Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Void Engineers (Rev.) - Aren't Voidcraft armaments a little anemic?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by CaptOtter View Post
    As for what it means to "lift", strictly speaking (i.e., a strict textual interpretation) means the most that you can dead lift--because no one squats, cleans, presses, snatches, or benches more than they can dead lift, and the book doesn’t qualify the word “lift” in any way. From a practical standpoint, dead lifting is also a pretty practical movement--when you help someone move a couch, you're very likely gripping the bottom with your fingers and dead lifting it up to between your mid-thigh and waist, and then moving. Having said that, not being able to dead lift more than 100 lbs. pretty weak. Even if we go to the next weaker lift, back squatting, not being able to squat more than 100 lbs. is still pretty weak.
    I always presumed that the lifting in the Feats Of Strength category means what your character can always plainly lift in whole, without any problems, and potentially carry for at least a short while - no competitive few-seconds-lifts. In which case the 100lbs for Strength 2 aren't bad, really.
    Remember that you can always lift more! It takes a Willpower roll diff 9, but each success will move you one point up in the chart. I presume that this at least means carrying around stuff will have a considerably shorter limit.


    cWoD Dice Probability Chart ||| cWoD Dice Statistics Calculator ||| cWoD Alternative Armor System
    cWoD Alternative Damage Roll System ||| My explanation of cWoD Damage Levels ||| 'Interesting' Strength Attribute Stuff
    EXPLOSIVE cWoD STUFF! ||| How Technocrats don't think they are Mages

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Ambrosia View Post
      I always presumed that the lifting in the Feats Of Strength category means what your character can always plainly lift in whole, without any problems, and potentially carry for at least a short while - no competitive few-seconds-lifts. In which case the 100lbs for Strength 2 aren't bad, really.
      Remember that you can always lift more! It takes a Willpower roll diff 9, but each success will move you one point up in the chart. I presume that this at least means carrying around stuff will have a considerably shorter limit.
      I considered how the feats of strength factor in, and I decided that the different levels of "Strength" described have to mean that that's the amount you can "lift" (whatever that means; more on that below) without a feat of strength. Otherwise the entire scale becomes meaningless, because there is literally no one with Strength 1 and Willpower 1 that cannot "lift" 100 lbs. With that in mind, it's clear that people who hold the world records for competitive athletic lifts are either using feats of strength, or roping in Athletics somehow (for the more technical lifts like clean-and-jerks, or snatches), if only because the world records for the more powerful lifts (dead lift and squat) both exceed 1k lbs. There's just no other way.

      With that in mind, I think the difference between "lifting" and "carrying something around" is fairly vast, and the books unfortunately limit their description to nothing more than the word "lift". I used competitive, few-second-lifts because they are the absolute floor--in other words, we can discuss all day what the book means by "lift", but there's no intellectually honest argument that for the words "lift" meaning anything less than what a person can dead lift. Though, I will say again, the dead lift is not some impractical olympic lift that can only be done in an athletic context with a barbell (I'm looking at you, snatch); on the contrary, it is one of the most functional forms of lifting that a person can do--every able-bodied adult ever has probably dead lifted something, because it's the most natural and intuitive way of picking something very heavy off the floor ("Lift with your legs" -every dad ever).

      Obviously the rule can be interpreted as expansively as we want--"lift" could mean that it's the amount the person can lift from the ground and straight over their head; it could also mean it's the amount someone carry on their back on a 10-mile march. But if I go beyond the text, I'm necessarily just making a policy/value decision at that point--because if I'm not going by the book, or some reasonably defensible interpretation of the text therein, I'm making an arbitrary decision to make human beings, on average, more strong in my game world (or less strong, depending the call), without much or any support from the text. I'm not saying there's any fundamental problem with that, because it's basically the ST's job to make calls where necessary and fill in the millions of holes that a book is never going to be able to cover. But this isn't exactly a "hole," so much as it's a quirk of where they decided to draw the bright line that divides Strength 2 from 3, which was never going to be fully satisfactory by dint of the exercise being pretty reductionist and absurd to begin with.

