Spiked Chain

[Stephen_E]

Yeah, I'd be much happier if the spiked chain did bludgeoning damage.


I'd be happier if the Battleaxe and Great Sword did both Bludgeoning and slashing damage, but given we're talking about that highly unrealistic combat system called DnD combat (this applies to all editions) I'm not going to get my knickers into a twist and frankly don't even consider it worth houseruling.

The simple truth is that DnD combat does a particuly useless job of handling the interaction of weapons and armour (1st Ed made a haldhearted attempt with the weapon/armour attack modifiers). There are systems like rolemaster that make a serious attempt, not without problems, but at least some of the problems certain weapons have with some armours are represented.

To paraphrase what someone once said "if I wanted a realistic representation of combat I'd get armed and armoured and fight it out!". DnD combat is simply a system for killing enemy/monsters. Any resemblance to RW is purely coincidental.

Stephen

[WhiteHarness]

Stephen, you're making "Best" the enemy of "Good."

Just because it's impossible to shoehorn D&D combat into a completely accurate simulation of real combat doesn't mean we should give up any and all pretense at verisimilitude.

[Xocelot]

It's an exotic weapon, meaning that you have to train to control it well. But that training means that you can control it and don't have to worry about hitting allys.

[Matthew]

Actually, all it means is that you no longer suffer a -4 penalty to hit when using it:


Exotic Weapon Proficiency [General]
Choose a type of exotic weapon. You understand how to use that type of exotic weapon in combat.
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +1 (plus Str 13 for bastard sword or dwarven waraxe).
Benefit: You make attack rolls with the weapon normally.
Normal: A character who uses a weapon with which he or she is not proficient takes a -4 penalty on attack rolls.
Special: You can gain Exotic Weapon Proficiency multiple times. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of exotic weapon. Proficiency with the bastard sword or the dwarven waraxe has an additional prerequisite of Str 13. A fighter may select Exotic Weapon Proficiency as one of his fighter bonus feats.

[Kaelik]

Actually, all it means is that you no longer suffer a -4 penalty to hit when using it:

Yes, but if you are going to be overly literal and RAW then you just point out that nowhere in the rules does it say that you would hit allies.

Of course, context is important, and it is clear what he means from context.

[tainsouvra]

Actually, all it means is that you no longer suffer a -4 penalty to hit when using it: I'm pretty sure we're all aware of the mechanics. I believe the point was that someone who was extensively trained in the use of a weapon would know how to not accidentally hit someone who was nowhere near the target he was aiming at, which is a pretty darn fair conclusion especially considering how the closest real-world weapons (earlier in the thread) were used.

[Matthew]

Well, actually, you could say the very same thing about Long Swords, Flails and any other weapon you care to, which is to say you need to be Proficient in them to not get -4 AB. As far as hitting allies, there's zero difference between any of the listed weapons. That's not being overly literally RAW, that's just stating the RAW.

You can imagine it means something else, but you can do the same for any weapon going.

[tainsouvra]

As far as hitting allies, there's zero difference between any of the listed weapons. Indeed--you can't do it accidentally, for the spiked chain or any other listed weapon.

[Matthew]

Which is what I was saying.

[tainsouvra]

Which is what I was saying. Ah, then I think you needed a little more explanation in your post. It came across as implying that the exotic proficiency wouldn't eliminate the chance to hit an ally rather than a declaration that, with or without the proficiency, you couldn't hit an ally in the first place and that such a chance shouldn't be added.

[Matthew]

Fair enough.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Matthew vs. Spiked Chain!


FIGHT!

[Matthew]

An Animated Spiked Chain versus a Commoner 1? Can I choose my Weapon Proficiency?

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

An Animated Spiked Chain versus a Commoner 1? Can I choose my Weapon Proficiency?

It is not animated and I was sure you were an Expert. :smallwink:

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Will it be a Flawless Victory?

And if so, I don't want any wimping out with a Babality.

