Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,alt.games.adnd (
More info?)
"Keith Davies" <kjdavies@kjdavies.kjdavies.org> wrote in message
news:slrncnfee6.3b2.kjdavies@kjdavies.kjdavies.org...
> On 2004-10-21, JB <jb70@talk21.com> wrote:
> >
> > "Keith Davies" <kjdavies@kjdavies.kjdavies.org> wrote in message
> > news:slrncnevv8.3b2.kjdavies@kjdavies.kjdavies.org...
> >> On 2004-10-21, Joshua Mayfield <Alexandria.Patrick@go.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Okay, basically just a javelin with a bendy tip, that can disable a
> >> shield, for only twice the price of a normal javelin. Sunder
normally
> >> draws an Attack of Opportunity, but since this is usually done before
> >> closing with the enemy, that's a null cost.
> >>
> >> In short, it gives you a nice ability with a simple weapon, at low
cost
> >> (opportunity and equipment). This is too close to being a must-have
for
> >> anyone who wants to regularly throw spears.
> >
> > One thing though, the pilum is essentially ammunition. A one shot
item.
>
> Big ammunition, then. He's using the stats for a javelin, giving it a
> nifty ability, and then charging only a little bit more. I think that,
> given what it can do, it's a little cheap at the posted price.
I don't disagree but for the purposes of enchantment and what not it's a
pretty big downside. You could quite easily require a significant price
boost to justify the complexity of the design. If it were up to me I'd
introduce a repair method and boost the price significantly.
> > Two things about invoking the Sunder mechanism makes me uneasy. First
> > its a ranged attack and that sets quite a precendent. Second, it is a
> > piercing weapon. These could be set aside for the sake of ease I
> > suppose.
>
> That's why I changed the wording -- 'attack against the shield, refer to
> the Sunder action [for targeting information]'. It's *not* a Sunder
> attack, precisely, it's an attack against a shield.
Cool.
> >> A 9-pound weapon that breaks as soon as it hits an opponent strikes
me
> >> as a singularly stupid weapon that would be Darwinized in short
order.
> >>
> >> I'm not denigrating your implementation, but questioning the weapon
> >> itself.
> >
> > Historically there is scant archaeological evidence to suggest that
> > there were multiple weight pilum with the snap on hit capacity. The
> > idea, IIRC, comes from Polybius writing about the Legions at the time
> > of the first Punic War and possibly the mixing of terms by
> > contemporary authors.
> >
> > In practice a broken or bent Pilum could be quite easily repaired (it
> > was a matter of straightening the thin metal shaft and replacing a
> > wooden dowel) so perhaps their should be a Craft check required to
> > quickly and cheaply restore the weapon to working order.
>
> *bend* *insert stick* *break stick* could *conceivably* be sufficient.
> I don't know that it would be, but it could be enough if you really need
> the pilum back in action.
That sounds more like a cheap and chearful way that could result in
accuracy penalties.
The metal shaft would eventually snap if you bent it cold.
> >> The stats above (except cost and range increment) are those of the
long
> >> spear -- a pike, in other words, but you can throw it a short
distance
> >> (poorly) and it'll break.
> >>
> >> A weapon like this -- one meant to hold off charges by *cavalry*,
that
> >> breaks on impact, is a really, really bad idea. Giving it a lower
cost
> >> than a pike is a little odd in that it's harder to make than a real
pike
> >> (longspear). OTOH, it certainly isn't *worth* as much as a real
pike.
> >
> > Caesar actually ordered the weapon to be used in such a way during the
> > civil war. Remember that cavalry don't actually charge into spike
hedges,
> > they veer away from them. If you have to actually use the weapon then
they
> > are in your formation, something has gone wrong and you will only have
one
> > chance to use it anyway.
>
> I wouldn't want to rely on it in the general case. I can see using it
> like that on occasion, but not usually.
No it was an atypical use but it was the manoeuvre traditionally thought
to be decisive in the battle.
> And yes, it's bad if the cavalry ignore the pikes (difficult to do,
> convincing a horse to charge onto a pike), even if you *do* end up
> killing many of the horses and cavalry.
Quite a lot of people believe that you *can't* make a horse do that
against a *properly* formed hedge and breaches only occur through other
circumstances (a failure of formation somehow). The same principle applies
to the bayonet squares in the gunpowder age.
When Caesar formed his men up as makeshift pikemen their primary role was
to act as a rallying point for allied cavalry then counter attack the
disordered enemy horse.
> Even against infantry, I don't think I'd want to be on the other end of
> a stick designed to break. Sounds a little dangerous, even given the
> circumstances.
Pilum were always supposed to be thrown. The penalty is possibly the OP's
method of balancing the increased damage.
Personally I'd just do away with the heavy version altogether.