      Even if we're going to evaluate Strength 2 more narratively, I think it still support the idea that you'd need Strength 3 (i.e., a single notch "above average" strength) to "employ" a great sword, if you just consider that "average strength" (which is what Strength 2 is) for human beings is probably pretty low. Human sexual dimorphism means that about half of the world's population has a markedly lower capacity (compared to the other half) for the creation and maintenance of muscle mass; then there's the incidence of malnutrition and poverty, on side of the socioeconomic scale, and (on the other side of the scale) luxury and indolence, both set of which are going to make it unlikely that many people will build appreciable functional strength; and finally, the fact is that for every Hafþór Björnsson in the world there are dozens or hundreds or thousands of kids.


      Sig

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by CaptOtter View Post
        dis.
        For the series it's actually about best medieval weapons for women, including their uses. You can see it for yourself here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSy9GLi2H44
        Channel also has content for physics of sword use, which you don't seem to get.

        Yes, with polearm I mean big stick with axehead or big blade at the end of it. not just pointy stick, which would be a spear and still better then most swords due to range. Though that's not important in modern setting as much.

        What I meant with 'not accurate' was things like very small traits pools for animals, poor armor, short range on firearms. etc. For example a shimpanzee is several times stronger then a human can be, good armor is pretty much impossible to cut through, firearms hit over much greater range then depicted, etc.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Warpwind View Post
          For example a shimpanzee is several times stronger then a human can be,
          Eeeh.
          This opens up another whole can of worms, because technically a shimpanzee...isn't really stronger. What a Shimpanzee *does* have is a whole different *arrangement* of their musculature, which makes it much more efficient than a human's for some tasks - and way less efficient for other tasks.

          A shimpanzee can rip your face off, because their entire musculature is optimized for their back and arms, allowing them to apply much more force there, easily pull themselves up with one arm, swing on trees - but ask a shimpanzee to carry the same weight as a human while standing (or even manage to just walk as fast and at length with only using their legs), and they will fall flat on heir ass because their legs are way weaker than a human's.

          Trying to put something abstract and simplified as a single number on 'strength' is already an exercize in suspension of disbelief and acceptance of gross oversimplification.
          There are no 'right' numbers when comparing overall strength between certain species - best examplified by the fact that the lowest strength you can give a small bird and a human is '1' - which means something very different in either case.


          cWoD Dice Probability Chart ||| cWoD Dice Statistics Calculator ||| cWoD Alternative Armor System
          cWoD Alternative Damage Roll System ||| My explanation of cWoD Damage Levels ||| 'Interesting' Strength Attribute Stuff
          EXPLOSIVE cWoD STUFF! ||| How Technocrats don't think they are Mages

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Ambrosia View Post
            Eeeh.
            There are no 'right' numbers when comparing overall strength between certain species - best examplified by the fact that the lowest strength you can give a small bird and a human is '1' - which means something very different in either case.
            In the case of the small bird, it means...

            ...
            that the system was designed to represent human-ish beings, and will horribly crash if you try to apply it's mechanics "as they are" to anything else (canary lifting the same as weak human...)

            :P
            Last edited by Aleph; 01-13-2020, 08:30 AM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Warpwind View Post
              For the series it's actually about best medieval weapons for women, including their uses . . . . Channel also has content for physics of sword use, which you don't seem to get.
              Even assuming arguendo that the video you linked makes a defensible argument (it doesn't actually discuss physics, biomechanics, or kinesiology, so who knows), the argument the gentleman makes is for a weaker person using a long sword; the weapon that is subject of this entire discussion is a great sword (that it's a two-handed weapons, and has a minimum Strength requirement is a footnote).

