FinalHavenLarp.com

Actually CJ your NEw Size chart I believe is exactly what I wanted to try and implement for next year so that we could add the Small Category in since so many skilsl reference it - and yes I agree Short is a little too long or some of the skills that call for it.

I've always thought so. Hell, I just looked and I had always been going on the older rules that forced Curved Blade to be "tiny" weapon. I;ve ben using a 18" long dagger for several years as Garritt because I thought that was the limit (especially because the old rules (and even my item card!) call it a curved "dagger".

And to be on-topic: I just would just like to know why if anyone out there can take Critical Strike (at least at basic level) that the only weapon focus that can be added to exotic items buffing it is "blades", and not any weapon that can be of the legal size for that item.

***Edit, rereading I want to point out, this isnt a biat/flame post, and is NOT meant to sound confrontational, just trying to get a Point of View Accross***


So my question for you Brian is if we are going to go by what the name implies, then i better be seeing players who are "Witch Hunters" wearing Puritan Hats and burning Witches at the Stake...

What I mean is the rules are there for a mechianical reasoning so we can use them as a measure for doing "other" things in combat rather than just swinging or saying pow you are dead.

I personally always have seen the names of disciplines, and those that are not being dedicated to a specific weapon used within the rules as a guideline, it is by no means a steadfast rule that a Savage Beastman needs to be a snarling inbred beast that shits on the floor in the corner because he is savage, but open to the players imaginations. You yourself have stated the game is all about roleplaying, so why then is it a problem to want to play a "outside of the box" Rogue who isnt a cookie cutter version of EVERY other Rogue on the field?

I will always allow a player with a good concept trump "Preconcieved" notions of what a skill/dicipline/lifestyle should be as long as it doesnt literally break a rule. Would I allow a Knight to get the weapon focus for Blades while using a Warhammer? No, because there is a Weapon Focus for Headed, So you have to change your build around a bit, great, doesnt mean you cannot call your self a knight still, and not have the Knight Discipline.

Also, as an addendum:

Up until after starting this threat, I didn't even know that if Curved Blade would somehow apply to any weapon, it could even work for my character's main weapon, I was just using my warhammer it as an example. I was mostly wondering about the pigeonholed wording of it's description as only blade seeming odd when any weapon in the game can be swung with Critical Strike.

Now I see it changed from a "tiny" weapon in the old days to "small" which people are counting as "short". Holy Crap! I've been using an 18" curved "dagger" for years with my Empath for Crit Strike, because the tag I got for it says "curved dagger" (and as far as I know the old rules) said "Tiny" only. I thought only Balanced Blades could be longer than tiny.

Any kind of "bladed" weapon focus/spec would let a player swing (with a sage buff) "7" in three seconds, with a 36" long "curved" weapon.

A +1 damage skill with a Balanced blade is 5 damage every two seconds.

Let the other Focus skills than Knight, Dwarf, and Warrior have some of that fun, lol.

That's a good argument for "small" being a class between tiny and short, though, because 36" is the length of my two-handed warhammer and (to me) is pretty dang long to be able to do that kind of damage.

agree with smitty.

it has been said you might as well see them as "path A" and "discipline 1" the names really mean nothing and people should RP them however they want as long as mechanics are not being broken (trying to stack weapon focus for example)

Ark Vulf
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*notices poo flying fanwards and decides to chime in*

No poo flinging, I just type what I would say and occasionally it reads like im pissed ot flaming because of a lack of inflection and tone.

i dont care about the "blade, blunt, etc." notion of the items, i could care less as long as your not trying to break something.

I only suggested it because it adds cool depth to fighting tactics, because then you can insert critters that are affected different by different weapon types (and no its not that complex)




Marcus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If that's the case, then many of the things that use "short" are way too long.

I would suggest "small being added, and short being slightly changed, so it would be:

Tiny: 12-18
Small: 19-24
Short: 25-36
Long: 37-49
Hand and half: 50-69
Two-handed: 70-79

http://www.finalhavenlarp.com/phpBB2/vi ... ght=#65448

Wyrmwrath wrote: Im asking if, as the rule book states, the shatter hits a fist that is NOT able to block weapons (like ambidexterity provides) that if your wearing armor, the armor IS affected.
Im curious if your not wearing armor in that case would the shatter affect the shield.

