| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16320
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 5:05 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Esoomian wrote: | Even with the 'kick' it just doesn't work for me as the lighsaber is still not doing damage based on mass+velocity it seems to be doing damage based on the amount of surface area it contacts and the length of time it contacts said surface area.
In my mind using a stronger swing (IE swinging the lightsaber faster) is going to result in less damage as the blade is going to be in contact with the target for less time. |
So you are basing damage inflicted directly on amount of energy transferred? I'm not saying you're wrong, but is someone any less damaged if they take a lot of energy damage across a broad area of their body tissue but the body itself is still intact as opposed to taking comparatively little damage from energy transmission itself because the blade sliced straight through and chopped off a limb? Per the RAW, amputation is the kind of thing that happens because a character inflicted a killing blow, yet chose to moderate the level of damage inflicted, so that their opponent survives, yet is permanently scarred. A 2nd or 3rd degree burn would result in a lot of scarring and painful recovery, but at least you wouldn't need to have parts replaced or reattached...
| Quote: | | That said if that is what is going to work for you then go for it but to me it changes the nature of what a lightsaber is and it should probably be just another melee weapon without having it's own skill. |
Which is exactly how I feel. For all of its exotic coolness, a lightsaber does not have enough unique characteristics to distinguish itself from other melee weapons. It is still, in essence, a sword, and with enough practice, a non-FS can learn to use it with proficiency (ex: the Saber Rakes of the Tapani Sector). The only reason I can see for putting lightsaber as a separate skill is because WEG wanted to limit Jedi proficiency in other weapons as an attempt at "balancing" the Jedi.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14215
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 2:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | Lightsabers are generally described as having a "kick" or oscillation effect that causes the blade to push back against the wielder. This works as an feasible explanation for me as to why a stronger character would inflict more damage: because they have the strength to push against the blade's kick. |
In which novels did you get that from? I remember in I jedi, Bacta war, and several of the other novels, corran mentioning he suffered greatly from his prior training due to swinging it hard like it DID have mass, but overbalancing him due to it NOT having any..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16320
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | crmcneill wrote: | | Lightsabers are generally described as having a "kick" or oscillation effect that causes the blade to push back against the wielder. This works as an feasible explanation for me as to why a stronger character would inflict more damage: because they have the strength to push against the blade's kick. |
In which novels did you get that from? I remember in I jedi, Bacta war, and several of the other novels, corran mentioning he suffered greatly from his prior training due to swinging it hard like it DID have mass, but overbalancing him due to it NOT having any.. |
Hmm. I can't recall. Now that I think about it, the description may have come from Robert Brown's old SW fan site, where he examined a lot of SW tech from a physics POV. The site has been down for years, but was always an excellent source on the subject.
That being said, one does not exclude the other. The blade could conceivably have a weightless effect while not in contact with anything, but the energy transfer when it touches an object could cause the kick-back / oscillation effect.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Esoomian
High Admiral
Joined: 29 Oct 2003
Posts: 6207
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | So you are basing damage inflicted directly on amount of energy transferred? |
Pretty much. To oversimplify if you hold your hand over a candle flame you'll get burnt but if you move your hand rapidly through that same flame you don't.
| crmcneill wrote: | | is someone any less damaged if they take a lot of energy damage across a broad area of their body tissue but the body itself is still intact as opposed to taking comparatively little damage from energy transmission itself because the blade sliced straight through and chopped off a limb? Per the RAW, amputation is the kind of thing that happens because a character inflicted a killing blow, yet chose to moderate the level of damage inflicted, so that their opponent survives, yet is permanently scarred. A 2nd or 3rd degree burn would result in a lot of scarring and painful recovery, but at least you wouldn't need to have parts replaced or reattached... |
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. If we liken the blade to a concentrated heat source then moving it rapidly over an area is essentially spreading the energy it outputs over a larger area giving the target a better chance to absorb it safely.
| crmcneill wrote: | | Quote: | | Lightsabers are generally described as having a "kick" or oscillation effect that causes the blade to push back against the wielder. This works as an feasible explanation for me as to why a stronger character would inflict more damage: because they have the strength to push against the blade's kick. |
Hmm. I can't recall. Now that I think about it, the description may have come from Robert Brown's old SW fan site, where he examined a lot of SW tech from a physics POV. The site has been down for years, but was always an excellent source on the subject.