[Matthew]

I think I can take it, if it's not animated and nobody's using it against me; as an Expert, I might even be able to 'uncraft' it...

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

I think I can take it, if it's not animated and nobody's using it against me; as an Expert, I might even be able to 'uncraft' it...

Without hitting yourself or any party members? :smalltongue:


A little surprised by your reference Shala.... Windrider. :smallwink:

[Matthew]

I'm not sure I could defeat with just kicks and avoid hitting any of my party members... Maybe if it's just me.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

A little surprised by your reference Shala.... Windrider. :smallwink:
Well, as a Mage of Transformation, I find transforming someone into a baby rather bland and uninteristing. And as a Mage of Lightning, I think the proper way to go about things is to Zap 'em. So I'm of two minds on the subject, but both minds don't care for Babalities.

Or was there something else surprising about it?

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Well, as a Mage of Transformation, I find transforming someone into a baby rather bland and uninteristing. And as a Mage of Lightning, I think the proper way to go about things is to Zap 'em. So I'm of two minds on the subject, but both minds don't care for Babalities.

Or was there something else surprising about it?

No, you were right on the gold pieces. Not surprising, since you actually read what people write instead of just spewing out random blah blah. :smallwink:


Ohh and Matthew, don't hurt your tootsies. :smallamused:

[Shhalahr Windrider]

No, you were right on the gold pieces. Not surprising, since you actually read what people write instead of just spewing out random blah blah. :smallwink:
Well, I try. :smallbiggrin:

[Matthew]

Matthew (Expert 1) AB 0, AC 10, HP 4,
Attributes: Strength 10, Dexterity 10, Constitution 10, Intelligence 11, Wisdom 11, Charisma 11,
Feats: Skill Focus (Something or other), Skill Focus (Something or other)
Skills: 7
Equipment: Club




Spiked Chain
Hardness: 10
Hit Points: 5
Break DC: 26


So... since the Spiked Chain automatically loses Initiative and cannot take any Actions, I get to attack it round after round with my club. Since it has a hardness of 10, I'll need to roll a Critical Hit and a 6 on Damage to reduce it's Hit Points . Not sure what I would need to confirm the hit. If I take a full round to attack, I apparently get an auto hit, but I need that critical. Hmmn. Lord Silvanos, what's your ruling on this?

[Kaelik]

I may be wrong but I think if you coup de grace you auto-crit. Given that it shouldn't be too hard.

Or you could just buy a special metal saw, ignores hardness of metal.

[Matthew]

Well, the Spiked chain hasn't got any equipment, so I didn't think it fair to use anything that had a cost...

Good point about the coup de grace; have to wait and see what Lord Silvanos thinks.

[Stephen_E]

Stephen, you're making "Best" the enemy of "Good."

Just because it's impossible to shoehorn D&D combat into a completely accurate simulation of real combat doesn't mean we should give up any and all pretense at verisimilitude.

When you using a system that make NO pretense of reality/verisimiltude, yes, you should give up trying to make a pretense of verisimiltude been important beyond the a matter of optional personal preference.

If DnD made even a halfhearted attempt you would have weak argument for the general game, but since DnD doesn't even go that far you don't really have a leg to stand on regarding DnD combat and verisimiltude, beyond houserules for specific groups (I/We don;t like something is always a decent reason for houserules fo any specific group).

Stephen

[Stephen_E]

It is not animated and I was sure you were an Expert. :smallwink:


I also dispute Matthew been only lev 1. I thinks he's just trying to sucker you into giving him more XP.:smallwink:

Stephen

[Shadowdweller]

2) The restriction against Clerics spilling blood is a particular bugbear of mine and I have always opposed it as silly (well, for as long as I have fully understood the meaning, anyway). In 1e they were even able to use Lucern Hammers! That said, I recognse it as a supposed 'balancing' aspect of those previous editions, intended to restrict access to the 'better' or 'magical' weapons (most were swords on the tables).
Silly though it may be, this one actually has an historical basis...