              If your rejoinder is that the distinction between "long swords" and "great swords" is often arbitrary and amorphous--that it's difficult in many cases to say that a particular weapons is either one or the other, or to precisely draw the line as to where one ends and the other begins--my response is this: if there was ever a type of sword so large and so heavy that it was unquestionably an example of something that is definitely a "great sword", and definitely not a "long sword", then that is the sword we should assume the text was referring to. For instance, I'm just spitballing here (as we've established, I'm not up on my sword physics) but it seems to me that a claymore is probably something that could not even charitably be called a longsword; on the contrary, it can not only be aptly described as a "great sword," but also conforms to the stats of the weapon in question: two-handed-only; very heavy; high damage. From my cursory Googling, it appears The National War Museum in Edinburgh has a claymore that clocks in at over 22 lbs.! I'm tired just thinking about swinging that thing.

              Having said that, if you're the sort of person who enjoys videos about the minutiae of medieval melee combat (and I'm not one to judge--I watch Naruto power scaling videos; whatever gets you through the day), this is clearly not a table of stats that's ever going to make you happy, because the level of abstraction is probably not going to satisfy your desire for there to be meaningful distinctions between weapons that are very different from one another in real life despite being in the same very general category or class. With specific regard to swords, it's should be noted that with the exception of the specifically named katana (because it's probably the weapon that most often randomly shows up in people's "Gear Carried" because that katana-in-the-trench coat-fantasy will never die), and hook swords (for some reason), there are only three other swords listed on the table: short sword; sword; and great sword. That means that a gladius and wakizashi have the same stats; a medieval European long sword and broad sword, scimitar, and cavalry saber all have the same stats; and the claymore and nodaichi have the same stats. My issue with the Void Engineer book was that everything looked incredibly low relatively to weapons theoretically in that league, even by White Wolf standards--and as it turned out, they actually went out of their way to tune the damage output of those space weapons down, mentioned same, and their rationale.

              Originally posted by Warpwind View Post
              firearms hit over much greater range then depicted
              Yeah, okay, but is that a description of the literal maximum range of the round, or the maximum effective range (by which I mean not only deadly, but reliably accurate) that can be achieved? If you look at the footnotes, it reads, "Range: Within listed range (in yards), difficulty is 6; at twice listed Range, difficulty is 8; within two yards, difficulty is 4." So, for example, they don't list an an AR-platform weapon on the list, but they have an AK-47 (which is the stat that would invariably be used for an M-16, even though I know at least two people who would blow all the gaskets at hearing that), and the max range is listed as 150, which means the weapon could be used at up to 300 yards, but at a diff 8 (the weapon is regularly diff 7). As I understand it, U.S. Army basic training requires some high degree of proficiency and reliability out to about that range--and these are professional soldiers; the Marines do a little more. But the fact is that as ridiculous as it might seem to use the exact same stats for AKs and ARs, it would be just as, or perhaps even more ridiculous, to suppose that because a U.S. Marine fresh out of boot can grab an M-16 and reliability make 500 yard shots, that a person who has taken a basic firearms safety course, only fired a gun on handful of occasions (i.e., Firearms 1), should realistically be able to get the same out of the gun. Even though differences in skill ability are accounted by the character's dice pool, it makes sense to me that the stats for range are based on a part of the firearms skill bell curve closer to the middle, than the tail end of the curve where Marine Scount-Snipers and Annie Oakley live.


              Sig

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Ambrosia View Post
                Eeeh.
                This opens up another whole can of worms, because technically a shimpanzee...isn't really stronger. What a Shimpanzee *does* have is a whole different *arrangement* of their musculature, which makes it much more efficient than a human's for some tasks - and way less efficient for other tasks.

                A shimpanzee can rip your face off, because their entire musculature is optimized for their back and arms, allowing them to apply much more force there, easily pull themselves up with one arm, swing on trees - but ask a shimpanzee to carry the same weight as a human while standing (or even manage to just walk as fast and at length with only using their legs), and they will fall flat on heir ass because their legs are way weaker than a human's.

