FinalHavenLarp.com

Why not we already have drscriptors two or three types long.

right. As long as we don't go more.


Magic vorpal poison, does not need the edge call.

Also adding more calls to your swing increases the likely hood that whatever you are hitting can resist it..

remember Resists are all or nothing.. soadding more calls to your swing is usually a detriment.. not a boon. (usually)

Yeah I completely disagree with the rule that if you can resist part then you resist the entire thing.

1 disease..represents me clawing you with my massive diseased claw..but wait your immune to disease so my claw bonces off you..kind of lame.

If your point of adding a descriptor is to slow a call down then there is no need to have a call and a descriptor.

If your point is to add some interesting skills and monster tactics then appending a bunch of words to the damage could be unnecessary it depends on what is going on.

For example..Lets take blunt and crush. Do I need to call 2 blunt crush? What is the "crush" call representing? A blunt call in my mind is being hit with a blunt object while the crush call is a super human hulk smash attack.

Picture this scene. Fighter is wearing armor which has an advantage against blunt attacks and is fighting a giant with a club. The giant gets frustrated as its hits seem to not having the impact it expects so it rages, raises both hands above his headed and brings it down on the fighter. At this point its not about how awesome his armor is against blunt its about how awesome is his armor against being smashed like a pancake.

Incase the point is not clease lets look at LOTR Fellowship where the rock troll raise hit club and tried to smash the hobits, missed, and completely destroyed the rock ledge. If Mr. Frodo was standing there it would not have mattered how awesome his mithral armor was as he would have been jelly.

Thus no need to append a basic descriptor to a call.

Special calls don't need the hypothetical descriptor because they are already in the "special" part of the call.

Vorpal is automatically 'edge', too. Crush is automatically blunt in the same manner.

"Magic" is a force being carried by a weapon, no matter the weapon at it's heart, so has the benefits of both to things that are weak to magic.

You can't do blunt damage with an axe, it has a blade but is a "headed" weapon. The wording in the undead hunter discipline is innacurate for what it intends to do.

The GM's have always counted axes as "headed". An axe is just a more efficient hammer. The thin edge just works as a blunt wedge to multiply the force, it doesn't "cut" as with a sword.

axe being headed and bladed. . .yes, it falls under both, for various reasons. for instance a glaive could be considered blade or pole arm.

there was a discussion about such and it was decided that if you are useing a weapon that can fall under both catagories you have to consider it one or the other, but it cant be both. you can use a glaive and consider it a blade and play a knight, or consider it a pole arm and play a pikeman. but you cant play a pikeman swashbuckler with a glaive counting it as both.

so the axe. . .its both

Magic vorpal poison, does not need the edge call.

Its already including the edged call because its vorpal...so if a monster took less damage from edged it would also take less damage from vorpal.

For example..Lets take blunt and crush. Do I need to call 2 blunt crush?

No for the same reason as above, crush is blunt only so if the edged/blunt call were added, crush would ALSO be vlunt by default. A savage vegipygmy attacks and is hit with 3 crush, but since it only takes 1 point max from crush calls it only takes one damage BUT is still affected by the crush, so a hit on its shield still makes the critter take damage.

"Magic" is a force being carried by a weapon, no matter the weapon at it's heart, so has the benefits of both to things that are weak to magic.

Magic lets a weapn affect a creature it normaly could not because of the creatures special "biology". If a creature is unharmed, or barely harmed by edged weapons, and not affected at all by non magical weapons, if you power up a sword with magic its still going to have minimal affect.

The GM's have always counted axes as "headed". An axe is just a more efficient hammer. The thin edge just works as a blunt wedge to multiply the force, it doesn't "cut" as with a sword.

