OOTS #1084 - The Discussion Thread

[8BitNinja]

"Sunburst. Disintegrate. Gust of wind. Next."

Or just a simple turn undead and smite evil.

[Avianmosquito]

It's interesting that part of your justification for Strength affecting hit rolls is giving how fast Roy can move to Strength rather than Dexterity.

(If it wasn't clear, I think any efforts to justify D&D combat rules at the level of "Dexterity has nothing to do with your ability to hit with a melee weapon" is misguided and doomed.)

You don't really understand what force is, do you?

First, I'll point out that the Roman Empire was around for a LONG time (a VERY long time if you include the eastern half and don't pretend the world stopped calling themselves Roman when a city fell).

Not a point.

I'm sure there were swords made with a multitude of techniques over the centuries.

Those were both gladii. Two of the most common types, might I add.

One of the primary motivations for the sword they used was its ease of being mass produced, and that needed cheap materials and workmanship. The common legionaries were not carry around masterwork swords - and no, I don't expect many survived years of use and later neglect to have survived to be common museum pieces.

1. Masterwork swords don't exist.
2. Bronze is extremely resilient. If it wasn't intentionally destroyed, it survived.
3. You still haven't made a point. At all.

Generally the crap of a civilization gets lost to time (a notable exception is oak furniture - that was peasant stuff, nobles had furniture made of pine and soft woods).

Also not a point.

Swords are weird weapons anyway. Spears are almost always a better choice. The Chinese army still issued spears well into the 20th century. Swords are easier to carry and more 'elegant', though, making them a nice statement of stature and wealth.

1. Swords are primarily a sidearm, yes, but that's important because not everybody can carry a spear. Archers can't have a spear as backup, a spearman whose spear is broken or lost isn't going to carry a second spear, you aren't going to walk around town with a spear, a spear can't be worn on your person. 99% of the time, if you can only have one or the other the sword is the better choice for that reason and that reason alone.

2. Swords aren't "elegant". They're a sharp metal thing that cuts people open and leaves them bleeding to death on a pile of their own guts. They aren't chosen as a fasion statement, they're chosen because they're practical sidearms that can both cut and thrust effectively.

3. Swords are not expensive. Even peasants could afford swords, fairly easily, and many did.

4. The roman empire fought primarily with swords, despite having access to spears and the people they borrowed most of their tactics from using spears. They did so because they had armour and shields their enemies usually didn't, and in that situation swords are outright better weapons that spears, or really any other weapon. They did a great deal of damage, could cut and thrust, were good at range closer than an enemy with a spear was effective at, allowed for denser formations and their chief disadvantages of reach and weak anti-armour performance were not concerns in that context.

5. You still haven't made a point.

[Jasdoif]

(If it wasn't clear, I think any efforts to justify D&D combat rules at the level of "Dexterity has nothing to do with your ability to hit with a melee weapon" is misguided and doomed.)

I like to imagine "let's give basic melee attacks a break and only need one ability score, so we don't have to give all our melee monsters high Strength and Dexterity scores" came up at some point during the design.

[danielxcutter]

I like to imagine "let's give basic melee attacks a break and only need one ability score, so we don't have to give all our melee monsters high Strength and Dexterity scores" came up at some point during the design.

That's one of the few things I like about the way they designed melee, actually.

[Kish]

I like to imagine "let's give basic melee attacks a break and only need one ability score, so we don't have to give all our melee monsters high Strength and Dexterity scores" came up at some point during the design.

I should be clearer: when I say "justify" I mean explanations about how it totally makes sense in terms of real-world physics. I think the game system works very well as a game system. Just like I think hit points work very well as a game system and break down immediately when the tortured explanations of how if you have 80 hit points it means nothing actually pierces your skin until you're down to 5 or so and Cure Light Wounds is actually restoring 1d8+caster level of your dodging luck, come out.

[Keltest]

I should be clearer: when I say "justify" I mean explanations about how it totally makes sense in terms of real-world physics. I think the game systems works very well as a game system. Just like I think hit points work very well as a game system and break down immediately when the tortured explanations of how if you have 80 hit points it means nothing actually pierces your skin until you're down to 5 or so and Cure Light Wounds is actually restoring 1d8+caster level of your dodging luck, come out.

