Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

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

    Right to the point: the Voidcraft armaments presented in the book look soft as hell. Unless I'm missing something (akin to the system of notation for weapons from Aeon first edition, where vehicle-sized-weapons worked on an entirely different scale from anti-personnel weapons,) there's a vast incongruity between the weapons as describes, and their actual damage output.

    First off, the majority of these things are doing Lethal damage, which seems particularly inappropriate in the case of HEX missiles (because they are missiles--they explode), and particle beams (which fire focused plasma).

    Second, from a raw damage perspective, the particle beam weapons are the only weapons that feel military-grade. HEX missiles are more or less within the range of damage done by weapons and rockets as described in M20 (though even there, most missiles or rocket volleys do at least 15 damage). The KKV also feels a little under powered; at 9 lethal, it's doing less damage than .30 cal machine gun--a man-portable weapon almost 100-years-old that fires bullets that (even if the same size as the bolts fired from the KKV) are less heavy and dense than the KKV's tungsten rounds, and travel much more slowly. If we look at some like The Expanse (which, as I understand it, presents precisely these sorts of weapons in physics-accurate way,) these kinds of weapons should absolutely shred targets. I understand that you can't just affix a 120mm cannon to a Voidcraft because that could cause all kinds of problems when the thing kicks (at least that's my assumption), but they can't just fire a 120mm-sized round KKV style (i.e., a rail gun)? At 9 Lethal damage, you're taking the same base damage as you would from the weakest person swinging great sword.

  • Aleph
    replied
    I don't see the problem here. The ruling would be as simple saying that 4.4 lbs. sword that scarcely weighs more than a regular long sword, simply does not do Str+6 damage; and Str+6 damage is reserved for the small class of atypically (but still non-fictional) swords that weighed considerably
    So, you will tell your players that the two handed sword they wanted to have, that anyone would thought of as a greatsword, isn't going to be a greatsword unless it's unusually heavy (and probably decorative)...I don't see how this agrees with your previous argument about "classifying as greatsword only those swords that would be indisputably be called greatsword".

    You've got from saying that "greatsword are those unquestionably an example of something that is definitely not a long sword" to saying that these are small class of atypical swords...just to agree with the rules...don't you see the problem there?

    Even claymores often weigth less than the limits you've invented for Str 2 characters (4 x 2 lb > 6.2 lb / 3 x 2 lb > 4.9 lb . Comparing the upper and lower values you declared as "unrealistic" for a Str 2 to wield with the upper and lower values of the typical weigh of claymores as per Wikipedia). Of course, you could've used other numbers as ceilings, but I hardly think it's worth so much effort to defend this rule for "realism"

    Ultimately, the weapon is labeled "Great sword", and it is a two-handed sword; I don't think the two are one in the same however. I can perfectly conceive of there being two-hander Swords that fall into the "Sword" category.
    Oh...and I will rule that the Zweihänder still needs two hands to use and it's hard to hide (it would be absurd otherwise), in spite of not doing more damage or adding anything over shorter swords. Because I would rather house-rule *that* instead of ruling away the new Str limiter. Have fun with that, player.

    The only thing that immediately comes to mind (besides the possibility that the authors just weighed the equities differently than you or I may, and so think this is actually well balanced as is) is that (if we're rejecting other theories of balancing) they didn't want people dumping Strength in favor of Dex and trying to make up for it by carrying a much larger weapon. That is my kneejerk guess.
    I don't think that's a great way to curb minmax on melee, if that was the intention. Most Minmaxers dump Stamina, not Strength, to get Dext to 5, because that's how much better it's "not to get hit" coupled to hitting more and harder (esp. when you can't soack lethal) compared to what St does. To place leftover points into Str it's also the minmax way: that way you add moar damage

    But who knows what were they thinking?

    The point is: I don't see these as compelling reasons. And once we've discarded realism, it's not a rule I would care to enforce

    I accept the weird arbitrariness of so much of it, which is why I find it so weird that the issue someone has with this system--with its myriad eccentricities and ridiculousness--is that "great swords" require above-average strength to use; particularly given that average strength is presented as being piss-poor.
    It's the M20 version of a "1rst world problem", for sure. It doesn't break anything (not even minmax, if it was the intention). I don't think most people would be bothered by this, if you're going to melee you want Str anyway.

