look and act mostly like a computer I know, I find that element unbelievable. Falling damage in my game is 1d6 per 10 ft per 10ft: 1d6 for a 10ft drop, 3d6 for a 20ft drop, 6d6 for a 30ft drop, 10d6 for a 40ft drop and so on... capped at 120d6 for a 150ft drop! So, in this world, a normal person falling off a two story house has about a 98% of dying from it? And no one realistic person stands even a chance of surviving a fall of over a hundred feet? Ever? While you are welcome to use whatever rules you prefer, thinking they are more "realistic" is mostly wishful thinking.
Feeb 05-04-06, 02:32 PM	yeah, real world physics don't have much impact in my games (maybe because I used to play with to Enginnering Grad students :D ). I think, as others have mentioned that consistency is important, and to that end, if I make a ruling about something that effects gameworld physics I try and note it down in my campaign journal so that I can rule consistently in future cases. Someone asked how they could perform Calculus without inhuman abilities. The answer is that calculus was, when first introduced by Newton and Leibnitz, an extremely difficult topic. Not only were there few people exposed to it, there was no standing methodology for spreading that knowledge. I was under the impression that Newton and Leibnitz developed seperate mathematical notation for their equations, sounds like a dc 30 Decipher Script check to me. ;)
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-04-06, 02:49 PM	I disagree, even in a world with magic, elves, and dragons, a human being cannot wield a sword twice their size. If they can, then they arent human. Call them something else, thats fine, give them a strength that justifies it, but having a normal person carrying a FF style sword is just stupid. You can say that trolls and whatnot can regenerate, but the difference lies in the fact that trolls dont exist in our world. There arent trolls that cant regenerate in our world, they are an addition. A human is still a human with exactly the same capabilities as we have, and unfortunately that doesnt involve wielding a sword larger than yourself. As far as magic goes, that is a property of the world that humans utilize, not an innate power of the species itself. At the end of the day, if you want to put the sword in, nobody will stop you. But it's going to cheapen the game setting because suddenly, it has no ties whatsoever to a believable reality. You will have completely detatched it from the world we live in. The whole point of heroic fantasy games is the already existing conceit that the characters are more than your garden variety real world human. They take beatings that no person here could survive, they are capable of feats the no person here is capable of -- in short, they do the impossible, even without magic. Think about it; a rogue is posessed with such a keen sense of perception and reflexes that he is capable of finding traps concealed by magic and is able to avoid harm from effects that are normally unavoidable. NO MAGIC The Barbarian is touch as nails, capable of shruging off most minor injuries entirely and possessed of a third more speed than a normal person. He can then become stronger and tougher just by becoming angry. NO MAGIC. A fighter with the proper feats can fight completely unhindered blindfolded, Fire upwards of five arrows in three seconds, can shatter chains by flexing, and can catch arrows in flight. NO MAGIC You mean to tell me that we have a game with all this as CORE is not cheapened by the illiterate human berserker with the strength of ten men, but *is* cheapened if he weilds a weapon that's bigger than normal. DnD humans have never been IRL humans. Humans in DnD are just as much fantasy creatures as a halfling or an elf. If you think they are, just what exactly is your bonus feat?
Sulaco 05-04-06, 03:53 PM	I disagree, even in a world with magic, elves, and dragons, a human being cannot wield a sword twice their size. If they can, then they arent human. Call them something else, thats fine, give them a strength that justifies it, but having a normal person carrying a FF style sword is just stupid. That I agree with. Dragons, elves and magic I can buy, but no amount of suspension of disbelief can justify the 7 foot long *****-extensions whipped around by the androgynous spike-haired metrosexuals in Final Fantasy (and anime in general).
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-04-06, 04:07 PM	Most of this has much less to do with actual suspension of disbelief and much, much more to do with prejudice against the source. If Tolkien or Brooks or... I want to say Jordan, but I don't know if the community hates him this week or not -- put them in something they wrote, the local Geek Orthodox would eat it up with a spoon and asked to lick the bowl. But unfortunately for me as a poster here, it comes from one of those sources that a chunk of the community has a deep seated hatred for, despite most of them not knowing anything beyond what other people that hate it say. Its just like the MMORPG thing.
FriendoftheDork 05-04-06, 04:14 PM	I think giant swords are really, really stupid. But if you don't, then I'm not going to tell you you shouldn't use them in your game. They seem to be rather popular in certain types of anime, or whatever, and if that's the feel you want to go for in your game, it bothers me not at all. I don't buy the argument that as soon as you sacrifice any realism, by introducing some fantasy elements, you shouldn't mind sacrificing all realism by introducing arbitrary fantasy elements. There are different styles of fantasy, with different "realities", and elements from one might not be consistent with another. For example, elves and dwarves are entirely consistent with Tolkienesque fantasy, but comically huge swords aren't. And no doubt there could be some fantasies which feature comically huge swords, where elves and dwarves would be out of place. Ultimately, your kind of fantasy might not be my kind of fantasy, but it doesn't have to be. It's silly to argue about it. This shows me sentiments exactly. And well put too. It all boils down into what kind of fantastic setting you and your players prefer. I for one don't like the manga ones (which is why Exalted never appealed), and there are many aspects of D&D I dislike as well. I need a certain amount of realism in my games so that I can believe them myself. Seeing a tough hardened soldier plummet down 200' or more and still hardly get hurt at all breaks that suspense of disbelief for me. In my game falls are often wound damage, and since this is mostly limited by your con, 20d6 is automatically killed for everything but the toughest of creatures. Sure... the 80 WP elder dragon might survive, but the 20th level human fighter with 22 con is statistically impossible to save. That doesen't mean I have to make everything in the game as realistic as possible, or even not use magic and other supernatural stuff. Just the stuff the irks me when playing, such as men swimming around in their masterwork studded leathers with no difficulty when I know how difficult it is to swim just when wearing CLOTHING. However, the fact that flying dragons of such a weight defies the laws of nature doesen't bother me at all. After all, they're supernatural and fantastic beings. Who knows how dragons can fly? They're certainly not the product of natural evolution, that's for sure.
Keenath 05-04-06, 04:20 PM	In my games, I strive more for flavor of the setting than anything else. I suppose it's closest to "action movie physics" -- Heroes can carry bizarrely large weapons and take horrific wounds without dying or being permanently damaged, and so on. I use the mechanics as my guide in a lot of cases. The game has to be PLAYABLE, so I do my best to keep it simple. If that means the occasional silliness because the mechanics aren't perfect, well... so be it. For example... Since the mechanics don't say you can't swing a sword that's taller than you are -- well, you can, assuming you take the appropriate penalties for oversized weaponry.
Sulaco 05-04-06, 04:32 PM	Most of this has much less to do with actual suspension of disbelief and much, much more to do with prejudice against the source. If Tolkien or Brooks or... I want to say Jordan, but I don't know if the community hates him this week or not -- put them in something they wrote, the local Geek Orthodox would eat it up with a spoon and asked to lick the bowl. Well I can't speak for the geeks, only for myself. Stupid is stupid, the source is immaterial, and those big, giant swords just look fracking stupid to me.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-04-06, 04:42 PM	Saying that you don't like how they look is fine, but don't feed me the suspension of disbelief line over it. I don't like the 3e gorrilla-taurs of tropical fish metallic dragons, but I'm not going to say that the fact they look dumb ruins suspension. There are OWLBEARS in this game for god's sake. There is a monster specifically evolved for graph paper. Grells continue to exist unabated. If that can't break my suspension, an outsized o-daichi is bloody nothing.
bartleby42 05-04-06, 04:43 PM	I dislike the concept of really big swords, but does that make them unbeliveable? Nope, but then again most of the weapons are completely unbelivable. Lets look at the big offenders: Dire flail - completely impossible to use. If both ends are swinging you have a choice of mearly moving the weapon forward or whacking yourself really hard. Double Scimitar - Yeah, this is more beliveable than a really big sword? Hmm, the only way to use this is ignore half of the weapon and then hope you don't cut yourself. +5 flaming dagger - It's on fire!!! How can that work, OMG the laws of physics demand that there is a source of fuel! I hate this anime crap!! Throwing axe vs Light hammer - Same weight, but the one that is made for throwing has a smaller range increment then the other. That's like saying a frisbee can go 30' but a rock of the same weight can go 40'. Wow, I guess all of this is fine and makes perfect sense, but gosh, if a sword is big that shatters all of concept of reality. It all comes down to what you want your game to have. If you have a beef with realism, think about broken bones first. Sure you might have 150 hp, but if you get smashed on the leg with a mace your leg will probally break. Sure that is a hp loss, but wouldn't you move slower, and be in constant pain? Have a danger of passing out, or internal bleeding? Or any of the other things that are just rolled into hit points? If you want realism figure out a way to have a noticible difference in capability from full hit points and having 1 hit point left. That being said, I think really big swords are just tacky.
geekling 05-04-06, 04:47 PM	Most of all, they would think it just looks silly - people waving around swords bigger than they are? How do they carry them? Don't they get stuck in doors? Just what are they overcompensating for?
Nobunaga Oda 05-04-06, 04:52 PM	As a DM, in all things... the most important question is (in my eyes): Are the players having fun? I agree with Mr. EvilSqueegee...So what that a human wielding a big sword is inrealistic? Maybe let things like that slide make the game more interesting and fun. Maybe not. Geekling: Hm...Gats was trying to compensate family problems.(Like...doesn´t have a family at all) and after that he got used to it.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-04-06, 05:01 PM	Heh, here's one in reverse: something I think would be cool, is physically possible, but doesn't have a reasonable analog in DnD -- being thrown by forceful impacts. A Great Wyrm Red Dragon tail sweeps a halfling. The halfling takes grevious wounds -- and yet has not even moved five feet. I really want to say 'the dragon tail slaps the hallfing and he goes flying. scatter dice, please.'. Awesome Blow is weak sauce for this.
Moblin 05-04-06, 05:07 PM	Do you strive for historical accuracy? Do you play with 'movie physics'? Is your game swarming with magic robots that defy gravity 'because'? Hm… how? Unless I missed something during history classes elves and dwarves never graced this earth and no single person has ever been recorded as destroying entire armies with a little bat droppings and some funny words. On the other hand, as most other people, I do tend to use a lot of elements from history that doesn’t really make sense in a world of magic so I do pay some attention to “history”. Well since my players have to have some general guide lines. Apples tend to fall towards the earth and water turns to ice around 0 degrees. If this doesn’t happen I usually have to give some sort of explanation. But beyond the most basic of expectations physics take a back seat to running the game smoothly and making it enjoyable (no session stands alone so consistency is important in regards to those rulings). No. But if it’s ever called for robots will begin to fly (even if its just to provide shadow to a race of mole people trying to claim the surfaces).
revnk 05-04-06, 05:14 PM	The "realism" level depends on what I'm running and when. To give an example of extremes: if I were to run Traveller, I'd try to keep the physics and biology as "realistic" as possible (because it's designed for a hard-sf setting), but if I were running Star Wars, movie physics would rule (because it's a fantasy setting with sf trappings and players ought to expect the game to work like the movies). For my current D&D game, it's kind of an ad-hoc mix. The population of a town might follow historical demographics as well as I understand them, but there are giant vermin romping around despite the fact that a creature without an endoskeleton (spiders, insects, etc.) are limited to the size they can reach by physics (i.e., the reason you don't see giant spiders the size of horses in the real world is that such a creature's guts would crush themselves under their own weight). It's an ad-hoc balance because the game should be fun, but it's usually easier to maintain suspension of disbelief if players can relate to events in the game through their real world experience--people tend to expect gravity to behave a certain way and so forth. Too, it can be easier to design a world if you stick with certain conventions. Having said that, I'd have no problem running a game where a gunblade or big honkin' sword was a common weapon, or where anime physics ruled. And I'd actually love to run a wuxia-style game sometime, with Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon physics. (Probably have to use action points or something. Dang it.) Anyway, I don't obsess over the realism too much, and certainly not in D&D. My sympathies, Vaalingrade, if you got some flak from somebody about "realism" in a fantasy game. EDIT: Having read a few more posts in the thread, let me clarify two things: (1) Suspension of disbelief is often about consistency generally, not necessarily consistency with our world: if everyone carries around a honkin' big sword, the normal sword seems strange and out-of-place. (2) Great big honkin' swords are really, really cool. Oh, and Final Fantasy VI is the best computer/console RPG ever released. :P
Moblin 05-04-06, 05:14 PM	Heh, here's one in reverse: something I think would be cool, is physically possible, but doesn't have a reasonable analog in DnD -- being thrown by forceful impacts. A Great Wyrm Red Dragon tail sweeps a halfling. The halfling takes grevious wounds -- and yet has not even moved five feet. I really want to say 'the dragon tail slaps the hallfing and he goes flying. scatter dice, please.'. Awesome Blow is weak sauce for this. Cool, but already after 2 min thinking about possible rules for this my head hurts. As it would duplicate some of the effects of a bull rush and a trip attack it would properly be to powerful an ability.
allenchan 05-04-06, 05:14 PM	Heh, here's one in reverse: something I think would be cool, is physically possible, but doesn't have a reasonable analog in DnD -- being thrown by forceful impacts. A Great Wyrm Red Dragon tail sweeps a halfling. The halfling takes grevious wounds -- and yet has not even moved five feet. I really want to say 'the dragon tail slaps the hallfing and he goes flying. scatter dice, please.'. Awesome Blow is weak sauce for this. That seems like a problem with game mechanics and balance, not a matter of SODT and fantasy. This is largel due to the fact that tactical movement is what dnd is built around, and you'd have balance problems involving AoOs and the like. Then there's the issue of HP being abstract, so its hard to quantify if the halfling actually got hit right in the chest at full force from the tail swing or not (using VP/WP makes this a little clearer, but still has balance issues).
Sulaco 05-04-06, 05:19 PM	Saying that you don't like how they look is fine, but don't feed me the suspension of disbelief line over it. I'm not feeding you any line, Vaal. Dragons, owlbears, and other trapping of fantasy are entirely fictional. It is easier to suspend disbelief with them cos we don'tcompare them to their real-world counterparts (as they have none). However, we are all intimately familiar with human beings and what they are capable of, a swinging a sword this size ain't one of them: http://www.kristasalter.com/gamesguru/ffvii/cloud.jpg That sword would weight 50lbs or more. Even if you could lift the bugger you couldn't wield it cos of balance and leverage issues. If you like 'em, use 'em - to each their own and more power to you, man - but I think they both look stupid and they seriously harm both suspension of disbelief and a sense of verisimilitude.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-04-06, 05:24 PM	Cool, but already after 2 min thinking about possible rules for this my head hurts. Painful ain't it? I've been devving WoE seriously for about two years now and there's not good out for it. Its only come up twice in game and both times, I used a favorite standby of mine from the X-men cartoon to explain it away: 'You plant your weapon and use it to halt your movement.' Its as if two 'wrongs' made a right.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-04-06, 05:29 PM	However, we are all intimately familiar with human beings Really? Fantasy human beings? How many people do you know are rogues, barbarians or fighters much less rangers, or paladins. Unless you can produce a friend of yours who can catch a fireball directly in the face while unprotected and come through unscathed*, I'm calling BS. *meaning no superficial burns, no loss of body hair, no nothing.
FolcoTook 05-04-06, 05:36 PM	I'm in the "internal consistency" camp. For me, as long as a world is internally consistent, then it is "right". If you and your players like anime style games, then that is right. If some of the players can't stand the big frackin swords and giant sweat drops, then you'll have some compromising to do when creating the setting style. For myself, I (and the people I game with) am a traditional Tolkien fantasy person as that is what I grew up with. I enjoy watching some anime, but I wouldn't want it in my games. But that's me and there's nothing wrong with a group that wants to jump in the air against a colorful background while swinging an oversized blade. Season to taste, as it were. <off topic> Man, I love Myth Busters (original source of thread title quote). The Sword and the Sorcerer (1982) - (source of the 3-blade sword) I hadn't thought about that movie in years. The best part is that you can buy it bundled with the original Beastmaster movie at Amazon. Heh. </off topic> -FT
LazyPeon 05-04-06, 05:36 PM	The whole point of heroic fantasy games is the already existing conceit that the characters are more than your garden variety real world human. They take beatings that no person here could survive, they are capable of feats the no person here is capable of -- in short, they do the impossible, even without magic. Think about it; a rogue is posessed with such a keen sense of perception and reflexes that he is capable of finding traps concealed by magic and is able to avoid harm from effects that are normally unavoidable. NO MAGIC The Barbarian is touch as nails, capable of shruging off most minor injuries entirely and possessed of a third more speed than a normal person. He can then become stronger and tougher just by becoming angry. NO MAGIC. A fighter with the proper feats can fight completely unhindered blindfolded, Fire upwards of five arrows in three seconds, can shatter chains by flexing, and can catch arrows in flight. NO MAGIC You mean to tell me that we have a game with all this as CORE is not cheapened by the illiterate human berserker with the strength of ten men, but *is* cheapened if he weilds a weapon that's bigger than normal. DnD humans have never been IRL humans. Humans in DnD are just as much fantasy creatures as a halfling or an elf. If you think they are, just what exactly is your bonus feat? The rules may not be perfect but I disagree that D&D humans are not us. Ok a barbarian who takes the raging berserker class can become stupidly strong, but thats just because whoever designed that class committed the folly of allowing rage bonuses to stack. A normal barbarian is pretty realistic in my view, if you think that there cant be a 25% difference between the running speeds of two humans then you are more of a fool than I gave myself the misfortune of believing. And you ever heard of a real berserker? You know the psychotic norseman smeared in bear fat and blood with breath that reeks of mead and who swings a huge battleaxe. They managed to whip themselves into a fury and become better warriors. Perhaps a +4 strength bonus is over the top but it is only trying to represent this state with game rules. As far as the leveling system goes, of course it is ridiculous that the same guy, just because he is more 'experienced' can suddenly take on a dragon. But do you describe every hit as 'well the goblin runs you through the heart with his spear....2 damage'? Obviously not, its just that 2 damage represents a much smaller wound to a higher level character. Perhaps his combat prowess enabled him to avoid that death blow and only take a nick instead. My point is, you shouldnt imagine the game rules as literal descriptions of what goes on in the game. They are just a framework to enable the players to work out what happens. It is up to the DM to create this in the minds of the players as it would appear to them if they were watching it. This is why it is the worse Dm who says 'ok the dragon rips off your head with one swipe of its claw....20 points of damage.....your turn' while the better one says 'even though you jump back to avoid the blow the dragon's attack tears a painful gorge into your leg...20 points of damage'.
Moblin 05-04-06, 05:41 PM	That sword would weight 50lbs or more. Even if you could lift the bugger you couldn't wield it cos of balance and leverage issues. Well any sword using a short stick for a hilt is going to have balance issues ;) On the weight issue: I’m not particularly strong myself an therefore not sure what some of those “freaking huge guys” you see in gyms are capable of swinging around
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-04-06, 05:58 PM	A normal barbarian is pretty realistic in my view, if you think that there cant be a 25% difference between the running speeds of two humans All glory to the straw man. The fact is that barbarians are, in the fantasy world supposed to be simply faster than humans. They aren't just really well trained track stars, they are just faster than 'normal' humans. They are above and beyond human kin. then you are more of a fool than I gave myself the misfortune of believing. Trolltastic! :cool: And you ever heard of a real berserker? You know the psychotic norseman smeared in bear fat and blood with breath that reeks of mead and who swings a huge battleaxe. They managed to whip themselves into a fury and become better warriors. Perhaps a +4 strength bonus is over the top but it is only trying to represent this state with game rules. There's a very real conversation going on in intellectual circles as to what exactly triggered this fit AND what it actually did for the berserkers. No one actually beleives it made them physically stronger. Most think it just made them have a higher threshold of pain. EXCEPT THAT DOESN'T MATTER! Barbarians are fictional characters. They aren't eal people. They can get stronger because of thier rage because of this. *snip, pedantic dissertation on hit points* No duh, discription is important. No one ever said it wasn't. But all these heroics are something that real people aren't capable of. A real person who takes a swat from the claws of a fifty ton lizard is not going to have the 'heroic luck' that saves them from damage. You are proving my 'DnD humans are not us' point for me. I don't care how many challenges you overcome, if someone drops a ten ton boulder on you, you will die. No amount of reflexes and 'luck' is going to save you. Why? Because Real Life is Not Heroic Fantasy
LazyPeon 05-04-06, 06:12 PM	Dont take the fool comment seriously man, we're all friends here. Still, in what way wont reflexes save you? You realise what this represents dont you, it means the boulder never actually hit me in the first place. So....I'm sorry I cant really see your point here. Barbarians fictional...hhmmm, perhaps you should tell that to the Gauls, or the Celts, or the Ostrogoths, or the Vandals, or the Dacians, or the Huns, or the Visigoths, or the Teutons.........Sorry man but you are simply wrong on this point. I'm not going to convince you on the HP thing, even I think the system could be a lot better which doesnt help my case so I'm just gonna leave that.
Pandaemoni 05-04-06, 06:20 PM	Barbarians fictional...hhmmm, perhaps you should tell that to the Gauls, or the Celts, or the Ostrogoths, or the Vandals, or the Dacians, or the Huns, or the Visigoths, or the Teutons.........Sorry man but you are simply wrong on this point. The notion that the Gauls (who were Celts) and all the others were uncivilized wilderness "barbarians" is fictional. The Vandals and Visigoths in particular were very highly Romanized, and the Celts had a vibrant and advanced culture all their own. The notion of these groups as lacking in culture and refinement was Roman propaganda. By the way, "The Dungeonmaster" (whence the quote "I reject your reality and substitute my own" originally came) was the worst fantasy movie ever. Even at 12 or 13 years old, I remember apologizing to my parents for dragging them to that turd. :D
fatal error 05-04-06, 06:21 PM	Oh, I see the problem now. I like to use real humans in my games, it gives my players something to relate to and use as a baseline. I see you prefer using humans that are all injected with marvel super-soldier formula as the baseline for your games. However, it seems you're doing just as much anti-realism bashing as people do anti-anime bashing. Isn't that sort of counter-productive? Instead of retaliating by posting threads like this maybe you should post in your other threads along the lines of: "I like this style of [whatever] in my game, it's fine if you don't, but that doesn't mean you need to try to force your opinion and me and others who enjoy similar things." But I digress, as this 'discussion' has no real point, I probably shouldn't even bother posting on it. *whistles his way off to his setting where swords are normal sized because that's how that particular world works*
Arganis 05-04-06, 06:21 PM	Barbarians fictional...hhmmm, perhaps you should tell that to the Gauls, or the Celts, or the Ostrogoths, or the Vandals, or the Dacians, or the Huns, or the Visigoths, or the Teutons.........Sorry man but you are simply wrong on this point. Although I might be inclined to believe that the Barbarian class is the least "fantastic" next to Fighter (or Rogue minus finding magical traps), these factions were called "barbarians" because they were less civilized than the people writing the books. None of these "barbarians" had any abilities above and beyond anyone else who ever existed in the real world ever. At all. Up to and including "rage 1/day". Oh, don't forget: How does a rogue succeed a reflex save to _completely_ dodge a fireball without moving?
fatal error 05-04-06, 06:23 PM	(whence the quote "I reject your reality and substitute my own" originally came) Really? I first heard it on Mythbusters. Also, berserkers were indeed actually norse warriors. Effects of 'berserking' are unknown, however it appears to have been an extreme exertion as (according to norse sagas) they had to rest for several days afterwards. EDIT: Arganis; while they might not be physically much different than a Roman they could have had a much different outlook on fighting. A more aggressive warrior concerned little with personal defense and blinded by psychically cultivated 'battle rage' could appear to have similar effects as those of the Barbarian's rage. Though this wasn't the case, it could be viewed as somehow supernaturally inspired by the victims of such a fighter. However, again, I know this wasn't the case in history.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-04-06, 06:25 PM	Still, in what way wont reflexes save you? You realise what this represents dont you, it means the boulder never actually hit me in the first place. So....I'm sorry I cant really see your point here. I was refering to your hp in the 'heroic reflexes' aspect. But note that DnD characters can use thier reflexes (reflex save) to mitigate the damage even if they can't get out from under the boulder. Barbarians fictional...hhmmm, perhaps you should tell that to the Gauls, or the Celts, or the Ostrogoths, or the Vandals, or the Dacians, or the Huns, or the Visigoths, or the Teutons.........Sorry man but you are simply wrong on this point. *sigh* If the Gauls as a people were capable of harnessing thier rage to become superhuman, then you have a point. Members of the barbarian class are fictional. Members of the socio-political substrata of the ancient world have no bearing on this conversation. And in the end, it doesn't matter. Your knowledge of humans make it impossible for you to accept the requisite superhuman humans that exist in fantasy? Fine. The guy with the sword is an elf.
fatal error 05-04-06, 06:28 PM	The guy with the sword is an elf. Elves in my world don't have a strength bonus, so that's void, they have the same 'max' strength as a human.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-04-06, 06:30 PM	A couple of my friends want to discuss stupid concepts: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG186.jpg http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG216.jpg Sadly, the hippogriff image was broken.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-04-06, 06:32 PM	Elves in my world don't have a strength bonus, so that's void, they have the same 'max' strength as a human. Doesn't matter. They may very weill have exceptional bone structure that allows them to swing such loads without being able to carry more.
fatal error 05-04-06, 06:54 PM	Doesn't matter. They may very weill have exceptional bone structure that allows them to swing such loads without being able to carry more. Lost me. How would stronger bone structure allow you to swing a bigger sword, precisely? I was actually fishing for the respone, "Well Elves in my world do have a strength bonus, deal with it." Because that makes sense. Also, wouldn't bone structure make an elf tougher, thus giving them a better constitution, and yet they have a -2 con.