                Trying to put something abstract and simplified as a single number on 'strength' is already an exercize in suspension of disbelief and acceptance of gross oversimplification.
                There are no 'right' numbers when comparing overall strength between certain species - best examplified by the fact that the lowest strength you can give a small bird and a human is '1' - which means something very different in either case.
                that is actually a reasonable argument. probably should be some sort of a merit or just flat dice pool for certain actions like in CoD.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by CaptOtter View Post
                  Even assuming arguendo

                  1. that the video you linked makes a defensible argument (it doesn't actually discuss physics, biomechanics, or kinesiology, so who knows), the argument the gentleman makes is for a weaker person using a long sword; the weapon that is subject of this entire discussion is a great sword (that it's a two-handed weapons, and has a minimum Strength requirement is a footnote).

                  If your rejoinder is that the distinction between "long swords" and "great swords" is often arbitrary and amorphous--that it's difficult in many cases to say that a particular weapons is either one or the other, or to precisely draw the line as to where one ends and the other begins--my response is this: if there was ever a type of sword so large and so heavy that it was unquestionably an example of something that is definitely a "great sword", and definitely not a "long sword", then that is the sword we should assume the text was referring to. For instance, I'm just spitballing here (as we've established, I'm not up on my sword physics) but it seems to me that a claymore is probably something that could not even charitably be called a longsword; on the contrary, it can not only be aptly described as a "great sword," but also conforms to the stats of the weapon in question: two-handed-only; very heavy; high damage. From my cursory Googling, it appears The National War Museum in Edinburgh has a claymore that clocks in at over 22 lbs.! I'm tired just thinking about swinging that thing.

                  Having said that, if you're the sort of person who enjoys videos about the minutiae of medieval melee combat (and I'm not one to judge--I watch Naruto power scaling videos; whatever gets you through the day), this is clearly not a table of stats that's ever going to make you happy, because the level of abstraction is probably not going to satisfy your desire for there to be meaningful distinctions between weapons that are very different from one another in real life despite being in the same very general category or class. With specific regard to swords, it's should be noted that with the exception of the specifically named katana (because it's probably the weapon that most often randomly shows up in people's "Gear Carried" because that katana-in-the-trench coat-fantasy will never die), and hook swords (for some reason), there are only three other swords listed on the table: short sword; sword; and great sword. That means that a gladius and wakizashi have the same stats; a medieval European long sword and broad sword, scimitar, and cavalry saber all have the same stats; and the claymore and nodaichi have the same stats. My issue with the Void Engineer book was that everything looked incredibly low relatively to weapons theoretically in that league, even by White Wolf standards--and as it turned out, they actually went out of their way to tune the damage output of those space weapons down, mentioned same, and their rationale.

                  Yeah, okay, but is that a description of the literal maximum range of the round, or the maximum effective range (by which I mean not only deadly, but reliably accurate) that can be achieved? If you look at the footnotes, it reads, "Range: Within listed range (in yards), difficulty is 6; at twice listed Range, difficulty is 8; within two yards, difficulty is 4." So, for example, they don't list an an AR-platform weapon on the list, but they have an AK-47 (which is the stat that would invariably be used for an M-16, even though I know at least two people who would blow all the gaskets at hearing that), and the max range is listed as 150, which means the weapon could be used at up to 300 yards, but at a diff 8 (the weapon is regularly diff 7). As I understand it, U.S. Army basic training requires some high degree of proficiency and reliability out to about that range--and these are professional soldiers; the Marines do a little more. But the fact is that as ridiculous as it might seem to use the exact same stats for AKs and ARs, it would be just as, or perhaps even more ridiculous, to suppose that because a U.S. Marine fresh out of boot can grab an M-16 and reliability make 500 yard shots, that a person who has taken a basic firearms safety course, only fired a gun on handful of occasions (i.e., Firearms 1), should realistically be able to get the same out of the gun. Even though differences in skill ability are accounted by the character's dice pool, it makes sense to me that the stats for range are based on a part of the firearms skill bell curve closer to the middle, than the tail end of the curve where Marine Scount-Snipers and Annie Oakley live.
                  I said channel, not video. though you will have to dig through videos.

                  Furthermore, you should know that 'longsword' 'greatsword', etc, is a modern terminology, not historical. He is talking about 2 handed weapons and explains his logic in detail.
                  You can see similar videos even about Arming Swords, which is even bigger then 'greatsword' we talk about. The logic stays the same. Easier to swing bigger sword with 2 hands then smaller one with 1.