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

I may be wrong but I think if you coup de grace you auto-crit. Given that it shouldn't be too hard.

You can take a full round action to ensure that you hit, but...


Immunities: Objects are immune to nonlethal damage and to critical hits.


I also dispute Matthew been only lev 1. I thinks he's just trying to sucker you into giving him more XP.


Well he would need to be level 4 to change that and the chain would also need to represent a challenge.

However, as an NPC-class the non-elite array might be more appropriate. (Just ask Shhalahr Windrider if you don't take my word for it.)

[Hagentai]

As we all know, you can wield a spiked chain and strike opponents both adjacent and 10 feet away in the same round.

However, the one DM i've seen that actually included spiked chains in his campaign, required that no ally get within 10 feet of the chain wielder. If they did, they would mess up the chain guys attack routine and prevent him from attacking.
Now it seems to me that was my DM being an idiot, because what about wielders of polearms? Whips? Or even just a guy with a sword. Wouldn't his rule mean that allies could not fight shoulder to shoulder?
Opinions

Are you a sheep? Do you need people to tell you your dms a moron? Make up your own mind.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Hagentai vs. Billy Goat.

[Matthew]

Silly though it may be, this one actually has an historical basis...

No, it actually doesn't, though it is often repeated; that is what is so silly about it. To the best of my knowledge, there is no medieval canon law that forces Clerics to fight only with blunt weapons to prevent the shedding of blood. Clerics were not allowed to shed blood, period, or bear weapons. That's not to say that they didn't, we know that they did, but when they did, they fought in whatever manner seemed suitable to them. Perhaps the prime example is the depiction of Bishop Turpin in La Chanson de Roland.
The one instance always cited is Odo of Bayeux, who is depicted with a mace like object on the Bayeux Tapestry; what is often overlooked is that William the Conqueror is riding right next to him holding the very same object, which is usually interpreted as a symbol of leadership. A nineteenth century historian, whose name currently escapes me (Freeman?), suggested that Odo bore the mace to prevent shedding blood, and people have been running with that idea ever since. David R. Bates, in his article, 'The Character and Career of Odo, Bishop of Bayeux (1049/50-1097)' in Speculum, Vol. 50, No. 1. (Jan., 1975), pp. 1-20, refuted the idea on page 6. As far as I know, it is well accepted.
On the other hand, if you have some long overlooked evidence, I would be very interested to see it.

Lord Silvanos: Darn, that's a good point. I knew I was overlooking something. Hmmn, how to come up with 11 points of Damage, then? I suppose I could always use a Great Axe on the basis that the Spiked Chain is worth 25 GP...

[Shhalahr Windrider]

However, as an NPC-class the non-elite array might be more appropriate. (Just ask Shhalahr Windrider if you don't take my word for it.)
Still goin' on about thaaat?

Y'know, I have missed a crucial word or phrase now and then myself. Just don't know if it was ever in Simple Q&A. :smalltongue:


I suppose I could always use a Great Axe on the basis that the Spiked Chain is worth 25 GP...
And the best part is you don't even have to worry about non-proficiency if you use the auto-hit clause. :smallbiggrin:

[hr]Regarding Clerics and bludgeons:

I'd imagine folks living in a time and place where that sort of violence was relatively common would realize that bludgeons did absolutely squat for preventing the spilling of blood. That would make it worthless for even the lip service it supposedly was.

[Matthew]

And the best part is you don't even have to worry about non-proficiency if you use the auto-hit clause. :smallbiggrin:

Very true. I wonder, if I knock it down to half its Hit Points, when the Sunder DC is halved, is it possible for me to use an Unarmed Strike to make a Sunder Attack?


I'd imagine folks living in a time and place where that sort of violence was relatively common would realize that bludgeons did absolutely squat for preventing the spilling of blood. That would make it worthless for even the lip service it supposedly was.