LazyPeon 05-04-06, 07:06 PM	So long as we are nitpicking on what constitues a barbarian, you are all wrong. A barbarian very simply is someone who does not speak Greek. The Greeks thought they just sounded like they were saying bar bar bar so they called them the barbaros. Anyway, and this is all opinion now, I have always taken the rage ability to not represent a literal increase in strength by roughly 20% but simply the way that barbaric peoples fought. The Celts in particular had no fear of death due to their religeon which left nothing to be feared from it. Even the Romans remarcked on this. In this way they simply hurled themselves into battle swinging very big swords and used a lot of brute force to win. How would you represent this ingame? I also disagree that the hp boost from raging is unrealistic, a very angry person definately can stand up longer. Look at Pheidippides, he is alleged to have run the first Marathon, and then died right after giving his message. Although it wasnt anger that drove him but determination, I cant think of a more perfect example.
allenchan 05-04-06, 07:35 PM	Doesn't matter. They may very weill have exceptional bone structure that allows them to swing such loads without being able to carry more. Wouldn't this suffer the same problem cybornetics would, in that the joint does not become any better, and so parts of the body rip away due to them being too strong compared to their joints? This is the stuff I'm talking about. If there's some thought-out reason for it to be, thats cool. Wanting to have stupidly large sword and saying "just cause" isn't good enough, imho. Thats my largest problem with the Fullblade, et al. Simply saying its made out of a special elf material solves the problem, too. I dont see why you'd be unwilling to make up a new material similiar to soarwood thats near-weightless.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-04-06, 07:43 PM	Lost me. How would stronger bone structure allow you to swing a bigger sword, precisely? I didn't say stronger, I said 'exceptional' meaning that thier skeleton is configured differently, perhaps with a third, supporting bone in near radius and ulna -- I don't know. It doens't matter, they aren't real so I can make anything up I want for them. I was actually fishing for the respone, "Well Elves in my world do have a strength bonus, deal with it." Because that makes sense. Heh, are you kidding? Elves on Ere are more 'weiner-esque' than typical DnD elves. But its funny you bring up the strength bonus... because it doesn't matter. I didn't even think of this until I was looking back over the weapons that started this and realised it: Weapons in DnD depend on skill to weild, not strength. As long as you are proficient and (assuming the anti-small character 3.5 size rules) the handholds are sized for you, your strength doesn't matter. A Strength 3 human fighter can weild a greatsword, albiet with his strength penalty in melee combat.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-04-06, 07:48 PM	I dont see why you'd be unwilling to make up a new material similiar to soarwood thats near-weightless. I never said I was unwilling to do that. In fact, in the original posting of the Direblade and Daizaku (The racial weapons of the medium sized minotaur race that started this whole thing), I noted that the daizaku is actually a metal edge set into a setting of wood. Its just a very long slashing edge.
Pandaemoni 05-04-06, 07:49 PM	So long as we are nitpicking on what constitues a barbarian, you are all wrong. A barbarian very simply is someone who does not speak Greek. The Greeks thought they just sounded like they were saying bar bar bar so they called them the barbaros. While certainly used it to men "foreign" originally, it's meaning expanded well beyond "unable to speak Greek" even when the ancient Greeks were still using the word. Even in the Hellenistic world it came to mean those who were irrational, cruel, ignorant and stupid (as well as cowardly). The notion that it comes from an onomatopoetic "bar bar bar" is popular, but not exactly proven. Even if it were true, the people who first noted foreigners who sounded as if they were saying "bar bar bar" likely weren't the Greeks. Sanscrit, for example, has a word pronounced "barbara-" which means "stammering" and "non-aryan". That suggests that the "barbar" word form has a Proto-Indo-European root older than Greek. Edit: On the etymology of barbarian and its PIE root: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=barbarian
Pandaemoni 05-04-06, 08:06 PM	Really? I first heard it on Mythbusters. For all I know, the guy from Mythbusters independently developed the sentence...but it's a somewhat distinctive one, and I'm willing to bet that Adam Savage was the sort of kid who (sadly, like me) dragged his parents or friends to go see that film. In any event "Dungeonmaster" had the line in the mid-80's, word-for-wird the same.
teclis 05-04-06, 09:11 PM	[QUOTE=Vaalingrade Ashland] Do you strive for historical accuracy? Do you play with 'movie physics'? Is your game swarming with magic robots that defy gravity 'because'? QUOTE] historical accuracy: most of the time, as a historian, my current homebrew setting is loosely based on the roman empire. movie physics: high level play lends itself to this method of description. when somebody falls 150', then get's up, charges the BBEG and sends them flying litterally 40' because they have knockback and a +50 bullrush modifier, movie physics just comes naturally. rogues and monks are the first to break the threashold with evasion. my games do not swim with magical robots. I rarely use magical effects that are "just there" most things that are done in my game can be done by the players, and most of what the players can do is statted in the rules.
TheRubberBandit 05-04-06, 10:47 PM	Posted in wrong thread, Dont know how that happend...
Ioreck 05-04-06, 11:07 PM	I personally don't use big swords. I consider a character wielding a bastard sword in one hand to have a "big sword." At the same time, having a big sword is badass. just plain badass. If any of my player's wanted to use one, I wouldn't say no. I probably wouldn't even make them waste a feat for one. Ya, my dnd games are what you would call "loose"
Vrykolas2k 05-04-06, 11:21 PM	I follow real world stuff for the most part, when it applies. I have studied with real swords and other tools of woe for most of my life, and never liked AD&D or D&D weapon weights (3.5 fixed quite a bit), and always used real weights when I ran and insisted DMs did so when I played. In my games, most adventurers are the offspring of adventurers; they do not come from peasant stock, and if they're not at least of the lower noble caste, then they're damned close to it. A large minotaur in a ten foot wide by ten foot high passage is in trouble if he tries to use that huge, hideous axe... Things like that.
Always-Late 05-04-06, 11:51 PM	I run and play all my (non-stupid) campaigns in relatively Tolkienesque lands. That's how I like it. People can get their hands chopped off and flown hundreds of miles without bleeding to death, go months of walking without food, kill hundreds of raiders with their bare hands, due to the triumph of the human (elven, dwarven, eternal) spirit. That's just the way I like it.
Vrykolas2k 05-04-06, 11:56 PM	All glory to the straw man. The fact is that barbarians are, in the fantasy world supposed to be simply faster than humans. They aren't just really well trained track stars, they are just faster than 'normal' humans. They are above and beyond human kin. Trolltastic! :cool: There's a very real conversation going on in intellectual circles as to what exactly triggered this fit AND what it actually did for the berserkers. No one actually beleives it made them physically stronger. Most think it just made them have a higher threshold of pain. EXCEPT THAT DOESN'T MATTER! Barbarians are fictional characters. They aren't eal people. They can get stronger because of thier rage because of this. No duh, discription is important. No one ever said it wasn't. But all these heroics are something that real people aren't capable of. A real person who takes a swat from the claws of a fifty ton lizard is not going to have the 'heroic luck' that saves them from damage. You are proving my 'DnD humans are not us' point for me. I don't care how many challenges you overcome, if someone drops a ten ton boulder on you, you will die. No amount of reflexes and 'luck' is going to save you. Why? Because Real Life is Not Heroic Fantasy The ecstatic state taps into the same kind of inner resources as ki. You do become "stronger", more focused to the battle, and highly resistant to wounds you suffer. I myself use a sort of combination of the two forms, as my sensei can attest {and which annoys him to no small degree}. It's just the way my own ki flows. As for the big swords... I can wield my father's mother's father's father's two-handed claymore with one hand, as could he and his sons and my father. It's partially balance of the weapon, and part strength. It's easier with two hands, of course; and you get more leverage into the swing.. What annoys me is the fact that they make strength the deciding factor in whether you hit with a weapon. I think it should be dexterity, with strength adding to the melee damage and armour penetration. Then again, I care little for how armour works in D&D, and never have. Armour doesn't do a blessed thing for you until you get hit... and armour makes it easier to hit you.
sdragon1984 05-05-06, 12:04 AM	on barbarianism: regardless of historical accuracy, the currently accepted vision of barbarians is the norse blitzkriegers and the equivalents from other various "uncivilized" groups. in many cases, they did go into a berzerker frenzy, much like the barbarian rage worked out for d&d barbarians. the main difference, as vaal pointed out, is that it wasnt an inborm ability that could be summoned at will. one of the most currently accepted explainations is that they took LARGE doses of highly psychoactive plants and/or fungi. but thats irrelevant. the point is, regardless of historical accuracy on either part, there is now two seperate examples of a form of soldier, known as a barbarian, that is capable of raging. at least one of them cant be historically accurate. on "fantasy humans using a buster sword vs. RL humans using a buster sword": i think its total bull to say that simply because were intimately familiar with (RL) humans, we know it to be impossible for (fantasy) humans to lift a buster sword- because we know humans cant do that. have any of you ever known a human to throw a giant fireball just by making funny sounds and gestures? to put things into perspective, have you ever known anybody to even create anything that would resemble fire (hot light, etc), just by doing this? i can only speak for myself, but ive never seen it happen. but i have seen a person lift a sword. multiply the effects to a more heroic scale, and lifting a sword suddenly becomes lifting a big sword. when the effect of waving your hands around making odd noises (IRL) is multiplied, you get..... no effect. doesnt matter how much you multiply it, no effect is still no effect, on any scale. i dont use buster swords in my games. why? because i cant honestly think of any serious fighter who would look at one (this is even assuming that the sword can be lifted and swung in the same manner that cloud does) and choose it over something smaller. for this reason, i think buster swords are silly. i refuse, however, to say that a buster sword ruins the suspension of disbelief in a world where halflings are just as common as humans.
fenix99 05-05-06, 12:19 AM	over at swordsonline.com they have a functional buster sword Practical Fantasy Sword (http://www.weaponmasters.com/index.html?ID=78833ad37017fe3b115f73778f f5e45f&FDX=&FMAX=&SORT=&ITEM=SHI001&SORT=&FDX=&FMAX=) Throw that in your player faces :evillaugh
red_scare87 05-05-06, 01:15 AM	Vaal, the point is that there's no reason to wield a 100 lbs sword when a 100 lbs chunk of metal is going to do more damage(abeit bludgeoning damage). You can have a huge sword, but figure out a way to make it not weigh 100 lbs. Hell, it shouldn't way even as much as 50 lbs because it's not practical. I actually like the idea of the big minotaur using a 100 lbs sword to go hunting; it sounds cool to me. In D&D, damage is calculated for objects based on weight, weapons are not. Therefore, you have to find a way to make weapon damage higher than how much damage an improvised weapon of the same weight would do. It's common sense, not physics. It makes no sense to have a weapon that weighs 100 lbs do less damage than a 100 lbs bar of iron. That's it.
Cantankerous 05-05-06, 01:45 AM	Really? Fantasy human beings? Really, this is the whole point. If the guy can take enough damage from, say, a variant of a fireball, to melt to slag a Sherman tank, dust the cinders away, smile winningly and keep coming, he can bloody swing a sword the size Georgia without further damaging the versimilitude. If he can do as much damage with the quick plunge of his dagger as can be accomplished with a TOWII missile, sword size is hardly a problem. They (those huge swords) don't show up in my game either, because I don't like the look. It seems to make the character LESS to glorifiy the silly assed weapon, but claiming it's for reasons of versimilitude and not personal stylistics is utterly silly. Isshia
Arganis 05-05-06, 02:02 AM	claiming it's for reasons of versimilitude and not personal stylistics is utterly silly. Werd. Man Vaal, why you gotta bring the Rust Monster into this? Oh and this thread delivers! :pile:
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-05-06, 02:05 AM	Vaal, the point is that there's no reason to wield a 100 lbs sword when a 100 lbs chunk of metal is going to do more damage(abeit bludgeoning damage). Dude, how many times have I had to clarify this: When I make content, I use home made templates. My weapons template has a weight slot, but I don't actually care about what something weights. So when I filled out the weight column, I just wrote the first thing that said 'damn heavy' to me into the space. I said like three times on the original thread that I had no qualms with changing the wieght, but the jackals kept coming! In D&D, damage is calculated for objects based on weight, weapons are not. Therefore, you have to find a way to make weapon damage higher than how much damage an improvised weapon of the same weight would do. It's common sense, not physics. It makes no sense to have a weapon that weighs 100 lbs do less damage than a 100 lbs bar of iron. That's it. This all comes from a badly written little table buried deep within Complete Warrior. I have my own improvised weapons table that's based on shape and size catergory that I think is much better. I see no reason to base damage on weight unless you're dropping the damn thing on someone.
Solaris 05-05-06, 02:11 AM	There are OWLBEARS in this game for god's sake. There is a monster specifically evolved for graph paper. Grells continue to exist unabated. If that can't break my suspension, an outsized o-daichi is bloody nothing.If the guy can take enough damage from, say, a variant of a fireball, to melt to slag a Sherman tank, dust the cinders away, smile winningly and keep coming, he can bloody swing a sword the size Georgia without further damaging the versimilitude These are exactly the arguments I was referring to when I said I don't buy the argument that as soon as you sacrifice any realism, by introducing some fantasy elements, you shouldn't mind sacrificing all realism by introducing arbitrary fantasy elements. There are different styles of fantasy, with different "realities", and elements from one might not be consistent with another. For example, elves and dwarves are entirely consistent with Tolkienesque fantasy, but comically huge swords aren't. And no doubt there could be some fantasies which feature comically huge swords, where elves and dwarves would be out of place. I can suspend disbelief for elves and magic (and even owlbears), but I can't for giant swords, and here's why. Even in a world where elves and magic exist I generally expect that people are people and some basic laws of physics will apply. Those laws-as-we-know-them might be able to be circumvented with magic, but when it comes down to a man trying to swing something that masses as much as he does, then all else being equal I will expect it not to work. An owlbear gives me no trouble at all, thanks to the abundance of screwy critters we've got in our own world. (Mr. Platypus, I'm looking in your direction). Basically, I need some attempt at an explanation as to why I should suspend my disbelief. It doesn't even have to be a great one, since I'm willing to accept lots of hit points being explained in the traditional manner as being not merely a measure of actual damage capacity, but also skill-based damage avoidance. But you have to give me something. So if you want to say "it's magic", then that'll excuse anything; I can accept a man wielding a magical sword like the one Sulaco posted a picture of. Of course I'd still think it looked ridiculously stupid, and I'd have no interest in a setting where that stuff was going on, but in principle I could suspend my disbelief and accept it. And I probably should repeat my earlier statement that if you happen to like giant swords, I'm not going to argue that you shouldn't. Your game is your game; I'm only explaining my own position, based on my own expecations.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-05-06, 02:25 AM	Man Vaal, why you gotta bring the Rust Monster into this? Okay, owlbears... we can kind of go 'okay, we needed to establish that most wizards are drunken idiots with way too much time on thier hands'. This justifies dungeons, which is the only type of working economy in DnD world. But rust monsters no one ever even bothers justifying thier presence. We just let them 'be' without question. They're perfect markers for the boundary between the game world and the metagame. Thier singular purpose to exist is to let the DM steal from the PCs -- but we all have some sort of universal geek understanding that we accept this as part of the game world, despite thier metagame nature, or the fact that as a species, these things really should have collapsed society then quietly died off within a decade of thier creation. Same with the mimic we can accept a creature that exists *just* to screw with rogues. I'm not actually knocking them (though I do really, really hate grell -- seriously - a BRAIN PARROT?! Why? Who thought this up?), I'm just saying that we accept far dumber things than an outsized sword. Damn grell...
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-05-06, 02:31 AM	Basically, I need some attempt at an explanation as to why I should suspend my disbelief. It doesn't even have to be a great one, since I'm willing to accept lots of hit points being explained in the traditional manner as being not merely a measure of actual damage capacity, but also skill-based damage avoidance. But you have to give me something. Special training in the form of the appropriate Exotic Weapon Proficiency. Its worked for the spiked chain, it worked for the dire flail, even worked for using a frickin' harpoon as your primary ranged weapon.
Solaris 05-05-06, 02:34 AM	Special training in the form of the appropriate Exotic Weapon Proficiency. Its worked for the spiked chain, it worked for the dire flail, even worked for using a frickin' harpoon as your primary ranged weapon. That's not good enough because it doesn't address the mass issue. My problem is that if you push something that masses as much as you do, then you move as much as it does. I need a reason to believe that equal and opposite reactions don't apply in this case. Skill doesn't do that.
red_scare87 05-05-06, 02:35 AM	I said like three times on the original thread that I had no qualms with changing the wieght, but the jackals kept coming! Unfortunately, I didn't get to see what you posted in the original thread(except for your first post) because you edited them all. This all comes from a badly written little table buried deep within Complete Warrior. I have my own improvised weapons table that's based on shape and size catergory that I think is much better. I see no reason to base damage on weight unless you're dropping the damn thing on someone. I didn't know that because I don't know what your houserules are. Unless told otherwise, I assume that you're using RAW. Damn grell... Okay, I think we can say with safety that everyone thinks that grell is a stupid idea. :P
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-05-06, 02:47 AM	That's not good enough because it doesn't address the mass issue. My problem is that if you push something that masses as much as you do, then you move as much as it does. I need a reason to believe that equal and opposite reactions don't apply in this case. Skill doesn't do that. I don't think you're really familiar with the dire flail then. Skill wouldn't acutally make that possible either, but here we are. Okay, I think we can say with safety that everyone thinks that grell is a stupid idea. :P They gave them thier own section in LoM :weep: There is a picture... of a grell... with EARRINGS. :twitch:
Solaris 05-05-06, 02:54 AM	I don't think you're really familiar with the dire flail then. Skill wouldn't acutally make that possible either, but here we are. Well, I'm not familiar with it... it's so cheesy that nobody I know has ever used one. So I'm happy to stick it in the same camp as the giant swords.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-05-06, 03:02 AM	plenty of people still use the spiked chain though. Same principle. Its a weapon that a real person can't weild. All you need to do though is remember you're in a fantasy world, babble a couple things about secret weapon schools, maybe throw in a 'ki' or two and BAM! Exotic Weapon Proficiency. "A direblade weilder is capable of harnessing his ki in short bursts, allowing him to increase his mass for short periods, during which he swings his sword." "A spiked chain weilder makes himself temporarily invulnerable to the countless puncture wounds he would otherwise take while holding, using, or looking at his weapon."
Solaris 05-05-06, 03:09 AM	plenty of people still use the spiked chain though. Same principle. Its a weapon that a real person can't weild. I don't buy it either. All you need to do though is remember you're in a fantasy world, babble a couple things about secret weapon schools, maybe throw in a 'ki' or two and BAM! Exotic Weapon Proficiency. "A direblade weilder is capable of harnessing his ki in short bursts, allowing him to increase his mass for short periods, during which he swings his sword." That'll almost cover it. Not quite good enough, since it addresses only strength and not mass -- He-man might be able to lift the corner of a huge rock, but he wouldn't be able to swing it around -- but it's the right type of idea. Just some vaguely plausible explanation. Here's a great example. Star Trek transporters would bug the hell out of me if I stopped and thought about them, if not for the simple offhand mention, in one episode, of "Heisenberg Compensators".
Solaris 05-05-06, 03:24 AM	The problem for me is probably something like context informing expectations. In the context of my D&D fantasy, I expect that basic physics will apply unless magic is interfering. So, here, I can't accept guys wielding too-massive swords. In the context of some random anime, I might not have that expectation, and might happily accept the swords (though I would still think they were stupid-looking). In my opinion, elves and fireballs and owlbears are fantasy elements which are right for the D&D context, and the giant swords are not. As ever, your mileage may vary.
Solaris 05-05-06, 03:30 AM	The really puzzling thing here is that I'm saying "I can suspend my belief in this way, but not in that other way, but hey, good for you if you can do it", and you're saying "No, if you can suspend your belief in the first way, you must also suspend it in the other". But that doesn't follow. My ability to suspend my belief depends on the context, and on how far I'm asked to strain my credulity. The suspension threshold is going to be variable; not just for me, but between different people. You're not wrong for accepting giant swords in your fantasy, and I'm not wrong for not accepting them in mine -- I had hoped I'd been very clear on that point...
sidekick 05-05-06, 04:37 AM	Realism vs cinematic? heck no - I DM in Eberron, that's just not cricket there :) My campaign includes land mines, we just had an airship capable of cloaking and firing torpedoes for freaks sake - totally cool as a player, but realistic? Its a flying sailing boat suspended by a ring of fire!!! Anyway I've included punp action crossbows w an energy arc replacing the string, We've got a handcrossbow that has a magazine of 5 bolts and does obscene amounts of shock damage etc. TMy Co-Dm and I decided that we'd go for cool pulp action & fun, coupled with realistic consequences for the PCs actions. So in conclusion do we bother with real life physics? What you talking about Willis, there ain't no elves or Daelkyr in the real world!!! :P
Senevri 05-05-06, 05:50 AM	Few notes on stuff I didn't see mentioned here: - On Final Fantasy VII and Buster Sword specifically: Even in FF _normal_ people _cannot_ use such big weapons. The SOLDIERs are MAGICALLY AUGMENTED humanoids, specifically focusing on strenght and toughness. - Also: The historical longswords and such make sense in their time --- _IF_ your opponent is human. In D&D, it's quite possible you _need_ a six-feet tall sword to realistically have a chance of hurting an opponent of such a size... And, if you're fighting a Huge opponent, chances are, you _will_ have the necessary space to swing that BAS. - Also: A quick look at http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm reveals that a greatsword weighs 8 Lbs. Now, if we say a Greatsword has a blade 3-4 inches wide and around 3.5 feet long. THUS: A 7-foot long blade weighs around 16 Lbs. Orc Double Axe weights 15 Lbs. This is a weapon meant for a specialized warrior of humanoid race with an average strenght score of 13. NOW, what is a reasonable weapon for a once-in-a-million adventurer with a strenght of 16, who fights large and huge monsters regularly? The weight is not an issue, as an equivalent of a Buster Sword made out of mithril would only weigh around the same, 15-16 Lbs. Of course, if you, as a DM don't want over-large weapons in your semi-realistic fantasy campaign, be sure to tell the player. Needing to come up with an alternative interesting character concept is probably a good exercise anyway... and internal consistency is good. Just... don't try to apply real-world justifications for whichever weapons are in use. If you do, all crossbows should have "Ignores armor bonus" function, or something similar...
Jarrad 05-05-06, 08:18 AM	Its odd the things that do or don't seem "unrealistic" to people. I just love these wacky computers that they must make just for TV/Movies that have a "Print" and "Delete" button right next to each other, and hitting the "Delete" button wipes out your whole file. I'd sure hate to use a computer like that. These things always offend my sense of "reality", while the fact that the movie has people who can fly and dodge bullets doesn't bother me in the slightest. Oh I agree, I agree and I'm bothered by computers in films in the same way. Ultimately, it's all a matter of taste and opinion: so much of what happens in this and other role-playing systems is completely impossible that it's hard to be terribly consistent. Those things that are particularly within your own knowledge and experience are going to bug you more than those things that are outside, or that are completely fantastic. I have no idea what super-powered humans can do, so I'm willing to accept that they exist in the fictional reality and do whatever they appear to. However, I'm VERY familiar with computers, and since this fictional computer in what is supposed to be a reality very much like my own seems to look and act mostly like a computer I know, I find that element unbelievable. Well put. That's pretty much what I was trying to get at, but you did it with fewer words and more clarity ;) (My falling damage rules) So, in this world, a normal person falling off a two story house has about a 98% of dying from it? Eh? How did you figure that one out? I guess you're working on the basis of, say, a 3rd-level commoner and you've gone with the 1d4 hit points thing. Rolling off the edge of the roof of a two-storey house is a drop of only 20ft, or 3d6 damage. Your average 3rd-level commoner (and I confess, I use d6 or d8 hit points for them depending on profession on the grounds that the vast majority of commoners spend their time doing much more physical labour than, say, wizards) by standard rules will have 9 hit points at +0 Con bonus. Average damage is 10.5 hp from a 3d6 fall, giving a fair probability of going to negative hit points, but that ain't the same as dying. Is it that unrealistic that most people who fall badly from a 20ft drop are going to get knocked out? Well, maybe, but then everything falls apart at very low levels in this game just as much as it does at very high levels. If you're talking about 1st-level commoners then a 20ft fall using my rules is pretty much going to kill them, but then DnD commoners are a lot more fragile than the real world: after all, I'm pretty sure that even the least fit and/or combative of my mates could take a housecat 9 times out of 10 ;) Anyway, a 1st level commoner is pretty likely to get into negative hit points under standard falling rules so there's no practical difference there. Remember that jumping down isn't the same as falling; a successful jump would take the dice damage down to 1d6. Tumbling successfully as well (OK, maybe a commoner couldn't do that under standard DnD rules) negates damage entirely. But you know what? I've never rolled damage for a 1st-level commoner falling off a roof. I've never rolled damage for a 3rd-level commoner falling off a roof. An NPC that unimportant dies if I want them to and lives if I want them to, provided that neither scenario is terribly unrealistic. The rules are designed for the PC's and their opponents - not commoners who stand a good chance of dying from a single dog-bite. (Don't get me started on 1st-level wizards either; like I say, the whole thing falls to bits at very low levels) And no one realistic person stands even a chance of surviving a fall of over a hundred feet? Ever? Nope, pretty much. And? It's actually pretty unlikely that someone is going to survive a *fall* onto a hard surface of 100ft, straight down, without some mitigating factor coming into play. It has happened, yes - and from much greater heights - but it's unlikely. While you are welcome to use whatever rules you prefer, thinking they are more "realistic" is mostly wishful thinking. I didn't say they were "realistic", I said they were "more realistic". "Realistic" is hardly a digital state. I find these rules work much, much better; the realism that is added in this case is that high-level characters with good Jump and Tumble skills aren't inclined to consider jumping off the side of a mountain just because they're in a hurry ;) Yes, these rules make falling much more lethal at all levels, yes they skew the game toward those with access to such things having Featherfall or similar magic at all times, yes it adds enormous value to Slow Fall and other skills or class features that reduce the effective height fallen. Now... do I get involved in the "swords" discussion and mention that in my capacity as a mediaeval re-enactor I regularly witness people fighting with massive two-handed swords that are heavier than the swords listed in the PHB? Or that I've even done it myself a few times? Oh, and 3.5 feet isn't enough. You should see the Scottish nutters that turn up with their claidheamh-mors... *shudder* Spiked chain? Sorry guys: it's a real weapon, can really, really be wielded and if I get the chance I'll try and dig out a photo or two. You really need to dress right, and frankly it's not something you want to use unless you've practised a LOT with a non-spiked chain but it's entirely useable. The things to remember are that a) it ain't ALL spiked and b) heavy gloves are the order of the day for those occasions when you get confused between which bits are and which bits aren't ;) Dire flail? I see no reason why not. A lot of people are making a lot of assumptions based on what they can and can't do personally. That's cool, it's absolutely natural and I do exactly the same thing myself with regard to areas of physical endeavour I don't know anything about. I can't say I have ever seen a weapon that exactly matches the description of the dire flail being used but I offer my opinion as someone with a degree of experience of period melee weapons that it would be possible to use. Furthermore, I'd be prepared to bet a thousand dollars or so that some nutcase somewhere has made and trained themselves to use something very like it :D Note that I'm not claiming in *either* of these cases that the real weapons can or could do the things they can do in DnD: but if you want examples of unreality you're going to have to try much harder than that. There are a lot of very dedicated lunatics out there you see, and they'll try and build - and fight with - just about anything. Some of them are friends of mine, although in some cases this is a definition of "friend" that means "someone sufficiently loony that I wouldn't want them to think of me as NOT a friend" ;) As for all the arguments about "physics" in relation to big swords... :rofl:
Tormsskull 05-05-06, 08:18 AM	I wouldn't allow giant sword on normal humans either, but I don't think that should stop anyone from allowing them. I think the danger in adding in a cliche however is that the players may try to add more material from the source. Then the line between D&D - FF (or anime) begins to get blurred. I also think that fantasy humans being like real humans is true. I mean, if you say that fantasy humans are super special beings then you have to rethink cities, society, everything that has to do with human civilization. It should also be noted that I don't run the "PCs are semi-divine super heroes" type of campaign. Vaal, if you & your players like super swords (or buster swords or whatever term we are agreeing on) then I say add them in and rationalize them however you think appropriate (lowered weight, special training, etc). P.S. I like to throw grell at my players just to see that dumbfounded look on their face :P
Whim 05-05-06, 08:37 AM	The ecstatic state taps into the same kind of inner resources as ki. You do become "stronger", more focused to the battle, and highly resistant to wounds you suffer. I myself use a sort of combination of the two forms, as my sensei can attest {and which annoys him to no small degree}. It's just the way my own ki flows. As for the big swords... I can wield my father's mother's father's father's two-handed claymore with one hand, as could he and his sons and my father. It's partially balance of the weapon, and part strength. It's easier with two hands, of course; and you get more leverage into the swing.. What annoys me is the fact that they make strength the deciding factor in whether you hit with a weapon. I think it should be dexterity, with strength adding to the melee damage and armour penetration. Then again, I care little for how armour works in D&D, and never have. Armour doesn't do a blessed thing for you until you get hit... and armour makes it easier to hit you. I wouldn't go tossing around an abstract, unproven concept like "ki" in a supposedly intellectual discussion, but the rest is reasonable. I think that adrenaline would be a concept everyone should consider seeing as how it IS a proven chemical in the human body that's said to give a person strength they aren't normally capable of. Then there's the idea that we only use a small percentage of our muslcular strength (much like we only use a small percentage of our brains) so a person that could tap into that unused strength could potentially do some amazing things despite their perceived strength. Really, this is all mostly theoretical, I believe, but if we're going to be tossing around words like "elves", "magic", or "ki", I think we should also toss in some ideas that actually aren't quite so abstract.