That being said, one does not exclude the other. The blade could conceivably have a weightless effect while not in contact with anything, but the energy transfer when it touches an object could cause the kick-back / oscillation effect. |
I think I recall that website, wasn't that oscillation actually an explanation for how two mass-less blades could clash against each other and lock together rather than an explanation as to why the swinging the blade strongly could be more effective?
I don't recall the oscillation effect being mentioned in any situations besides Lightsaber vs Lightsaber or Lightsaber vs. Blaster bolt.
Then again it has been a great many years since I looked at it.
_________________
Don't waste money on expensive binoculars.
Simply stand closer to the object you wish to view. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16320
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Esoomian wrote: | | crmcneill wrote: | | So you are basing damage inflicted directly on amount of energy transferred? |
Pretty much. To oversimplify if you hold your hand over a candle flame you'll get burnt but if you move your hand rapidly through that same flame you don't. |
| Quote: | | I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. If we liken the blade to a concentrated heat source then moving it rapidly over an area is essentially spreading the energy it outputs over a larger area giving the target a better chance to absorb it safely. |
If we were just talking about a heat source, I would tend to agree, but a lightsaber is much more than that. Looking at film evidence, I don't recall seeing a lot of heat damage during impact with flesh; it just slices straight through, leaving behind "micro-cauterizations" and similar tissue effects (which I recall being the explanation as to why there was so little blood spatter when lightsabers chopped off body parts. In the case of some body strikes, there isn't even a visible wound. IMO, basing the damage inflicted on the total energy transferred from the blade to the target is the wrong path; it should be based on actual damage inflicted (i.e. does the cut go deep enough to inflict critical damage).
For example, a lightsaber in constant light contact with flesh will certainly transfer a lot of energy over and create a nasty burn, but that burn will heal. Conversely, a lightsaber swung fast and hard (resulting in minimal contact with the target, both in duration and surface area) will slice straight through a limb (or pretty much anything), leaving the target dead or maimed for life. In this example, the attack that inflicted the most damage was the one that expended less energy.
| Quote: | I think I recall that website, wasn't that oscillation actually an explanation for how two mass-less blades could clash against each other and lock together rather than an explanation as to why the swinging the blade strongly could be more effective?
I don't recall the oscillation effect being mentioned in any situations besides Lightsaber vs Lightsaber or Lightsaber vs. Blaster bolt.
Then again it has been a great many years since I looked at it. |
Same here. My recollection was that the oscillation was what made the saber so difficult to control, but since the website is no longer up, it's not something we can prove conclusively. In the end, however, my version supports the way I want to play it in my universe. 
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Esoomian
High Admiral
Joined: 29 Oct 2003
Posts: 6207
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | If we were just talking about a heat source, I would tend to agree, but a lightsaber is much more than that. Looking at film evidence, I don't recall seeing a lot of heat damage during impact with flesh; it just slices straight through, leaving behind "micro-cauterizations" and similar tissue effects (which I recall being the explanation as to why there was so little blood spatter when lightsabers chopped off body parts. In the case of some body strikes, there isn't even a visible wound. IMO, basing the damage inflicted on the total energy transferred from the blade to the target is the wrong path; it should be based on actual damage inflicted (i.e. does the cut go deep enough to inflict critical damage).
For example, a lightsaber in constant light contact with flesh will certainly transfer a lot of energy over and create a nasty burn, but that burn will heal. Conversely, a lightsaber swung fast and hard (resulting in minimal contact with the target, both in duration and surface area) will slice straight through a limb (or pretty much anything), leaving the target dead or maimed for life. In this example, the attack that inflicted the most damage was the one that expended less energy. |
I see, I tend to view the Lightsaber as a laser varient so it's cutting power comes from concentrated heat. If we look at real world lasers there is usually a fairly small Heat Affected Zone (or HAZ) from laser based cuts. Additionally if the blade had some form of mass or an edge then we'd see some sort of deviation or slowing down as it cut through something which we don't tend to see.
I'm still not sure I understand your argument, are you saying that because we saw the lightsaber lop limbs off without creating burns it suggests that strength/speed of the swing comes into play more than nature of the blade/prescision of the strike?
However the truth is it's a made up technology using made up science and it's only real goal is to look cool so your explanation is no less valid than mine.
_________________
Don't waste money on expensive binoculars.