                  Eeh, I actually carry either crowbar or ice axe in game. much easier to get and more useful.

                  donno that much about larger firearms but at the very least handguns are too short range. should add at least 50% to range.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Warpwind View Post

                    I said channel, not video. though you will have to dig through videos.
                    You made the claim and linked to that specific video. If there's another video that supports your position, you should cite it. Typically the burden is on the party making a claim to substantiate same; there are practical reasons for this, not the least of which is the ease of all involved.

                    Originally posted by Warpwind View Post
                    Furthermore, you should know that 'longsword' 'greatsword', etc, is a modern terminology, not historical.
                    Just because the distinction is not one that would have been made by the people who historically actually used the weapons, doesn't mean the distinctions aren't valid and useful. For instance, "Middle English" is a modern term—not at all a term that would have been used by anyone who lived in the time Middle English was actually spoken. But that doesn't invalidate distinctions made between Old, Middle, and Modern.

                    Originally posted by Warpwind View Post
                    He is talking about 2 handed weapons and explains his logic in detail.
                    He literally uses the words "long sword", and gives a typical weight. It wasn't remotely as heavy as some of the truly larger and heavier swords that clearly existed, to which the M20 stats likely refer.

                    Originally posted by Warpwind View Post
                    You can see similar videos even about Arming Swords, which is even bigger then 'greatsword' we talk about. The logic stays the same. Easier to swing bigger sword with 2 hands then smaller one with 1.
                    Just because it's easier to swing a big sword with two hands than it is to swing a small sword with one, doesn't mean that anyone can swing any big sword as long as they use both hands. Per my last, there are clearly historical examples of swords that weighed over 20 lbs. Even a sword weighing half that would still be several times heavier than the swords described in the linked video.


                    Sig

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by CaptOtter View Post
                      You made the claim and linked to that specific video. If there's another video that supports your position, you should cite it. Typically the burden is on the party making a claim to substantiate same; there are practical reasons for this, not the least of which is the ease of all involved.

                      Just because the distinction is not one that would have been made by the people who historically actually used the weapons, doesn't mean the distinctions aren't valid and useful. For instance, "Middle English" is a modern term—not at all a term that would have been used by anyone who lived in the time Middle English was actually spoken. But that doesn't invalidate distinctions made between Old, Middle, and Modern.

                      He literally uses the words "long sword", and gives a typical weight. It wasn't remotely as heavy as some of the truly larger and heavier swords that clearly existed, to which the M20 stats likely refer.

                      Just because it's easier to swing a big sword with two hands than it is to swing a small sword with one, doesn't mean that anyone can swing any big sword as long as they use both hands. Per my last, there are clearly historical examples of swords that weighed over 20 lbs. Even a sword weighing half that would still be several times heavier than the swords described in the linked video.
                      If I actually cared enough to dig through it. Otherwise, I specifically wrote the word 'channel' from the beginning so you wouldn't get confused. I will make sure to underline and bold such cases in the future.

                      yeah no. the point is there are no set distinctions in reality only in the heads of people that wrote the game. In that case it's on THEM to provide exact size and weight of the blade.

                      He also provides LOGIC behind his reasoning. 2 handed sword is NOT X2 heavier then 1 handed. if you choose to specifically concentrate on uselessly bloated ones isn't his fault.

                      on the other hand YOU are not providing ANY proofs. 20 LB Swords right? I want to see where you are getting that number, final fantasy?

                      "I recall during one wonderful opportunity to floryshe outside for several minutes with an actual 16th century two-handed infantry sword, my being entirely surprised at how easily the immense 6 pound weapon handled so that it readily felt as if it weighed half as much."
                      " weighing up to 10 or even 15 pounds and which were intended only for carrying in ceremonial processions and parades."
                      "and an acutely tapered one of a length of 46.7 inches weighs in at only 3.018lbs (1.369kg). By comparison, a single-hand sword of 38-inches in the same collection weighed 3.28lbs (1.495kg)."
                      http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html#.Xh8NvugzbIU

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Maybe the 20lb was ceremonial, not intended to be used in battle at all.