Whim 05-05-06, 08:41 AM	I wouldn't allow giant sword on normal humans either, but I don't think that should stop anyone from allowing them. I think the danger in adding in a cliche however is that the players may try to add more material from the source. Then the line between D&D - FF (or anime) begins to get blurred. I also think that fantasy humans being like real humans is true. I mean, if you say that fantasy humans are super special beings then you have to rethink cities, society, everything that has to do with human civilization. It should also be noted that I don't run the "PCs are semi-divine super heroes" type of campaign. Vaal, if you & your players like super swords (or buster swords or whatever term we are agreeing on) then I say add them in and rationalize them however you think appropriate (lowered weight, special training, etc). P.S. I like to throw grell at my players just to see that dumbfounded look on their face :P Yeah, I'd say that most of the rules that surround D&D humans--at least low level ones, anyway--are mostly realistic or easily justified in the real world when given a bit of thought. Obviously, magic users are the exception, but your standard melee and weapon dependent characters seem pretty realistic to me--again, at low level, that is.
Whim 05-05-06, 08:50 AM	Is it that unrealistic that most people who fall badly from a 20ft drop are going to get knocked out? It really only applies if they land the wrong way. If they land on their head or maybe on their back, then, yeah, they'd probably be knocked out, but if they land on their feet, the most that would happen is they'd break a leg (maybe two if you want to be cruel about it). But, realistically speaking, the average person will probably try to stop themselves with their hands, which will surely break at least one arm, and then land on their fronts, which will only knock the breath out of them and maybe break their nose since the arms (which are probably now broken) really did do enough to keep a person from fracturing a rib. So, to sum it up, no, the average person falling from 20ft would probably not get knocked out, but they wouldn't be in good shape either.
Senevri 05-05-06, 09:08 AM	Hmm. Actually, I find invisible, flying mages and teleporting Horizon Walkers harder to understand conceptually than a short guy with a sword taller than himself. As for a 20ft fall... Well, if it were an unexpected fall on bare ground (not hard concrete/solid rock), I'd probably expect broken bones, and there'd be a risk of death or permanent injury... Putting my HP at less than 2d6. How sad :( However, if I jumped - and the rules account for this with the "first 10 ft is subdual" rule - I'd expect to manage with... some bruises, yes. Maybe broken bones, but I'd definitely expect to survive the fall. How do you account for a tiny/fine creature falling? A small spider could fall ten miles without a single injury, after all...
Sulaco 05-05-06, 09:11 AM	Really? Fantasy human beings? How many people do you know are rogues, barbarians or fighters much less rangers, or paladins. Unless you can produce a friend of yours who can catch a fireball directly in the face while unprotected and come through unscathed*, I'm calling BS. Call all you want, it matter not one whit. Career choices do not fundamentally alter humanity and remaining unscathed after a fireball is a function of the D&D rules.
Sulaco 05-05-06, 09:19 AM	Because Real Life is Not Heroic Fantasy Of course, that goes without saying. That does not mean that everyone's take on heroic fantasy is the same. If you like big honkin' swords and anime-style action then full steam ahead and damn the torpedos. Me, I prefer something that is more low-key and "realistic" in tone and style. In my games I still have highly fantastic elements well beyond the scope of the real world, but these are largely outside of the sphere of everyday human(oid) existence.
aotrscommander 05-05-06, 09:36 AM	Realism (or lack thereof) an the degrees of same, I think, are a very personal thing for every DM. Everybody has different ideas of what consitutes an acceptable level of 'realism'. It's what you want to play. Like I said before, in my campaign worlds, there are no giant swords (because I personally, don't think they look cool and do look silly; I have the same rule in Sci-Fi with stupidly big guns). In other people's campaigns (or in their anime context), I have no complaints that they shouldn't be there (though I do tend to wince whenever I see one in any anime/RPG, but that's just me!). In my campaign worlds, there aren't any armour spikes (at least not in the D&D sense of being a weapon) either, or two-bladed swords or Orc war double axes or gnome hooked hammers because I also think they are silly. (Actually, I don't tend to have gnomes as a PC race period!) I was dubious about the spiked chain's viability but not so much I had considered banning it (because it was a cool idea) and Jarrad has informed us it's a real weapon, so fair enough! I also don't have Grell, Owlbears or anything else that strikes me as sort of 'untidy'; like most of the aberrations. I alays use my own world and change what I don't like; for example, I've changed cockatrices from hen/lizard crosses to feathered raptors whose colouration just happens to be similar to the common cockrel (hence the mistakes made by folk who think it's part chicken) because it was 'tidier'. Yet I have no problems at all with Beholders or Illithids! That said, I have a lot of other things that many of you would probably cringe at; how many of you would allow Pokemon into your game (and procede to cajole the wizard into having a Charmander familar*)? I have had monsters that while not being especially weird in physical structure (which I hate), that could breath magic missiles or particle beams. Granted, nobody on the campaign world actually UNDERSTANDS what a particle beam is, but the blast is still the same. Hell, I have stuff that breathes lasers. In fact, anything with energy effects is good! (Don't even get me started on sci-fi!) Of course, the line is draw between non-magic and magic stuff. Anything that's magic I have no problem with. Is that conceptually consistant? Well, no, probably not. Does it, cosmically speaking, bother me that it's not conceptually consistant? No. My sci-fi games are usually a lot more 'free' and even less realistic, when you have advanced technology (and in my games, often magic and/psionics) to explain away anything not 'real' enough. To parapharse the GLA: (dubious mid-eastern accent) Heisenberg Compensators...for everyone! The DnD rules in my campaign get tweaked to deal with stuff that several of us in the group know about: bows, for instance, don't work quite the same way because three of us are mediaeval re-enactors who have been shooting period bows for a decade or so and, frankly, we know better. On a side note Jarrad, would you care to share your tweaks? I am well aware bows are fairly far off (I have talked to reenacters about it in the past), but myself I don't know enough to do anything. I'd be interested in what you've done. *The party has never looked back, since Scorch kicks so much arse, and has become a character in her own right within the group! Even everyone who groaned like crazy when it first started has accepted it - so you can get away with stuff after all!
Sulaco 05-05-06, 09:37 AM	As for the big swords... I can wield my father's mother's father's father's two-handed claymore with one hand, as could he and his sons and my father. As can I. Not those janky wall-hanger things but a properly balanced two-hander can easily be wielded one handed. The problem with those FF and anime swords is that they comprise about 10 times as much material in the blades but do nothing to counterbalance it. You'd have to use a cinder block as a pommel to even begin to make those beasts balanced.
Sulaco 05-05-06, 09:49 AM	They (those huge swords) don't show up in my game either, because I don't like the look. It seems to make the character LESS to glorifiy the silly assed weapon, but claiming it's for reasons of versimilitude and not personal stylistics is utterly silly. So your opinion is perfectly valid but my opinion is "silly" cos your don't agree with it. Gotcha. :rolleyes: Verisimilitude is a sense of reality - not reality itself - thus it varies from game to game and person to person. While you may not find it damaging to your sense of verisimilitude to have people running around with giant anime swords I do. Rather then respect that you instead resort to name calling.
Jarrad 05-05-06, 10:06 AM	How do you account for a tiny/fine creature falling? A small spider could fall ten miles without a single injury, after all... I'm afraid I default to physics again here ;) You're talking about Reynolds numbers becoming a factor, i.e. when surface area/volume ratios and density in comparison to the medium the creature is falling through start getting really important. A spider couldn't fall ten miles without injury in a vacuum! Personally, I house-ruled the following: Tiny creatures take damage as though the fall were 10ft shorter than it is, Diminutive creatures as though the fall were half the distance is it and Fine creatures take no damage from falling. It's a useful approximation, although in reality something that actually conformed in size to a Tiny creature would probably take as much damage as a larger creature. Whim: a 20ft unintentional drop onto stone or concrete has a good chance of knocking someone out I'd say... but more to the point, the lack of rules for descriptive damage like a broken leg or whatever means that it's hard to get closer than this without potentially inflicting injuries that spoil people's fun. If you land on soft ground under the standard falling rules, the first 1d6 of the damage is non-lethal. With a DC15 Jump or Tumble check, you avoid any damage from the first 10ft and take nonlethal damage from the next 10ft. Soft ground causes a further 10ft to be considered subdual. The way I work it is to say that deciding to jump causes the *last* 10ft of distance to be subdual. A successful check reduces the distance by 10ft, and causes the last 10ft of damage to be subdual. If you did that onto soft ground, the last 20ft would be subdual. So, if a character falls 60ft onto concrete they'd take 21d6 damage. If they decided to jump they'd take 15d6 lethal damage and 6d6 subdual damage. With a successful DC15 Jump or Tumble check they'd take 10d6 lethal damage and 5d6 subdual damage. And if this was onto soft ground they'd take 6d6 lethal and 9d6 subdual damage. I also use the extended rules for Jump and Tumble reducing the effective distance falling.
Whim 05-05-06, 10:15 AM	Whim: a 20ft unintentional drop onto stone or concrete has a good chance of knocking someone out I'd say... but more to the point, the lack of rules for descriptive damage like a broken leg or whatever means that it's hard to get closer than this without potentially inflicting injuries that spoil people's fun. If you land on soft ground under the standard falling rules, the first 1d6 of the damage is non-lethal. With a DC15 Jump or Tumble check, you avoid any damage from the first 10ft and take nonlethal damage from the next 10ft. Soft ground causes a further 10ft to be considered subdual. The way I work it is to say that deciding to jump causes the *last* 10ft of distance to be subdual. A successful check reduces the distance by 10ft, and causes the last 10ft of damage to be subdual. If you did that onto soft ground, the last 20ft would be subdual. So, if a character falls 60ft onto concrete they'd take 21d6 damage. If they decided to jump they'd take 15d6 lethal damage and 6d6 subdual damage. With a successful DC15 Jump or Tumble check they'd take 10d6 lethal damage and 5d6 subdual damage. And if this was onto soft ground they'd take 6d6 lethal and 9d6 subdual damage. I also use the extended rules for Jump and Tumble reducing the effective distance falling. Oh, I didn't really mean that anyone's rules on the matter were wrong, I was just speaking in very realistic terms. It's very hard to find the line between realism and game mechanics in this thread at times...hehe.
Feeb 05-05-06, 10:17 AM	I'm not actually knocking them (though I do really, really hate grell -- seriously - a BRAIN PARROT?! Why? Who thought this up?), I'm just saying that we accept far dumber things than an outsized sword. Damn grell... Eh, after reading through Lords of Madness I have a pretty strong desire to incorporate Grell into my campaigns, but imo, any monster becomes a lot more interesting once it's culture and behavior (vs. biology) is fleshed out a bit.
Jarrad 05-05-06, 10:21 AM	On a side note Jarrad, would you care to share your tweaks? I am well aware bows are fairly far off (I have talked to reenacters about it in the past), but myself I don't know enough to do anything. I'd be interested in what you've done. Someone else has PM'd me about this (yesterday, but I only just noticed!) so should I slap it in this thread or start another one in the appropriate forum... whatever that might be! I'm quite happy to share; it's mostly surrounding the horrible misconceptions the game designers seem to have about the differences between a "longbow" and a "composite longbow" ;)
Arganis 05-05-06, 10:22 AM	Someone else has PM'd me about this (yesterday, but I only just noticed!) so should I slap it in this thread or start another one in the appropriate forum... whatever that might be! I'm quite happy to share; it's mostly surrounding the horrible misconceptions the game designers seem to have about the differences between a "longbow" and a "composite longbow" ;) New thread!
StormKnight 05-05-06, 11:00 AM	On the big swords... I think a No-Dachi is about 5-6 feet long, though I'm not sure how much of that is handle. That's a pretty big sword. But certainly not as wide or unbalanced looking as, say, Cloud's sword. The big problem I have with the huge sword is that can accept that it can be done in a fantasy setting; either with weight countered by magic or unusual metals, or simply designed for sheer strength, but I've having a hard time getting around why anyone WOULD do it. I suppose the answer is "because some blacksmith thought it would be interesting to try" but it just seems odd. Still, that's a valid reason, but its still hard to justify it being an effective weapon. But hey, its a fantasy world, so you can probably explain it. Maybe someone came up with the BSOD (Big Sword O' Doom) specifically to fight Deathwurms. A deathwurms a big wormlike nasty thing that regenerates cuts almost instantly. The only reliable way to kill them is to lop them in half and keep the pieces from touching at all, so the really wide blade is designed to chop down on the wurm, stop when it hits the ground, and physically seperate the wurm halves so it can't regrow. The sword is off-balanced to maximize overhead chops of great power; effective against the not-very mobile and very ground-bound wurms. Then, of course, some deathwurm slays decide to become so determine to use this sword that they get good enough to actually fight with it. There, there's my wacky rationalization! :) Eh? How did you figure that one out? I guess you're working on the basis of, say, a 3rd-level commoner and you've gone with the 1d4 hit points thing. I'm going off 1st level commoner - 4 HP. This should be a good chunk of the majority of the population. Most people in our world don't have any sort of life that would exactly build HP in any case! I am also considering that something taking you to negative HP is "fatal". Negative hit points means barring a great deal of luck, you'll be dead within one minute. It's actually pretty unlikely that someone is going to survive a *fall* onto a hard surface of 100ft, straight down, without some mitigating factor coming into play. It has happened, yes - and from much greater heights - but it's unlikely. How unlikely? I doubt you know. I sure don't. Its not like people fall from great heights on a regular basis, it being something us humans normally try to avoid! They DO survive though. I haven't the faintest idea how often, but its probably better than one in a million. Quite possibly better than one in a thousand. With total certainty is better than D&D odds, by which a normal person (again, normal = 4 HP) CANNOT survive such a fall. Now, I agree. D&D does not handle the "low power" end well, and there is no reason it should - its a game about heroes fighting monsters, not peasants fighting cats. But given that falling damage is clearly not too high for "normal people", and in our world we don't have mythical hero level people, we just can't draw any real conclusions about what would be "realistic". Personally, I do have a slight problem with falling damage in that its far too predictable; falling is a very whacky thing in the reall world, where a fairly short fall can kill or seriously hurt you with bad luck, but a person can survive a really long fall with good luck. Attacks in D&D give unpredictable damage; they can miss, hit or critical, giving a fairly wide range of effects. Falls could use something like that. Maybe when someone falls you could roll damage and roll an extra D6. On a roll of 1, the fall does half damage. On a roll of 6, the fall does double damage. You could even have these "explode", so that if you roll a 6 you roll again with another 6 doubling the damage again.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-05-06, 11:12 AM	Someone else has PM'd me about this (yesterday, but I only just noticed!) so should I slap it in this thread or start another one in the appropriate forum... whatever that might be! I'm quite happy to share; it's mostly surrounding the horrible misconceptions the game designers seem to have about the differences between a "longbow" and a "composite longbow" ;) Some of the current designers have the same problem: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060120a Eh, after reading through Lords of Madness I have a pretty strong desire to incorporate Grell into my campaigns, but imo, any monster becomes a lot more interesting once it's culture and behavior (vs. biology) is fleshed out a bit. It only made them worse for me. Not only are they stupid looking, but now they're stupid looking in fricking armor and go'auld staff weapons (stole the staff weapons though) Verisimilitude is a sense of reality - not reality itself - thus it varies from game to game and person to person. While you may not find it damaging to your sense of verisimilitude to have people running around with giant anime swords I do. Rather then respect that you instead resort to name calling. Its still hippocritical to say 'well I think this is stupid so it ruins me since of versimilitude' and then turn around and say 'but this other stupid thing, which I admit is pretty stupid is perfectly A-OK'. You hate the source, so you hold it to different standards than other things. There is really no way that a floating brain with a parrot's beak jammed into the frontal lobe is more in touch with a fantastic reality than a seven foot sword weilded by someone who we already know and accept is more human than human. Career choices do not fundamentally alter humanity and remaining unscathed after a fireball is a function of the D&D rules. In DnD, they sure as hell do. The guy that decides to work on the farm his whole life is exceptionally weaker, has worse reflexes and is less capable of learning new skills than someone who chose to become a lockbreaker. PCs are more than human. This is fact. You can't deny that a player character is not the same as a plebe you meet on the street. There is something fundamentally different in them.
bitnine 05-05-06, 11:13 AM	Magic Thematic [General] Your eyes glow with blue magic or something. The same magic blue light does other things for you, too. Prerequisite: Character level 6th. Benefit: At will, you can summon up a mystic blue light to accompany any effort or action that you attempt. When wielding a sword, the blue light wreaths your hand and the blade, when falling great distances it envelops your body, and so on. This provides no mechanical modifier to your actions beyond allowing you to use the abilities and traits that you've aquired. Normal: Despite your strength of 30 or more, your hundreds of HPs, or any other abilities that you possess that far exceed any realistic ability, you might not be able to make use of them unless you can say that it's magic. Special: You determine the exact source and nature of this crazy blue magical light, so make up a good story. A fighter may select Magic Thematic as one of his bonus feats.
Arganis 05-05-06, 11:16 AM	In my opinion: An individual of sufficient strength could lift an arbitrarily heavy object and swing it in a perfectly useful fashion providing that the center of gravity was reasonably distributed towards the hilt. In addition to the momentum built for any swing (and on a downswing, the aid of gravity), the blade would also be advantaged by the amplified speed of the tip with respect to the hilt, due to length.
aotrscommander 05-05-06, 11:21 AM	Magic Thematic [General] Your eyes glow with blue magic or something. The same magic blue light does other things for you, too. Prerequisite: Character level 6th. Benefit: At will, you can summon up a mystic blue light to accompany any effort or action that you attempt. When wielding a sword, the blue light wreaths your hand and the blade, when falling great distances it envelops your body, and so on. This provides no mechanical modifier to your actions beyond allowing you to use the abilities and traits that you've aquired. Normal: Despite your strength of 30 or more, your hundreds of HPs, or any other abilities that you possess that far exceed any realistic ability, you might not be able to make use of them unless you can say that it's magic. Special: You determine the exact source and nature of this crazy blue magical light, so make up a good story. A fighter may select Magic Thematic as one of his bonus feats. Works for me!
Eltharon 05-05-06, 11:32 AM	Um...... Isn't this whole argument kind of...retarded? I mean, no offence to anyone, but if one person wants huge swords and someone else says they're stupid--guess what! The person who wants them uses them, the person who doesn't, doesn't. You don't have to convince the world that your idea is the only idea. <mutters darkly>
Sulaco 05-05-06, 11:47 AM	Its still hippocritical to say 'well I think this is stupid so it ruins me since of versimilitude' and then turn around and say 'but this other stupid thing, which I admit is pretty stupid is perfectly A-OK'. It is not hypocritical, it is called a "personal opinion." Mine are allowed to be different than yours. Holding a different opinion than you does not make me a hypocrite. Can we please stop the name-calling, guys? You hate the source, so you hold it to different standards than other things. There is really no way that a floating brain with a parrot's beak jammed into the frontal lobe is more in touch with a fantastic reality than a seven foot sword weilded by someone who we already know and accept is more human than human. The source, as I said earlier, has nothing to do with it. Even when I liked anime I still disliked gaint swords and other drek like that. And yes, a "floating brain with a parrot's beak jammed into the frontal lobe" can be "more in touch with a fantastic reality than a seven foot sword". It all depends on that particular reality. In my game gricks, grells and other such tentacular monstrosities exist. They are not natural creature, though. They were created specifically by evil otherwordly entities (think Cthulhu-esque elder gods) as servants. They are far more "more in touch with (the) fantastic reality" of my setting than giant anime swords. And again, I reiterate: if you like them and use them then more power to you. That does not alter the fact that I do not like them and do not use them. I choose not to use them cos I find them disruptively unrealistic. This makes neither "silly" not a "hypocrite," it simply means my opinion differs.
Kilsek of Sheverash 05-05-06, 12:00 PM	Realism is such a bizarre topic when playing in the fantasy world of D&D and its pseudo-midieval backdrop. I mean, what makes fantasy fantasy varies from person to person. Chances are you and a least a few of your regular playgroup and friends have their idea of the style of fantasy they like and how much "realism" is pallatable and important to them. That is, if several of you loved the Lord of the Rings movies or the Conan movies, similar elements of those stories, whether more mundane or fantastic, are appreciated and everyone just, well, rolls with it. Similar tastes in fantasy and in style of D&D play are simply helpful in starting with some basic expectations and assumptions about the fantasy world and campaign. There's potential for a lot of irony when saying something "doesn't make any sense" in a fantasy world. I mean, seriously, think about that statement. The very nature of a fantasy world means there are things that are born of imagination and beyond, that defy the mundane, that defy our expectations and the laws of nature. That's a huge part of the excitement and appeal of a dynamic fantasy world. Still, I think it ultimately comes down to the "brand of fantasy" you prefer to play, and that you can ALL agree on. That choice, subtle or not, helps shape a lot more "fantasy ground rules" than you might think.
FolcoTook 05-05-06, 12:38 PM	For all I know, the guy from Mythbusters independently developed the sentence...but it's a somewhat distinctive one, and I'm willing to bet that Adam Savage was the sort of kid who (sadly, like me) dragged his parents or friends to go see that film. In any event "Dungeonmaster" had the line in the mid-80's, word-for-wird the same. It's been so long since I've seen that movie (I'll only cop to having rented it as a kid in the 80's - didn't plunk down the $5 at the theater), I had forgotten the origins of that line. I think you very well could be right about Adam Savage having gotten the line from that movie, though. -FT
sdragon1984 05-05-06, 02:46 PM	the more i think on this, the stupider the whole debate becomes. you could describe your medium longsword as the buster sword, the masamune, a claymore, or any other way you like. print out a picture of a cool-looking sword from a website or draw your own. none of this would matter one bit to me. yknow why? because, ultimately, its 1d8 slashing damage with a 19-20 threat range and X2 crit. on top of that, the player is describing what makes his weapon special. how many players have any of you come across where the player had trouble describing what made his character special, much less his characters weapon? if you as a DM want an NPC to have a buster sword- fine, go ahead and knock yourself out. if you as a DM want every longsword carried by an NPC to look exactly like the one pictured in the PHB with no deviation whatsoever- fine, go ahead and knock yourself out. if your player wants to lovingly describe the details of their PCs longsword, who cares if its a buster sword- or any other weapon that would only work in fiction, for that matter?
Tormsskull 05-05-06, 03:02 PM	the more i think on this, the stupider the whole debate becomes. you could describe your medium longsword as the buster sword, the masamune, a claymore, or any other way you like. print out a picture of a cool-looking sword from a website or draw your own. none of this would matter one bit to me. yknow why? because, ultimately, its 1d8 slashing damage with a 19-20 threat range and X2 crit. on top of that, the player is describing what makes his weapon special. how many players have any of you come across where the player had trouble describing what made his character special, much less his characters weapon? if you as a DM want an NPC to have a buster sword- fine, go ahead and knock yourself out. if you as a DM want every longsword carried by an NPC to look exactly like the one pictured in the PHB with no deviation whatsoever- fine, go ahead and knock yourself out. if your player wants to lovingly describe the details of their PCs longsword, who cares if its a buster sword- or any other weapon that would only work in fiction, for that matter? Bring on mlund's cows on a stick. Seriously though, the debate is over consistency, realisticishness, or the word most people are using versimilitude. If your side of the argument is that versimilitude dosen't matter, then I think you're missing the point of the thread.
Sulaco 05-05-06, 03:54 PM	the more i think on this, the stupider the whole debate becomes. you could describe your medium longsword as the buster sword, the masamune, a claymore, or any other way you like. print out a picture of a cool-looking sword from a website or draw your own. none of this would matter one bit to me. yknow why? because, ultimately, its 1d8 slashing damage with a 19-20 threat range and X2 crit. That's a very good point. As long as the player is content to have the weapon function within the parameters of the game he can imagine it any way he wants. In my experience, however, the people who insist on bringing things like anime-style super-swords into a game do so not for a bit of character but cos they want them to be substantially more powerful than normal weapons, with damage and powers "just like in the anime!"