I would like to think so, but then there is apparently at least one instance of a Soldier Saint instructing his men to reverse their weapons and use the flats of their swords, so that their enemies would not be fatally wounded. Saint Gerald, I think, though he was not actually a member of the clergy himself. More discussion of the Cleric as an archetype can be found here (http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3824).

[Mike_G]

A nineteenth century historian, whose name currently escapes me (Freeman?), suggested that Odo bore the mace to prevent shedding blood, and people have been running with that idea ever since.


If so, Freeman never saw anybody hit in the head with a bat. They bleed nicely.

If you don't want to shed blood, your only options are to strangle or drown your enemy.

So, Clerics should only carry a silk scarf or bucket of holy water.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Very true. I wonder, if I knock it down to half its Hit Points, when the Sunder DC is halved, is it possible for me to use an Unarmed Strike to make a Sunder Attack?

You are not strong enough. :smalltongue:


If an item has lost half or more of its hit points, the DC to break it drops by 2.



Still goin' on about thaaat?


It is a double standard.
I find it much easier to forgive others for their mistakes than it is to forgive myself. :smallsmile:

[Shhalahr Windrider]

I would like to think so, but then there is apparently at least one instance of a Soldier Saint instructing his men to reverse their weapons and use the flats of their swords, so that their enemies would not be fatally wounded.
But he wasn't under the impression that enemy wouldn't bleed, right?

There's a difference between "Use this type of weapon in a particular way so we don't kill them," and "Use this weapon 'cause it doesn't make them bleed, even though it really does."

One's the sign of a fellow interested in taking prisoners. The other's a sign of a fellow with severe cognitive problems.


It is a double standard.
I find it much easier to forgive others for their mistakes than it is to forgive myself. :smallsmile:
Not that uncommon of a trait, I hear. :smalltongue:

[Premier]

But he wasn't under the impression that enemy wouldn't bleed, right?

There's a difference between "Use this type of weapon in a particular way so we don't kill them," and "Use this weapon 'cause it doesn't make them bleed, even though it really does."

One's the sign of a fellow interested in taking prisoners. The other's a sign of a fellow with severe cognitive problems.

Emphasis on latter. I mean, let's face it, many of these holy folks were total nutjobs. Hell, someone did get the idea of sending a Crusader army to the Holy Land composed of nothing but children, because their innocence will bring them victory...

[Shhalahr Windrider]

I mean, let's face it, many of these holy folks were total nutjobs.
True. I made a mistake I criticize many philosophers for: Assuming rational thought where there is none. :smallwink:

[Matthew]

You are not strong enough. :smalltongue:

Darn, misread that part. Oh well, I suppose I would have to rely on the Great Axe to win. I count it as a victory for the 1D12!


But he wasn't under the impression that enemy wouldn't bleed, right?

There's a difference between "Use this type of weapon in a particular way so we don't kill them," and "Use this weapon 'cause it doesn't make them bleed, even though it really does."

One's the sign of a fellow interested in taking prisoners. The other's a sign of a fellow with severe cognitive problems.


Not that uncommon of a trait, I hear. :smalltongue:

No idea, though, I should point out this is likely retroactive hagiography, the idea being to minimise the amount of violence done by the hero saint.


Emphasis on latter. I mean, let's face it, many of these holy folks were total nutjobs. Hell, someone did get the idea of sending a Crusader army to the Holy Land composed of nothing but children, because their innocence will bring them victory...

Apparently, this is a common misconception. The 'Children's Crusade' was probably not actually composed of children and had no military objectives. The Wiki Article seems to have it right for once: The Children's Crusade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children's_Crusade)

[horseboy]

No, it actually doesn't, though it is often repeated; that is what is so silly about it. To the best of my knowledge, there is no medieval canon law that forces Clerics to fight only with blunt weapons to prevent the shedding of blood. Clerics were not allowed to shed blood, period, or bear weapons. That's not to say that they didn't, we know that they did, but when they did, they fought in whatever manner seemed suitable to them. Perhaps the prime example is the depiction of Bishop Turpin in La Chanson de Roland.