    The rule it's not terribly bad. That's not to say it's a rule worth defending, once someone has brought it up.
    Last edited by Aleph; 01-20-2020, 02:40 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • CaptOtter
    replied
    Originally posted by Aleph View Post
    I imagine you also disagree with the books when they say 2 it's the "average" in WoD.
    There's nothing to disagree with there--if that's what they say average is, that's what average is--even if it's not the case for our own world. However, it makes sense to me that the average would skew low, considering that what goes into figuring the strength of the "average human" is all babies and children, the elderly, many sick people, the indigent, and swaths of people from countries where malnutrition is unfortunately the norm. Moreover, a human sexual dimorphism is that roughly half of the world's population has a lesser capacity (biologically) for creating and maintaining muscle mass compared to the other half. And it's not like there's as many people with Strength 5 (peak human strength) as there are with Strength 1 (i.e., literally every single baby and little kid in the world), so even though these respective Strength levels represent the "poles" of human strength capacity, the distribution is not going to be remotely even. It is estimated that 130 million babies are born in the world every year [cite]; even accounting for the estimated under-five mortality, that still means there's hundreds of millions of people in this world who probably can't lift 40 lbs. If anything, I'm surprised the average isn't lower.

    Originally posted by Aleph View Post
    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:

    [photos omitted]

    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 don't see the problem here. The ruling would be as simple saying that 4.4 lbs. sword that scarcely weighs more than a regular long sword, simply does not do Str+6 damage; and Str+6 damage is reserved for the small class of atypically (but still non-fictional) swords that weighed considerably. Ultimately, the weapon is labeled "Great sword", and it is a two-handed sword; I don't think the two are one in the same however. I can perfectly conceive of there being two-hander Swords that fall into the "Sword" category.

    Originally posted by Aleph View Post
    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.
    The combat system in the WoD is so full of arbitrary decision that you could justify creating an entirely new combat system from the ground up. Setting aside the low difficulty for the great sword, why is the bonus for shooting someone in the head just two dice? Or shooting someone in the eye 3 dice? Simply being concussed (so nothing potentially even penetrating the brain) is debilitating for days, but getting shot in the head is +2 dice. On the difficulty side of things, there is basically a static difficulty of 6 for using any and all firearm within the listed range. How does it make sense that it's as easy for me to hit a target from 3 yards away with a shotgun, as it is to hit a target 200 yards away with a hunting rifle? Obviously these difficulty numbers and the system overall are abstractions of real life things that don't come with easy numerical representations... but it makes absolutely no sense that it's just as easy/difficult to hit something with a scatter gun from a spitting distance as to hit something from two football fields away with a rifle, and using iron sights no less, since the book says that you reduce the difficulty by 2 if you add a scope. More absurdity: shooting with a rifle out to 400 yards with a scope is Diff. 6, but this is something people undergo months of training to execute consistently.

    There's clearly no shortage of inexplicable choices made with this combat system; many absurd and bizarre; so to the extent that you're looking for actionable items, you could certainly do worse that these combat rules. Personally, I knew what I was getting into when I picked up M20, and even Mage: Revised before it, and I accept the weird arbitrariness of so much of it, which is why I find it so weird that the issue someone has with this system--with its myriad eccentricities and ridiculousness--is that "great swords" require above-average strength to use; particularly given that average strength is presented as being piss-poor.

    The entire basis for my original comment (and, I guess, for the thread) is that after years of using these systems, I'm clearly tuned enough to the "norm" level of inaccuracy, abstraction, and lack of realism, that I can tell when something is written in such a way as to put it even outside of that. In this case, I thought the Voidcraft weapons looked too weak for what they were supposed to be; and you very correctly pointed out that the authors made a note to point out that, yes, in fact these values are lower than one might expect, and gave their reason why.

    Needless to say, I'd be super down for someone with a good head for mechanics to write a Storytellers Vault supplement that revamps the entire combat system top-to-bottom to make it deeper, make more common sense, more tactical, and more robust, even if that necessarily means adding in way more crunch. But barring that, this is what we've got; and a Strength gate for great swords is the least of the mind bogglers.

    Originally posted by Aleph View Post
    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
    The only thing that immediately comes to mind (besides the possibility that the authors just weighed the equities differently than you or I may, and so think this is actually well balanced as is) is that (if we're rejecting other theories of balancing) they didn't want people dumping Strength in favor of Dex and trying to make up for it by carrying a much larger weapon. That is my kneejerk guess.

    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?
    Frankly Ambrosia explained it beautifully. My two cents is that it's a weird thing to put into a book that is otherwise a thoughtful, and often times horrifying (like, more horrifying that practically anything V:tM has to offer) mediation on evil and malevolence. It's like, imagine if at the ends of the Wraith book Charnel Houses of Europe they had a description of a proton pack and ghost trap from Ghostbusters. That's how tonally dissonant I find it. Now, having said that, I'm delighted they addressed how to make these sorts of weapons (i.e., they're basically just trinkets), and I'm generally speaking glad to have these ridiculous things described and have stats period.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ambrosia
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Saur Ops Specialist
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Aleph
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • CaptOtter
    replied

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aleph
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Warpwind
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • CaptOtter
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Warpwind
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Warpwind
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • CaptOtter
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aleph
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ambrosia
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X