Feeb 05-05-06, 04:20 PM	Perhaps the ki feats in PHB2 will satiate those anime loving players. (personally, I think a player could already achieve most of that kind of flavor via psionics.)
sdragon1984 05-05-06, 04:26 PM	torms- i think it's been pointed out that for many, the buster sword doesnt ruin versimilitude. as i said, if you, as a DM, want every single sword weilded by an NPC to look exactly like the one in the PHB, go right ahead. i honestly could care less whether you did it for versimilitude or just a personal preference. sulaco- if your players want that extra bit of power "just like in the anime", then who are you to say they cant? me personally, id just tell them the extra feats, spells, skill levels, multilcasses, etc. that theyd need for that power. if they want a buster sword simply because they want the damage theyd get from a longsword thts one size category larger, tell them how they can do it within the parameters of the rules. if theyre not content to stay within the parameters of the rules- especially when you provide ruled options to allow what they want- then inform them that maybe this isnt the set of rules thats best suited for them. then maybe suggest a set of rules you think might be better suited for them.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-05-06, 05:11 PM	Just fore reference, seeing as I've said this like five times in two threads and no one cares, I made the heavy weaps in question because: 1) The race they're racial weapons for are frickin' medium sized minotaurs. 2) There are two unstatted but balanced options at the high end of the exotic weapons range; an exotic two-hander and an exotic, curved two hander. These happened to be perfect for my minotaurs. 3) My world is a world of fantasy with player characters running around. And if one group gets them, everyone has access. Now, I make the Extended qualitybecause its like Tojokin's sword pressure in Inuyasha (though I escaped the anti-crowd with that because I told them it was based on the Master Sword, which is 'exceptable') But I also made the Spinning Cane feat because even monkeys know to shorten thier grip on a long weapon so as to hit things nearby. And then again, I made the kari'dakai because, damnit, I like scythes, but hate having the heft them. They all come together to make a world. A world that follows its own rules and internal logic and uderstands that a player character is not the same as a mechanic from Manhattan. Of course, some people are going to cluck thier tongues and talk about 'cheapening' the game, to which I respond by giving them a massive heart attack. Get this: My game is also not set in Medieval Europe. Nor is it Feudal Japan, or Mesopotamia -- its like nothing on this earth. The Sun is a paraelemental plane, one of the moons is a sea wrapped around a core of negative energy and depending on the town you visit, they may have a hired spellcaster, or a gang of gunmen with trained spiders. It works for me, it works for my players and I've yet to have someone bolt, screaming from the room, misapplying the term 'versimilitude' to 'not my cup of tea', because a non-magical shapeshifter said 'hi' or the hailene can fly without an 80ft wingspan.
Riznar 05-05-06, 05:26 PM	VA, do you have information about that moon on your website? The idea intrigues me and I wanted to know where you were going with that.
sdragon1984 05-05-06, 05:32 PM	Just fore reference, seeing as I've said this like five times in two threads and no one cares, I made the heavy weaps in question because: 1) The race they're racial weapons for are frickin' medium sized minotaurs. 2) There are two unstatted but balanced options at the high end of the exotic weapons range; an exotic two-hander and an exotic, curved two hander. These happened to be perfect for my minotaurs. 3) My world is a world of fantasy with player characters running around. And if one group gets them, everyone has access. Now, I make the Extended qualitybecause its like Tojokin's sword pressure in Inuyasha (though I escaped the anti-crowd with that because I told them it was based on the Master Sword, which is 'exceptable') But I also made the Spinning Cane feat because even monkeys know to shorten thier grip on a long weapon so as to hit things nearby. And then again, I made the kari'dakai because, damnit, I like scythes, but hate having the heft them. They all come together to make a world. A world that follows its own rules and internal logic and uderstands that a player character is not the same as a mechanic from Manhattan. Of course, some people are going to cluck thier tongues and talk about 'cheapening' the game, to which I respond by giving them a massive heart attack. Get this: My game is also not set in Medieval Europe. Nor is it Feudal Japan, or Mesopotamia -- its like nothing on this earth. The Sun is a paraelemental plane, one of the moons is a sea wrapped around a core of negative energy and depending on the town you visit, they may have a hired spellcaster, or a gang of gunmen with trained spiders. It works for me, it works for my players and I've yet to have someone bolt, screaming from the room, misapplying the term 'versimilitude' to 'not my cup of tea', because a non-magical shapeshifter said 'hi' or the hailene can fly without an 80ft wingspan. great. wonderful. no problem or argument with any of that. for me, that wouldn't work. but- and i cannot stress this enough, especially with the limits of typed text- thats just me. you can, and (seeing as youre a DM, im sure you dont need me to tell you this, but...) all the more power to you for it. you play in your world, ill play in mine, and if i like yours enough, i might ask if i can play in yours. im sure id let you play in mine if you wanted to.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-05-06, 05:39 PM	VA, do you have information about that moon on your website? The idea intrigues me and I wanted to know where you were going with that. Not on the site yet. I've promised myself that I wouldn't go galavanting around the planes before I finished the nations on the Prime. but here's the gist from the thread on the homebrew board: Nubul, the Hidden Sea The invisible black moon is a vast sea and Ola's opposite, drawing off enough bombarding positive energy to keep the people of Ere from being obliterated by positive energy death. The sea exists above a core of negative energy, its life sustained by the positive energy the plane attracts. Nubul serves the purpose of an elemental plane of water and negative energy.
Zombie Carl 05-05-06, 05:44 PM	Regarding the giant swords: So, effectively, what the player wants is a greatsword/large longsword and Monkey Grip? I say fill your boots, you paid for the sword and the feat, you earned it. Internal Consistency: The MOST important factor in any game world. If I say everyone can fly, then everyone can fly. Why? Does your street-urchin, 1st level rogue know the big question in the campaign world? No? Then don't ask why! When you get off your ass and do some investigating, you might find out! It also leads to delicious plot hooks; the one person who can't fly. Why can't he fly? Is he doing something wrong, or is there something particularly unique about his physical makeup that means the magic that allows everyone to superman it around just doesn't work on him? At the moment I am running a campaign in a world of darkness; there is no sun. and it hasn't always been like that. the players have no idea why - yet. I'm sure one day they'll find out. And when they are epic, they'll probably figure out a way of restoring it and destroying the vampires + head vampire sorcerer who made it this way, thousands of years ago.
Always-Late 05-05-06, 09:44 PM	It works for me, it works for my players and I've yet to have someone bolt, screaming from the room, misapplying the term 'versimilitude' to 'not my cup of tea', because a non-magical shapeshifter said 'hi' or the hailene can fly without an 80ft wingspan.It is okay for you and your players, but not for me. Why do we care? I dislike oversized swords. They feel unrealistic to me, and slightly silly. (Why do I think they're silly? Because I just do. I don't need justification for why when I think "giant sword," I think "unrealistic.") Maybe in the context of a rather large (minotaurs, I'm assuming, are on the large side of medium) race that has (traditionally) an incredible focus on martial and physical strength, I could see really large swords in a good light, probably because I'd just recast them as axes that look like swords. Exceptions aside, I don't like oversized swords. Is that a good enough reason not to, I don't know, not play in a campaign with oversized swords, or must I present you with a justification that it ruins campaigns or drives off players? Sure, it works in some campaigns. But you won't see it in mine.
Solaris 05-05-06, 10:56 PM	[stuff] No, don't you see? Apparently you have to like them. You've got so many unrealistic things in your game anyway, that it's illogical for you not to have these too. Also, the people who do like them need to feel validated by having everyone else allow them too. "You do it your way, and I'll do it mine" is not a valid principle here, it seems.
Arem_K 05-05-06, 11:12 PM	It is okay for you and your players, but not for me. Why do we care? I dislike oversized swords. They feel unrealistic to me, and slightly silly. (Why do I think they're silly? Because I just do. I don't need justification for why when I think "giant sword," I think "unrealistic.") Maybe in the context of a rather large (minotaurs, I'm assuming, are on the large side of medium) race that has (traditionally) an incredible focus on martial and physical strength, I could see really large swords in a good light, probably because I'd just recast them as axes that look like swords. Exceptions aside, I don't like oversized swords. Is that a good enough reason not to, I don't know, not play in a campaign with oversized swords, or must I present you with a justification that it ruins campaigns or drives off players? Sure, it works in some campaigns. But you won't see it in mine. Because it just seems like such a silly argument. How is it that you can have a perfectly sensible world in which things like wizards are blowing stuff up with words and gestures and fighters can't possible hit something five feet away with a halberd, but it can't except a slighty larger sword wielded by one particular exceptional individual? There is even a feat, monkey grip, which pretty much does this. I get into the same arguments whenever I try to play a charisma based character. Me: I try to bluff. DM: It fails. The monster attacks. Me: Wait a minute, don't I get to roll or anything? DM: It is not realistic to be able to convince him. Me: But I am not a realistic character. I am so persuasive I have a small army of willing slaves(leadership.) Convincing people to do crazy things is my job. DM: Doesn't matter. You can't possibly get him to chage is mind. Me: Look, I should be able to do impossible things. My Charisma is almost the same as the fighter's strength, and he can lift about eight tons now. I just want to be able to produce a similar effect with my charisma. DM: Doesn't matter. That is not possible. Me: EIGHT TONS! It is really bad when you are chaining one character down with "That's impossible," when the rest of the party is flagrantly disregarding the laws of physics. The other reason to not allow them is because, "I don't like big swords." I could propose the idea that the player has a lot more invested in the idea of a character with a big sword than you are hurt by allowing one big sword into your game. Instead, I'll just say that DMs who run games and force their PCs to conform to what they like or dislike, even in the realm of aesthetic choices, tend to have a game that is worse off because of it. I had the a DM who only liked elves. The entire campaign was elves, except for some monsters. This was not due to story reasons, it was just that every single race was mysteriously absent. When I joined, I wanted to be a dwarf. He said no. I said I will take the elf racial bonuses so that me and the other PCs would be exactly the same except that my character had the word "Dwarf" in his description. Still no. I tried every single other race except for elves, including half elves. Still no. In the end, I ended up playing an elf, who was exceptionally short, had a full beard, a Scottish accent, carried an axe, and constantly talked about mining.
sdragon1984 05-05-06, 11:27 PM	...you play in your world, ill play in mine... perfectly right, solaris. i mean, its not like i ever said anything to make somebody think that it was OK to play the way they see fit. i've pointed out that having a buster sword is perfectly acceptable, so i must be saying that every campaign needs one. whats annoying vaal (and vaal, you can correct me on this if need be) isnt that you dont like it, its that the reason you give for not liking it implies that nobody should ever use it.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-05-06, 11:57 PM	whats annoying vaal (and vaal, you can correct me on this if need be) isnt that you dont like it, its that the reason you give for not liking it implies that nobody should ever use it. Quite right. Particularly the 'cheapening the game' crack and the back handed 'oh more power too you, but you still suck' attitude.
Stafir Ortnev 05-06-06, 12:13 AM	Quite right. Particularly the 'cheapening the game' crack and the back handed 'oh more power too you, but you still suck' attitude. Well..at least you admit to how pretentuous you sound.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-06-06, 12:30 AM	what?!
Archtyrant Terevoth 05-06-06, 12:40 AM	Instead, I'll just say that DMs who run games and force their PCs to conform to what they like or dislike, even in the realm of aesthetic choices, tend to have a game that is worse off because of it. I had the a DM who only liked elves. The entire campaign was elves, except for some monsters. This was not due to story reasons, it was just that every single race was mysteriously absent. When I joined, I wanted to be a dwarf. He said no. I said I will take the elf racial bonuses so that me and the other PCs would be exactly the same except that my character had the word "Dwarf" in his description. Still no. I tried every single other race except for elves, including half elves. Still no. In the end, I ended up playing an elf, who was exceptionally short, had a full beard, a Scottish accent, carried an axe, and constantly talked about mining. This sounds like uncooperative PCing and generally just being an immature jerk. Sometimes the campaign is based around a certain theme, whether it's the struggles of the elves or the adventures of the Samurai. If your DM wants everyone in the group to be an elf, then why not just go along with him, instead of whining and then going and doing something petty like that to him? Dwarves don't exist in his world, get over it. If you don't like it, then don't play. Seriously, you sound like one of those people who makes a blackguard in a group of lawful goods.
Arem_K 05-06-06, 12:59 AM	This sounds like uncooperative PCing. Sometimes the campaign is based around a certain theme, whether it's the struggles of the elves or the adventures of the Samurai. If your DM wants everyone in the group to be an elf, then why not just go along with him, instead of whining and then going and doing something petty like that to him? Dwarves don't exist in his world, get over it. If you don't like it, then don't play. Seriously, you sound like one of those people who makes a blackguard in a group of lawful goods. You see, I could accept that. I would not like it, but I could accept it. I once played a game where everyone was a rogue, and it was great because the adventure was set up so that we did roguey things and generally anyone who was not a rogue would have destroyed the game. But that was not the case here. Elves were not central to the story. People had to be elves simply because the the DM decided he liked elves. I don't why he liked elves. At no point was the story constructed in such a way that it made sense for a party to be elves and only elves. It was just that the DM decided that everyone was going to be an elf...period. Think about it this way. What if the DM told everyone they must be a druid, but the plot in no way involved nature, the environment, the divine, animals, or anything that would even remotely make it so it made sense to be a druid? Would you not say that this is a bad thing? I do not take a blackguard into a party of lawful goods. I DO like to make very intresting (strange really) characters. Twice since I have been playing I have been asked to make a new character. The first time I was asked by the DM because he got sick of reading Wildshape errata. The second time I was asked by the other players because my character did not meld well with the group. Both times I agreed to make a new character because the other party was good enough to calmly explain to me why they had a problem and it made sense. Nobody told me I could not do thing Y because "I do not like them, they are stupid."
Cantankerous 05-06-06, 01:22 AM	So your opinion is perfectly valid but my opinion is "silly" cos your don't agree with it. Gotcha. :rolleyes: Verisimilitude is a sense of reality - not reality itself - thus it varies from game to game and person to person. While you may not find it damaging to your sense of verisimilitude to have people running around with giant anime swords I do. Rather then respect that you instead resort to name calling. You know better than that Sul. What's silly is allowing some utterly and reprehensibly assinine ideas as ok (the fighter with more damage abosrbing capacity than a tank) and then claiming that the only reason to forbid other things is versimilitude. This is not exalting my view and denigrating yours, this is denying that any view that allows for some things that are beyond any vague conception of reality are ok while disallowing others of VASTLY lesser nature is protecting versimilitude. It's like this, if you allow ONE thing in to the campaign that makes less sense than the over sized sword, then claiming versmilitude for disallowing it is hypocritcal. At that point, since there IS something that makes much less sense, why isn't it simply stylsistics? And if it is, why not call it that? Or are you saying that a person NOT being able to swing a fifty pound sword makes more sense than a human being being able to withstand an amount of damage that would shred a tank (or a small herd of elephants for that matter) and walk away? If so, I'll sure as Hell conceed your point. Isshia
Cantankerous 05-06-06, 01:25 AM	An owlbear gives me no trouble at all, thanks to the abundance of screwy critters we've got in our own world. (Mr. Platypus, I'm looking in your direction). But this doesn't adress things. Sure Mr. Owlbear is closer to ok than the eight foot long sixty pound sword, but it's a HELL OF ALOT further from reasonable than Mr. Fighter with twice the damage absorbing capability than a tank; which is a mainstay of the game...but NOT of the genre in any way. Isshia
Always-Late 05-06-06, 01:43 AM	It's like this, if you allow ONE thing in to the campaign that makes less sense than the over sized sword, then claiming versmilitude for disallowing it is hypocritcal. At that point, since there IS something that makes much less sense, why isn't it simply stylsistics? And if it is, why not call it that? ... Or are you saying that a person NOT being able to swing a fifty pound sword makes more sense than a human being being able to withstand an amount of damage that would shred a tank (or a small herd of elephants for that matter) and walk away? If so, I'll sure as Hell conceed your point. IsshiaIt's a combination of the two for me. It is stylistics that make the superhuman feats of endurance and skill reasonable, but not the very large sword. As I have said before, every one of my serious games is Tolkienesque. You have people running around that are performing what are superhuman feats. A mace that blows gigantic craters in the ground can whack an elf seven times and he'll still be standing. From this viewpoint, a person getting smacked by the equivalent of a tank and surviving is rather reasonable, but an oversized wielded by anyone other than the most powerful figures in the plane is not.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-06-06, 01:58 AM	Stylistics is a perfectly good excuse. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, I endorse this and wish more DMs used it because WotC lacks this. However, stylistics are not versimilitude. That is the crux of this whole thing. Stylistics is a perfectly fine excuse. Versimilitude isn't because its hypocritical. Also, I don't think that 'boom bubble' was a property of the mace, but rather some sort of power Sauron was manifesting at the moment.
Cantankerous 05-06-06, 02:45 AM	It's a combination of the two for me. It is stylistics that make the superhuman feats of endurance and skill reasonable, but not the very large sword. As I have said before, every one of my serious games is Tolkienesque. You have people running around that are performing what are superhuman feats. A mace that blows gigantic craters in the ground can whack an elf seven times and he'll still be standing. From this viewpoint, a person getting smacked by the equivalent of a tank and surviving is rather reasonable, but an oversized wielded by anyone other than the most powerful figures in the plane is not. The combination makes perfect sense, and is what I do myself. I conceed that my reason for keeping big anime swords at bay is style driven, I simply do not like them at all, but I try to retain reasonability (which for me is as important as, and not the same thing as, versimilitude) throughout primarily. I just can't bring myself to the mental gymnastics necessary to say that I wouldn't allow an anime style sword because it breaks versimilitude, while Haclan (who's strength gets into the low 30's when he's enraged) could swing a 50 pound weight in the shape of a sword ALOT more easily than the average character could swing a great sword by comparison; but would allow him to be able to take more damage from some attack than the largest bull elephant could withstand and still keep smiling and hacking away at things. Haclan's strnegth gets to 33 when enraged now, which gives him a light load capacity of 800 pounds...the average strength 11 person has a LL cap of 38 pounds. The 50 pound sword is 1/16th of Haclan's LL cap, while for the strength 11 guy with the greatsword the is using more than 1/5th of his LL for that weapon. Isshia
Solaris 05-06-06, 03:37 AM	But this doesn't adress things. Sure Mr. Owlbear is closer to ok than the eight foot long sixty pound sword, but it's a HELL OF ALOT further from reasonable than Mr. Fighter with twice the damage absorbing capability than a tank; which is a mainstay of the game...but NOT of the genre in any way. I thought I already answered this in an earlier post. Hit points at least have an attempt at an explanation; they're a combination of damage absorbing ability and skill-based evasion. This is why you don't have to spend half an hour chopping through the neck of a character that's tied up. It's not a great explanation, but (according to my personal opinion) it's good enough. The big swords, on the other hand, don't come packaged with an attempt at an explanation as to why I should throw simple and obvious physics out the window. As I also already said, however, "it's magic" can justify anything, so I'd be willing to accept a magical "wieldability" property as an explanation. So you don't even have to try very hard, but I do need some reason to accept a complete violation of my expectations.
Solaris 05-06-06, 03:40 AM	However, stylistics are not versimilitude.That's correct. They're two separate issues. Stylistics is a perfectly fine excuse. Versimilitude isn't because its hypocritical.That's not correct. But I suspect at this point that you're ignoring all my previous posts on the matter, so I doubt that repeating myself yet again will do any good.
Solaris 05-06-06, 03:45 AM	perfectly right, solaris. i mean, its not like i ever said anything to make somebody think that it was OK to play the way they see fit. i've pointed out that having a buster sword is perfectly acceptable, so i must be saying that every campaign needs one. whats annoying vaal (and vaal, you can correct me on this if need be) isnt that you dont like it, its that the reason you give for not liking it implies that nobody should ever use it. I've stated several times that while I don't like them, and I don't feel they're consistent with my style of play, I have absolutely no problem with other people using them if they like them and feel they're consistent with their style of play. Is anyone reading my posts?
Cantankerous 05-06-06, 04:14 AM	I thought I already answered this in an earlier post. Hit points at least have an attempt at an explanation; they're a combination of damage absorbing ability and skill-based evasion. This is why you don't have to spend half an hour chopping through the neck of a character that's tied up. It's not a great explanation, but (according to my personal opinion) it's good enough. The big swords, on the other hand, don't come packaged with an attempt at an explanation as to why I should throw simple and obvious physics out the window. As I also already said, however, "it's magic" can justify anything, so I'd be willing to accept a magical "wieldability" property as an explanation. So you don't even have to try very hard, but I do need some reason to accept a complete violation of my expectations. Not even close. There is ZERO avoidance with a sleeping person, for instance, yet if the person makes their fortitude save they can take more damage in a single event than would be necessary to punch through a five foot square section of stone wall more than two inches thick and not only live, but be unimpared for their response to it. Haclan: damage reduction-->4, hit points-->312 normally, like when alseep. Now we have Dura, the Hill Giant with his trusty size large sized warhammer. If he coup de graces the sleeping Haclan he'll get an automatic critical doing 2d6 for the warhammer +7 for his strength, times three. On average with that shot he'll do 7+7=14 x3 =42 - 4 (for the damage reduction) or 38 hit points of damage. Assuming he rolls a 20 and survives the coup de grace effect, that 38 hit points will do little more than annoy him slightly. Now the same 42 points applied to a stone wall will punch through TWO INCHES AND AN EIGHTH INCH THICK PIECE of solid stone in a five foot square section . This means that by extension, Haclan has the same amount of INERT total damage capactity as a more than FOURTY SQUARE FOOT SECTION OF STONE WALL TWO AND AN EIGHTH INCHES THICK. THIS is in no way less acceptable to any kind of logical adherence to versimilitude than a fifty pound eight foot long sword in the hands of a person for whom such a weapon is MUCH LESS unweildy than a normal greatsword is for the average man. Isshia
Solaris 05-06-06, 05:35 AM	There is ZERO avoidance with a sleeping person, for instance, yet if the person makes their fortitude save they can take more damage in a single event than would be necessary to punch through a five foot square section of stone wall more than two inches thick and not only live, but be unimpared for their response to it. I seem to recall sleeping or helpless people being able to be insta-killed. But besides that, I'm willing to accept Hit Points and Fortitude Saves as just another game mechanic. The key here is that I'm expecting it. I know how hit points work. And therefore someone sustaining a heroic amount of damage doesn't surprise me and snap me out of the fantasy. Someone wielding a too-massive sword would. All else being equal, I expect basic physics to apply. This means that lacking magic, game mechanics I've already accepted for the sake of practicality, or some other vaguely plausible excuse, I don't expect anyone to be able to wield a sword like the one Sulaco posted a picture of. You see, magic, game mechanics, etc, change my expectation of what is plausible and what should be occurring. Without them, my expectation is that when you try to swing something as massive as you are, you move as much as it does. Give me a reason to change my expectation, and if that reason fits my game concept, I'll accept it as plausible for my game (and strength and grip are not sufficient reason since strength and grip are irrelevant to the problem of relative mass). Hell, even simply saying "this is a game world influenced by manga and anime" is enough to change my expectations and allow me to accept it! It tells me that normal rules are not going to apply, and, better still, gives me an idea of what kind of rules do apply. You're still just using the same old argument which I've already argued against numerous times. Acceptance of one stupid fantasy element does not imply necessary acceptance of all stupid fantasy elements. If people being supernaturally tough is part of my fantasy context, that does not imply that people being able to violate Newton's third law necessarily is. Certainly it might be, but it obviously needn't be. Do you honestly believe you can logically force an acceptance of bogus swords because of an acceptance of some other, completely unrelated, bogus fantasy element? If you do, then I'm afraid you might have some intellectual challenges to overcome -- people being able to take lots of damage does not mean your character can wield a sword that's too massive for him, any more than it means he can shoot monkeys out of his butt at will; the mechanism by which one might happen is independent of the mechanisms by which the others might happen. I might accept some rationale, in some context, by which you could wield the sword, just as I might accept some other rationale, in some other context, by which you could shoot monkeys out of your butt. But neither of those contexts happen to be equal to "my campaign world". If that bothers you, you'll just have to get over it, and wield giant swords and shoot monkeys out of your butt in your campaign world, if such things happen to make sense there. Seriously, is this such a difficult concept?
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-06-06, 01:05 PM	Fun Examples of Existing Weapons Rules - A human commoner commoner with strength 3 has a ligh load max of 10 pounds. A longspear is a simple weapon weighing 9 pounds. The commoner can weild 9/10ths of his light load at no penalty. - If that same commoner takes proficiency with the halbred (the heaviest weapon in the core game at a hefty 12 pounds), he can weild 1-1/5 his light load with no penalty. - Now lets say that this commoner survives to third level (he lives in a tough place, but is able to get out of toruble by brandishing his weaponry) and lets assume that he took proficiency with something lighter -- the greatsword. While he was second level, a local group of adventurerers takes down a hill giant and leaves its large greatsword in the field outside town. He practices with that thing day in and day out. Assuming that larger weapons are four times the weight, its 32 lbs. He's no good with it until he hits level 3 and learns Monkey Grip. At this point, he is able to weild a weapon outside his max heavy load, but can only stagger around with it. He loses his dex to AC and can only move 5ft as a full round action, but he can still smack the crap out of you with the thing. - With his new found god-sword, our commoner makes it to fourth level. At this pount, he's trained so much that his 4th level ability point goes into strength, making his strength 4 and putting the sword into his Heavy load catagory. He can now fight as normal at a small -2 penalty (which has nothing to do with weight, but rather some 3.5 BS about handle sizes.) That was a strength 3 commoner with two of the three feats he could have taken feats. A first level human fighter, in a game that allows Monkey Grip can pull this off at level 1 with weapon focus: greatsword and another feat as a bonus. The weapon he gets for this, at first level, does 3d6 damage, crits 19-20x2. Its probably well within his light load (strength 10 has a light load of 33) at a total penalty of -1 due to weapon focus. Now my weapons required a feat, did less damage in exchance for no penalty. If a strength 3 character can weild a 32lb sword with a feat by WotC's rules, where is my sin in having a race go that extra step and mill down the handles?
Solaris 05-06-06, 09:22 PM	I wonder what it was that I did to get on Vaalingrade Ashland's ignore list, and when I did it.
sdragon1984 05-06-06, 11:01 PM	Acceptance of one stupid fantasy element does not imply necessary acceptance of all stupid fantasy elements. ....... has anybody else noticed the arguments are comparing apples and oranges? nowhere was anything about the acceptance of the elements of fantasy mentioned in the "pro buster sword" arguments. rather: acceptance of the believability of one fantasy element implies acceptance of the believability of another fantasy element, especially when the believability of the second fantasy element has been proven with in-game mechanics, in-game flavor, and real world physics. nobody is telling anybody to accept any element of fantasy. all there is, is a request to acknowledge that its the element itself thats unaccepted, not the believability of the element.