I always thought it was based on the whole "blood is not kosher" thing. Sure, they're going to bleed massively internally, and some external, but the priest isn't going to be covered in arterial spray like an edge weapon would.

[Shadowdweller]

The one instance always cited is Odo of Bayeux, who is depicted with a mace like object on the Bayeux Tapestry; what is often overlooked is that William the Conqueror is riding right next to him holding the very same object, which is usually interpreted as a symbol of leadership. A nineteenth century historian, whose name currently escapes me (Freeman?), suggested that Odo bore the mace to prevent shedding blood, and people have been running with that idea ever since.
I've heard the same thing ascribed to others as well, for instance: Geoffrey, Bishop of Coutances (also depicted in the tapestry carrying a not-so-symbolic cudgel), another one of William the Conquerer's allies. The short of it is that I am not a medieval scholar, and I've no idea what the sourcing of these claims are. They may very well be "urban myths". However, fictitious or not, the point is that there is actually some popular basis. Unlike, for instance, the Druid "moon-like" scimitar inanity.

[Matthew]

I always thought it was based on the whole "blood is not kosher" thing. Sure, they're going to bleed massively internally, and some external, but the priest isn't going to be covered in arterial spray like an edge weapon would.

Here's what it says in the 1e PHB:


This class of character bears a certain resemblance to religious orders of knighthood of medieval times. The cleric has an eight-sided die (d8) per level to determine how many hit points (q.v.) he or she has. The cleric is dedicated to a deity, or deities, and at the same time a skilled combatant at arms. The cleric can be of any alignment (q.v.) save (true) neutral (see Druid hereafter) alignment, depending upon that of the deity the cleric serves. All clerics have certain holy symbols which aid them and give power to their spells. All are likewise forbidden to use edged and/or pointed weapons which shed blood. All clerics have their own spells, bestowed upon them by their deity for correct and diligent prayers and deeds.

As you can see, though the Military Orders are cited, the actual prohibition is itself unrelated. There is no reason given for why the Cleric is forbidden from using weapons that shed blood, we're left to decide for ourselves.

Here's what it says in the 2e PHB:


The cleric class is similar to certain religious orders of knighthood of the Middle Ages: the Teutonic Knights, the Knights Templars, and Hospitalers. These orders combined military and religious training with a code of protection and service. Members were trained as knights and devoted themselves to the service of the church. These orders were frequently found on the outer edges of the Christian world, either on the fringe of the wilderness or in war-torn lands. Archbishop Turpin (of The Song of Roland) is an example of such a cleric. Similar orders can also be found in other lands, such as the sohei of Japan.
Clerics are sturdy soldiers, although their selection of weapons is limited. They can wear any type of armor and use any shield. Standard clerics, being reluctant to shed blood or spread violence, are allowed to use only blunt, bludgeoning weapons. They can use a fair number of magical items including priest scrolls, most potions and rings, some wands and rods, staves, armor, shields, and magical versions of any weapons allowed by their order.

The Military Orders are again here unrelated to any prohibition against clergy carrying edged or pointed weapons. An explanation is here provided for why they are limited to blunt weapons, but it is not very convincing, to my mind.
The 2e Complete Priest's Handbook is notably silent on the subject of the why and wherefores of limited weapon choices beyond it simply being the case that some religions restrict weaponry available.
I don't know what it said in OD&D with regard to the prohibition.


I've heard the same thing ascribed to others as well, for instance: Geoffrey, Bishop of Coutances (also depicted in the tapestry carrying a not-so-symbolic cudgel), another one of William the Conquerer's allies. The short of it is that I am not a medieval scholar, and I've no idea what the sourcing of these claims are. They may very well be "urban myths". However, fictitious or not, the point is that there is actually some popular basis. Unlike, for instance, the Druid "moon-like" scimitar inanity.