                        Claymores, according to google, typically weigh 5.5 lb. Here you have swords that demand 2 hands to use, and would be called Greatswords by pretty much anyone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zweih%C3%A4nder . Typically weighs 4.4lb, but ceremonial versions may be a lot heavier.

                        I have to agree that the requisite it's unneeded. It's not terribly realist to demand more than 2 Str in order to use it profficently over short periods of time (like most WoD battles are). Game wise, this is balanced by the weapon requiring you to use 2 hands. That's one hand you're not using to wield a shield, a spearate weapon, or (if ur Mage) another Instrument

                        Comment


                        • #27

                          Originally posted by Aleph View Post
                          I have to agree that the requisite it's unneeded. It's not terribly realist to demand more than 2 Str in order to use it profficently over short periods of time (like most WoD battles are).
                          I think you and I definitely disagree about how weak Strength 2 is (owing to varying constructions of what the word "lift" means in this case). A 3-4 lbs.-sword, okay, i can see that. But twice that? I find that a little more hard to believe.

                          Originally posted by Aleph View Post
                          Game wise, this is balanced by the weapon requiring you to use 2 hands. That's one hand you're not using to wield a shield, a separate weapon, or (if ur Mage) another Instrument
                          I could make the argument that the Strength and two-handed requirement, and the fact that it cannot be concealed, are there to balance out the fact that the weapon is high-damage, but low difficulty to use (Diff 5 for some bizarre reason).

                          Originally posted by Warpwind View Post
                          If I actually cared enough to dig through it. Otherwise, I specifically wrote the word 'channel' from the beginning so you wouldn't get confused. I will make sure to underline and bold such cases in the future.
                          If you don't care to dig through it, then you shouldn't expect anyone else to, and you shouldn't try to use it as some point of authority in your favor. Obviously there's no rule here that says that any amount of rhetorical rigor is necessary when arguing over something--but pointing at a collection of over 350 videos and basically saying 'the proof is in there somewhere' is absurd. If it's going to take me hours to vet some claim you're making, you may as well just ask that we take you at your word and have faith.

                          Originally posted by Warpwind View Post
                          the point is there are no set distinctions in reality only in the heads of people that wrote the game.
                          I agree that the universe/reality qua reality has no opinions or feelings about the difference between a long sword, a great sword--the distinctions would be solely in how human beings regard, label, name, refer to, and think of the different weapons. White Wolf did not invent the term "great sword." Whether one sword or another does or does not qualify as a "great sword", and the question of what a great sword even is, are technical matters that clearly predate this conversation on these forums. Regardless, it seems clear that there are objects today (many of them historical artifacts) that are referred to as 'great swords', and even there's no generally accepted bright line rule that defines a universally acknowledged threshold between long sword and great sword; it is today a valid and useful label used by more than just gamers and LARPers.

                          Originally posted by Warpwind View Post
                          In that case it's on THEM to provide exact size and weight of the blade.
                          That's not how the game they made works--it's not how any of these games work. I already explained that the "short sword", "sword", and "great sword" in the book are stats appended to a broad range of weapons, with different weights, lengths, appearances, etc. The way this actually is supposed to work is that the player and ST look at whatever sword the player wants, and they decide that it's either a katana, a hook sword, a short sword, a long sword, or a great sword--in other words, you work backwards from the existence of the classifications (or you work something out with World of Darkness Combat, or you house rule the whole thing, or you play GURPS with one of the supposedly ultra-realistic optional books, or something).