Priest_of_Shaundakul 05-06-06, 11:12 PM	As long as you use alignment, it's a-ok with me :)
DarthMarasmus 05-06-06, 11:56 PM	Because it just seems like such a silly argument. How is it that you can have a perfectly sensible world in which things like wizards are blowing stuff up with words and gestures and fighters can't possible hit something five feet away with a halberd, but it can't except a slighty larger sword wielded by one particular exceptional individual? There is even a feat, monkey grip, which pretty much does this. I get into the same arguments whenever I try to play a charisma based character. Me: I try to bluff. DM: It fails. The monster attacks. Me: Wait a minute, don't I get to roll or anything? DM: It is not realistic to be able to convince him. Me: But I am not a realistic character. I am so persuasive I have a small army of willing slaves(leadership.) Convincing people to do crazy things is my job. DM: Doesn't matter. You can't possibly get him to chage is mind. Me: Look, I should be able to do impossible things. My Charisma is almost the same as the fighter's strength, and he can lift about eight tons now. I just want to be able to produce a similar effect with my charisma. DM: Doesn't matter. That is not possible. Me: EIGHT TONS! It is really bad when you are chaining one character down with "That's impossible," when the rest of the party is flagrantly disregarding the laws of physics. The other reason to not allow them is because, "I don't like big swords." I could propose the idea that the player has a lot more invested in the idea of a character with a big sword than you are hurt by allowing one big sword into your game. Instead, I'll just say that DMs who run games and force their PCs to conform to what they like or dislike, even in the realm of aesthetic choices, tend to have a game that is worse off because of it. I had the a DM who only liked elves. The entire campaign was elves, except for some monsters. This was not due to story reasons, it was just that every single race was mysteriously absent. When I joined, I wanted to be a dwarf. He said no. I said I will take the elf racial bonuses so that me and the other PCs would be exactly the same except that my character had the word "Dwarf" in his description. Still no. I tried every single other race except for elves, including half elves. Still no. In the end, I ended up playing an elf, who was exceptionally short, had a full beard, a Scottish accent, carried an axe, and constantly talked about mining. I hate it when DMs don't even let you roll for something. That's why I refuse to play under a certain friend of mine anymore because he was a chronic "that won't work, don't even roll" kind of person. As for the elf thing, YUCK! I wouldn't have even joined that game. A romp with a bunch of tree-hugging ninnies isn't my idea of a good time.
DarthMarasmus 05-07-06, 12:02 AM	Seriously, some of you really need to chill with the Vaal bashing. Just because he likes big ol' swords and you don't doesn't mean jack. Are you playing in his game? No. Then shut up about it. From what I've seen, he isn't trying to convince anyone to include ludicrously sized weapons in their games, he isn't trying to convince anyone that real-world physics are out of place in a D&D game, he's simply giving examples of alternate physics and/or reality that he is using in HIS setting. If you have a problem with what he's doing in HIS game, which is similar to your only by the most basic of mechanics and which you are not taking part in, then you have problems that I doubt any of us here can actually help you with (such as a Narcissistic personality, oral retention, or some other head-case sort of problem). I'm sure most of us here have enough of our own mental problems without you Vaal-bashing RL-physics Nazis adding to them by making us wade through your inane banter to find the good posts. Ah, I feel better now...
Solaris 05-07-06, 01:59 AM	As far as I've noticed, nobody is bashing him. The thread seems to be about people who do allow giant swords trying to tell people who don't allow giant swords that they should allow giant swords, and using entirely bogus arguments to do it. I'm simply offering explanations of why I don't allow it, and why those arguments are bogus. And I've explicitly said many times that I can imagine situations where it could be allowed, and that if someone wants to allow it then it doesn't bother me at all. My objection is not to anyone playing an anime-influenced game. My objection is to being told that since I find certain fantasy elements or game mechanics believable enough, then I must also find anime physics believable enough (and consistent with my campaign world). But the replies I'm getting just don't make sense -- it's like Vaalingrade and others are being defensive, when I'm not even attacking them. Do they think I'm bashing them? I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, after all the other bad logic in this thread, if a statement such as "I like more realistic physics in my game, where possible, but if you don't, then that's cool" could be misconstrued as "bashing".
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-07-06, 02:15 AM	Its fairly simple: IF you have stylisitc problems with it, don't use it. Simple as that. But call a duck a duck. It is a stylisitc or tonal concern, not a versimilitude concern, because the game itself doesn't give half a rat's ass about versimilitude as evidenced by hit points, feats and grells. If you are looking for versimilitude, heroic fantasy is not the place it rests its head. You can get a 'real world' feel, but versimilitude isn't going to be stopping by here for some time (as in after you switch to non-scaling wounds/vitality, remove magic, and line item ban a mess of feats and classes). In short: Stop hiding behind realism or versimilitude when making your tone or style concerns known. Edit: Also, if I never have to sit through another thread where we're lectured on why X can't be done because the English/Romans/Japanese did it Y way, it'll be too soon. Unless those cultures exist in your world, it doesn't gorram matter. :mad:
Arem_K 05-07-06, 02:21 AM	I have to ask, why is everyone saying that having a big sword is an anime thing? I know I have seen plenty of Western fantasy books where the hero is using a sword that is way too big to be real. The iconic big sword guy that everyone seems to be mentioning is Cloud, which is a video game character, not an anime character. The big sword guy I think about is Arngrim, who is another character from a video game. The game was made by Japan but seemed very Western (the whole story was about the norse gods). It did use alot of amine-ish effects on the big attacks, but graphics sell games.
Stafir Ortnev 05-07-06, 02:42 AM	Being real or appearing real dosn't mean just using physics that are also available in the real world. It also has alot to do with just being consistant. You can make the most fantastic..the most amazing..the most law of physics breaking world seem possible, real...and like it actually exists..by having a proper consistancy in how things work. The problem is..what is consistant shifts from one person to the next. Which is where little versimilitude thing is popping around. For some having a person who wields a huge, normally impossible to wield sword, without any sort of explination other than 'he can do it' breaks down the consistancy of that particular reality. For others its the idea of the ideas of good, evil, chaotic, and lawful being actual, set, and defined standards in the world. If a game consistantly allows the use of magic..has rules set in place for how its used and can't be used..and nothing appears arbitrary. Its going to feel like a real breathing possible magic because of the consistancy of the rules for magic. It won't feel fake because it has things that don't exist in this world...it'll feel real because of how those things are presented. Its also the same case with the whole way too big to normally handle sword, unless there is a pheasable explination ingame, can ruin this feel of consistancy in the world..it becomes just 'too far out there'. That is, of course, why the person is ok with the big swords in a more anime type setting...big swords are par for the course and consistant with that sort of setting. Even if its not the only place that has huge swords..its one of those things that everyone expects anime to have..it can actually feel less real to not have them. Anime and anything more whimsically animated based..can even get away with someone having a huge hammer appear out of nowhere to bad people with..because its so consistant with the feel of the world itself..you wind up not blinking an eye. And I think this is the sort of real some are talking about. Not..its like the real world real..but more like...its got rules and laws that are followed and you don't break those things...that sort of real.
Solaris 05-07-06, 04:18 AM	But call a duck a duck. It is a stylisitc or tonal concern, not a versimilitude concern, because the game itself doesn't give half a rat's ass about versimilitude as evidenced by hit points, feats and grells. If you are looking for versimilitude, heroic fantasy is not the place it rests its head. You can get a 'real world' feel, but versimilitude isn't going to be stopping by here for some time (as in after you switch to non-scaling wounds/vitality, remove magic, and line item ban a mess of feats and classes). Absolute nonsense. You're acting like it's all or nothing, which it isn't. Why can't I sacrifice verisimilitude in some ways and preserve it in other ways? This is what I'm arguing against. Letting one bit of unreality in the door doesn't mean I have to let it all in. My world can have "the appearance of being true or real" except where it doesn't. Nobody here is making the ridiculous claim that D&D can provide total verisimilitude, but you're making the ridiculous claim that D&D can't provide any verisimilitude. And that's my only problem with any of this.
Pandaemoni 05-07-06, 05:03 AM	In short: Stop hiding behind realism or versimilitude when making your tone or style concerns known. Personally physical sciences aside, I almost always default to realism. Where the RAW jettisons realism, so do I; where the RAW is silent realism reigns, unless I have a good reason to rule otherwise. I even have some tendency to rely on realism with respect to scientific issues, when they come up, though the RAW so often jettisons realistic science, and, again, the RAW trumps realism, imo. That said, I like worlds where even new players can make an educated guess about the way things work without having to stop and ask me. Are peasants the most powerful figures in the land or would that be the kings and warlords? Suppose I were to assault this noble's wife, would he be delighted? I want to buy a "dozen" arrows, that's like 100, right? Is water poisonous? Is wearing blue on a Tuesday punishable by death? I know you said firearms haven't yet been developed, but my character wants to invent the M29 (http://www.hkpro.com/oicw.htm) and ammunition from scratch, is that possible? The answer is: in a non-realistic campaign all of that is possible you just have to convince the DM that it would be “cool”, and you never know what an unrealistic DM will say until you ask. (No DM could ever claim that the M29 isn't "cool".) (Of course these questions might seem ridiculous, but that's because it's hard to imagine players whose expectations deviate so far from basic "realism". In my experience, when the DM chucks his own realism out the window, players quickly follow...perhaps not quite to the extent these questions suggest, but that's because most DMs retain some level of realism in their games, thus the players to do the same. The less realism the DM has in-game, the less the players will have in forming expectations about the game.) We all have certain background assumptions, and jumping away from realism on a mere whim would be bad, because it turns the game into a session of "Mother may I", as the players have no idea what to expect as a consequence of their actions. Deviating from realism needs to be used with the same care as deviating from the RAW, imo. You can certainly make up houserules, but make up too many, and the game becomes a pain in the ass for your players because it becomes harder for them to keep track. (If you put together a reference document for everyone to study which contains the major deviations, of course, it's easier to get away with more and greater ones.) In the end most role-playing games have to have a certain degree of verisimilitude, because humans are no good at imagining wholly alien environments and characters. Whenever we try we tend to get bogged down in what we see really existing in the world. "Aliens" tend to be humanoid (like the little gray aliens...as if a humanoid form with a head (on top), two eyes, nostrils, mouth, neck, torso, abdomen four limbs, etc. would be likely to evolve on an alien world...it's hardly even common on this world). Even Grell are brains, with octopus-like tentacles and a bird's beak. A grell is a mishmash of familiar body parts from different animals, about as "alien" as a chimera of a griffon. Hence even our “unrealistic” fantasies have some basis in reality, in realism. That's not to say that one should never deviate from realism, but I do think it's preferable for the DM to say, "I thought about the realism of this situation, and for reasons X, Y and Z, I have decided to deviate from it,” rather than "I didn't think about the realism because that would require me to crack a history or science book and learn the realistic treatment of this situation." In my experience, most of the DMs who don't hew to realism either (i) never bothered to learn much history/science in the first place (hence don't much care about historical or scientific realism) or (ii) are somewhat capricious and prone to multiple arbitrary rulings, preferring to play by the seat of their pants (inconsistency over time be damned). Some DMs, I'm sure, both know their history and are consistent in their rulings, even when they deviate from realism, but it's a challenge. There are innumerable reference materials to look up the way life really happened on this planet. In the DM's non-realistic campaign world, maintaining consistency requires relying on the DM to have an encyclopedic knowledge of every ruling he's made. Realism shouldn't handcuff the campaign, but it serves as a check against those dangers. In short, deviating from realism by design to enhance the game is great and should be encouraged so long as it actually does enhance the game, all things considered./* Deviating from realism because one is ignorant of the history or science at issue in the situation, is no virtue. ----------- /* What's an "enhancement?" I'd say that's complex, but it is deeply tied to player expectations. In general, any deviation (realistic or not) that violates player expectations will tend to be viewed either as (A) good (if the outcome allows the player better options than he or she expected), (B) neutral rulings (where the DM’s rulings offer comparable options to what the player expected) or (C) "stupid" (if the outcome leads to worse options than expected). To big advantages of a realistic campaign are that, (i) even when there is a mismatch between expectations and gameplay, players can more easily rationalize an argument based on realism that they can one based on the DM's esthetic sense alone and (ii) we all live in the real world, so our expectations tend towards realism by default for questions not covered by RAW, until we get conditioned to expect something different in game. The advantage of non-realistic rulings is that they allow you to sometimes make “good” rulings (as in “category (A)”) where realism would leave you in category (B). That said, once you make such a ruling you need to keep track of it, because the player expectations shift as they now come to *expect* that ruling. Any later reversion “back” to realism (or to some less favorable unrealistic ruling) counts as “stupid (category “(C)”), because it violates the new set of player expectations in a negative way.
AntiDjinn 05-07-06, 05:27 AM	My gaming group (we have been playing a variety of RPGs since 1983) has always strived for consistency within a given game world without worrying about being "realistic" or "accurate" relative to the real world. We all have to live in the real world, we don't need it ported to our game worlds as well. So in the many campaigns (and differing systems) we have used, each world gets its ground rules and we try to stay within those rules. But we are not playing a historical simulation game in any case. When a player has tried to explain that the pommel design of my sword is all wrong for a Medieval European setting or some such, I have invited him to share his opinion with someone who cares. 1) Our setting is neither Europe nor is in the past. The D&D world is not what will one day become our world. In fact, all of the official settings are in the present of worlds or planes in a multiverse different from our own. 2) The sword is magic, is intelligent, and can talk! And you are concerned that the pommel design does not fit with the real world??? And I should have told him where to stick that bit of trivia about when stirrups were invented and how we should not have them ; again, this has jack to do with the game. As long as the world runs with an internal logic and consistency and the DM is not simply varying the laws of reality to suit his moment to moment whims then I can make may character live in the world. I am well aware of the physical and biological impossibility of polymorphing: Massive (less than 6 second) restructuring of your tissues should be fatal. If you changed into a water elemental then all your brain should be water so no chemical reactions would take place, all neurons would cease to fire action potentials because they are dependent on a chemical gradient across a semi-permeable membrane. And actually changing your mass instantly is completely absurd. Except in a fantasy RPG. Which is what we are playing. The world operates by different rules, but they are rules nonetheless. I have had characters sail through space on spelljamming ships without a vacuum suit. My entire group is well aware people can't survive in space on open wooden ships, but this isn't space, it is wildspace and phlogiston. And one of my characters actually fell from orbit and landed on the planet below and survived because he had enough hit points. Don't try that in the real world, but lucky for me that wasn't where the game was set. Yes, in the real world he would have died in the vacuum before being vaporized on re-entry. But this has exactly what to do with a Spelljammer game?
Burgundy Lotus 05-07-06, 08:46 AM	Somehow I don't see this being resolved anytime soon, since both sides are quite entrenched for the most part. I am surprised it's remained as civil as it has for as long as it has though. :thumbsup: My feeling on the subject? Realism is there and is important for the game but takes a backseat to fun and if something we add breaks 'reality' we find a simple explanation that works for us but makes no sense to most other poeple, much like Heisenberg compensators from Star Trek, they are there but not explained in any way. AFAIK
Cantankerous 05-08-06, 02:03 AM	Absolute nonsense. You're acting like it's all or nothing, which it isn't. Why can't I sacrifice verisimilitude in some ways and preserve it in other ways? This is what I'm arguing against. Letting one bit of unreality in the door doesn't mean I have to let it all in. My world can have "the appearance of being true or real" except where it doesn't. Nobody here is making the ridiculous claim that D&D can provide total verisimilitude, but you're making the ridiculous claim that D&D can't provide any verisimilitude. And that's my only problem with any of this. The word versimilitude means: depicting reality. Since you seem to want to talk about the intentions of others (though where you got the idea that anyone here is saying that you or anyone else MUST allow giant swords is beyond me) let's talk about the intention of the word verisimilitude. Verisimilitude, the depicting of reality talks about an over all state. Now, it is a DEPICTION of reality, not reality itself, yes, so there is no slavish adherence...but the idea itself does NOT talk about specifics. The idea itself talks about an overall. If you claim verisimilitude you claim a depiction of reality over all. If you aren't claiming that then to communicate the idea fully you have to do what you've done now, at the very end, and state that you are NOT aiming for verisimilitude, but rather PARTIAL verisimilitude. Now the partiality of this shows clearly that you're making Stylistic or Tonal decisions about what PARTS of the concept of verisimilitude are to be included...which is what has been said all along. No one here has argued that you or anyone else HAS TO admit giant swords if you admit hit points or other silliness, but rather that to claim that it is to protect verisimilitude, and not PARTIAL verisimilitude based solely on stylistic or tonal desires is what is being argued. Isshia
Solaris 05-08-06, 02:22 AM	Is that car blue? What about the tires? And the windows? And the chrome parts? I guess it's blue... except where it isn't. A game can have differing degrees of verisimilitude, from absolute to nonexistent, in different areas. The physics of motion could be absolutely realistic, while the characters could all have telepathy and be able to read minds. Such a world's physics would have total verisimilitude, and its people's mental abilities would have little. Overall, the game would have some "appearance of reality", and therefore, by definition, some verisimilitude. If you're going to choose to interpret "verisimilitude" as "total verisimilitude" then you're going to have a lot of problems talking about plain old every day verisimilitude with other people, as this thread has demonstrated. Actually, although I don't need to, I could even give you your restrictive interpretation and still make my case. Suppose that verisimilitude means "the uniform and absolute appearance of reality" (it actually doesn't, because it means only "the appearance of reality", but for the sake of argument suppose it does). Then I could say that my game has "an imperfect verisimilitude", or, even better, "an approximation to verisimilitude", and then maintain that while some unrealistic game mechanic fits within the constraints of my approximation, unrealistic swords do not, because the swords destroy the particular approximation to verisimilitude that I am trying to create. And there you'd have a perfectly good argument from considerations of verisimilitude against the stupid swords (and, as usual, it'd be an entirely subjective one that need have no bearing on anyone else's game; i.e., their own approximation to verisimilitude). Furthermore, given two approximations to verisimilitude, where one is a closer approximation than the other, I could say that the closer one has "more verisimilitude" than the other, and be right back with degrees of verisimilitude again. Finally, I'll point out that two people needn't even agree on what verisimilitude is. There are people in this world who believe in a god or gods. There are people who believe in magic. And for those people, D&D has much more verisimilitude (appearance of reality) in those respects than would a game which didn't have gods and magic. And that's the key to what I'm saying: "more verisimilitude in those respects". It's not black and white, and it's not total.
Solaris 05-08-06, 03:55 AM	No one here has argued that you or anyone else HAS TO admit giant swords if you admit hit points or other silliness, Yes they have. Or, at least, that if you admit those things then you've got no rational basis for not admitting the swords. but rather that to claim that it is to protect verisimilitude, and not PARTIAL verisimilitude based solely on stylistic or tonal desires is what is being argued. I'll admit (and have just done so in my last post) that it is partial verisimilitude that's being protected. But it's more than the mere stylistic fact that I think they look stupid. Admitting them would damage, in unacceptable ways, the partial verisimilitude which I attempt to maintain. I'll also even admit that the particular parts of verisimilitude I'll protect, and those which I'll sacrifice, are determined by personal style. But it doesn't change the fact that it is (partial) verisimilitude which is being protected; that I won't allow the swords because I don't want that aspect of my reality-appearance to be sacrificed; that allowing them destroys part of the reality-appearance of my game, regardless of which other parts happen already to have been destroyed. So the argument can come from considerations of verisimilitude -- partial or otherwise.
Jarrad 05-08-06, 04:50 AM	Personally physical sciences aside, I almost always default to realism. Where the RAW jettisons realism, so do I; where the RAW is silent realism reigns, unless I have a good reason to rule otherwise. I even have some tendency to rely on realism with respect to scientific issues, when they come up, though the RAW so often jettisons realistic science, and, again, the RAW trumps realism, imo. [...major snippage...] Nice post :clap: :D Not so much that I agree with *everything* you said, per se, but... Nice post :) Can I join the "Blaggerd" society, by the way? ;) As an aside, there are lots of definitions of "verisimilitude" out there (a word I've only ever heard myself use in everyday conversation and incorrectly thought I'd never get sick of ;) ) but one I rather like from the context of literature is: "Quality of seeming like what is taken to be the real world of a particular text." If for "particular text" we substitute (quite legitimately) "particular game world" then I feel we come to an interesting conclusion... At the risk of this becoming a meta-meta-argument: the debate over whether or not verisimilitude is a reasonable argument for or against the use of any particular element in a game world ITSELF depends upon the game world, but more importantly it depends upon people's perception of it. Another interpretation from another literary source: "In literary criticism, the term refers to aspects of a work of literature that seem true to the reader." I think this point is where this intractably irresolvable debate stems from. If your perception of the game world - whether DnD as a whole or a specific campaign setting - is such that mega-swords are not consistent with the reality of the whole, then verisimilitude IS damaged by their use. Even the argument over whether or not verisimilitude is a valid argument is itself nonsensical, because relevant interpretations of the term are based entirely upon subjective criteria: those of the "reader". Wikipedia's interpretation: "Versimilitude, in literature, is how fully the characters and actions in a work of fiction conform to our sense of reality." You see what I'm getting at? There's actually no difference between "stylistic" and "verisimilitude" reasons for wanting to include or disallow a particular thematic element, because they are both ways of saying "what you think fits". Your sense of reality as it pertains to a fantastic environment IS BOTH your "stylistic" interpretation AND your criterion for assessing "verisimilitude". "Verisimilitude" is in no way the same thing as "veracity". If I wanted to fake a day off work sick, I'd cough or sneeze or groan or sound shaky when I called in, to add verisimilitude to the listerner's perception of my being ill. I'm not actually ill, but my performance is consistent with the listener's perception of reality as it pertains to our shared fantasy environment - the one in which I'm ill. Vaal is right AND Solaris is right; the primary basis for the conflict of ideas seems to be a lack of agreement on the definition of "verisimilitude". :D
Sulaco 05-08-06, 09:21 AM	if your players want that extra bit of power "just like in the anime", then who are you to say they cant? The DM. Luckily my players don't have any truck with anime and so it is not an issue for us.
Sulaco 05-08-06, 09:24 AM	Quite right. Particularly the 'cheapening the game' crack and the back handed 'oh more power too you, but you still suck' attitude. I never said or implaied anything of the sort. Use what you like, ignore what you don't This applies equally to everyone. All I am talking about are my reasons for not liking or using them. In no way is this a condemnation of those who do so. Vall, disagreeing with your POV on an issue is not a slight agasint you or your game. Please do not personalize this non-issue.
Ut-Napishtim 05-08-06, 09:30 AM	I'm surprised this debate is still raging even through the weekend. Sorry VA, had I known this was going to turn into a discussion of versimilitude I never would have used the term in the first place. I do find it rather humorus though that someone would argue, "Well I go by the RAW, and when there is no RAW for it I apply logic." As I already pointed out pages ago, dude's with big swords actually is RAW (check out the PHB p. 113). Now if you don't like that for your games that's cool, but don't paint a stripe down a cat's back and call it a skunk. By not allowing it you are effectively Rule 0ing against the RAW - not applying "logic" in the event of a RAW omission. All the hemming and hawing about "realism" and "versimilitude" is really just a cop-out for "I don't like it." Like I said before, as long as VA's taking the RAW on using these large weapons into account as he implements the concept in his game I've got no beef with it.
Sulaco 05-08-06, 09:43 AM	Vaal is right AND Solaris is right; the primary basis for the conflict of ideas seems to be a lack of agreement on the definition of "verisimilitude". :D Precisely. The point I have made several times over is that verisimilitude has no one single defintion, it varies from person to person and form game to game. The game setting used and the DM involved sets the parameters of what is versimilar and what is not. FOr Vaal and his players anime-style swords and whatnot may fit within these parmeters, for me they do not. I will try one more time to make this as clear as possible: for me giant anime swords destroy my sense of verisimiltude. Nice post BTW, Jarrad.
Sulaco 05-08-06, 09:50 AM	All the hemming and hawing about "realism" and "versimilitude" is really just a cop-out for "I don't like it." No, it is an entirely seperate and distinct point which stands proudly beside "I don't like it."
Shatteredtower 05-08-06, 10:08 AM	I will try one more time to make this as clear as possible: for me giant anime swords destroy my sense of verisimiltude.What then for those of us who find that horses can always take a 20 ft fall without being lamed destroys any hope of versimilitude, but feel that any change in the RAW to establish a more realistic result would not be in the game's best interests?
Ut-Napishtim 05-08-06, 10:08 AM	No, it is an entirely seperate and distinct point which stands proudly beside "I don't like it." Which has what to do with rules for a medium character using a large weapon on p. 113 of the PHB?
Sulaco 05-08-06, 11:37 AM	What then for those of us who find that horses can always take a 20 ft fall without being lamed destroys any hope of versimilitude, but feel that any change in the RAW to establish a more realistic result would not be in the game's best interests? Change it or leave it as you wish. However I would suggest that if a core game machanic, in this case the hp system, destroys your sense of verisimilitude then you might be better off playing a different system. That said, I have yet to see anything which suggests that disallowing giant anime-swords would not be in the game's best interests
Sulaco 05-08-06, 11:40 AM	Which has what to do with rules for a medium character using a large weapon on p. 113 of the PHB? Nothing. I had assumed that was clear from me actually quoting the part to which I was reposnding. However, if you insist upon a response I sahll offer one. Not having a PHB in front of me, however, I am guessing at the specifics. Rules for using larger then normal weapons presume that the weapon is a weapon. In other words it is crafted and balanced as a weapon regardless of it's size. The FF "buster" sword (man what a stupid name) is not balanced. It is a huge mass of metal with no counterbalance and a tiny handle. The best you could do with this was to spin around, build up a swing and hope for the best. There is no way in hell anyone could wield it effectivley. It is not merely a question of size and weight but of leverage. Now one might argue that leverage does not work the same in the D&D universe - as many aspects of physics that we take for granted function differently in the D&D universe - but changing somethign as basic and integral as leverage effectively changes pretty much everything. Simple everday abjects like wheels and doors will not function as they do in the real-world. So though we know that D&D physics is not RL physics, we must assume that it is mostly the same on a basic level, and that includes leverage. And on that basis a huge "buster" sword simply cannot function. Now if said sword had a handl as long as the blade I would conced it was usebale and only personal taste would preclude me using it, but as portrayed it simply cannot and will not function.
Pandaemoni 05-08-06, 01:19 PM	Can I join the "Blaggerd" society, by the way? ;) You can be Vice President, if you like. :D As for me, my comments were not directed at the "gigantic sword" issue, directly. The rules let characters use large weapons, and (while I have never been interested in playing such a character myself) that's just one of the areas in which the express rules trump physical realism. As some have suggested, it's no worse than saying that one throw tiny pastries and feather at someone to magically compel them to laugh. "Realism" tends to crop up in my games in areas where the rules are silent. Areas like the law, economics, politics, the flow of new technological development and similar matters not covered by the rule books have to be filled in somehow in order to give the world some...bad word coming...verisimilitude. I could invent them myself out of whole cloth, but why not use the actual history and reality of these things rather than just my whims? As I noted above, if I can find an satisfying answer that question in a particular instance, then I feel justified in departing from "realism."