That sounds suspiciously like the same source to me. I don't recall his depiction on the Bayeux Tapestry, but it would be interesting to know where you heard this being ascribed to him. As far as I am aware, this is all in the realm of (very) popular myth, which is quite different to something having a historical basis.
These are the images I am aware of in the Tapestry:

William with cudgel (http://www.hastings1066.com/bayeux9.shtml)
William and unidentified individual, both bearing cudgels/maces (http://www.hastings1066.com/bayeux26.shtml)
William again (http://www.hastings1066.com/bayeux27.shtml)
A mace is thrown by the Saxons (http://www.hastings1066.com/bayeux29.shtml)
William and Odo bearing cudgels (http://www.hastings1066.com/bayeux32.shtml)
A group of Saxons bearing maces or clubs flee the field (http://www.hastings1066.com/bayeux35.shtml)

Based on these images, a historian put forward the idea that Odo bore a mace to avoid shedding blood, which was later extended as a supposition to the clergy in general. Problems:

1) It's not clear that the identified Clergy are engaged in combat

2) There is no indication as to the reason they are carrying maces or clubs

3) They are not the only ones carrying maces or clubs

4) We have more instances of clergy fighting with regular weaponry than not, and in epic, romance and chronicle. Indeed, we have explicit instances.

5) The clergy are forbidden from bearing all weapons of war, not just the ones that shed blood.

6) When the clergy are exempted from that condition, as with the Military Orders, they fight entirely as regular combatants.

As far as I can tell, Dungeons & Dragons has done more to popularise this than anything else.

[Renx]

I never understood why the ogre in the comic doesn't get attacked when Roy charges... can anyone explain that?

[Shadowdweller]

That sounds suspiciously like the same source to me. I don't recall his depiction on the Bayeux Tapestry, but it would be interesting to know where you heard this being ascribed to him. As far as I am aware, this is all in the realm of (very) popular myth, which is quite different to something having a historical basis.I hope you will not take this the wrong way, but please understand that from my perspective, as an unknown, you personally have no more credibility on the subject matter than any popular myth. Let alone the singular supposed historian you are trying to refute.

Quite aside from which, if one is going to rail against silliness or inaccuracy in D&D there are FAR more glaring examples thereof. For instance: Subdual damage. No such analogue exists in RL, and in spite widespread media portrayal as something to be shrugged off, being "knocked out" actually entails a brain concussion. A type of injury that is frequently fatal.

[Matthew]

Well, I am not asking you to take my word for it. I have cited a Journal Article above that refutes the assertion (if you have access to Jstor, you can find it here: The Character and Career of Odo of Bayeux (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0038-7134(197501)50%3A1%3C1%3ATCACOO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-N)) and I have looked for information to support the claim that it is historical. The onus is really upon you to show that there is a historical basis, if you see what I mean.

1) You say there is a historical basis.

2) I say there is not and cite the relevant journal article.

3) You remain unconvinced and claim that Geoffrey, Bishop of Coutances is also depicted on the Bayeux Tapestry holding a mace.

4) I present all images I can find on the tapestry that depict anyone holding a mace or mace like object.

5) You remain unconvinced.

There's not really much I can say until you cite a credible source that makes the claim that you do or present evidence that supports your assertion. Honestly, I have an open mind on the subject. I would be very interested to be presented with some actual evidence that substaniates what I currently regard as popular myth. All I can say is that all of the evidence I have ever seen suggests that the assertion is false.

As for the 'silliness of D&D'. That really has nothing to do with whether this is a myth or not. I am quite happy with the restriction as a game balancing mechanism (given that it actually does accomplish that end), it is the idea that it has a historical basis that I contest.

[Fhaolan]

I hope you will not take this the wrong way, but please understand that from my perspective, as an unknown, you personally have no more credibility on the subject matter than any popular myth. Let alone the singular supposed historian you are trying to refute.