Here is a proposed sizing chart and construction guidelines, blended from a few LARPS I was a safety marshal for before.
________ MAX ____ MIN ____ MAX/MIN ______ headed/sword
Size..........Length......Length........Grip...................Core Type
tiny............. 14.......... 10......... 4/4.................... 1/2" CPVC
small........... 18.......... 14......... 6/4.................... 1/2" CPVC
Short........... 32......... 18......... 8/6.................... 1/2" PVC~1/2" CPVC
Long............ 46......... 32......... 10/8................... 3/4" CPVC~1/2" PVC
Bastard....... 48......... 46.......... 12/10................. 3/4" CPVC
2 Handed..... 60......... 48......... 18/12.................. 3/4" PVC
Staff............ 72......... 56......... 24/18.................. 3/4" PVC
1 H Spear.... 60......... 48......... 30/24.................. 3/4" CPVC
Polearm....... 72......... 66......... 36/24.................. 1" PVC

Also, headed weapons (maces, hammers, axes, pole arms) required open cell padding on the striking end, of at least 1 " per size catagory (up to 6" Min) from tip to handle. In other words a tiny hammer has to have an open cell head covering the first inch and a long hammer has to have the head cover the first 4" from tip.
Staves have non padded and centered grips to improve control since you dont strike with that area.
2 handed spears are treated as polearms.
ALL spears, 2 handed weapons, and polearms must have 3" open cell thrust tips beyond the end of the foam covered core. Bastard sizes weapons must have an open cell thrust tip of 2.5", all others the tip is 2".

Posted this a while ago because it was apparent the FH size chart needed updating, and these are very common size stats from a few national LARPs that have done extensive safety testing on construction and use issues.
some of the weapons I have seen used at FH and WH, especially in NPC camp, are just scary from a safety standpoint.

While I doubt this matters and will be argued ad-nauseum (rolls eyes), hammer/mace= large crushing weight at the end of a fulcrum.

see no need to argue that in spite of the overly dramatic eye roll that obviously HAD to be inserted as if the reader would care...

A Warhammer is a mace, it's name just comes from it's similarity to the tool. If anything, because of their origins, they woiuld technically be war-"mallets".

A warhammer is a much a mace as a car is a bus because they are both vehicles. I think the catagory your looking to describe are bludgeons, because a war mallet is closer in size to a sledge hammer than the typical warhammer and mace. Not arguing, trying to inform sans eye roll.

Spikes on a hammer while still remaining a "hammer"?

nice LARP weapon, now find me a picture of a real weapon built like that and I will concede the point, since I could make a LARP weapon that was a stuffed bunny with a studded collar, belt and bracers on a giant candy cane and call it a spiked hammer...doesnt mean it is.




Smitty19
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So my question for you Brian is if we are going to go by what the name implies, then i better be seeing players who are "Witch Hunters" wearing Puritan Hats and burning Witches at the Stake...

Nope...because that would be anachronistic and therefore bad RP in a medieval fantasy...since they are from a much later time period....and cristian based so as to be ecluded by the lack of religion policy.
I would expect them to actually hunt and possibly hate mages/casters/ empaths(kinda)...since that IS actually what they did in CARPsand why the discipline is called that.

I personally always have seen the names of disciplines, and those that are not being dedicated to a specific weapon used within the rules as a guideline, it is by no means a steadfast rule that a Savage Beastman needs to be a snarling inbred beast that shits on the floor in the corner because he is savage, but open to the players imaginations.

I agree, since savage doesnt mean barbaric and unsanitary, and beast man means half beast half man, not feral or rabid.

You yourself have stated the game is all about roleplaying, so why then is it a problem to want to play a "outside of the box" Rogue who isnt a cookie cutter version of EVERY other Rogue on the field?