Well you see, if you swing a sword harder, it will move faster, as a result of having more force behind it. Which isn't to say that dexterity has no place at all in a sword fight, but by and large strength will be a much more major determining factor.

[Avianmosquito]

Well you see, if you swing a sword harder, it will move faster, as a result of having more force behind it. Which isn't to say that dexterity has no place at all in a sword fight, but by and large strength will be a much more major determining factor.

Edge alignment and aim both do more than physical force.

[Keltest]

Edge alignment and aim both do more than physical force.

Which is represented by proficiency, not dexterity.

[danielxcutter]

Hmm... I think there was a thread about real-life weapons and armor in the Roleplaying forums. Maybe you guys could ask this question there?

[Avianmosquito]

Hmm... I think there was a thread about real-life weapons and armor in the Roleplaying forums. Maybe you guys could ask this question there?

You may as well be getting your information by playing Skyrim for all that thread is worth.

Which is represented by proficiency, not dexterity.

You think dexterity is not the defining factor in edge alignment, you don't know what edge alignment is.

[Keltest]

You may as well be getting your information by playing Skyrim for all that thread is worth.



You think dexterity is not the defining factor in edge alignment, you don't know what edge alignment is.

I acknowledge that dexterity plays a role in swordfighting, and fighting in general. But A: that was not the question asked, and B: one does not need well above average dexterity in order to swing a sword effectively. Training and practice will play as significant, if not greater, a part in your ability to do so well.

[Avianmosquito]

I acknowledge that dexterity plays a role in swordfighting, and fighting in general. But A: that was not the question asked, and B: one does not need well above average dexterity in order to swing a sword effectively. Training and practice will play as significant, if not greater, a part in your ability to do so well.

You really don't know what edge alignment is. Fantastic. See, edge alignment is the defining factor in a blade's ability to cut, it is the angle of the blade relative to the surface of the target and how the force of the swing aligns with the edge. That is purely about dexterity, it is about how you aim, how you move the sword, adjust for the motion of your target and how the sword is aligned in your hand so the edge and the force are parallel and the surface of the target is perpendicular to them. The closer you are, the deeper the blade will cut, and every bit of that is dexterity. Actual, manual dexterity to align the force and the edge, as well as reflexes, tracking and spatial reasoning to align it with the target. That's not even getting into push and pull cuts.

Dexterity is the bigger factor in accuracy and damage with an edged weapon. That isn't to say strength isn't a factor, just that dexterity is a bigger one. Strength would certainly also be the bigger factor with a bludgeon, as the less of a factor edge alignment is the less useful dexterity is, but dexterity and strength BOTH increase your accuracy and damage with all melee weapons, and with swords, especially cutting swords, dexterity is always better.

[JumboWheat01]

We be here to discus a comic about a stick figure world. Realism is that way. -->

[danielxcutter]

We be here to discus a comic about a stick figure world. Realism is that way. -->

I feel that this miiiiight be relevant.

[Keltest]

You really don't know what edge alignment is. Fantastic. See, edge alignment is the defining factor in a blade's ability to cut, it is the angle of the blade relative to the surface of the target and how the force of the swing aligns with the edge. That is purely about dexterity, it is about how you aim, how you move the sword, adjust for the motion of your target and how the sword is aligned in your hand so the edge and the force are parallel and the surface of the target is perpendicular to them. The closer you are, the deeper the blade will cut, and every bit of that is dexterity. Actual, manual dexterity to align the force and the edge, as well as reflexes, tracking and spatial reasoning to align it with the target. That's not even getting into push and pull cuts.

Dexterity is the bigger factor in accuracy and damage with an edged weapon. That isn't to say strength isn't a factor, just that dexterity is a bigger one. Strength would certainly also be the bigger factor with a bludgeon, as the less of a factor edge alignment is the less useful dexterity is, but dexterity and strength BOTH increase your accuracy and damage with all melee weapons, and with swords, especially cutting swords, dexterity is always better.

I understand exactly what edge alignment is. You seem to be implying that it is a natural function of the body that happens automatically when you swing a sword, that just applying your dexterity will make it "better". It is very much a question of learning how to do it correctly and applying yourself in order to do so. A less dexterous person may have a harder time mastering it, but unless they are on the extreme low end of dexterity, practice is going to be the major determining factor.

And that is represented by proficiency feats and base attack bonus.

[Kish]

Let me address the realism-D&D dichotomy here with a silly thought experiment.

Suppose you (real-life you, not a character) have to let someone try to hit you with a magic greatsword. You can't retaliate against them, try to hit them first, leave the room, anything like that--you have to stay in it and let them swing at you, once. If the greatsword hits you, it will do so much damage you'll be turned into a small red smudge. If it misses, you'll be allowed to leave without any further danger. You have two choices of person to swing at you. Person A has average strength but is extremely agile. Person B has just slightly above average strength but is as clumsy as anyone could possibly be and still be able to move. They are otherwise identical.

Now, let me describe the exact same scenario, using D&D rules. Suppose you (real-life you, not a character, still) have to let someone try to hit you with a special magic greatsword which has no to-hit bonus but is +1000 to damage. You can't retaliate against them, try to hit them first, leave the room, anything like that--you have to stay in it and let them swing at you, once. If it misses, you'll be allowed to leave without any further danger. You have two choices of person to swing at you. Person A has Strength 11 and Dexterity 18. Person B has Strength 12 and Dexterity 1. They are otherwise identical.

Unless you would choose the same person in both these scenarios, it appears D&D doesn't model real-world physics.

[Avianmosquito]

I understand exactly what edge alignment is. You seem to be implying that it is a natural function of the body that happens automatically when you swing a sword, that just applying your dexterity will make it "better".

And you are now outright lying about my position. I'm done with you.

[Svata]

You really don't know what edge alignment is. Fantastic. See, edge alignment is the defining factor in a blade's ability to cut, it is the angle of the blade relative to the surface of the target and how the force of the swing aligns with the edge. That is purely about dexterity, it is about how you aim, how you move the sword, adjust for the motion of your target and how the sword is aligned in your hand so the edge and the force are parallel and the surface of the target is perpendicular to them. The closer you are, the deeper the blade will cut, and every bit of that is dexterity. Actual, manual dexterity to align the force and the edge, as well as reflexes, tracking and spatial reasoning to align it with the target. That's not even getting into push and pull cuts.

Dexterity is the bigger factor in accuracy and damage with an edged weapon. That isn't to say strength isn't a factor, just that dexterity is a bigger one. Strength would certainly also be the bigger factor with a bludgeon, as the less of a factor edge alignment is the less useful dexterity is, but dexterity and strength BOTH increase your accuracy and damage with all melee weapons, and with swords, especially cutting swords, dexterity is always better.

Please. Spare the poor catgirls.

[White Magic]

Depends where in Gargantuan he is. However, if you scale up directly from 2800 lb Large to Gargantuan, he should be 64 x as heavy: 179200 lb.

That said - Hel is the same size as him here - whereas in Deities & Demigods, her standard size is a bit smaller. So we can't assume that they correlate exactly to their Deities & Demigods counterparts.

Thor's supposed to be Large, for example - yet every time we see him, he's more Gargantuan/Colossal.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0353.html

Of course, given that many gods have Alter Size, it can be hard to tell what their in-strip standard size is.

I like that answer. Thrym must be reining in his size for the cave-like surroundings Hel owns in this strip, where he's shrinking himself several ways for Hel.

Thrym is shown shown with dwarves in two panels, where he's 5.5 and 6.5 times taller than the dwarf shown. In that size, Rich's Thrym is (cube rule) 166 to 274 times weightier than a 160 to 220 lb. weight dwarf, or 26,000 to 60,000 lbs himself, with 43,200 the median. Just for now.

Which kind of answers my original question: Thrym'd have to pull 200 or so times Undurkons weight to pull his own weight.

Thor, per D&D's D&D is "Medium sized", as is Hel herself. In this strip, he's four times larger than the dwarf-soul there. That's must be a two-foot dwarf-child soul there, then Thor and Hel are both medium, else he'd be in the "large" range.

[Kantaki]

Thor, per D&D's D&D is "Medium sized", as is Hel herself. In this strip, he's four times larger than the dwarf-soul there. That's must be a two-foot dwarf-child soul there, then Thor and Hel are both medium, else he'd be in the "large" range.

Thor and Hel are, in fact, medium sized.
Dwarves just have really tiny souls.

[danielxcutter]

Thor and Hel are, in fact, medium sized.
Dwarves just have really tiny souls.

You know, how come they're called Dwarves yet are Medium sized?

[Domino Quartz]

You know, how come they're called Dwarves yet are Medium sized?

Because they have a higher body mass to height ratio than humans or other medium-sized humanoids.

[danielxcutter]

Because they have a higher body mass to height ratio than humans or other medium-sized humanoids.

Well, technically yes... but you know very well that wasn't the point.

[Domino Quartz]

Traditionally, Dwarves are sturdier and stockier than humans. Also, I'm pretty sure the concept of Dwarves as a fantastical humanoid race separate from humans predates the use of the word "dwarf" to mean a human with dwarfism.

[Kish]

...D&D's D&D? Oh I get it--Deities and Demigods.

The answer is that that's not really a relevant book to OotS.

[Shining Wrath]

This discussion of gladii and battle has contained several examples of smart interesting people expressing themselves like immature know-it-alls.

Back when people were intimately familiar with this sort of combat they wrote stuff about it. And they emphasized strength. It's in the Bible, the Illiad, et cetera. That doesn't mean dexterity was irrelevant, but a guy like Richard Lionheart who could cut a man in two with a longsword was terrifying. At one of the battles in the Crusades Richard met a Saracen officer's charge and cut through the shield, the arm, and the body with a single blow. That battle ended with Richard in between the two armies and no one willing to ride forth and challenge him.

[JumboWheat01]

You know, how come they're called Dwarves yet are Medium sized?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in 2e, weren't Dwarves part of the "shorty" group alongside Gnomes and Halflings?


Anyhoo, a probable idea, Dwarves are stereotypically "warrior guys." Warriors need to use a large range of large and heavy weaponry, which would be unavailable to them if they were in the same size category that Gnomes and Halflings are in (who are more stereotypically "magic guys" and "thief guys" who don't use such big weapons.) Thus, Dwarves were set into the Medium category to wield those big heavy weapons like the manly men (and manly women) that they are. But yet, they have a slower walking speed, like shorties, and are clearly shorter in height, so they're kinda half-Small, half-Medium.

[Kish]

Formal size categories were only added with 3ed.

Dwarves are called dwarves because they're shorter than humans, not because they're smaller overall. They've been significantly larger than gnomes or halflings for a long time.

[hroþila]

Dwarves are called dwarves because Tolkien obvs.

[Avianmosquito]

This discussion of gladii and battle has contained several examples of smart interesting people expressing themselves like immature know-it-alls.

Back when people were intimately familiar with this sort of combat they wrote stuff about it. And they emphasized strength. It's in the Bible, the Illiad, et cetera. That doesn't mean dexterity was irrelevant, but a guy like Richard Lionheart who could cut a man in two with a longsword was terrifying. At one of the battles in the Crusades Richard met a Saracen officer's charge and cut through the shield, the arm, and the body with a single blow. That battle ended with Richard in between the two armies and no one willing to ride forth and challenge him.

So, we come with reality, and you come with ancient propaganda stories of blatantly impossible feats. Great choice. I shan't talk about the terribly written fantasy story you listed because it's against the rules, but Richard the Lionheart never actually did that, it was a propaganda tale told to raise the moral of the crusaders, and since you mentioned the Illiad I'm guessing you're talking about Achilles, whose superpower was immortality, inspired by the real man surviving many situations, and by some accounts many wounds, that should have killed him before he got a poison arrow in the heel while climbing the walls of Troy and died of an infection, which seemed so absurd the people were sure it needed a supernatural explanation. Never mind the fact that this guy bothered wearing armour, just about everywhere BUT his heel, clearly he's immortal everywhere but that heel. Yeah, people are so ****ing smart.