Unfortunately, taking this stance creates the situation where no person has any credibility on any subject. From my perspective, Matthew is not an unknown, of course, so I am biased. I've read much of what Matthew has posted elsewhere in this forum on the topic of medieval scholarship, and have independantly verified his statements. As such, his credibility to me is much higher than this 'supposed historian'.

Not that my opinion should have any more weight in your mind than Matthew's does. :smallbiggrin:

Using the Bayeux Tapestry actually is a poor indicator of Odo's actions in that invasion, as he was the one who paid for it's creation. Using a man's own political propiganda to prove he did something seems a bit... twitchy to me. :smallsmile:

In any case, people do see to be a bit confused on this subject. Gygax and company, when writing up the Cleric class mentions several times that it is modeled after the Knights Templar and Hospitaller.

Gygax however made a mistake, and confused together several different individuals by the name of Odo and the legends behind them. Odo de St. Amand was grandmaster of the Knights Templar, and a perfect model of the Cleric class as Gygax outlined it. Odo of Bayeux is the one that commisioned the Bayeux Tapestry, and was reputed to have padded his mace with wool to prevent 'spill'. (As a note, the word 'spill' has changed since this particular Odo's time. Odo apparantly intepreted the churches doctrine against spill to mean that as long as the blood didn't spray onto himself, he was fine.) However, that last story might have actually belonged to Odo the Severe, also known as the Abott of Battle, who was Archbishop of Cantebury at one point, and you can guess by his nicknames what *he* was like.


Quite aside from which, if one is going to rail against silliness or inaccuracy in D&D there are FAR more glaring examples thereof. For instance: Subdual damage. No such analogue exists in RL, and in spite widespread media portrayal as something to be shrugged off, being "knocked out" actually entails a brain concussion. A type of injury that is frequently fatal.

Unforunately, this has come up before. Citing the various bizarre non-realistic aspects of D&D doesn't mean that everyone has to accept *all* the bizarre non-realistic aspects of D&D. Some people find some parts more irritating than other people do. It's a matter of personal perspective. I also tend to think along the lines of cost/benefit. Which parts can be changed with the least amount of my personal effort to relieve the most amount of my personal irritation. Weapon lists are something that I have a lot of personal experience and research around in RL, so it's something I naturally gravitate towards when looking at revising RPGs.

[Matthew]

That's an interesting possibilty, Fhaolan. I should probably mention that Odo of Bayeux, presumably getting on a bit by this point, also joined Robert of Normandy (disinherited son of William the Conqueror) on the First Crusade. I don't think he got very far before he died (Wiki says Palermo, 1097, which is quite interesting).

Where did you hear the story about his having padded his mace with wool? That's a new one on me.

[Fhaolan]

That's an interesting possibilty, Fhaolan. I should probably mention that Odo of Bayeux, presumably getting on a bit by this point, also joined Robert of Normandy (disinherited son of William the Conqueror) on the First Crusade. I don't think he got very far before he died (Wiki says Palermo, 1097, which is quite interesting).

Where did you hear the story about his having padded his mace with wool? That's a new one on me.

I've heard it in several places, but the one I can find an online link to is 'The Just War in the Middle Ages' by Fredrich Russell (http://books.google.com/books?id=EZYVf8h6YekC&pg=PA82&lpg=PA82&dq=odo+bayeux+bloodshed&source=web&ots=MK8NB2JHUI&sig=tQHEHLtrs-9nBry58X1NOk0yDL4).

Annoyingly enough, he, and all the other sources I've seen it it, mention it as 'the well-known story'. Well-known enough that they feel no need to cite sources for it, so I reached a dead end in tracking this one back.

[Matthew]

Oh well, definitely worth looking into. Frustrating that they don't say where they derived this information, though fairly typical of this line of inquiry. I'll keep it in mind.

[Charity]

Is it dead yet?

*pokes it with a toe*

[Matthew]

Is it dead yet?