                          Originally posted by Warpwind View Post
                          He also provides LOGIC behind his reasoning. 2 handed sword is NOT X2 heavier then 1 handed.
                          Assuming you're talking about the video that you actually linked above (and not to one of the other hundreds of videos on his channel), then I'm not questioning his logic--I'm questioning the conclusions you're drawing from what he's saying, and furthermore, the degree to what which his thesis in that video is actually applicable to our discussion. His position in that video is, broadly, that (a) the depiction of bows as an ideal weapon for women and weaker characters is wrong because it takes a great deal of strength to pull back on most bows of the era; and (b) that women and weaker fighters would be much better off with a long sword (he says this continually) because the long sword is, on average, only 1.5x heavier than the single-hand "arming sword", and so it should be easier for the weaker person to wield because they're using two hands, so the ratio of their functional strength to the weight of the weapon improves in their favor. Here's where the talk of numbers starts in the video. He also gets into the specific weights of the weapons he's talking about--specifically he says the long sword (again, the weapons he is saying would be better for weaker opponents, which is the focal point of his argument) is 1.5 kilos (3.3 lbs) to 1.7 kilos (3.7 lbs) (and if you look at his parenthetical caption, they could actually be as light as 1.2 kilos, or 2.6 lbs).

                          Originally posted by Warpwind View Post
                          if you choose to specifically concentrate on uselessly bloated ones isn't his fault.
                          I'm not sure what this is actually referring to. Are conceding there were larger swords than the 1.2-1.7 kilo long swords he described, but that they don't count or something? Next you'll say that not true Scotsman would agree with my position.

                          Originally posted by Warpwind View Post
                          on the other hand YOU are not providing ANY proofs. 20 LB Swords right? I want to see where you are getting that number
                          As I explain above, you didn't provide any proof either--but to your credit, you put a very loud smokescreen. With that in mind, I didn't cite my source for that information because there's no way to examine the text itself, and I didn't want to clothes my position with false authority (extraordinary, I know). However, because you asked, the information allegedly comes from Fitzroy Maclean's Highlanders: A History of the Scottish Clans, which is cited on the Wikipedia page for 'claymores' ("The largest claymore on record; known as Fuilteach Mhuirt 'blooded/bloody one of murder/killing', weighs 10 kilograms and measures 2.24 metres in length. It is believed to have been wielded by a member of Clan Maxwell circa the 15th century. The sword is currently in the possession of the National War Museum in Edinburgh, Scotland." (internal links removed)). The weight and size of Fuilteach Mhuirt appears substantiated in different parts of the internet, but there's no way to know whether people are all just regurgitating wikipedia, or whether there is any independent verification of the claim--and, well, it's also the internet.

                          Originally posted by Warpwind View Post
                          final fantasy?
                          Interestingly enough, some people (Man at Arms to be exact) has actually made a facsimile Cloud's buster sword, was reported (by the guy who made it) as being something like 75-80 lbs. Now, even with a 50% margin of error (because there's no accounting for magical materials, or impossibly masterful crafting), that's still twice as heavy as the heaviest weapon I've mentioned. Interestingly, Mage has actually provided stats for buster weapons in Book of the Fallen. The sword clocks in at Str+9, and can only be used if the sword is enchanted as a trinket to be lighter/less subject to gravity (for the reasons that should be obvious, but are still discussed in the Man at Arms video linked above).

                          Originally posted by Warpwind View Post
                          "I recall during one wonderful opportunity to floryshe outside for several minutes with an actual 16th century two-handed infantry sword, my being entirely surprised at how easily the immense 6 pound weapon handled so that it readily felt as if it weighed half as much."
                          " weighing up to 10 or even 15 pounds and which were intended only for carrying in ceremonial processions and parades."
                          "and an acutely tapered one of a length of 46.7 inches weighs in at only 3.018lbs (1.369kg). By comparison, a single-hand sword of 38-inches in the same collection weighed 3.28lbs (1.495kg).
                          I find it interesting that you cite to this article, because it basically substantiates my point that the long swords discussed in the other YouTuber's video were nowhere near the upper end of sowrd sizes, weight-wise. While it is true, that it speaks to the really freakishly heavy swords (as you quoted) probably being for ceremonial purposes, it is also clearly indicates that there were swords intended for actual martial use that were in the 7-9 lbs (or more) range. To wit, from the second full paragraph after the "Conclusion" sub-heading:
                          One historian states, "The true two-handers really did require two hands, though their overall weight averaged only about 8 to 10 pounds. With blades of up to 45 inches or more, the hilts had to be at least 9 inches to counterbalance such a long blade. The crossguard's length also helped in distributing weight." (William J. McPeak. "For a Swordsmen with Muscle as Well as Skill, Two Hands Could be Better Than One". Military History, Oct 2001, Vol. 18. Issue 4, p 24).