I dont have any issue with making your PC different than other similar builds. I do have an issue with thinly stretched justificatins that are so bad they hamper or ruin my RP. Its why i try to stay out of the online RP because its peppered with text that either tell me whhat my PC sees, guesses, deduces, or feels because the poster wants that to be my PCs reaction OR added text that in essence gives info about the posters PCs emotional state or thoughts that then turns my PC into a telepath. Both make RPing impossible for me.

I will always allow a player with a good concept trump "Preconcieved" notions of what a skill/dicipline/lifestyle should be as long as it doesnt literally break a rule

I agree, we must just have different standards for "good concept".

Would I allow a Knight to get the weapon focus for Blades while using a Warhammer? No, because there is a Weapon Focus for Headed, So you have to change your build around a bit, great, doesnt mean you cannot call your self a knight still, and not have the Knight Discipline.

See...whats so dizzyingly ironic to me....is that statement there just shows you ARENT open to a good concept, since that discipline forces blades due to a rigid attachment to the notion of , and modern defintion of a knight being the Arthurian knight with a sword and its cross like image. I think an dwarf with a warhammer, or an orc with an axe could just as easily be made with that knight discipline if not for the blade restriction.

nice LARP weapon, now find me a picture of a real weapon built like that and I will concede the point, since I could make a LARP weapon that was a stuffed bunny with a studded collar, belt and bracers on a giant candy cane and call it a spiked hammer...doesnt mean it is.

That's a decorative weapon, with a cast metal head, but I see your point.

http://www.bytheswordinc.com/p-2453-war ... d-166.aspx

That's a bit small for a good fantasy-themed warhammer, though. But then again, the back(and sometimes top) of nearly every typical medieval warhammer has an armor-piercing spike, and most have slightly spiked faces so they don't glance off armor as easy.

If I could somehow put larp-safe 6-inch long spikes on my warhammer, it'd be essentially a Gotentag (a flemish mace) with a horizontal head instead of vertical.

0:38 seconds in
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CpleQ-rv7Q

Back on topic again, I just figured that if channel-based exotic items can be used by anyone that buys a channel, and balanced armor can be used by anyone that has Hold Ground (even a non-warrior can have the Improved version as a specialty) I wondered why the two Crit Strike items can't be used by anyone with a weapon focus other than "Blade", or the new 'any' of warriors/dwarves.

That's a bit small for a good fantasy-themed warhammer, though.

Thats because it a replica of a real one. Most fantasy designs would not be practical in combat.

But then again, the back(and sometimes top) of nearly every typical medieval warhammer has an armor-piercing spike

Those are footmans warhammers and the spikes arent used for injuring the guy in the armor, although thats not unlikiely to happen, its for puncturing the armor ot create leverage to unhorse a mounted knight, or bring prone a knight on foot.

, and most have slightly spiked faces so they don't glance off armor as easy.

I doubt most is even close to accurate since I have seen ALOT and never seen a warhammer of that sort with a spikes striking plate.

If I could somehow put larp-safe 6-inch long spikes on my warhammer, it'd be essentially a Gotentag (a flemish mace) with a horizontal head instead of vertical.

no it would be a club with spikes, just as the weapon expert states, with the head on wrong.

Spikes on a common warhammer. 3:30 onwards
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OF0JpDiW ... ure=relmfu

Add a healthy dose of fantasy(seeing as I also swing magic and banish ghosts with my war"mallet", and voila. I don't see a problem.


But then again, now that I understand the nature of this ongoing conversation, I don't really think I need to argue any longer, seeing as this thread really wasn't worth making as most of it has been about proving me wrong about the semantics of weapons rather than pondering the original question I had and the arguments for and against.

*Although as an interesting note along "balanced weapons" being only possible with "blades? I realize I actually "Balanced" my warhammer physrep in real-life.

Back when I made it (all those 5 1/2 years ago) I found the heavier head-to-handle "fulcrum" design of a warhammer was great in real life when trying to do real damage, but horrible when you are fighting against super-light latex swords which carry absolutely no inertia like the downsides that real weapons would. Even at the low weights of LARP weapons, it put me at a noticeable disadvantage. Plus, I'm only middling on the "arm strength" meter for quick reversals of a heavy(ish) head on the end of a handle.

