Spiryt
2008-03-21, 02:29 PM
I was wondering about one thing.
Picks and Scimitar - they have same base damage, but severely differs in case of critical hit.
It's kind generally the trope in D&D that "lighter" and "swifter" (whatever that means) blades : rapiers, elven thinblades et cetera crits more frequently. Picks (and some other stuff like Goliath hammer, but it's rather specific) crits heavier.
But should it be that way, logicaly?
Let's consider scimitars and picks.
1. Pick was a weapon that was simply designed to concetrate force of blow in one small point. It generally was able to beat a hole in plate armor.
If so it certainly was penetrating the flesh completely with ease (although was it? It was after all designed to penetrate 2-3mm of very hard matter, not 30 -50cm of rather soft one), so it would be rather difficult to not hit something critically - even light strike can harm internal organs.
On the other side, even if it go all the way trough, what can happen? Even if strike is incredibly powerful, attacker cannot do anything more than pierce the target completely, leaving no very big hole (the very point of pick was to be rather thin). Where's the x4 damage?
2. Scimitar, on the other hand, is a sharp, curved blade. Generally such blades, when used in propitious conditions, cuts the flesh widely. On the other hand delivering such strike against moving opponent is not easy, and when opponent have armor (which pick penetrates) situation is hopeless. One must aim for the unprotected places (if exist) Where's the 18-20 range?
Yes, I know that if scimitar have x4 multiplier, axe should have even more, and this thread is potentially incredibly geeky.
But just for fun I wanted to ask you:
Wouldn't it be logical, to make
scimitar - 1k6 20/ x4
and pick - 1k6 18 -20/ x 2
Yes, I'm bored.
Picks and Scimitar - they have same base damage, but severely differs in case of critical hit.
It's kind generally the trope in D&D that "lighter" and "swifter" (whatever that means) blades : rapiers, elven thinblades et cetera crits more frequently. Picks (and some other stuff like Goliath hammer, but it's rather specific) crits heavier.
But should it be that way, logicaly?
Let's consider scimitars and picks.
1. Pick was a weapon that was simply designed to concetrate force of blow in one small point. It generally was able to beat a hole in plate armor.
If so it certainly was penetrating the flesh completely with ease (although was it? It was after all designed to penetrate 2-3mm of very hard matter, not 30 -50cm of rather soft one), so it would be rather difficult to not hit something critically - even light strike can harm internal organs.
On the other side, even if it go all the way trough, what can happen? Even if strike is incredibly powerful, attacker cannot do anything more than pierce the target completely, leaving no very big hole (the very point of pick was to be rather thin). Where's the x4 damage?
2. Scimitar, on the other hand, is a sharp, curved blade. Generally such blades, when used in propitious conditions, cuts the flesh widely. On the other hand delivering such strike against moving opponent is not easy, and when opponent have armor (which pick penetrates) situation is hopeless. One must aim for the unprotected places (if exist) Where's the 18-20 range?
Yes, I know that if scimitar have x4 multiplier, axe should have even more, and this thread is potentially incredibly geeky.
But just for fun I wanted to ask you:
Wouldn't it be logical, to make
scimitar - 1k6 20/ x4
and pick - 1k6 18 -20/ x 2
Yes, I'm bored.