FinalHavenLarp.com

Will either the resist shatter skill or the shatter resisting paste made from the Iron Bark herb prevent destruction of a shiled that takes over its damage limit?
I.E. my heavy shield is hit for 16 damage from a weapon/channel and I have either of the above.

I think those only prevent destruction from the "Shatter" call itself.

I was going to reply, but given our history im sure we would have an epic argument over it that would end up not related to the original question at all.

in closing:
sage is fun
the sky is blue
rogue is op
yeah

^_^

ollie
I think those only prevent destruction from the "Shatter" call itself.

Thats the answer I am expecting from the GMs, but wanted to get them to clarify.

Ark
I was going to reply, but given our history im sure we would have an epic argument over it that would end up not related to the original question at all.

You inconsiderate bastage, how dare you not post an opinion for me to start a row over? You only ever think about yourself!!!

I think those only prevent destruction from the "Shatter" call itself.

Short answer "No".

Long Answer "No, and here is why."

If a shield takes damage equal to or greater than its rating (5 for Light, 10 for Medium, and 15 for Heavy) it is destroyed, not Shattered.

Final Haven Main Rule Book - pg. 48 wrote:Defender
Level 4: Resist Shatter – LP skill
The Defender may spend 1 Life Point to resist any attack or call with the word “Shatter” in it.

Final Haven Main Rule Book - pg. 90 wrote:Shield Destruction
Shields are not indestructible. The amount of damage a shield can take is dependent upon the material it is made from, not necessarily its size. The three types of shields are Light, Medium, and Heavy. The materials and time required for the Craftsman to make shields is located on page 68. A Light shield can take a single 5 damage attack and is then destroyed. Anything less than 5 damage does not destroy the shield. Light shields are made from hide, wood, or steel and may be of any safe size (see below). Medium shields can take a single 10 damage attack before they are destroyed. Anything less than 10 damage does not destroy the shield. Medium shields are made from wood or steel and can be of any safe size (see below). Heavy shields can takea single 15 damage attack before they are destroyed. Anything less than 15 damage does not destroy the shield. A Heavy shield is made from steel or wood. Heavy shields may be of any safe size (see below). Damage done to shields is not cumulative, meaning that any shield can take unlimited hits from damage that is less than its destruction number (5 for Light, 10 for Medium, 15 for Heavy). All destroyed shields must be discarded. If the shield cannot be discarded then all attacks that hit the shield are considered Crush damage.

ok...i have my "no" answer as I expected.

However, saing the lo0ng answer is because its destroyed instead of shattered just doesnt make sense. Its semantics as they mean the same thing in essence. Its like saying melting wax and liquifying wax are different because the words describing the end result are different.

Also I wasnt talking about the resist shatter skill only, the herbal pastes also prevent shatter(destruction) and was unclear on what they do and do not work against. I am assuming they work like the skill unless the tags state differently.

While the terms are similar, they don't mean the same thing either mechanically or semantically.

For example, an object that was consumed by fire, degraded by acid or simply left to rot could be semantically described as being "destroyed". "Shatter" is a specific method of destruction that has a specific game mechanic and measures to resist that mechanic. Instead of thinking as something that is "shattered" as being equivalent to something that is "destroyed" think of "Shatter" as a specific manner of destruction. The rulebook makes this more clear in the description of the Shatter call.

These attacks destroy weapons, armor and shields. If the weapon or shield is hit with the “Shatter” call it is destroyed. If you are hit anywhere else, your armor is destroyed. Shattered items cannot be repaired. If Shatter is preceded by a number and that number is reduced to zero, the Shatter portion has no effect.

Since the mechanics you've mentioned prevent a specific method of destruction (Shatter) and not the act of destruction itself, they would not protect an object destroyed in any other way. Without adding new mechanical terminology, perhaps a different narrative description would help the cognitive disconnect between the idea of something that is "shattered" vs. "destroyed". (i.e. - the empathic energies that hit a shield have the effect of disintegrating it if the channel does damage in excess of the shield's rating. The shield is destroyed).

While I get that "shatter" is a mechanic, I would agree that shatter is JUST a specialised form of destruction argument IF the "shatter" description didnt have these lines in it:

These attacks destroy weapons, armor and shields.
If the weapon or shield is hit with the “Shatter” call it is destroyed.
If you are hit anywhere else, your armor is destroyed.

Shatter is simply the word used by the mechanic/skill to indicate a destructive effect, and the skill could also have been called "destruction". Its a skill that does to shields what a 35 point channel does without the potential do do 35 damage to a PC/NPC/or in game thingy(walls and doors and bears ...oh my)
I understand you trying to rationalize the difference, but it really doesnt exist except by the decree of the GM staff that designed it. Its the same as saying a channel doesnt hurt a tree, because its not a PC for game mechanic reasons, when the channel is defined as overloading a living thing with magic to harm it, which SHOULD therefore harm a tree.