So I weighted the butt-end with internal weights so that my hammer is actually balanced precisely at it's center-of-length, to allow a faster maneuvering of the business end for following strikes after the first one.

Spikes on a common warhammer. 3:30 onwards
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OF0JpDiW ... ure=relmfu

Didnt see the spikes on the striking plate, must have been blocked from view by the serations that the host pointed out.

Add a healthy dose of fantasy(seeing as I also swing magic and banish ghosts with my war"mallet", and voila. I don't see a problem.

I get that you dont. I do, hence my rebutals to your contentions.

most of it has been about proving me wrong about the semantics of weapons

No its been about rebutting your arguments and contentions about the MECHANICS of weapons. The errors in the terms and catagories you have used are common amongst gamers, and I only know that due to 3 large papaers on weapons in high school.

Since we(those posting) were discussing using blunts for blade oriented skills, all these back and forths HAVE been relevent.

There is no need for a 'Small' catagory of weapons. Just extend short to cover the gap. There are no skills that require 'Small' weapons. It just adds an element of confusion. Also up the minimum for 'Tiny' weapons to 14" due to safety concerns.

Whether they are axes or hammers or swords or frying pans it should not matter for the purposes of "Balanced" or "Curved". All of the phys repps operate the same because they are all padded sticks. Critical Strike is in no way limited by a weapon type or length either.

There is no need for a 'Small' catagory of weapons. Just extend short to cover the gap. There are no skills that require 'Small' weapons. It just adds an element of confusion. Also up the minimum for 'Tiny' weapons to 14" due to safety concerns.

I (personally) think that if you lower the minimum of "Short" to cover the range between it and "tiny" it won't see any difference than weapons are now, because (especially with constructed vs. bought weapons), any weapon that has to be "short" will tend to nearly always be 36" to squeeze the most possible out of it. A short weapon under 30" unless it has to be would be vary rare.

Plus I think that curved and balanced being "small" as opposed to "Short" are supposed to be that way to offset the pretty big benefits they grant.

I disagree with restricting Balanced and Curved properties to a specific weapon size. How does that create balance? How does it facilitate fun for the people who play the game?

You really want to know what the biggest issue is with curved and balanced is the overly large benefit they provide. When you use a curved balanced weapon with a skill mastery potion you gain the ability to swing 10 in 2 seconds.

Lower the damage to +1 and the time reduction to -2 seconds. That or remove the ability to use them together. I know there is a huge cost for the ability to do it but it still seems a little on the high end.

Zeira wrote:You really want to know what the biggest issue is with curved and balanced is the overly large benefit they provide. When you use a curved balanced weapon with a skill mastery potion you gain the ability to swing 10 in 2 seconds.

Lower the damage to +1 and the time reduction to -2 seconds. That or remove the ability to use them together. I know there is a huge cost for the ability to do it but it still seems a little on the high end.

ballance by cost has always been silly, i have PM'd the GM's a few times and said magic items should be balanced in the effect they provide (IE you get and item that gives you resist magic, it should cost you 5 life to use. . .as well as being expensive)

items unbalance a system (balanced blade, curved blade) that is suposedly balanced. i would not mind if ALL items that granted a damage bonus went away.

i have to agree with CJ on this one, items like the curved and balanced blades should have a restricted size, to balance the effect they give.

I never knew you could go bigger than tiny with at least the curved blade, which is why I always thought the balance of my curved dagger as Garritt was the fact that I have to get close enough to hit a guy using an 18" dagger, after charging for 5 seconds, without being hit first to get disrupted. Unless I ambush NPCs in the back while they are otherwise occupied, I have a hugely hard time pulling that off with a dagger.

As for the 10 in 2 seconds example, I am assuming that's using Advanced Crit Strike+2 stacked exotic items+master level potion.

That would require some nuclear-strength knee pads for me to swing the cost of facilitating, even at a lower level. I can barely ever even get my single-commodity dagger upkept at each event.

If it's really that big of an issue, seems the best way to balance both would just be to not let them stack as exotic items, or at the least if you have a weapon with both effects, you have to choose which effect you are using for each attack. I never thought they needed to stack in the first place.