Cantankerous 05-08-06, 01:40 PM	It's not so much the giant sword that is being referenced here EXCEPT as an example of the idea of why it is NOT the protection of verisimilitude as a whole but rather simply tonal or stylistics at stake...sure, levers are a very basic part of ANY game universe. So is the capability of a thing to withstand damage. Again, a SLEEPING high level Barbarian can withstand MASSIVELY more damage from the same source as a five foot section of GRANITE wall can. If we are to pick on the lever, saying that without it any verisimilitude is impossible we MUST say the same thing about hit points. If we are solely saying that it is a matter of VERY PERSONAL preference, Hell yes, sign me up to. I'D HAVE TO BE voted down (which on this subject would never happen, my players, for the most part, detest anime as much as I do) to allow an anime stlye sword in the game. I almost cringe at the still massively unbalanced (it's a -4 to both Attack and Damage to weild the bloody thing) Tri-Sword that one of the mad BBEG Lts was using...and which only makes it in during really lite sessions, in this campaign once. The PCs left the bloody thing laying on the floor. Isshia
Arganis 05-08-06, 01:54 PM	So though we know that D&D physics is not RL physics, we must assume that it is mostly the same on a basic level, and that includes leverage. And on that basis a huge "buster" sword simply cannot function. Not if said sword had a handl as long as the blade I would conced it was usebale and only personal taste would preclude me using it, but as portrayed it simply cannot and will not function. I don't view allowing larger swords as disregarding the physics of leverage, I regard it as disregarding the need for weapons balanced for average-strength humans. Conventional wisdom suggests that a weapon must be "light and balanced" because weaponsmiths are working within the bounds of normal human strength. Those with fantastic strength have better leverage over a tip-heavy blade simply by virtue of their strength. Is it less efficient? Yes. Does that matter? It shouldn't. The best argument against oversized weapons that I've heard relates more directly to material physics. The amount of mass where the blade of the Buster Sword meets the hilt is negligible compared to the mass of the sword. On impact, the blade would simply break off of at the hilt.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-08-06, 03:46 PM	Except nothing breaks via normal day to day use in DnD land. Not even bowstrings. I'm not saying anyone needs to accept out-sized swords -- you're completely free to ignore the RAw just as I do on a daily basis. I'm just saying that crying versimilitude is bogus when the game already exhibits a staunch anti-versimilitude stance on the issue. Say its not your style, say it doesn't lend to the tone you want to create, just don't pretend that your game has anywhere near a sense of reality when its pretty clear you're playing in Heroic Fantasy and not Historical/Physical Simulation.
Sulaco 05-08-06, 04:16 PM	I don't view allowing larger swords as disregarding the physics of leverage, I regard it as disregarding the need for weapons balanced for average-strength humans. Conventional wisdom suggests that a weapon must be "light and balanced" because weaponsmiths are working within the bounds of normal human strength. Not quite. A sword need not be light but it does need to be balanced to work properly. A sword is, in essence, a lever with a sharp edge. A sword without balance is just a metal club.
Solaris 05-08-06, 04:19 PM	If we are to pick on the lever, saying that without it any verisimilitude is impossible we MUST say the same thing about hit points. I'm just saying that crying versimilitude is bogus when the game already exhibits a staunch anti-versimilitude stance on the issue. Sulaco and I and others have given numerous well-reasoned arguments why all that is bogus. And every time, you guys just pretend you didn't hear them and repeat these statements. So you guys must be impervious to logic and reason, right? Or are you just pretending to be, trolling for a stupid argument? I think this is a fair question to ask at this point, since exactly that scenario has played out for me on these boards before, and it seems the most likely explanation for this thread.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-08-06, 04:38 PM	Both of your arguments seek to torture the term 'versimilitude' into something its not. Your concerns are, as they have been fromt he begining of the thread, stylistic, not in any way conncected with reality because you are already involved in a system that throws 'reality' to the four winds and giggles like a blushing schoolgirl. Nothing in DnD works the way it does in our own. A normal wolf (speed 50) can accelerate from standing to a breakneck 25ft/s (150ft w/Run action) in less than the space of a moment, an acceleration that should liquify the animal. Even gravity, if you look at the falling rules, works differently. So you are basically holding up a double standard, where the rules can codify a different function of gravity, biology, and the nature of light and yet the laws of acceleration of mass are ironclad to those of our world. Edit: I like how moments after someone comments on the civil tone of the thread, you edit your post specifically to be inflamatory. Excellent work there.
Solaris 05-08-06, 04:42 PM	There you are, doing it again. [Edit: I actually edited it so as to be less inflammatory.]
LCD2YOU 05-08-06, 04:53 PM	Wow, There's a lot of love on this thread. First, I don't like the "utterly fantastic". While I DM and play a game where there are things like psionics, magic, undead, talking swords and the like, I have found the whimsical quickly devolves into the absurd. Too many games where the 1.8m, 61.2kg (that's 5'11" and 135lbs for those of you who don't use the better of the measurement systems) weilds the 2m, 25kg sword is just foolish, IMNSHO. Yeah, yeah, it's "My game and I can do with it what I want" is all well and good. Seriously, too many of those games become a mere shadow of themselves. Too much weirdness to be taken seriously. Too many one night stands with the beautiful yet somehow pure (until THAT NIGHT) goddesses that maintained their virtue from other gods, well you know those games. I change the RAW. What can easily be explained by RL is substituted. Things like 1d6 per 10'? BS. The real damage comes from the kinetic energy that is transferred from the mass in motion having what could easily be described as an inelastic collision with a hard surface. For those collisions that are not very inelastic but can be considered elastic, a simple fudge factor can be invoked. In RL, using equations like: KE = m*v2, x = x0 + v0 + 0.5*a*t2 and v = v0 + a*t can make players think. In the games, 've seen the players make better decisions and more roleplaying. In games where it is the 1d6/10', it has been my experience when players know that it is 1d6/10, jumping down 60' means nothing to them and they do it when they got the hp. Yeah, that's roleplaying. Dropping things? That really, really hurts. Hope you have a good helm on your skull. However, they are relatively easy to avoid if someone takes the time to move out of the way. If not, a 2kg rock dropped 10m can crack open a human skull. In the end, I use RL physics when it is possible. Even with magic and the like, RL can work well with them. My games are logical, or so I hope, and if a player finds a problem, we work on it to make it right. If that is not your cup of tea, well, "It's my game and I can do what I want".
Arganis 05-08-06, 04:58 PM	Except nothing breaks via normal day to day use in DnD land. Not even bowstrings. I was speaking to their very existence, not their application in D&D. As far as I am concerned that argument has been settled and agreed upon as an issue of Style (not verysimilardude). Further, Jarrad's equation of Style and verysimilardude with respect to fiction sits perfectly well with me, and I want to bear his children. Not quite. A sword need not be light but it does need to be balanced to work properly. A sword is, in essence, a lever with a sharp edge. A sword without balance is just a metal club. Well... yes. And greatswords/claymores are arguably just that anyways. To use the Aristotelian maxim as a starting point: Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand, and I shall move the world. My point regarding balance is that all things equal, a stronger man has better leverage. A stronger man can stand much closer to the fulcrum of a lever and produce the same effect as a weaker man further away. Further, the center of mass can be further away from the fulcrum if the man operating the lever is stronger. Cloud's Buster Sword is a poor example of a big-sword for a few reasons. 1) Scene-to-scene inconsistencies aside, it's not really that long. 2) It's handle-length is clearly useless with respect to the obvious weight of the blade. 3) Cloud does crazy stupid things with it in one hand. Radial forearm and wrist strength is not exactly easy to train. Guts' Dragonslayer, or Sanosuke's Zanbatou are better examples. 1) They are not as wide or bulky, althtough one of the Dragonslayer's reforgings comes close (Guts goes through a couple different swords). 2) They have blood-grooves (to lighten the blade... a bit). 3) Scene-to-scene inconsistencies aside, the handles are long enough to allow for a wide-handed "spear" grip. In many scenes, Guts' hands are nearly 2 feet apart. 4) The fighting style they use is emphasized (and exploited) as slower and unweildy. Particularly in Sanosuke's case. 5) The training the weilder undergoes is detailed as lifelong and rigorous. Particularly in Guts' case. This discussion reminds me of the classic image of Superman picking up a train (or other large object) by one corner or edge. The unrealistic issue here is that structurally, many such objects would fold and collapse, or just break off at his hand, given such a distribution of weight. However, Superman is clearly strong enough to lift (and brandish) the object from such an unweildy center of gravity. That is why for me, suspension of disbelief with respect to large blades has more to do with believing that a man's arm can be honed to superhuman strength, rather than worrying that such a large blade would be impossible to balance for a normal man.
metamind 05-08-06, 05:02 PM	I try to run my campaigns in a logical manner, so that the players will understand that not every town has a thriving magic shop, not every single woman they meet is a super model, and if they slaughter every single person in a tavern, the chances are that they will become wanted criminals.
malignor 05-08-06, 05:10 PM	Ironically, I think you're all arguing for the same idea, but having an issue with how the idea is labelled, and the motivation behind it. In essense, you're arguing how one should "think" about how they decide what fits and what doesn't. All this talk about versimilitude (and, though it hasn't been expressly mentioned, relativity) has made me come to a conlusion: I should have taken the blue pill.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-08-06, 05:15 PM	In RL, using equations like: KE = m*v2, x = x0 + v0 + 0.5*a*t2 and v = v0 + a*t can make players think. In the games, 've seen the players make better decisions and more roleplaying. In games where it is the 1d6/10', it has been my experience when players know that it is 1d6/10, jumping down 60' means nothing to them and they do it when they got the hp. Yeah, that's roleplaying. Just curious... Do you still do roll 1d20, add bonuses, compare to AC for combat, or do you account of the speed of the opponent, opssible cover, weight of the weapon, the hiesenburg uncertainty principle and the surface temperature of the target's armor? I mean, changing the actual damage calculation is one thing, but doesn't having to account for the elasticity in a collision take a whole lot of quality rp time?
PoeticJustice 05-08-06, 05:22 PM	Breaking apparent versimilitude is an excellent way to arouse interest in a game world. Rather than nitpicking the hows and whys, I am much more comfortable as a player and a DM to simply state that Big Swords are and always have been, and if they'd like to know how it works, ask a sage, contact an Outsider, or start making knowledge checks. If, after that, somebody is still kvetching, ask them to stop metagaming. If you lack ranks in Craft (Weaponsmithing) you likely have no idea the mechanics of creating a weapon, and should be curious, rather than skeptical of the presence of the weapon.
Arganis 05-08-06, 05:22 PM	Ironically, I think you're all arguing for the same idea, but having an issue with how the idea is labelled, and the motivation behind it. In essense, you're arguing how one should "think" about how they decide what fits and what doesn't. All this talk about versimilitude (and, though it hasn't been expressly mentioned, relativity) has made me come to a conlusion: I should have taken the blue pill. It makes me sad that this thread in all its glory will not survive the board port. I'll miss you guys! :pint:
Sulaco 05-08-06, 05:36 PM	Except nothing breaks via normal day to day use in DnD land. Not even bowstrings. I'm not saying anyone needs to accept out-sized swords -- you're completely free to ignore the RAw just as I do on a daily basis. I'm just saying that crying versimilitude is bogus when the game already exhibits a staunch anti-versimilitude stance on the issue. Say its not your style, say it doesn't lend to the tone you want to create, just don't pretend that your game has anywhere near a sense of reality when its pretty clear you're playing in Heroic Fantasy and not Historical/Physical Simulation. All games have to have a sense of reality IMO or they fail utterly. It need not be our reality, but it muse be an internally consistent one. Why can you not accept that for me the anime-style giant swords stretch verisimilitude beyond the breaking point. I am not asking you to do so, but you refusing to accept that I hold a different view than do you is both baffling and presumptuous.
LCD2YOU 05-08-06, 05:47 PM	Just curious... Do you still do roll 1d20, add bonuses, compare to AC for combat, or do you account of the speed of the opponent, opssible cover, weight of the weapon, the hiesenburg uncertainty principle and the surface temperature of the target's armor?I've done that. It is far too much trouble to deal with in a game session. As for surface temp and Heisenburg's uncertainty principle, please note that it only effects sub atomic particles to any great degree, relative to it's size of course. The possible displacements from HUP in an object over the size of a molecule is too small for most calculators, and therefore doesn't show up. As for the surface temp, that is really only a problem when I run my Space campaign. The temperature you want the outer hull of your starship to be is whatever is behind you relative to the ship that is trying to detect you. Of course, having a type 1a Blue Supergiant a mere lightyear behind makes no difference as the amount of radiation pouring out of that behemoth chokes a lot of sensors. In a fantasy setting, I don't worry about residual wavelengths slipping out of an "invisibility" spell due to any effects, including quantum. In fact, cast an invisibility spell over any light spell that harms undead makes great mines. The invisibility actually blocks the light from harming the undead until it it dispelled by the mage who made it at which point the undead get to enjoy the warming rays and then explode. As for temperature affecting armor, the elasticity, shear strength and other facters are within hundreths of percentage points in a temperature range the wearer of the armor generally stays in.I mean, changing the actual damage calculation is one thing, but doesn't having to account for the elasticity in a collision take a whole lot of quality rp time?Not when you used Math Cad to do all the calclations for you and you have them printed out to teminal velocity.
StormKnight 05-08-06, 05:55 PM	Except nothing breaks via normal day to day use in DnD land. Not even bowstrings. An absurd assumption that just because there are no rules for something it doesn't happen. There are also no rules for sneezing. Or blinking. Or any number of other perfectly ordinary things. They DO exist and happen, they just aren't worth cluttering up the books with rules for. Nothing in DnD works the way it does in our own. A normal wolf (speed 50) can accelerate from standing to a breakneck 25ft/s (150ft w/Run action) in less than the space of a moment, an acceleration that should liquify the animal. Odd, I see nothing in the D&D rules at all about acceleration for ground creatures. A wolf has a speed of 50 feet/round, and by running can go 150 feet per round; this represents an average speed and does not take into account details like acceleration, turning, or exhaustion over multiple rounds, but it certainly doesn't "defy physics". And 17 mph is hardly "breakneck speed". Even gravity, if you look at the falling rules, works differently. All I see for falling rules is HP damage - a purely abstract and game mechanical concept - based on height. How much HP damage does falling do in the real world? Who knows. Its a COMPLETELY abstract concept with no real world comparison.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-08-06, 05:56 PM	All games have to have a sense of reality IMO or they fail utterly. It need not be our reality, but it muse be an internally consistent one. This is exactly what I've been saying! You and others keep harkening back to our reality, which is akin to comparing an asiatic lion to Aslan. Why can you not accept that for me the anime-style giant swords stretch verisimilitude beyond the breaking point. I am not asking you to do so, but you refusing to accept that I hold a different view than do you is both baffling and presumptuous. Because you aren't talking about versimilitude. You are talking about style. I am merely asking that you use the correct term when stating your reasons rather than use one that implies that you are defending reality and believability in a world of fantasy.
malignor 05-08-06, 06:02 PM	All games have to have a sense of reality IMO or they fail utterly. It need not be our reality, but it muse be an internally consistent one. Why can you not accept that for me the anime-style giant swords stretch verisimilitude beyond the breaking point. I am not asking you to do so, but you refusing to accept that I hold a different view than do you is both baffling and presumptuous.What I think VA's claiming is that the unwieldable weapon justification problem is easier to overlook than a large portion of the RAW. The very notion of hitpoints and how they work, for example, is more difficult to justify or overlook than the unwieldable weapon. In other words, it's a conflict of his relativity versus yours. Even though you both argue that both acceptance and rejection of the unwieldable weapon is not a problem, you claim it's about plausability, while he says the game's plausability went bye-bye in a bigger way (via concepts like hitpoints - a claim of hierarchy) before the unwieldable weapon problem even came into question. If my assumption of the two arguments is correct, you and the other the nay-sayers are either (a) removing the unwieldable weapon concept from the game because of a style preference (what VA has explicitly claimed) (b) unaware that removing the unwieldable weapon concept for satisfiable plausability is completely pointless, as the very foundation of the game (hp, AC, etc) completely annihilated satifiable plausability already. It's like putting a band-aid on the long dead corpse of satifiable plausability and claiming it's been preserved. (c) accept that the game is totaly unrealistic, that satisfiable plausability did, in fact, leave the building years ago. But where the RAW doesn't beat SatPlausability into mulch, you feel some adherece to SP should be maintained via common sense. In short, a patchwork of concepts that does its best to satisfy plausability while still accepting the RAW. Since the unwieldy weapon isn't expressly used in RAW, it falls into the category of "SatP - patchable" and is therefore removed. ... if I'm missing a (d) or (e), it's because I'm no guru. I'm just trying to help get everything out in the open so everyone can come to some common ground where they can disagree with understanding.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-08-06, 06:04 PM	An absurd assumption that just because there are no rules for something it doesn't happen. There are also no rules for sneezing. Or blinking. Or any number of other perfectly ordinary things. They DO exist and happen, they just aren't worth cluttering up the books with rules for. Ever had a bowstring break in game? Ever go for a full draw and *twang*, it snaps? No. because wear and tear doesn't happen to the hero's equipment. Its not in there because this is heroic fantasy, not a simulation. In any game except ones where the DM has made rules for it, wear and tear simply doesn't happen. Odd, I see nothing in the D&D rules at all about acceleration for ground creatures. A wolf has a speed of 50 feet/round, and by running can go 150 feet per round; this represents an average speed and does not take into account details like acceleration, turning, or exhaustion over multiple rounds, but it certainly doesn't "defy physics". From standing still, it can move 150ft in six seconds, then maintain that speed. Instant acceleration top top speed. If it had accelerated, it would move faster on subsequent rounds. And 17 mph is hardly "breakneck speed". The acceleration is breakneck. As in it will snap vertebrae. All I see for falling rules is HP damage - a purely abstract and game mechanical concept - based on height. How much HP damage does falling do in the real world? Who knows. Its a COMPLETELY abstract concept with no real world comparison. I mean falling speed. A creature falls 150ft in the first round, then 300 feet each round thereafter. There is acceleration due to gravity (the only acceleration you will find in the game), but it doesn't equal normal acceleration due to gravity, which is somewhat slower.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-08-06, 06:08 PM	What I think VA's claiming is that the unwieldable weapon justification problem is easier to overlook than a large portion of the RAW. The very notion of hitpoints and how they work, for example, is more difficult to justify or overlook than the unwieldable weapon. In other words, it's a conflict of his relativity versus yours. Even though you both argue that both acceptance and rejection of the unwieldable weapon is not a problem, you claim it's about plausability, while he says the game's plausability went bye-bye in a bigger way (via concepts like hitpoints - a claim of hierarchy) before the unwieldable weapon problem even came into question. If my assumption of the two arguments is correct, you and the other the nay-sayers are either (a) removing the unwieldable weapon concept from the game because of a style preference (b) unaware that removing the unwieldable weapon concept for satisfiable plausability is completely pointless, as the very foundation of the game (hp, AC, etc) completely annihilated satifiable plausability already. It's like putting a band-aid on the long dead corpse of satifiable plausability and claiming it's been preserved. (c) accept that the game is totaly unrealistic, that satisfiable plausability did, in fact, leave the building years ago. But where the RAW doesn't beat SatPlausability into mulch, you feel some adherece to SP should be maintained via common sense. ... if I'm missing a (d) or (e), it's because I'm no guru. I'm just trying to help get everything out in the open so everyone can come to some common ground where they can disagree with understanding. You said it so much better than me AND used a bloated corpse to do it. You get a platinum star.
StormKnight 05-08-06, 06:45 PM	Ever had a bowstring break in game? Ever go for a full draw and *twang*, it snaps? No. because wear and tear doesn't happen to the hero's equipment. Its not in there because this is heroic fantasy, not a simulation. In any game except ones where the DM has made rules for it, wear and tear simply doesn't happen. This has to do with the game, not the world. Bowstrings DO break and characters know they break. You just may not ever worry about them breaking because its not worth the trouble. From standing still, it can move 150ft in six seconds, then maintain that speed. Instant acceleration top top speed. If it had accelerated, it would move faster on subsequent rounds. One again, these are game mechanics, not world mechanics. Do you describe wolves making instantaneus bursts of speed? No, you assume 150' is an average speed, and you don't stress about things like turning, acceleration/deceleration, or anything like that. Two humans in D&D will always tie in a race, even if one has higher DEX, STR and CON. Does this mean that in your D&D world there are no races? I would hope you just realize that the straight movement mechanics don't handle races and get on with life, rather than trying to define what sort of physics the world must operate by to make the mechanics realistic. I mean falling speed. A creature falls 150ft in the first round, then 300 feet each round thereafter. There is acceleration due to gravity (the only acceleration you will find in the game), but it doesn't equal normal acceleration due to gravity, which is somewhat slower. Ah, I wasn't aware they actually defined how far a person falls. Still, its just a game abstraction. I suppose you could assume all these things are really, literally true and that the world is completely different, but this seems exceedingly silly to me. The mechanics are meant to be abstract and playable, why should you try to interpret them as being anything else? I like how the RPG Feng Shui described different types of ammunition. It gives a very good idea of how to handle "real world vs. game mechanics". It basically went like this: "Your characters will talk about different ammo types. They'll debate what's most effective. They'll think they make a difference. But they don't." Your character knows she has to sprint and accelerate for a few seconds to reach top speed. The fact that you, the player, view this through an abstract game mechanic that treats her as moving at full speed all the time makes no difference.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-08-06, 06:58 PM	So what do you do when some characters want to race then?
malignor 05-08-06, 07:01 PM	So what do you do when some characters want to race then?I'll wager it has thus far only been solved by houserules.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-08-06, 07:05 PM	I'll wager it has thus far only been solved by houserules. Exactly. I just make them roll initiative. The Dex mod factors in actual speed while the d20 is the multitude of factors that actually determine a race.
sdragon1984 05-09-06, 01:11 AM	sulaco, since im only left to assume that you still havent gotten to the PHB to see how oversized swords would fit RAW, i managed to summon up the SRD version: Inappropriately Sized Weapons A creature can’t make optimum use of a weapon that isn’t properly sized for it. A cumulative -2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size category of difference between the size of its intended wielder and the size of its actual wielder. If the creature isn’t proficient with the weapon a -4 nonproficiency penalty also applies. The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder’s size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. If a weapon’s designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can’t wield the weapon at all. which means that the buster sword, as per RAW, would be a two-handed longsword, dealing 2d6-2 damage. these rulings can very easily be applied to reflect both the weight and balance of the weapon. on top of that, players get that "just like the anime" feel, having a weapon with a greater range of damage, and, with the right flavor, is unique to their character (this is, i believe, the biggest reason a player would want such a weapon; if they feel a character is so cool that anything assocciated with said character is cool, then a weapon unique to that character is cool by exlusive assocciation). as for the whole leverage issue, i dont see where clubs would fall out of the range of being levers, any more then a sword would. what would you call a metal club (balance or none) that has been flattened and given a sharp edge, if not a sword? compare a kukri to a hammer, for example.
Cantankerous 05-09-06, 01:20 AM	Sulaco and I and others have given numerous well-reasoned arguments why all that is bogus. And every time, you guys just pretend you didn't hear them and repeat these statements. So you guys must be impervious to logic and reason, right? Or are you just pretending to be, trolling for a stupid argument? I think this is a fair question to ask at this point, since exactly that scenario has played out for me on these boards before, and it seems the most likely explanation for this thread. Are you trying to be funny, or are you trying the old "sling the mud and make them mad" approach? Vaal and I have refuted the arguements and responded with why we see things differently. You've conspiciously not answered those. Fine. But to then start beating your breast about why we're so evil to do so, when we haven't done so, your points have been answered with counter points, that you have NOT answered, is bloody insipid. Isshia
Cantankerous 05-09-06, 01:29 AM	Wow, There's a lot of love on this thread. First, I don't like the "utterly fantastic". While I DM and play a game where there are things like psionics, magic, undead, talking swords and the like, I have found the whimsical quickly devolves into the absurd. Too many games where the 1.8m, 61.2kg (that's 5'11" and 135lbs for those of you who don't use the better of the measurement systems) weilds the 2m, 25kg sword is just foolish, IMNSHO. Yeah, yeah, it's "My game and I can do with it what I want" is all well and good. Seriously, too many of those games become a mere shadow of themselves. Too much weirdness to be taken seriously. Too many one night stands with the beautiful yet somehow pure (until THAT NIGHT) goddesses that maintained their virtue from other gods, well you know those games. I change the RAW. What can easily be explained by RL is substituted. Things like 1d6 per 10'? BS. The real damage comes from the kinetic energy that is transferred from the mass in motion having what could easily be described as an inelastic collision with a hard surface. For those collisions that are not very inelastic but can be considered elastic, a simple fudge factor can be invoked. In RL, using equations like: KE = m*v2, x = x0 + v0 + 0.5*a*t2 and v = v0 + a*t can make players think. In the games, 've seen the players make better decisions and more roleplaying. In games where it is the 1d6/10', it has been my experience when players know that it is 1d6/10, jumping down 60' means nothing to them and they do it when they got the hp. Yeah, that's roleplaying. Dropping things? That really, really hurts. Hope you have a good helm on your skull. However, they are relatively easy to avoid if someone takes the time to move out of the way. If not, a 2kg rock dropped 10m can crack open a human skull. In the end, I use RL physics when it is possible. Even with magic and the like, RL can work well with them. My games are logical, or so I hope, and if a player finds a problem, we work on it to make it right. If that is not your cup of tea, well, "It's my game and I can do what I want". It's role playing to ignore hit points, but not to ignore the other complete disfunctions of physics? Flying multi-ton reptiles? That breathe fire? This is part of role playing to. As is the idiocy of spiked chains. You want a weapon that could never in a million years be weilded the way it's presented? There you go. Simply because a style is official doesn't make it any less silly assed or weird. What Vaals doing with those swords is FAR LESS weird than many of the very non-rw physics factors of the game, and infinitely more so than the hit point system, it's just not official. Nowhere has he said that it was official. Slavish adherence to the RAW does make anything less silly or inane by it's being official. It's ALSO idiotic, but it's simply official idiocy instead of unofficial idiocy. Isshia
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-09-06, 02:06 AM	which means that the buster sword, as per RAW, would be a two-handed longsword, dealing 2d6-2 damage. A minor technical point: The -2 is a penalty to attack, not to damage, you your large 'buster' longsword would deal 2d6 damage. Indedentally, veiwing a large longsword as a buster type weapon instead of a greatsword give slightly better credence to the anti-halfling 3.5 weapon sizing rules (not much mind you, they still suck brass monkeys) than the previous 'but the handle has to be sized for small hands' argument I've heard.
sdragon1984 05-09-06, 02:09 AM	isshia, two points: one- the spiked chain can be and has been wielded, as thats already been pointed out. i cant say whether or not that would be "in the form presented", since im not entirely sure what you mean by that. that said, the only problem i see with it is the way it conforms to the trip rules- it should still cause damage when tripping, as far as i can see. (sidenote on this point: i dont know about anybody else, but i have used regular chains in a manner that would make it qualify as a weapon, albeit against imaginary foes. as far as i can tell, the only difference between that and a spiked chain is that one has spikes that demand a higher level of caution.) two- my last post points out that "slavish adherance to RAW" allows such swords. in fact, you need only allow the rules from core rulebook #1, the PHB, to get these weapons. you wont have cloud strife swinging the buster sword above his head one-handed, but you'll still get an official equivalent. edit- thank you for that correction, vaal. interestingly enough, from my memories of FF7, that sounds like it would be a relatively accurate stat depiction of the buster sword. minus, of course, the whole swinging-overhead-one-handed victory dnce thing.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-09-06, 02:36 AM	one- the spiked chain can be and has been wielded, as thats already been pointed out. i cant say whether or not that would be "in the form presented", since im not entirely sure what you mean by that. that said, the only problem i see with it is the way it conforms to the trip rules- it should still cause damage when tripping, as far as i can see. (sidenote on this point: i dont know about anybody else, but i have used regular chains in a manner that would make it qualify as a weapon, albeit against imaginary foes. as far as i can tell, the only difference between that and a spiked chain is that one has spikes that demand a higher level of caution.) I've used weighted chains before and as presented, the spike chain can't work. Specifically, it can't be use for reach or disarming. To use a chainlike weapon to strike out 10ft' with a chain means taking time afterward to pull it back. A length of chain that long is just too unweildy to strike rapidly with with any hope of success and/or the enemy just stepping on it after you miss. For disarming; to disarm someone by tangling his weapon with the chain, you need to loop your hand into the chain for leverage -- real fun to do with a chain covered in spikes. If they have used an actual weighted chain and left off the reach, it would have been a plausble weapon, but they just *had* to make it spikey. A better example of dumb weapons would be armor spikes though. edit- thank you for that correction, vaal. interestingly enough, from my memories of FF7, that sounds like it would be a relatively accurate stat depiction of the buster sword. minus, of course, the whole swinging-overhead-one-handed victory dnce thing. And really, if your party is pausing after every defeated encounter to dance and pose, you have far more basic problems than the big sword. :D
Shatteredtower 05-09-06, 03:00 AM	Change it or leave it as you wish. However I would suggest that if a core game machanic, in this case the hp system, destroys your sense of verisimilitude then you might be better off playing a different system.I don't think I've made myself clear, and I apologize for that. Let me try again. I can freely accept the notion of hit points representing physical toughness and luck with the core player races/species. That's easy. The more trained, heroic, and blessed can survive relatively unscathed in the face of a lot more danger than the average peasant. I have no problem accepting that. It's a common facet in mass entertainment, but there have also been moments in real life where the idea of a person having a lot of hit points seems almost plausible. (Read about Blackbeard's last battle for an example.) But that plausibility goes away once you start looking at animals, especially Large and Huge animals falling from a modest 20-30 ft height. Sure, I could acccept that elephant ought to be able to endure a volley of spears from a dozen average warriors (not every rolled hit is necessarily a physical hit, sure, fine), but a 20 ft fall should kill them more often than not. It's all about physics when it comes to the average specimen. Except that the elephants in D&D will always survive that fall in relatively good shape. No bones will be broken. Within the game, I have no issue with that, because it is simply not worth the trouble to play it more realistically. If I wanted to do that kind of math, there are more pressing equations in need of my attention, thank you very much. Falling elephants (or horses) break the game's versimilitude because they bring up a scenario in which hit point mechanics can only be translated in one way: every Large or Huge creature in the game is supernaturally lucky whenever falling is involved. That's pretty implausible. The only way it works is if you ignore it. I don't care for the massive swords and won't allow for them in my game either, but once we've accepted that every horse in the game can not only survive a 20 ft fall, we've already thrown the badly mangled body of physics clear out of the room. After that, the issues are ones of taste and of balance.
