Weapon quirks, or the why this, not that thread

[robertthebard]

Ok, this has been bugging me since the very first time I opened the toolset; why is the save vs the stun property on a weapon a Will save? Seems to me, that if a large weapon is causing a stun, it should maybe be a Fort save..Along those same lines, I think that any large blunt weapon should have even a DC14 chance of stunning on hit. After all, if the DC represents a head shot, most of those weapons, such as a heavy flail, or a quarter staff, for example, would most likely hurt a bit, and could put you on a cloud for a couple of seconds.

[Stratos]

Well, if you could stun people with blunt weapons, then you should be able to decapitate people with swords. It would probably make the weapons a bit overpowered.

[robertthebard]

That property exists; vorpal. It is, however, handled wrong by the engine, as it is treated as death magic. Which is another peeve, vorpal is a weapon property, to do with the manufacture of the weapon, ie; it's so sharp that it can remove limbs, or a head, why is that death magic?

[Stratos]

Well, I was talking about decapitating, or maiming, more in general. Any sword or axe of the should be able to do that if it were to be realistic, but I think that would require a major overhaul of the DnD combat system. I mean, you wouldn't like your epic hero being decapitated by a goblin with a streak of luck.

[Nightowl2]

Doing a quick search through the 3.0 rules, all I could turn up regarding stunning was in relation to the Monk. The save vs. stunning fist is based on Fortitude. So it could be that Bioware just got that wrong, or maybe they decided to make a rule change (in which case, shame on them). It is certainly more sensible to have the stun save based on fortitude with regard to physical attacks.

As for the rest, yeah, it would be more realistic if heavy weapons like maces came with a stun chance, or edged weapons with sharpness/vorpal. But game balance does come into play here. Adding those abilities to ordinary weapons would grant too much power to both sides.


Nightowl2

[robertthebard]

Well, after further consideration, if there was a 2% chance of either, I think it would be fairly balanced. If somebody is strong enough to wield a heavy flail or quarterstaff type weapon effectively, there should be that chance. Perhaps base it on the str bonus, so a bonus of 2 would be a DC2 to save, and apply it, like vorpal, to critical hits. I guess, if you're going to do it that way, the DC14 would be fine. Make it a one round thing, and there is a percentage chance on the stun effect on weapons anyway, so I guess you essentially get two saves vs the effect, or maybe that's how incapacitated you really are; so a 75%/2 round stun would mean that you are only 75% out of it, for two rounds.

[Mozenwrathe]

Have you all forgotten your history lessons?
(id est: did you stop watching television or reading books?)

If you did not, then why did the makers of roleplaying games? Simply put, the answer many have already stated: making the weapons more realistic would make them also more powerful to yourself (not a bad thing) and your foes (always a bad thing when they outnumber you twenty to three). The problem with giving all weapons "logical properties" such as stun, ability drain (for a well-placed bo staff to the groin), and vorpal is that the foes in AD&D (and most other roleplaying games) usually know how to use the weapons better than the PCs. Meaning quite simply making it "off the ground" would go from difficult to nearly impossibe without even trying.

On top of that, implimenting such "logical properties" inside of a gaming engine always brings up various issues, especially when the company wants to take an easier route out and duplicate said properties using effects (in this case, normally spells) which are already programmed in. Trying to put more realism into a game always has its down sides, and that would be a major one.

For example, let's say I have a character who is good with nunchaku. Such a weapon in a regular game just does blunt - or crushing - damage. Now, I technically should be able to do the following with just the one weapon:

- use it as a garotte in a stealth fashion (with the chain)
- use it as normal
- use it to parry various flying objects and smaller held weapons
- use it as a club by holding both ends together
- disarm my foes
- stun my foes with blows to chest or cranium
- cripple my foes with well placed joint attacks

If the gaming company had to sit down and do the physics and ratings for all those attacks (let alone do up the graphics for all that), they would never get around to doing up any other weapons. It would just take too much time. And that is just one chain weapon out of the infinite variations on chain weapons.

As for the saving properties themselves, if one is coding in such, most people will try to go for the "nearest and closest way out" when it comes to putting in such effects. For stun, it effects the mind so they put it down as a will save. Problem is, if it is a shot to the chest it SHOULD be a will save OR a fortitude save. So which one ought be used? It gets better when it comes to the average longsword: save vs crippling, save vs death, save vs wounding, morale saves (if you see someone get decapacitated in the middle of a fight), save vs maiming (which could easily then have a save vs death right after it), et cetera. All those saves technically could be in the same round if Person A slashes Person B across the face deeply. What would that do?

- potential blinding
- potential immediate death if cut is deep enough
- potential STUN (from shock factor)
- potential morale lowering (self and others)
- potential collapse from pain and anguish and shock
- potential severe loss of blood (got to love that Wounding property)
- potential loss of physical attributes due to all the above

So in short, the easy answer to why some save factors are as they are is due to the fact that suspension of disbelief is easier for game companies to deal with than realism. Why? There is less work involved if you forget the realism.