*pokes it with a toe*


I took care of it with that Great Axe; here are the results:

{table=head] Round | Die Roll | Damage

1 |
10 |
0

2 |
6 |
0

3 |
3 |
0

4 |
6 |
0

5 |
12 |
2

6 |
4 |
0

7 |
6 |
0

8 |
9 |
0

9 |
5 |
0

10 |
4 |
0

11 |
10 |
0

12 |
10 |
0

13 |
4 |
0

14 |
8 |
0

15 |
10 |
0

16 |
8 |
0

17 |
10 |
0

18 |
8 |
0

19 |
6 |
0

20 |
10 |
0

21 |
11 |
1

22 |
7 |
0

23 |
2 |
0

24 |
1 |
0

25 |
9 |
0

26 |
4 |
0

27 |
11 |
1

28 |
11 |
1
[/table]

It took a bit longer than expected, but there you go. :smallwink:

Here is the passage from Wace's Roman de Rou (12th Century, translated)


"Then Duke William's brother, Odo, the good priest, the Bishop of Bayeux, galloped up and said to them: 'Stand fast! stand fast! be quiet and move not! fear nothing; for, if God please, we shall conquer yet.' So they took courage and rested where they were; and Odo returned galloping back to where the battle was most fierce, and was of great service on that day. He had put a hauberk on over a white aube, wide in the body, with the sleeve tight, and sat on a white horse, so that all might recognize him. In his hand he held a mace, and wherever he saw most need he held up and stationed the knights, and often urged them on to assault and strike the enemy."

and another:


"The French soldier looked at them and their bills and was sore alarmed, for he was afraid of losing his good horse, the best that he had, and would willingly have turned to some other quarter if it would not have looked like cowardice. He soon, however, recovered his courage, and, spurring his horse, gave him the bridle and galloped swiftly forward. Fearing the two bills, he raised his shield, and struck one of the Englishmen with his lance on the breast, so that the iron passed out at his back. At the moment that he fell the lance broke, and the Frenchman seized the mace that hung at his right side, and struck the other Englishman a blow that completely fractured his skull."

Project Gutenburg (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/10151/10151-h/10151-h.htm)

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Annoyingly enough, he, and all the other sources I've seen it it, mention it as 'the well-known story'. Well-known enough that they feel no need to cite sources for it, so I reached a dead end in tracking this one back.
Well, I've heard ten-thousand times over. That must mean everyone's heard it at least 20 times over. I mean, a story like that's just common sense, isn't it? </insufferably arrogant boor>


Is it dead yet?
Mace Story: I'm not dead yet! I feel happy! I feel happy!


I took care of it with that Great Axe; here are the results:
Hardness 10 and only 5 hit points?

I thought it was made of tougher stuff. :smallfrown:

[Matthew]

Well... it might have had more Hit Points. I was just going by the 'Chain' entry in the relevant section. I couldn't find any details for the Spiked Chaiin in particular.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

The entries are lacking, but since it is two-handed weapon made completely of metal it has at least 10 hp, so you are not quite done yet Matthew. :smalltongue:

[Matthew]

Darn, okay:

{table=head] Round | Die Roll | Damage

29 |
10 |
0

30 |
6 |
0

31 |
8 |
0

32 |
3 |
0

33 |
2 |
0

34 |
11 |
1

35 |
2 |
0

36 |
8 |
0

37 |
1 |
0

38 |
6 |
0

39 |
11 |
1

40 |
1 |
0

41 |
6 |
0

42 |
7 |
0

43 |
3 |
0

44 |
11 |
1

45 |
11 |
1

46 |
11 |
1

[/table]

Hah, hah! Take that, Spiked Chain!

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Very impressive. :smalltongue:

46 rounds to beat an inanimate defenseless opponent. :smallwink:

The Spiked Chain is no more!!

The consequence is that it will not be featured in 4E.

[Matthew]

Hah, hah! A glorious day for the simplicity of a Great Axe and the 1D12.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Hah, hah! A glorious day for the simplicity of a Great Axe and the 1D12.

Of course, I cannot guarantee that it won't be featured in a splat book at some point. :smallamused: