D&D V6 - Edition jokes don't really make sense anymore - Games

[QUOTE=Nerts;51696034]4e dragonborn are terrible, they don't have tails, don't know if 5e do but they're also terrible because they don't have boobs.[/QUOTE] Fuck D&D, waiting for WoD to have a lizard people series.

We should go back to 3.5e dragonborn IMO, oviposition fetish fuel and all.

We should actually go ahead to 6e. Fix all the glaring oversights like dragonkin not having boobs.

I'm just trying to figure out how I can make her not have Krogan proportions since dragonborn are just inherently large

It's over, it's done. It came apart at the end, we haven't played in weeks, haven't played consecutively and consistently in months, half the party dropped at the very end, and it's been weighing on my mind constantly to conclude it. But it's done. I pulled the plug, and gave it a conclusion with one final post. Rest in pieces, Magical Burst. December 2nd, 2013 - January 19th, 2017.

[QUOTE=The Jack;51695893]I really hate how DnD does puncture/slashing/blunt damage, or how GM's do it. Ok, So I hit the skeleton with the flat of my blade. GM. It does more damage! That's not how it works you hack.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;51695943]I always rule that if you're making an attack with a different damage type than is typical, it functions as an improvised weapon. Whats the difference between smashing with the pommel of a sword vs a stick?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=The Jack;51696017]Smashing with the pommel is like a better punch. Later hilts and the pomel were built with the mind that they too could be used as a weapon. Using the handle part of the sword is a part of swordsmanship. But I was more thinking that the forces of physics mean that hitting someone with the blade of an axe is always more damaging than hitting with the flat or the back. (unless you bat someone into something more harmful, or your axe is angled horribly), and at best you'd hit them with the back if you thought the axe would be damaged if you used the front. A war pick's spike is always better than a featureless club.[/QUOTE] Either way it doesn't make a whole lot of sense that a sword is weak against skeletons. Swords not breaking bones is a hilarious joke.

[QUOTE=elowin;51697401]Either way it doesn't make a whole lot of sense that a sword is weak against skeletons. Swords not breaking bones is a hilarious joke.[/QUOTE] Well, you know, here's what you do: You hold down a skelly and rip it's hands off. Bam, instant mobile sword rack. Just gotta hope that they won't bite/kick.

[QUOTE=Aperture fan;51696445]It's over, it's done. It came apart at the end, we haven't played in weeks, haven't played consecutively and consistently in months, half the party dropped at the very end, and it's been weighing on my mind constantly to conclude it. But it's done. I pulled the plug, and gave it a conclusion with one final post. Rest in pieces, Magical Burst. December 2nd, 2013 - January 19th, 2017.[/QUOTE] You're free now

[QUOTE=elowin;51697401]Either way it doesn't make a whole lot of sense that a sword is weak against skeletons. Swords not breaking bones is a hilarious joke.[/QUOTE] You're not just hitting some walking pile of bones, they're infused with magic hence why they can actually walk without crumbling. Depends on how heavy your sword is but hitting something like that with a sharp edge won't inflict as much damage compared to something that is blunt/pointed and very heavy.

[QUOTE=TrannyAlert;51697862]You're not just hitting some walking pile of bones, they're infused with magic hence why they can actually walk without crumbling. Depends on how heavy your sword is but hitting something like that with a sharp edge won't inflict as much damage compared to something that is blunt/pointed and very heavy.[/QUOTE] Swords are pretty damn heavy mate. Like most swords aren't designed to lacerate you to death.

[QUOTE=UzumakaiPatch;51698046]Swords are pretty damn heavy mate. Like most swords aren't designed to lacerate you to death.[/QUOTE] They're apparently on average only about 2.5 to 3.5 pounds, with the larger ones only being a few pounds more than that. [url]http://www.thearma.org/essays/weights.htm[/url]

You've got your own weight/strength behind the blow, and you've also got things like leverage and whatnot. Like, I get a weakness to blunt, but a resistance to slashing is silly. (And also the piercing of a spear...)

[QUOTE=UzumakaiPatch;51698046]Swords are pretty damn heavy mate. Like most swords aren't designed to lacerate you to death.[/QUOTE] General swords would be useless if they were that heavy... The edge is also sharp which would reduce the overall damage inflicted through blunt trauma Also is everyone forgetting these are magical skeletons??? Would be shit if you could just kick them over and snap their tibias.

Except kicks would be blunt damage, so you can already do that incredibly easily because they're weak to that, magic or not

Skeletons are solid, unlike flesh. A cut will cause things to break in half. A blunt object will cause them to probably break in two to four pieces. Probably. A puncturing weapon will cause a break between a hole and several pieces, but I can see the issue of an arrow just damaging a single rib in an entire skeleton. Still, an arrow through the head could break the whole skull. There's no flesh to encapsulate everything and absorb blunt force. Now animated plate armour. That's real problematic.

You always need to remember physics in this case. Heavy broad clubs with lots of inertia work well at shattering a skeleton, but if you smacked one with a downward strike with your shortsword the amount of force applied on such a small area the blade covers would definitely tear into the guy. Now, rifles and stabby weapons like rapiers and spears are at a disadvantage here. Can't exactly pierce a skellington as easy as you can slip through him.

[QUOTE=elowin;51697401]Either way it doesn't make a whole lot of sense that a sword is weak against skeletons. Swords not breaking bones is a hilarious joke.[/QUOTE] Especially swords like zweihanders, I don't care how much non plate armor you got, that things gonna break some bones. In a nutshell: european style swords, good against skeletons. your honorable katana folded a billion fucking times? Useless against skeletons, and probably against anything mail/scale or above :v: . Piercing weapons such as spears/rapiers/estocs/dirks, gonna fuck over people with mail and plate, and lightly annoy skeletons.

[QUOTE=Anderan;51698057]They're apparently on average only about 2.5 to 3.5 pounds, with the larger ones only being a few pounds more than that. [url]http://www.thearma.org/essays/weights.htm[/url][/QUOTE] 3 pounds is by no means light by the standards of medieval weaponry, a one handed mace is going to have a weight very similar to that. A quick google gives me a range of around 2 to 3 pounds for most maces which would make them slightly lighter even, but of course that weight is more focused towards the end of it. Swords, and especially swords used in medieval and renaissance Europe, really hurt just as much due to the blunt force of the impact as they do due to the sharp edge. When properly using a knightly sword you're not cutting clean through things like you would cut food. You're striking your foe with it, putting all your weight and strength behind the blow, with the edge serving to direct all that force into a single point. And all that force hitting a single point of one of your bones is absolutely going to break it.

I always figured you were less shattering your local bone boy's femur and more just knocking him apart entirely

Without all that pesky meat in the way you could probably shatter a ribcage with one or two good hits.

End of the day, blunt is better for killing skeletons, no argument about it. The DR on the other hand could be swapped out for vulnerability to Blunt instead

I like to think that skeletons being resistant to swords and piercing is less because their bones don't break and more because the attack goes right through them. See: [img]http://i.imgur.com/cSAtyYl.jpg[/img]

That's one sassy skeleton.

/why doesn't plate give me immunity to slashing, and resistance for everything else. I'm just pissed off that I've never had a good DnD GM. The skeleton's are a really minor problem. Like the game obviously has potential but they've both put a lot of bullshit into it.

What happens if you throw milk at a skeleton? Does it become stronger?

[QUOTE=The Jack;51699347]/why doesn't plate give me immunity to slashing, and resistance for everything else. I'm just pissed off that I've never had a good DnD GM. The skeleton's are a really minor problem. Like the game obviously has potential but they've both put a lot of bullshit into it.[/QUOTE] Because that wouldn't be balanced? It's not supposed to be realistic.

[QUOTE=Aperture fan;51699057]I like to think that skeletons being resistant to swords and piercing is less because their bones don't break and more because the attack goes right through them. See: [img]http://i.imgur.com/cSAtyYl.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] "Okay, first of all, you're being a huge dick right now."

[QUOTE=The Jack;51699347]/why doesn't plate give me immunity to slashing, and resistance for everything else.[/QUOTE] Because you have AC.

Keep in mind too, the ways you can kill a living human(oid) are not the same ways you can kill a skeleton. A living creature usually requires blood or an equivalent and organs to operate its body. Cutting off or reducing the flow of blood to those organs will weaken and eventually kill a living creature. A skeleton does not have those problems. It's held together by magic, so unless its got some kind focal point for that magic, say a crystal in the skull, the only way to destroy it is to completely remove its structural integrity and cause it to fall apart. For this, a mace is better, because it breaks and shatters bones, thus reducing integrity, whereas a cutting weapon would blunt itself on hard bones. [editline]20th January 2017[/editline] Zombies are different because the magic that raises a zombie usually works by restoring a very limited amount of brain functionality, hence the head removal rule present in most zombie fiction. A slashing weapon can remove the head with relative ease, while a blunt weapon can bash the brain to mush and render it ineffective.

A longsword is more than enough to "remove its structural integrity", especially since it focuses a lot of kinetic energy into a thin, but long area. The problem you have is that you think of western swords as slashing weapons, they're not, they're chopping weapons. [QUOTE=Alsojames;51700634] Zombies are different because the magic that raises a zombie usually works by restoring a very limited amount of brain functionality, hence the head removal rule present in most zombie fiction. A slashing weapon can remove the head with relative ease, while a blunt weapon can bash the brain to mush and render it ineffective.[/QUOTE] Also please do tell me that even if you used a slashing weapon, how did this stop being a valid tactic with a skeleton, you still have to cut through the spinal cord to behead someone.