                          http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html#.Xh8NvugzbIU
                          There's also a table in there with sword dimensions and weights--there are a few swords in there at 6 lbs. or more than aren't labeled ceremonial. And as I said above, there are plenty other references in that article to swords weighing far more than the 1.5 kilos (3.3 lbs) to 1.7 kilos (3.7 lbs) discussed by the YouTuber whose logic you rely on. The fact is that even though I don't find it unreasonable that a not-so-strong person could effectively wield a 3-4 lbs. sword, it's not reasonable to assume out of hand that these same "weak" individuals could effectively use swords twice, or three times that weight (which clearly existed per the article you linked.


                          Sig

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by CapOtter
                            I think you and I definitely disagree about how weak Strength 2 is (owing to varying constructions of what the word "lift" means in this case).
                            I imagine you also disagree with the books when they say 2 it's the "average" in WoD.

                            A 3-4 lbs.-sword, okay, i can see that. But twice that? I find that a little more hard to believe.
                            Also you've got yourself the problem that there are 2 handed swords, that would indisputably be seen as greatswords by anyone that hasn't deeply pondered these rules, that don't weigh 6+ lbs.

                            As per the 2-handed swords I mentioned, that typically weigth 4.4 lbs. Most people would think these are greatswords on first glance:



                            More so if they know these swords were made to be used with two hands. Yet they need to not be greatswords to respect the limitations on Str 2 you've imposed.

                            I could make the argument that the Strength and two-handed requirement, and the fact that it cannot be concealed, are there to balance out the fact that the weapon is high-damage, but low difficulty to use (Diff 5 for some bizarre reason).
                            And I could do the same argument as above, adding that the "low difficulty" doesn't make a lot of sense, and maybe should be brought into question.

                            I don't think adding a Str requisite really "solves" anything here, ¿in what sense the game it's better for gating the weapon to low Str figthers?. The balance it's given by other factors, like it's low concealability, needing two hands to use it...strong but inconvinient was always the way WoD handled these things
                            Last edited by Aleph; 01-17-2020, 08:05 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              CaptOtter I am morbidly curious about what the context is for detailing buster swords in Book of the Fallen. The review threads made it sound like a dissection of the psychology behind abuse and other issues with regard to Mage, so where do the surfboard swords pop up in that conversation?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Saur Ops Specialist View Post
                                CaptOtter I am morbidly curious about what the context is for detailing buster swords in Book of the Fallen. The review threads made it sound like a dissection of the psychology behind abuse and other issues with regard to Mage, so where do the surfboard swords pop up in that conversation?
                                The book actually has more pieces than just that - even small parts that are not Nephandus specific, like some of the familiars, or some of the godheads and demons in it.
                                The weapons in question though are essentially a small list of over-the-top magically-pimped melee things that are...well, they are labeled 'malign Weapons' and they are really really nasty. Buster Sword is probably the right direction, but I'm more thinking of the Dragon Slayer from Berserk. For example, the "Titanic Sword", diff 5, str+8 lethal damage.
                                They are all examples of the "Malign Cutlery" Wonder in the nephandic wonders section.
                                Last edited by Ambrosia; 01-18-2020, 07:42 PM.


                                cWoD Dice Probability Chart ||| cWoD Dice Statistics Calculator ||| cWoD Alternative Armor System
                                cWoD Alternative Damage Roll System ||| My explanation of cWoD Damage Levels ||| 'Interesting' Strength Attribute Stuff
                                EXPLOSIVE cWoD STUFF! ||| How Technocrats don't think they are Mages

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X