Aldarionn 05-09-06, 08:02 AM	Is your game swarming with magic robots that defy gravity 'because'? YES! NO BS! My DM is using small constructs in the game we are currently playing that somehow fly around magically, with no wings, and shoot energy beams (read as "laser beams") from "gun turrets" mounted underneath. Think of a Gun Drone from the Warhammer 40,000 Tau army.....in fact those are the models we use to represent them. Hehehe, funny how an afterthought that was meant to be rediculous has actually come up in a game. Aldarionn
Jarrad 05-09-06, 08:08 AM	Precisely. The point I have made several times over is that verisimilitude has no one single defintion, it varies from person to person and form game to game. The game setting used and the DM involved sets the parameters of what is versimilar and what is not. FOr Vaal and his players anime-style swords and whatnot may fit within these parmeters, for me they do not. [snip] Nice post BTW, Jarrad. Coo-er. Cheers :) As far as I am concerned that argument has been settled and agreed upon as an issue of Style (not verysimilardude). Further, Jarrad's equation of Style and verysimilardude with respect to fiction sits perfectly well with me, and I want to bear his children. Eep! :mymy: Aren't you at least going to buy me a drink first? ;) Seriously though, I just wanted to point out that "verisimilitude" != "reality" so most of the ongoing fracas is totally bogus. :D Except nothing breaks via normal day to day use in DnD land. Not even bowstrings. I've been shooting longbows, crossbows, recurves and lord-knows-what-else for 12 years and NEVER have I had a bowstring break! I've had two longbows snap in that time, but never a bowstring. In fact, I've never even heard of a bowstring snapping on a longbow although I'm sure it must have happened somewhere. Mediaeval crossbow strings will eventually give if they're not replaced, due to the way they fray. I've never seen that happen either though, as people just don't let it get that bad :) Back to longbows... If you've got a modern string made of Dacron, the breaking strain is sufficient that you could hang a small truck off it; the bowstring ends up completely over-specced just due to the amount of material you need in order to get a string that's comfortable to hold. If you use Ye Olde bowstrings, they don't snap either. They stretch, so your bow gets gradually less bent when you use it and correspondingly less powerful. I'm given to understand that linen bowstrings may snap on exceptionally heavy bows, but anyone putting a linen rather than a silk string on a bow of more than about 70lbs draw weight - let alone "exceptionally" heavy - wants their head examined. On my heavier yew longbow (not ludicrously so - about 114lbs draw weight) I use Dacron. I bet nobody wanted to know that, really :D I guess if there's a point to all this, it's that people hold misconceptions as dear to their hearts as things that are actually true, and it's largely these that determine what they do or don't find realistic. Whether that's non-breaking bowstrings, all that cobblers about wolves' necks snapping (I mean, really), big heavy mega-swords or a barbarian surviving a fist that would punch through a two-inch thickness of stone: all of the objections, all of the wrangling, all of the "more realistic than thou" stuff; all are based on a knee-jerk reaction to how badly a particular thing bruises the preconceptions of the observer. Everything else is rationalisation after the fact, but pointing out the flaws in the rationalisation won't actually budge somebody one inch from their original position because what you end up arguing about isn't what the problem is. Being terribly presumptuous, I'm going to summarise what I think the real, uncluttered argument is from the perspective of the two main protagonist groups: ***** Vaal and co.: We can't believe that people would get so worked up about mega-swords in the game when so much else is completely unbelievable. [Insert lots of examples of other unrealistic stuff in the game and strange justifications based on made-up physics and/or biology when in fact all that's bothering us is the implicit accusation that our game is somehow less realistic than the other guys', which actually arose because the anti-big-sword camp were inadvertently condescending about it.] ***** Solaris and co.: We hate mega-swords because we find them completely unbelievable. We don't actually know why we find them so difficult to believe in the face of everything else but we don't like 'em so we won't use 'em. [Insert refutations of unrealism of other stuff in the game and strange justifications based on made-up physics and/or biology when in fact all that's bothering us is the implicit accusation that we don't have a right to pick-and-choose which bits we find realistic, which actually hasn't been said at all anywhere but arose because the pro-big-sword camp took offense at the way we started using unfortunate terms like "realism" when we meant "style", thus inadvertently belittling the pro-big-sworders.] ***** :rolleye2: Now if I can just work out how to put a signature in, I can be Vice-President of the Society for the Proper Pronunciation of "Blackguard". :w00t:
LCD2YOU 05-09-06, 08:10 AM	It's role playing to ignore hit points, but not to ignore the other complete disfunctions of physics? Flying multi-ton reptiles? That breathe fire? This is part of role playing to. As is the idiocy of spiked chains. You want a weapon that could never in a million years be weilded the way it's presented? There you go.I never said ignore HP. You're putting words into my post. What I said is as players know the 1d6/10' rule, if they have 50 HP, they'll willingly drop 100'. That's not roleplaying. As for 100-ton flying reptiles, there is a need for a suspension of disbelief. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a fantasy game. Breathing fire is not that great of a leap, look at the bombadier beetle, only magnify it. As for spiked chains, anyone who uses them in my game is in for a rude awakening.Simply because a style is official doesn't make it any less silly assed or weird. What Vaals doing with those swords is FAR LESS weird than many of the very non-rw physics factors of the game, and infinitely more so than the hit point system, it's just not official. Nowhere has he said that it was official.Good for Vaal. I doubt I'd like his game very much and I'm sure he'll feel stiffled and lacking "creative outlets" in mine. I'm open minded but there is a point where one can have their mind opened that their brain falls out. What Vaal's doing is fine for Vaal. However, where real physics works well I use it. Yeah, I could go completely off the wall and rule that giants don't exists, physiological reasons that are numerous, that all flying beasties need hollow bones (which means dragons would be eggshells) and more but that is destroying the fantasy aspect. See I differentitate between fantasy and fallacy. Flying dragons and giants who use magic are part and parcel of fantasy. Oversized swords where it's like a giant anime scene (obtw, I like anime I just don't think it works well in a game like DnD) are not what I like, period.Slavish adherence to the RAW does make anything less silly or inane by it's being official. It's ALSO idiotic, but it's simply official idiocy instead of unofficial idiocy.I'm not sure what you're getting at here.IsshiaWhat it comes down to is this for me: If it can be better explained by RL science, I use science. If it can't be explained by RL science, I keep it. As there are gravity "fields", EM "fields", magnetic "fields" in RL, I add a "magic field". But as Vaal tried to do, take my example into the absurd by worrying about the effects of essentially room temperatures on the shear modulus of iron, it doesn't work as it is only a strawman of his creation.
Ut-Napishtim 05-09-06, 08:50 AM	Nothing. I had assumed that was clear from me actually quoting the part to which I was reposnding. However, if you insist upon a response I sahll offer one. Not having a PHB in front of me, however, I am guessing at the specifics. Rules for using larger then normal weapons presume that the weapon is a weapon. In other words it is crafted and balanced as a weapon regardless of it's size. The FF "buster" sword (man what a stupid name) is not balanced. It is a huge mass of metal with no counterbalance and a tiny handle. The best you could do with this was to spin around, build up a swing and hope for the best. There is no way in hell anyone could wield it effectivley. It is not merely a question of size and weight but of leverage. Or in other words - "I don't like it." :bored:
Pandaemoni 05-09-06, 09:34 AM	On the non-breaking bow strings, I've always assumed that characters perform regular upkeep on their weapons (even if the RAW doesn't strictly require it) because that's realistic. Swords need to be sharpened, armor needs to be cleaned and dents dinged out, leather straps and bowstrings replaced. Much like the question of where mundane material components cone from, I don't fret over it too much, but if a player ever told me "I am never performing maintenance of any kind," I'd definitely snap a bwstring or two on him, and reduce the damage his blunt swords do to his enemies. (Similarly, if a wizard ever told me, "I am never acquiring material components ever again," I'd eventually rule that he'd run out.) The rules don't mention replacing bowstrings and the like, but it's realistic so I've added it on top of the RAW.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-09-06, 09:51 AM	Much like the question of where mundane material components cone from The bag of infinite tarts, copper pieces and clay ziggurauts. I saw someone totally break a rules-slave DM with that. Best 1gp they ever spent. "Okay, did you bring any rations?" "Why should I? I have an infinite supply of the delicious little tarts I cast hideous laughter with." "How exactly are you affording a +4 sword of speed at this level?" "One copper at a time. Penny for your thoughts?"
Arganis 05-09-06, 09:52 AM	Eep! :mymy: Aren't you at least going to buy me a drink first? ;) NO TIME! :drool: If you use Ye Olde bowstrings, they don't snap either. They stretch, so your bow gets gradually less bent when you use it and correspondingly less powerful. I'm given to understand that linen bowstrings may snap on exceptionally heavy bows, but anyone putting a linen rather than a silk string on a bow of more than about 70lbs draw weight - let alone "exceptionally" heavy - wants their head examined. I thought it was linen or hemp back in the day. Yes, they stretched, but not forever. Rather than let the bow get less powerful, the string would be drawn tight and retied. Eventually you run out of stretchiness, and pop goes the string. Wear on the strings came from more than just regular use too, like moisture and regular environmental exposure--something that most bows do not undergo these days. Indedentally, veiwing a large longsword as a buster type weapon instead of a greatsword give slightly better credence to the anti-halfling 3.5 weapon sizing rules (not much mind you, they still suck brass monkeys) than the previous 'but the handle has to be sized for small hands' argument I've heard. I would be forced to say that a Large Longsword wielded with Monkeygrip is a reasonable approximation of the Buster Sword. The -2 attack approximates a slower attack speed and poorer balance, which would quite realisticly be offset but not ignored by the weilder's strength. If you consider that a longsword for a medium-sized creature is commonly 48" (4ft) long, then a reasonable longsword size for a large sized creature would be anywhere from 6-8 feet in length... Or, the blade could be wider rather than longer, as again in the case of the Buster, which once again isn't really that long. The best approximation of a Dragon Slayer or Zanbatou would be a Monkey-gripped Large Bastard Sword, although this requires two feats to use to its fullest extent. If weilding the megasword in one hand is not a part of your "style" then the best option, especially for damage output, is a monkey-gripped Greatsword.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-09-06, 10:00 AM	I've been shooting longbows, crossbows, recurves and lord-knows-what-else for 12 years and NEVER have I had a bowstring break! Gruh? I've had, I figure, six broken strings over the course of the two years I was into archery.
Tormsskull 05-09-06, 10:05 AM	I think the thing to remember is that if a player says "I want a buster sword," and you are inclined to give it to them, then why not. You can cite an example from a book or movie (such as Cloud) to use as your example, and then create an item or rule that allows its use. However, I always envisoned Cloud's sword as very unrealistic, as others have said it can't truly be wielded in a real world atmosphere. But, we aren't in a real world atmosphere so you are free to do whatever you want. Secondly, there's bound to be another exaggerated weapon some day that some player is going to want to use. It might be a tree or Paul Bunyan's axe, the point is you'll at some point have to say enough is enough, there is no possible way that a human can wield a tree. Then someone is bound to say "Well Hercules did it in the show, and I figure Hercules has like a 36 Str (or whatever) and I have a 40 Str, so why can't I?" At some point, there has to be a rationalization that it cannot be wielded, no matter how strong you are, due to balance and such. Some people are just setting that point at a different place than others.
Sulaco 05-09-06, 10:22 AM	This is exactly what I've been saying! You and others keep harkening back to our reality, which is akin to comparing an asiatic lion to Aslan. No, it's not. Hit points, extreme movement rates and other oddities of the D&D rules system are just that - part of D&D rules system. Ignoring leverage is not. There is a saying that it is easier to believe the big lies than the little ones, and this holds true for fantasy. I can buy dragons and magic but not someone wielding a 50lb sword on a 10" handle with no counterbalance. I have known people who fought in the SCA. Therein there is no limit to the length of a "blade" but there is a limit to the length of the handle. The reason for this is leverage. With a 15" handle on a 5' stick you can give someone a nasty bruise, with a 24" handle on the same 5' stick you can cave their skull in. If you choose to ignore leverage when using a massive anime-sword then you alter all levers - wheels and hinges as well. How does this now effect a cart? Or a door? Or a human leg? I cna buy the big lies - darkness is a real and maleable force, dragons exist and can fly - but I simply cannot buy this. It just does not work, and to make it work you pretty much have to screw up everything else. Because you aren't talking about versimilitude. You are talking about style. I am merely asking that you use the correct term when stating your reasons rather than use one that implies that you are defending reality and believability in a world of fantasy. I am using the correct term. That you don't agree does not make it any less correct.
Sulaco 05-09-06, 10:27 AM	Or in other words - "I don't like it." :bored: No, in other words "I don;t like it cos it makes no sense." PS - If you are so bored by it why bother continuing to read and contribute to the thread?
Sulaco 05-09-06, 10:31 AM	But that plausibility goes away once you start looking at animals, especially Large and Huge animals falling from a modest 20-30 ft height. Sure, I could acccept that elephant ought to be able to endure a volley of spears from a dozen average warriors (not every rolled hit is necessarily a physical hit, sure, fine), but a 20 ft fall should kill them more often than not. It's all about physics when it comes to the average specimen. Yes, the falling rules are bunk. However I do not see how it follows that because of that every bunk rule must be allowed.
Sulaco 05-09-06, 10:36 AM	Gruh? I've had, I figure, six broken strings over the course of the two years I was into archery. Well you're obviously not spending the extra gold to have the bow built to take advantage of your STR bonus, Vaal. ;)
OravennasBrother 05-09-06, 10:53 AM	I just had to ask for thread deletion for the first time ever since I've been on these boards. The reason? 'Realism'. Is this a new thread designed to "make a point" while knowing that it will be deleted in a few more days (thus leaving no permanent record)? What I can gather from the references, you had created a weapon unbalanced within the rules (forget realism, its D&D) and that may have prompted some of the negative responce. Everything I have seen indicates that an exotic version of a weapon gains something relative to a similar martial weapon, but not 1d6 damage. Weapon Specializtion has several prerequisites and grants +2 Damage, this weapon would amount to using an Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat to give +3.5 average damage. That is more than I would allow in my campaign. OTOH as DM you can do pretty much whatever you want and the players only recourse is to stop playing.
Sulaco 05-09-06, 11:00 AM	I just had to ask for thread deletion for the first time ever since I've been on these boards. The reason? 'Realism'. Now why would you do that, Vaal? Just cos you didn't agree with all the responses doesn't warrant removing the thread. This is a discussion forum and you post sparked a discussion. Seems fine to me.
Jarrad 05-09-06, 11:35 AM	Gruh? I've had, I figure, six broken strings over the course of the two years I was into archery. You did?!? Was your bow made of knives, or what? :D I'm a member of a mediaeval archery group. Not only have I not had a bowstring snap in that time, but none of my group has, nor have I heard of such a thing occurring with a period bow. Modern bows are a bit different for various reasons; were you shooting a target bow when that happened? Just curious :)
Cantankerous 05-09-06, 11:55 AM	I seem to remember from my own loooooong ago stab at archery (probably should have tried a shot instead of a stab at it...maybe that's where my problems came from ;) ) I broke a couple of strings over a period of a few dozen outings. Of course, we didn't do much target shooting. Just at the beginning until I could hit the bloody target three times in four and put the occasional shot in the center red. This that we were attempting was supposedly bow hunting (although the one boar I and Carmine managed to bag that way I finished off with a pistol shot because the thing was still alive with four arrows in him and he looked bloody pitiful), so as it was in the field, it was much harder on the bow (and presumably the string). Still, in actual combat use I'd expect to see it happen now and again even with things well maintained. The field is tough on equipment. Isshia
malignor 05-09-06, 11:57 AM	You said it so much better than me AND used a bloated corpse to do it. You get a platinum star.Everything sounds better with a bloated corpse in it. Thanks for the kudo. :D
Jarrad 05-09-06, 11:59 AM	NO TIME! :drool: AAAAAaaaaargh! :OMG! I thought it was linen or hemp back in the day. Yes, they stretched, but not forever. Rather than let the bow get less powerful, the string would be drawn tight and retied. Eventually you run out of stretchiness, and pop goes the string. Wear on the strings came from more than just regular use too, like moisture and regular environmental exposure--something that most bows do not undergo these days. Mediaeval re-enactor, remember? I'm in the UK, this is NOT the SCA, we use real weapons (blunted, natch) and we have plenty, plenty rain :D An archer always - ALWAYS - had wax, or at worst tallow, for maintaining the string. I can across the comment on an archery site "Wax is to an archer what tar is to a sailor" and I think that never a truer word was spoke. My bows, my strings, my just-about-everything has been :blush: left out in the rain overnight at some point or another :( I've got the same string on one bow that I had ten years ago! Unlike modern bows, longbows have a hasty tendency to explode if the string snaps whilst at full draw so you just don't put a string on that's ever going to break; not if you're anything approaching sensible [1] Agincourt was in part decided by the longbowmen because they put their strings under their hats and only braced their bows at the last minute. The Genoese crossbowmen they were facing couldn't do that and their strings got waterlogged whilst they stood in the rain for hours. If anyone's wondering why the crossbowmen didn't do the same, you've never tried to brace a crossbow ;) Even a little 90lb, hand-cocked job needs two men minimum, something sturdy to brace against, several minutes and a lot of swearing! And that would be considered a "light" crossbow... ROLEPLAYING SIDE-NOTE: If you want to put crossbowmen out of commission for some time, get someone to sneak in and cut their strings. Whereas longbowmen are always carrying spares and an experienced archer could replace a longbow string as a full-round action (including taking it out of his belt-pouch), a crossbowman is completely stuffed, particularly if he is using a heavy crossbow. You need a bracing jig or several strong men to brace one of those things - preferably both - and it will take a LONG time :) Seriously, a longbow archer would never use a string for that long and would always carry several spares. Hemp is another valid bowstring material, but I believe not "period" for my particular era: it's a bit late for our group. Making spare strings was one of things that kept archers on campaign occupied of a long, miserable evening. If your string stretched, you replaced it. You'd have to be a wretched pass indeed to retie a string that had stretched (discounting the initial stretching that always happens when you need to retie the knots, of course). I've just been reminded by one of my comrades-at-arms that certain flavours of linen are actually stronger than silk strings, so I take back my dig at people who use linen strings on heavy bows... Although why you wouldn't cheat and use modern bowstring material I haven't a clue, heavy self-wood bows being a) very expensive and b) likely to shatter into a thousand pieces if the string snaps at full draw. So, on reflection, Vaal must have been using bows made of modern materials as he didn't accompany his tales of six snapped bowstrings with moaning, wailing and generally carrying on about the loss of his beloved bow :D Jarrad: VP, S.P.P.B [1] For a value of "sensible" that equals "someone who is prepared to dress in period costume and/or don armour in order to charge around a muddy field both causing and being the recipient of grievous bodily harm, merely in order to have an excuse to drink, sing and chat up wenches around the fire afterwards". So, not very sensible after all then.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-09-06, 12:03 PM	What I can gather from the references, you had created a weapon unbalanced within the rules (forget realism, its D&D) and that may have prompted some of the negative responce. There was never any comment on any 'balance' as it applies to DnD rules. Its was all a discussion as to how much I sucked for making big weapons. Everything I have seen indicates that an exotic version of a weapon gains something relative to a similar martial weapon, but not 1d6 damage. Weapon Specializtion has several prerequisites and grants +2 Damage, this weapon would amount to using an Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat to give +3.5 average damage. That is more than I would allow in my campaign. One was a 2d8 exotic two hander that couldn't be quick-drawn, could not be weilded as a weapon without the feat, and didn't allow strength to damage in spaces smaller than 15ft. The other was a 2d6 two hander with and 18-20 crit with the same restrictions as above. For reference, spending the same feat on Monkey Grip allows you to weild a Large Greatsword, which is 3d6 19-20x2 at a minus 2 to hit with no restrictions. Now why would you do that, Vaal? Just cos you didn't agree with all the responses doesn't warrant removing the thread. This is a discussion forum and you post sparked a discussion. Seems fine to me. There is a difference between disagreeing and being utter jackasses. for example: You haven't been a jackass. Most of the respondants on my thread were.
Jarrad 05-09-06, 12:08 PM	I seem to remember from my own loooooong ago stab at archery (probably should have tried a shot instead of a stab at it...maybe that's where my problems came from ;) ) I broke a couple of strings over a period of a few dozen outings. Isshia Good grief, what are you people DOING?!? :rofl: Twelve years - twelve YEARS - and I have never broken a string. Not in the field, not in combat, not in target-shooting, not in a rainy, bramble-strewn wood with odd-shaped bits of barely-visible expanded polystyrene peeping out of branches sixty yards away... :rofl: Ahem. Sorry. I presume you were using a compound bow? They eat strings, particularly if you're bow-hunting but your bow is strung for target :D Modern recurves can break strings, but much more rarely. Longbows - and all I have to go on is my experience, I admit - just don't, not if they're strung properly to begin with! All that said, I'm perfectly prepared to accept that I and my compatriots may well be part of a statistical blip and that there are thousands of longbow archers out there who have to replace bows and strings on a monthly basis. I'm also certain that karma will have its way and that at some point during this season I'll have a bowstring break for the first time ever, taking my much-prized heavy(ish) yew-bow along with it :(
OravennasBrother 05-09-06, 12:54 PM	One was a 2d8 exotic two hander that couldn't be quick-drawn, could not be weilded as a weapon without the feat, and didn't allow strength to damage in spaces smaller than 15ft. The other was a 2d6 two hander with and 18-20 crit with the same restrictions as above. The second, as presented, is weaker than some exotic weapons I've seen published (2 Hand Scimitar, Exotic, 2d6, 18-20x2; no particular restrictions) The first looks roughly comparable to specialization with different restrictions. So I agree no overwhelming balance concenrs are apparent in those weapons. Still, If I want Anime style play, I go with BESM.
Sulaco 05-09-06, 01:01 PM	There is a difference between disagreeing and being utter jackasses. for example: You haven't been a jackass. Most of the respondants on my thread were. You know that is pretty much the exact opposite of what most people tell me. ;) Cheers, man. :D
Sulaco 05-09-06, 01:03 PM	On the topic of breaking bowstrings, it could be that someone is fitting the bow with the wrong length string. Too short a string will put a lot more pressure on both string and bow.
sdragon1984 05-09-06, 03:12 PM	You know that is pretty much the exact opposite of what most people tell me. ;) Cheers, man. :D same here. then again, it wasnt said to me, so for all i know.....
Arganis 05-09-06, 03:49 PM	All this talk of big swords has led me to look at the monkeygrip feat again. And now that I think about it, even though I have a pretty good understanding of scaling weapons and using monkeygrip, I do have a question. Monkey-grip specifically refers to weapons ONE size category larger. However, does this scale the difficulty of weilding a weapon two sizes larger? Considering a medium character: Let's look at the Medium Short Sword (1d6 light). Any char can weild a Large Short-Sword (1d8 one-handed) at a -2. Any char can weild a Huge Short-Sword (2d6 two-handed) at a -4. A monkeygripper can wield a Large Short-Sword (1d8 light) at a -2. When a monkeygripper wields a Huge Short-sword, do they do so as if the first size change doesn't count towards effort (due to the feat): Huge Short-sword (2d6 one-handed) at a -4? or as if the Monkeygrip feat did not benefit them at all (since it is specifically "one size category larger without increasing..."): Huge Short-sword (2d6 two-handed) at a -4?