If thats true that GM needs his head examined or is confused on weapon termanology. Axed are BLADED weapons, PERIOD. They arent hammers of any sort. Undead hunter weapon focus just uses the wrong term. Its intended to be BLUNT weapon just like crush, because if they are going to lump axes in with maces and hammers because they are HEADED weapons, then Pole arms and spears work for undead hunters because they are just long headed weapons (that have a sub catagory because of leangth called HAFTED weapons)

axe being headed and bladed. . .yes, it falls under both, for various reasons. for instance a glaive could be considered blade or pole arm.
so the axe. . .its both

Ive never seen this discussion, nor have I seen such a rule in the rule book or in the eratta or expansion.
The term headed weapons under undead hunter is so obviously a referrence to most fantasy games making undead barely harmed by blades and fully affected by BLUNT weapons, and its obvious that was the intent when the discipline was created. The fact t hat the incorrect term HEADED was used doesnt make the axe a blunt weapon simply because it had a "head". Its common sence and playing it any other was is little more than exploiting a rule glitch. And yes I know the undead hunter skill states axes. I was told years ago by two GMs that was in error. I guess we shall see once all the clutter in the rule book is clarified.

found the topic in general discussion, it was my question

Ark: When looking through all the rules and discusion about them I came upon one dealing with weapon focus, and in that it talked about if you had a pole arm that was headed it could be declaired either, but not both, so does that mean I (weapon focus blades) could weild a spear that had a bladed tip as a blade, becuse as stated it is possible.

Wayne: Sure, its called a "glaive". You would only be able to get a weapon focus from one skill though. You cannot call it both a bladed weapon and a pole-arm

IN THE END what weapon type you choose to use your weapons through really does not matter, the point of the different types is to stop exploits throught the combination of skills, 1 vorpal crush, etc. our individual perception of what is considered what does not matter, they all might as well say Weapon Focus A, Weapon Focus B, Vorpal A, Crush B, etc.

In the FH CCS we have 3 basic types
Blades -A
Headed -B
Long -C
some weapons have the ability to be a combination of the two or even all 3, however for purposes of skills and rules, you can only consider your weapon 1 of the three choices, otherwise accidents happen

what if the system allowed edge weapons to do crush damage? In this case I would still contend that you would not need to call "edge crush"

why? Because I would not design a monster or skill where it would be necessary to say that call. Frankly that is the bottom line.

just curious as the the full idea that you have, so that i can give precise opinions on it, example:

-edge and blunt used to slow down standard calls. 1 edge, 1 edge, etc. and go away when another suffix is added. 1 magic, 1 magic, etc.

-edge and blunt used as an actual mechanics. you can gain armor that decreases tha amount of blunt you take by 1 point, or zombies take more damage from edge.

-the idea expands into edge, blunt, silver, cold iron, etc. and combines with the above idea.


of the 3 above, im okay with 1, dont really like the idea of 2 in the simple system of FH, and really dont like the idea of 3.

what if the system allowed edge weapons to do crush damage? In this case I would still contend that you would not need to call "edge crush"

why? Because I would not design a monster or skill where it would be necessary to say that call. Frankly that is the bottom line.

Well if your using the terms edged and blunt, and designing monsters that are affected differently by damage type, AND do something absurd like allow crush with a blade...then yes logically you would need a call like edged crush. But then we would all laugh and call you names when you walked by for setting up a rule so totaly contrary to the idea behind the skill Crush. We might not let you play any reindeer games either.

of the 3 above, im okay with 1, dont really like the idea of 2 in the simple system of FH, and really dont like the idea of 3.

Thats suprising since you often posting about adding more depth and intracracies to the FH rules. The calles discused arent ones that would be confusing, since they are rather self explanatory. They arent complicated, the only risk of complication comes with the skills, items, or creature powers added to interact with the new calls. But even they can be kept simple.

i dont have an idea it was just a post trying to get people's ideas

I think the two calls by themselves might be fun. We should set up a fun mock-fight with some invented "PC's" and "NPC's" at some event's meal-break.


It would be fun because it adds a but of dimension without forcing hyper-realism, which is cumbersome at a LARP.