Simply stand closer to the object you wish to view. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16320
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 11:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Esoomian wrote: | | I'm still not sure I understand your argument, are you saying that because we saw the lightsaber lop limbs off without creating burns it suggests that strength/speed of the swing comes into play more than nature of the blade/prescision of the strike? |
More that the amount of energy transferred is less important than how that energy is applied. A large amount of energy transfer may inflict a lot of damage, but unless that damage is applied somewhere vital, the wound is ultimately survivable (although still quite painful). On the other hand, a smaller amount of energy applied with precision to a vital area (stab to the heart, cutting off a limb or a head, etc.) inflicts an incapacitating or lethal amount of damage at a fraction of the energy cost.
| Quote: | | However the truth is it's a made up technology using made up science and it's only real goal is to look cool so your explanation is no less valid than mine. |
And that is truer than anything else we can come up with in this topic. 
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Esoomian
High Admiral
Joined: 29 Oct 2003
Posts: 6207
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 1:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | More that the amount of energy transferred is less important than how that energy is applied. A large amount of energy transfer may inflict a lot of damage, but unless that damage is applied somewhere vital, the wound is ultimately survivable (although still quite painful). On the other hand, a smaller amount of energy applied with precision to a vital area (stab to the heart, cutting off a limb or a head, etc.) inflicts an incapacitating or lethal amount of damage at a fraction of the energy cost. |
Interesting, that is my point also. I'm of the opinion that with a finesse weapon (which I consider a lightsaber to be) how hard you hit is much less important than how well you hit. Because of that I dislike strength being a factor of the damage delt and would prefer the damage to be based on how much the weilder beats the to-hit roll.
_________________
Don't waste money on expensive binoculars.
Simply stand closer to the object you wish to view. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16320
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 1:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Esoomian wrote: | | crmcneill wrote: | | More that the amount of energy transferred is less important than how that energy is applied. A large amount of energy transfer may inflict a lot of damage, but unless that damage is applied somewhere vital, the wound is ultimately survivable (although still quite painful). On the other hand, a smaller amount of energy applied with precision to a vital area (stab to the heart, cutting off a limb or a head, etc.) inflicts an incapacitating or lethal amount of damage at a fraction of the energy cost. |
Interesting, that is my point also. I'm of the opinion that with a finesse weapon (which I consider a lightsaber to be) how hard you hit is much less important than how well you hit. Because of that I dislike strength being a factor of the damage delt and would prefer the damage to be based on how much the weilder beats the to-hit roll. |
And that is where I feel the idea of blade oscillation or kick-back should come into play. The character's Strength dice is a reflection of their ability to control the blade and keep it "on target", so to speak, so that a weaker character's attack will be more likely to jump or waver from the point of contact. Not by much (because even a Str 2D character will still be inflicting 7D damage), but enough to make a bit of a difference. Then on top of that, the character can add the damage bonus from his To Hit roll to make it even more potent, reflecting the degree to which his skill level allows him to compensate for his relative lack of physical strength.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Esoomian
High Admiral
Joined: 29 Oct 2003
Posts: 6207
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 2:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Fair enough, it's not the way I imagine lightsabers and I'd prefer lower strength to increase the difficulty to wield a Lightsaber with the oscillation you describe rather than strength adding to damage as I still feel that unless something has mass swinging it harder/faster shouldn't really help but I suspect that just comes down to differing viewpoints more than our skill at technobabble-fu.
_________________
Don't waste money on expensive binoculars.
Simply stand closer to the object you wish to view. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gamer
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 20 May 2010
Posts: 125
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 6:48 am Post subject: Re: Force power to augment armors and weapons that isn't dar |
|
|
| tetsuoh wrote: | I know that by the eu Sith Alchemy is used for not only creating monstrosities but also the sith armors and sith swords.
Is there a force power that isn't dark sided that can create or at least augment armor and or weapons? And by this I mean the item itself, not the user. |
The force war on Tython the supposed first war ever fought by jedi had weapons I believe you are asking about.
The book: The Jedi Path mentions swords augmented with the force, enhanced for strength and sharpness by BOTH SIDES in the war as it predates lightsabers.
*
As for the whole strength finesse debate.
just look up form V
from the path of the jedi book:
"The emphasis of Djem So remains strength, with violent blows- such as falling avalanche or overhand blows."
"Falling Avalanche is a Djem so move that uses force enhanced strength to deliver an overhand strike- best used against heavy armor."