Archtyrant Terevoth 05-09-06, 11:10 PM	It's all a matter of opinion and it's basically the DM's opinion that gets the final say. Some DMs run lighthearted games where all kinds of silly stuff like giant swords are ok. Other DMs want a more realistic flavor. And there's nothing wrong with making a game that has anime realism, there's plenty of PrCs and feats that already support that kind of thing. But like anything, they're not for every game. Honestly I don't see the big deal. If your DM won't allow you to use monkey grip, then just get a greatsword. It isn't like it's all that different, and if you feel like you need a big sword to make your character special, then I think you should starting working on real personality traits instead trying to define your character through some ridiculous race or weapon. I mean if anime style weapons are that essential to your gaming experience, you probably should be playing BESM anyway.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-09-06, 11:29 PM	I mean if anime style weapons are that essential to your gaming experience, you probably should be playing BESM anyway. Giant swords for M-I-N-O-T-A-U-R-S.
Archtyrant Terevoth 05-09-06, 11:39 PM	Giant swords for M-I-N-O-T-A-U-R-S. Well I'm not opposed to you using giant swords for your campaign, that's fine. If you're DMing you can do whatever you want, because the DM defines the flavor of his game world. I'm just saying that I don't like players *****ing at the DM when he doesn't want to allow something like giant swords or whatever
Always-Late 05-10-06, 12:23 AM	Giant swords for M-I-N-O-T-A-U-R-S.Big minotaurs, or small ones? :P (I mean, big races have big swords, no question there. Are they still proportionally large, though?)
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-10-06, 12:43 AM	Big minotaurs, or small ones? :P (I mean, big races have big swords, no question there. Are they still proportionally large, though?) They're high side of Medium, meaning 7'10'' probablly 350lbs of pure, beefy muscle. Also, they have bull heads, not the gorrilla-taur thing in the MM.
Pandaemoni 05-10-06, 01:22 AM	They're high side of Medium, meaning 7'10'' probablly 350lbs of pure, beefy muscle. Also, they have bull heads, not the gorrilla-taur thing in the MM. Wouldn't "Gorrilataurs" have a gorilla's body and a bull's head?
sdragon1984 05-10-06, 01:23 AM	I'm just saying that I don't like players *****ing at the DM when he doesn't want to allow something like giant swords or whatever meh. i still stand by my statement of DMs that have players that want to make their characters weapons stand out are lucky, particularly when theres so many cases being told on this board of players not even putting effort into the character. edit- arganis, are you suggesting that a medium monkeygripping character can weild a gargantuan shortsword two-handed, with a -6 to hit? dont get me wrong, a -6 to hit isnt a minor point, but the visual im getting on that....
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-10-06, 01:32 AM	Wouldn't "Gorrilataurs" have a gorilla's body and a bull's head? If you want to get all latin on me. Really, there is a lack og 'taur' at all there. Its all gorrilla with vague horns glued on. The sad part is that this is WotC -- the gave us the Hurloon and Tarluum minotaurs -- so they know what a minotaur is supposed to look like!
Andorxor 05-10-06, 01:35 AM	Copying a anime or other story character is worse than not putting effort into the character.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-10-06, 01:37 AM	Copying a anime or other story character is worse than not putting effort into the character. *pats you on the head* Yes dear, now go play. The rest of use are actually discussing the topic at hand, which has nothing to do with what you just posted.
Arganis 05-10-06, 02:44 AM	edit- arganis, are you suggesting that a medium monkeygripping character can weild a gargantuan shortsword two-handed, with a -6 to hit? dont get me wrong, a -6 to hit isnt a minor point, but the visual im getting on that.... Not really suggesting anything, just trying to find a valid interpretation on that point. But if you did accept the former ruling, then yes, a character with MG could weild a Garg Shortsword (3d6) in two hands at a -6. This would be terribly inferior to MGing a Large Greatsword at -2, 3d6 though, so while it would be allowed, it would be an odd choice.
Jarrad 05-10-06, 04:15 AM	Wouldn't "Gorrilataurs" have a gorilla's body and a bull's head? Sir... I sit in awe at your pedantry. Well done, I say! :clap: Truly, you are the epitome of someone who would found a society for the proper pronunciation of a single word. :D Although if we're really going to stretch a mythological point, a "Gorrillataur" would be the offspring of a gorilla and a bull ;) Jarrad Vice-President, Society for the Proper Pronunciation of "Blackguard"
Ut-Napishtim 05-10-06, 08:32 AM	PS - If you are so bored by it why bother continuing to read and contribute to the thread? Alright, I shall cease pointing out the flaws in your logic. :D
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-10-06, 01:28 PM	Although if we're really going to stretch a mythological point, a "Gorrillataur" would be the offspring of a gorilla and a bull ;) But 'horned monkey' has a creepy feeling to it.
Sulaco 05-10-06, 05:26 PM	Alright, I shall cease pointing out the flaws in your logic. :D Just cos you don't understand it doesn't make it flawed. All great geniuses are misunderstood by the common minds that surround them. Big ;).
xver 05-10-06, 08:56 PM	Do you strive for historical accuracy? For the most part no. My current campain world is set in a mostly mesolithic culture, but there are neolithic technologies that shouldn't really appear until later. Do you play with 'movie physics'? DnD goes way beyond movie physics. Is your game swarming with magic robots that defy gravity 'because'? No, but it could be ... - -- --- ---- ----- ---- --- -- - As for your weapons, I think they're fine. I don't recall the exact statistics, but the first one seems to be weaker than the Full Blade from the Arms and Equipment Guide. If I recall correctly, it was an exotic weapon that did 2d8 19-20/x2 with few or no restrictions. Your first sword is tame by comparison. The second one is balanced with the first one in the standard way for DnD curved blades vs. straight blades. (Note that at first glance it may look overpowered compared to the falchion, but if you examin the weapon system, the falchion is an underpowered abnormality.) - -- --- ---- ----- ---- --- -- - The decicion as whether to allow large swords is a stylistic one. The core rules provide a way to do so (the improperly sizes weapon rules) and official non-core rules provied a way to do so with more profiency (the monkey grip feat). As such, prohibiting them is a rule zero decicion. I fully support the GM's right to use rule zero to establish the style, tone, and balance of the game. But claiming you do so to enforce "realism" is absolute misrepresentation and showes a remarkable level of bigotry. DnD is not a realistic game. It never has been and in all likelyhood never will be. It is jam-packed with damn near every sort of unrealistic thing there is. Any attempt to make it "realistic" is a mastubatory fallacy and act of sheer ignorance. While stylisticly something may not appeal to your or fit the type of game you wish to run, posturing that the game you run is "realistic" or "too realistic" to allow such a thing while still running a DnD game is comple hogwash.
LordofIllusions 05-17-06, 12:50 PM	But, thats just it. Fantasy. I find dragons hard to believe, but are they still in D&D. Yes, yes they are. Oh wait, dervishes that kill swathes of enemies in seconds? yea. Thas far more believable than a guy using a big sword. Correct. If you can accept a Warforged wizard, serpent people(i.e., Yuan-Ti), or flying boats; you can most certainly accept spiked hair and a large sword. These 3E players today just like to whine. Add what you want Vaal, your world; noone is forcing them to play in it. ~~~
Sulaco 05-17-06, 01:05 PM	Ignore this. I realized that it really wasn't worth responding to that last post.
Arganis 05-17-06, 01:18 PM	Ignore this. I realized that it really wasn't worth responding to that last post. This is not the dead horse you are looking for. :nonono:
Sovereign110 05-17-06, 05:04 PM	I dunno if this topic is dead or not, but I'll give my input on the whole "realism vs. nonrealism" thing. What I try to practice is a "realism in context" idea. My campaign assumes that elves, magic, and dragons exist, so I try to emulate what things would be like if that were true. Of course, I can't know for sure, but I do my best. As for the whole Buster Sword idea from the first post, I'd only introduce something like that if it's an exotic weapon made by a race with enough strength to wield one. It is too big and ridiculous to be of practical use by normal races, so humans can't use them in my fantasy setting anymore than they'd be able to use them in real life. Same goes for elves, half-elves, and especially gnomes and halflings.
Rolzup 05-17-06, 06:24 PM	As a Soul Calibur fan, I've got to admit to a certain soft spot for Really Big Swords. And if one of my players really wanted his character to have one, not a problem -- that's what the EWP feat is for. I mean, really: What's worse? A Really Big Sword, or that incredibly stupid sword/flail combination from Sword and Fist called? That, I can't even imagine how *anyone* could use it without knocking themself unconscious. Or worse. And heck, that thing was official. I don't know if it still is, mind.
Arganis 05-17-06, 06:55 PM	Sword-chucks, yo! (http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=010815)
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-17-06, 07:14 PM	LoI's approval fills me with great shame. Now, can we get back to the 'making it so people go flying when they take a tail sweep' discussion from the third page?
Verelor 05-17-06, 08:00 PM	Correct. If you can accept a Warforged wizard, serpent people(i.e., Yuan-Ti), or flying boats; you can most certainly accept spiked hair and a large sword. These 3E players today just like to whine. Add what you want Vaal, your world; noone is forcing them to play in it. ~~~ Warforged are rediculous for half the character classes, serpent people are biologically possible, and a flying boat is realistic if magic is a natural and consistent force of that world. I can accept spiked har for certain, but only if it is magically engineered to partly escape the pull of gravity. :D And, I can accept a large sword, but without magical augmentation such a large weapon is certainly able to be wielded (it would be completely unrealistic if it couldn't be!!), there would have to be some penalties. That also encompasses game balance and consitency! Did I miss anything? I'm going to go ahead and say it, but D&D is REALISTIC! I may sound like an insane-o now, but don't get the shotgun just yet. An engrossing campaign world IS realistic, except that mostly anything falling outside the boundaries of decent, reliable physics can be explained by either arcane magic, a constant force of physics native to that reality, or divine miracle, the breaking of those laws because of an existance even higher than those laws themselves. Well, except for polymorphing (which, in addition to wanton sky-the-limit unbalance, is why many DM's remove it), psionics (which hardly belongs in the fantasy genre, but is PERFECTLY BALANCED), or anime (which stinks in any medium other than a comic book or your viewing screen). That's also why 100-something pound, 15 foot long weapons for any creature of medium (or really even large) with no penalties is a disgrace. Not just because the act of wielding it can be perfectly mundane, but it is rediculous visually, conceptually, and breaks every rule in the game in favor of adolescant anime imagineering and 2e-style arbitration. Such a weapon would be huge size, first of all (the size of the weapon itself, not that of the optimal wielder). That means it is two sizes larger than a medium creature, which means two sizes too large to be of use as a two-handed weapon, especially in the long term. yesm I know your minotaur race is really tall, weight 400 pounds at the average, and have a +4 strength bonus. But a world-class bodybuilder's level of strength is right up there with what you'd probably consider a good standard for a mighty minotaur warrior. A sword-shaped object isn't exactly momentum-centered. It's going to be an incredible challenge just to keep it in your hands for a few rounds without slicing them off, much less swing it at anything. It is simply pitiful. So then why not just total realism? How come tail sweeps don't send you back several feet. How come it's just as easy to cleave with a rapier as with a glaive? Because that is understandable. As a DM you let the more minor incoherancies like that just slide by and you bite the bullet and keep the dice rolling. A medium-sized creature wielding a two-story-tall weapon that weighs as much as an adult human with apparent proficiency is something a player tends to roll on her rear and laugh about when her DM tries to toss it in. Of course, if your players are good for an Inuyasha romp, and you are too, there's no problem. Something a little off the wall every once in a while is a wonderful thing. :) God bless you, and the common sense that Rule 0 can bring to the table.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-17-06, 08:14 PM	I'm going to go ahead and say it, but D&D is REALISTIC! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Yes, I read the rest of what was written after this, but it only reinforced the conclusion that I should have just laughed derisively at you after this sentence.
Archtyrant Terevoth 05-17-06, 09:20 PM	meh. i still stand by my statement of DMs that have players that want to make their characters weapons stand out are lucky, particularly when theres so many cases being told on this board of players not even putting effort into the character. Well, honestly, I find that most of the time if a unique weapon is so important to a character, that he's got a pretty crappy backstory. It's different having a unique weapon as opposed to a named weapon. Wielding Narsil or Stormbringer is cool because you've earned that weapon, you didn't just start with it. Just having some ridiculously large sword because you have no other background or good reason for it tends to lead to one dimensional boring characters. You end up being like that guy with the ridiculously huge sledgehammer in Conan the Barbarian. Yeah, we remember him cause he had the big ass hammer, but as far as character depth, he had none. He was just "the guy with the big hammer". Generally if a PC has a real backstory and personality he doesn't need crazy gimmicks like oversized swords, his background speaks for itself.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-17-06, 09:38 PM	Wielding Narsil or Stormbringer is cool because you've earned that weapon, you didn't just start with it. Narsil was part of Aragorn's crappy backstory. :embarrass
Senevri 05-18-06, 05:15 AM	Grrh. What I said. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=9096141&postcount=120) A summary: Even in FF, those capable of wielding big-ass swords were not-quite-human magically enhanced superhumans. Big-ass swords don't make a lot of sense when fighting normal humans - which is all of human history, really. Now, if you're fighting a fifty-feet tall giant, who calls your longsword a toothpick, it's all different. Conversely, when you encounter critters of such size, there is enough room to swing the blade around. While the artwork for Buster Sword or whatnot, may seem unbalanced/unreasonable... swinging unbalanced objects around does give a... meatier hit. Also, if a player wants a big sword, there's no reason to presume that it couldn't actually be, y'know, balanced. Maybe it has a mithril blade combined with a heavy lead pommel? Still, the style and realism in your games are whatever you make of them. However, if you go the route of allowing big sword for a player in a "realistic" setting, you can have npcs react to it appropriately. See "Berserk" for reference.
DarthMarasmus 05-18-06, 05:35 AM	But 'horned monkey' has a creepy feeling to it. I agree most vehemently. HOWARD JOHNSON IS RIGHT!
Arganis 05-18-06, 09:46 AM	You end up being like that guy with the ridiculously huge sledgehammer in Conan the Barbarian. Yeah, we remember him cause he had the big ass hammer, but as far as character depth, he had none. He was just "the guy with the big hammer". Generally if a PC has a real backstory and personality he doesn't need crazy gimmicks like oversized swords, his background speaks for itself. There are plenty of poorly developed characters without large swords. I don't think you need to start equating one with the other. Poor character development in FF7 aside, the decision for a character to weild an oversized blade can also speak to their personality. You know, with dramatic concepts like symbolism. Also, and not that I encourage the overuse of this, but sometimes a character doesn't have to be deep and complicated to be good.
LordofIllusions 05-18-06, 11:26 AM	AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Yes, I read the rest of what was written after this, but it only reinforced the conclusion that I should have just laughed derisively at you after this sentence. Indeed. Something tells me the gentleman whom made that statement(i.e. D&D is realistic) walks around in leather armor, wielding a longsword(which he probably thinks is magical), with a pair of plastic pointed ears(which he bought from the Halloween costume store) glued to his own set of ears. Therefore I did not even bother responding. :rolleyes: ~~~
Pandaemoni 05-18-06, 12:17 PM	I was struck by the fact that some people who decry the virtues of "realism", in other contexts get downright upset at people who suggest ascribing "unrealistically" high stats to katanas, or view them as generally superior in every way to European swords. That's not a condemnation, but it supports my theory that we all have a personal sense of what violates verisimilitude and we can all get riled by those who challenge our personal aesthetic. Personally, a medium character wielding a large sword in anything other than a clumsy manner (or wielding a huge sword at all) seems silly to me--dogs playing poker silly. OTOH, a particular sword doing doing 2-12 damage with a 19-20 x3 crit range doesn't bother me at all (though I'd rather not a mundane weapon with those stats in game personally).
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-18-06, 12:32 PM	I was struck by the fact that some people who decry the virtues of "realism", in other contexts get downright upset at people who suggest ascribing "unrealistically" high stats to katanas, or view them as generally superior in every way to European swords. That's not a condemnation, but it supports my theory that we all have a personal sense of what violates verisimilitude and we can all get riled by those who challenge our personal aesthetic. That's a matter of proposing stupid stats, not 'versimilitude'. There is a range in place that all balance weapons fall into and 1d12 15-20x3 is no where in that range, even for double exotic.
Sinaz 05-18-06, 12:38 PM	I skipped 9 pages to indulge in an anecdote... From ages ago, a discussion came up about glass weaponry, which immediately struck a chord in me in relation to the Ultima VII glass swords... after making one up off the top of my head, I got some absurd arguments comparing an Ultima VII sword to to historically accurate clubs with lava glass embedded in them or something... anyway... a quote from the past: Would you like to die a silly death just because a patently inefficient option is "cool" ? Besides, it's not like those macauitls are actually very aesthetically appealing. They look like small oars with glass glued to the edges... Uh... I'm still on the glass sword kick from Ultima 7. I know it's impractical... but it's still a cool concept. So considering that we are all playing D&D... a fantasy roleplaying game, and our lives are never really in peril, I find that my mortality when weilding a glass sword is moot... because I know in real life I might as well be fighting with a crystal wine goblet... but in a fantasy setting, an enchanted, elegant masterwork glass sword that cuts with no effort, but shatters with a great attack imbedding it's shards into my enemy is damn cool! :rolleyes: PS - what's with everybody trying to subvert the fantasy aspect of D&D lately... I just launched a debate with Tarkin in another thread over the absurdity of proclaiming that D&D PCs should be demanding vacation time for all thier hard gore-infested slaying.
Pandaemoni 05-18-06, 01:21 PM	That's a matter of proposing stupid stats, not 'versimilitude'. There is a range in place that all balance weapons fall into and 1d12 15-20x3 is no where in that range, even for double exotic. But its their game, and we need not play in it. Why break a sweat over what other people want to do in their own game? It seems to me the issue is more likely just wanting to dispel the notion that certain weapons are unrealistically superior to others.
StakeTeriyake 05-18-06, 01:54 PM	Y'know, maybe this is just me being crazy, but I'm a fan of Exalted, with it's number 1 rule being: If it sounds cool, reward the imaginative effort, even if it's not physically possible. Kung Fu Movie Logic.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-18-06, 02:03 PM	It seems to me the issue is more likely just wanting to dispel the notion that certain weapons are unrealistically superior to others. 'Seem' being the operative word. It doesn't matter what they call it, a weapon with those stats is broken gamewise. Or maybe you're talking about the 'always masterwork' thing. In which case its a matter of people not knowing what the game means when you say something's masterwork. Masterwork is a better version of an existing weapon, so you have to have a base weapon for your masterwork one to be a version of.
sdragon1984 05-18-06, 02:17 PM	I skipped 9 pages to indulge in an anecdote... From ages ago, a discussion came up about glass weaponry, which immediately struck a chord in me in relation to the Ultima VII glass swords... after making one up off the top of my head, I got some absurd arguments comparing an Ultima VII sword to to historically accurate clubs with lava glass embedded in them or something... anyway... a quote from the past: i agree with that quote 110%. by the way, speaking of "lava glass" (obsidian is the proper word, but "lava glass" is a pretty good explaination) and macauitls makes that post seem very familiar. if you dont mind, if you can find the link to that thread, can you PM it to me?
Zyfax 05-18-06, 06:55 PM	While running my game in "hyper realism" mode, for the most of the time, and actually letting my players correct me if I'm wrong on something (happens sometimes), I let it go when it comes to magic. I mean, the very idea of magic is defying reality. So while I don't let my players run rampant wielding great trees of doom (could theoretically happen), a glass sword (as mentioned above) could be practical, especially since obsidian glass is quite sharp. The very nature of enchanting adds hardness, remember? :P
lord_kuro 05-18-06, 07:59 PM	It may sound stupid if your trying to sound very realistic but in a sense a fighter with the feat monkey grip could carry an oversized sword. Well not as big as Clouds Buster Sword but it really depends on the DM and how fictional he wants his world to be. If the players are having fun then sure i think you could treat that buster sword as a large great sword. Hey as soon as that guy walks into a town EVERYONE will notice him. That could be a plus as well as a con. All in all they are heroes not just normal people and they could be embarking on a quest to save the world. Why not look cool in the process? just my 2 cents :cool:
Verelor 05-18-06, 08:15 PM	And just to get us all back on the same page, Mr. Cloud Strife's hair and his sword have both been well toned down for the Advent Children makeover.
xver 05-18-06, 09:39 PM	Have you even seen Advent Children? Cloud's sword got toned down? In what way? Also note that the sword he weilds in Advent Children isn't the same one (or ones) he uses in the game. It is a different sword and the old one, which is about the same size, appears in the movie only as a rusted set peice.
Always-Late 05-19-06, 03:20 AM	Narsil was part of Aragorn's crappy backstory.Those are fighting words. Are you sure you wish to use them? :P
NobodyRemembersThis 05-19-06, 07:24 AM	That sword would weight 50lbs or more. Even if you could lift the bugger you couldn't wield it cos of balance and leverage issues.belive it or not, but one of my gamers made this sword! Admitedly, it was made out of wood, but still. He made it our of a door. It was 2 inches thick, 6 feet long (counting the hilt) and aboot 18 inches wide. When weighed, it clocked in at aboot 65-75 lbs. Yes, I could pick it up and swing it with little difficulty. Not very accurate with it, but I could swing the damn thing - aboot as easily as I could the double balded great axe we built. (42 inches wide edge to edge made for a horrible drag) A metal version of the sword shouldn't be more than an inch thick, and I am guessing the wieght comes out to aboot 50-60 lbs as has been suggested. The only real issue is the counterbalance that would be needed on the back end to make it close it wieldy. Just thought I should throw this in.
Arganis 05-19-06, 09:43 AM	It may sound stupid if your trying to sound very realistic but in a sense a fighter with the feat monkey grip could carry an oversized sword. Well not as big as Clouds Buster Sword Yes, as big as the Buster Sword because the Buster Sword is not that big. Not only did his sword suck but so did his character. The game: "Look at me, I'm a jerk who learns to care. My attitude is new and unique to the Final Fantasy genre!" (ahem) The movie: "Waaaah, waaaah, waaaaaaah I'm so sad" I think I'm going to start hunting FF proponents. :waits:
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-19-06, 01:00 PM	I think I'm going to start hunting FF proponents. :waits: Wouldn't it be a simple matter for them to hit overdrive and kill you? I seriously doubt you have 9999hp.
Arganis 05-19-06, 01:28 PM	Wouldn't it be a simple matter for them to hit overdrive and kill you? I seriously doubt you have 9999hp. :twitch:
OravennasBrother 05-19-06, 01:33 PM	belive it or not, but one of my gamers made this sword! Admitedly, it was made out of wood, but still. He made it our of a door. It was 2 inches thick, 6 feet long (counting the hilt) and aboot 18 inches wide. When weighed, it clocked in at aboot 65-75 lbs. Yes, I could pick it up and swing it with little difficulty. Not very accurate with it, but I could swing the damn thing - Yes but against a competent opponent all you would manage is to swing once, miss and while overbalanced the enemy would dart in and kill you. The problem with oversized weapons is the long recovery time; take a swing and you have no defense for several seconds. OF course you cold reject reality and rule that there is no such thing as momentum or inertia, and then that blade would work just fine.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-19-06, 02:12 PM	Yes but against a competent opponent all you would manage is to swing once, miss and while overbalanced the enemy would dart in and kill you. The problem with oversized weapons is the long recovery time; take a swing and you have no defense for several seconds. *checks PH for recovery time by weapon weight.* *checks for weapon speeds* *finds universal Base Attack Bonus* What the duece? Its as if the abstraction doesn't care weither you're weilding a rapier or a greatsword, you still get the same two attacks at +6 BAB. This will require further study. Surely this is some sort of mistake. Next they'll be telling me that I can fire 5 arrows in six seconds over 100ft with no penalty.
Arganis 05-19-06, 02:20 PM	What the duece? BWAHA!
RmSlayer 05-19-06, 03:08 PM	I didn't read the whole thread because I am on a slow computer and it would take FOREVER to load, but I'll stick to the main topic. I agree with Chrono Nexus for the most part. The DM is the setting, the world, the people (NPC's), he is EVERYTHING. But in another sense, the DM IS god. I am a very fair but very harsh DM. I ask you to play by my rules or leave, that simple. I require ROLEPLAYING (which some people on these boards think is rediculous!) such as player backgrounds and staying in character while making in game decisions. But I like to sculpt the world around my PC's as they play. I don't go make the whole world and then let them play the set up story line. After each session, I look at what happened, what needs to change, and what to add while it is fresh. I plot out the storyline in small steps and let my players play those steps and either take a break to develop more, or end the session if we all want to call it quits. I center around realism for the sake of making the game believeable, more engrossing. That is how my players and I like to play it. But if by all means, you want laser-eyed blobs, go ahead and thow 'em in. THat is just not how I PERSONALLY like to play. Sculpting a believeable world where it shifts and changes to a PC's reactions it truely rewarding to me and my PC's (especially when I see there faces when someone they thought was inconcequential comes back to haunt them for past wrongs!). The storyline should be a living, breathing thing. It should be able to adapt and counter, throw twists and turns in the plot, keep your PC's on their toes. The storyline should not be static and dead. I have learned, from my expierences, that a DM who plays with the "living" storyline is more apt to have a better game that one without. THe PC's and you (as a DM) have more fun and get much more engrossed in it. How realism has any effect on this, I cannot say, but I assume that if the storyline is catchy, fun, and believeable (like keeping characters in their prospective role playing categories and making the setting fit in every aspect) then your PC's should throughly enjoy themselves.
Ankalagon 05-19-06, 04:07 PM	Those are fighting words. Are you sure you wish to use them? :P I'll hold ya coat :dancin: do you need a 2nd? or just an ally (or is that PNPC :thinks: Yes but against a competent opponent all you would manage is to swing once, miss and while overbalanced the enemy would dart in and kill you. The problem with oversized weapons is the long recovery time; take a swing and you have no defense for several seconds. OF course you cold reject reality and rule that there is no such thing as momentum or inertia, and then that blade would work just fine. This isn't entirely true. Knights of old had there own martial arts, very efficient and very effective. A greatsword was a very long and heavy object that was designed to be swung around the head (like an olympic hammer thrower) with the Knight stationary. As a D&D mechanic it could only ever hit a single opponent once in a round but the cleave would be spectacular and it would nearly always follow on. Therefore you could have cleave without felling the first opponent.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-19-06, 04:45 PM	But if by all means, you want laser-eyed blobs, go ahead and thow 'em in. I... I think you missed the joke. Blobs with laser eyes are in the Core game...
bitnine 05-19-06, 06:30 PM	I... I think you missed the joke. Blobs with laser eyes are in the Core game...Yeah, well, at least there isn't a homing spider tank that shoots out energy rays from its eyes. Aw, crap, nevermind. (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG47.jpg)