Finesse was also not getting Qui-gon through the blast doors.
Use of strength to increase lightsaber damage is mentioned in various sources.
Strength is a preference.
Finesse is a preference.
The jedis themselves have been debating what is better since their inception.
Its not how you should imagine them, it is how you should be researching them.
Some forms are based on strength some forms are based on finesse.
How the saber is constructed and used is based on the weilders preference in form.
Dooku was finesse.
Darth Vader could never be described with the word finesse.
Again:
Finesse was also not getting Qui-gon through the blast doors. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vanir
Jedi
Joined: 11 May 2011
Posts: 793
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Approaching it in the monastic Jedi fashion, Sith tend to wear armour because they are in combat often and paranoid about assassination the rest of the time. Jedi go for peace wherever the option is available.
But as we see in the Tales of the Jedi that where in an environment of regularly encountered combat Jedi Knights will most certainly wear armour, and form new sects of combat specialisation such as the infamous Battlemasters of the Old Republic (d6 template).
So then we ponder the nature of Sith Alchemy and Force artefact. Do Jedi make them? We certainly are aware of the Jedi Holocron, yes they do make such things. The lightsabre is another such item.
So what is Sith Alchemy? How does it differ? Well it is how you approach it. The Sith manipulate, Jedi enlighten.
For example: Sith use Alchemical construction techniques to form artificially synthesised lightsabre crystals, which is why their blades are always red. It is an example of their ability to create Force imbued items by sheer will.
Jedi by comparison quest for naturally imbued crystals and use those in construction of a lightsabre so that it becomes a mutually enlightening experience: the Jedi learns more about the Force and the adegan crystals are enlightened as to their potential.
My assertion then would be:
Jedi may construct Force enhanced armour (eg. with powersuit qualities provided by the power of the Force), but only where the materials used in construction are by nature, elementally tied to the Force to begin with.
Sith would take something like Mandalorian steel and manipulate it to a paper-thin alloy as hard as tank armour using Sith Alchemy and ingredients like organic sludge processed from the bodies of torture victims.
Not so much that something is or isn't available to one or the other, but the nature of the item is to be considered and a much wider scope allowed, if a rational explanation can be given. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vanir
Jedi
Joined: 11 May 2011
Posts: 793
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Esoomian wrote: | | crmcneill wrote: | | More that the amount of energy transferred is less important than how that energy is applied. A large amount of energy transfer may inflict a lot of damage, but unless that damage is applied somewhere vital, the wound is ultimately survivable (although still quite painful). On the other hand, a smaller amount of energy applied with precision to a vital area (stab to the heart, cutting off a limb or a head, etc.) inflicts an incapacitating or lethal amount of damage at a fraction of the energy cost. |
Interesting, that is my point also. I'm of the opinion that with a finesse weapon (which I consider a lightsaber to be) how hard you hit is much less important than how well you hit. Because of that I dislike strength being a factor of the damage delt and would prefer the damage to be based on how much the weilder beats the to-hit roll. |
This outlook works very well with the enhanced lightsabre forms I downloaded from this site.
Really thankful to this site for all the great downloadable material by the way, our game is coming along now and the pdf's from here have really helped tremendously, my whole gaming group loves them.
Anyways, the enhanced forms system uses increased difficulties on to-hits to do special manoeuvres for extra damage or special combat effects, you can get super creative with them. It's working really well in our game, but we're only just scratching the surface with padawans.
So the more you beat the parry by, the more room you have for special manoeuvres. It's a really cool system, you can run around doing extra damage die, or extra blaster-parry die, all the time when you've got way more die than your opponents.
Which is most of the time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 5:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
The major advantage of strenght from all that I have seen is to beat down your opponents defenses. Even with a lightsaber you still have to be able to withstand you opponents strenght when parrying..
This is also one of the disadvantages of using two lightsabers (or using you lightsaber one handed) that Im trying to incorporate in my dual wielding rules.
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Esoomian
High Admiral
Joined: 29 Oct 2003
Posts: 6207
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 12:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ZzaphodD wrote: | | The major advantage of strenght from all that I have seen is to beat down your opponents defenses. Even with a lightsaber you still have to be able to withstand you opponents strenght when parrying.. |
Not true. Parrying can include simply avoiding the opponent's weapon and many other tricks to ensure you don't get hit.
_________________
Don't waste money on expensive binoculars.
Simply stand closer to the object you wish to view. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