Like I said before, I had the NOPE answer I expected. Saying it is that way because the skill prevents shattering and not destruction is just semantics to support the OOG mechanic, and isnt logical.

It's not a question of trying to rationalize a difference between logically identical procedures, it's noting the specific method of destruction as outlined in the rules, and it's completely logical.

While I understand the basis for your interpretation, your cognitive misstep comes from your presumption that Shatter is "simply the world used... to indicate a destructive effect". It's more than that - it is a specific effect with specific game mechanics. Though it hasn't been described in detail, "Shatter" is one method by which an item can be rendered "Destroyed". We haven't labeled or created mechanics for other methods by which an item can be destroyed, but that doesn't mean that "Shattered" and "Destroyed" are perfectly analogous. We could hypothetically differentiate additional mechanical methods of destruction, such as:

"Disintegrate"
"Decay"
"Immolate"
"Annihilate"
"Detonate"

...all of which would have the exact same end effect as "Shatter" - the destruction of an item - but indicate differing mechanical methods of destruction with differing associated methods of prevention. The idea that a mechanic designed to prevent one method of destruction wouldn't work on every other method is perfectly logical.

Regardless, perhaps the question to be asked here is "Given the amount of time and resources expended to create items in-game, do we want to create mechanics that prevent the "destruction" of an item or allow for it to be reconstituted easily and economically?"

Korrigan Drochlann wrote:"Immolate"

I like that word, we need a skill with that name

"Lash Immolation!!!"

Ark wrote:

Korrigan Drochlann wrote:"Immolate"

I like that word, we need a skill with that name

"Lash Immolation!!!"

I don't think I could handle a damage over time effect in FH!

It's not a question of trying to rationalize a difference between logically identical procedures, it's noting the specific method of destruction as outlined in the rules, and it's completely logical.

There is no specific method even mentioned in the skill mechanic description, just the name of the skill, which has proven to not really mean anything by skills such as parry/avoid. The game is thick with skills with name that "sorta kinda" indicate what the skill is about.

While I understand the basis for your interpretation

I am not interpreting anything, just reading whats in black and white so to speak.

... your cognitive misstep...

That's just wordsmithing for mistake, like much of the rest of the the post above post. I made neither a...cognitive misstep...or a mistake.
A lobotomized cupcake with even a small amounts of LARP rules creation experience and a good dash of knowledge of the FH game philosophy would know that those responsible for the creation of the skill wanted the effect to be the DESTRUCTION of shields, weapons and armor without the need to have someone throwing a damage based call that could mimic a channel effect, especially since such a damage call would affect neither weapons or armor on permanent basis like what can be done to shields.
They may even have started with "lets add shatter...to destroy shields and armor n such" or simply decided that " i use a packet to destroy your shit" wasn't a great verbal and settled on SHATTER. Either way there was not a scrap of thought about the specifics you are eluding to. They wanted it to be an item destroying effect not based on a damage number, SHATTER is just the name given.
As such, the fact that the skill talks about destruction in several places, AND that a large enough channel can do the same to shields...AND since the herb protects against the non damage based version, I thought I would clarify. I got my answer.
I didn't even stray into IF the herbal product should or should not work to save shields form the channel effect. I think it should since the herbal product was designed as a one shot resist to such destruction, especially since the FH GMs are all about creative uses for current skills and such. I do however not really care if its changed or not, I just wanted a yes or no...or I would have added the contention to the original post.

comes from your presumption that Shatter is "simply the world used... to indicate a destructive effect". It's more than that - it is a specific effect with specific game mechanics.

This comes from YOUR ...cognitive misstep..that the skill was created with even a tenth of the thought to the in game "physics" related details your trying to throw into the soup to make some rationalization. If those responsible put that kind of thought into the logical functioning of the skills, parry avoid would 100% nullify ALL aspects of the attackers its used to defend against. We all know that isn't the case.

that "Shattered" and "Destroyed" are perfectly analogous.

Never said it was perfectly analogous, I said they meant the same thing and figured I didn't need to add.....in the general FH games rules paradigm.

We could hypothetically differentiate additional mechanical methods of destruction, such as:

"Disintegrate"
"Decay"
"Immolate"
"Annihilate"
"Detonate


...all of which would have the exact same end effect as "Shatter" - the destruction of an item

"
These, while some similar to shatter and/ or destroy, these do NOT all end up with the objects destruction.
"Disintegrate" item destroyed, but turned to "dust" and not broken into small pieces. Id say worse than shattered.

"Decay" doesn't mean the item is destroyed, just aged faster than normal. In an extreme that MAY mean destroyed, but doesn't fit destroyed automatically.

"Immolate" bured...alot...again doesn't mean destroyed, but doesn't automatically. Could simply mean VERY damaged. Again, doesn't fit.

The idea that a mechanic designed to prevent one method of destruction wouldn't work on every other method is perfectly logical.

The source of THIS cognitive misstep is the assumption that any thought was given to that fact that a large enough channel and the shatter skill DESTROYED the shield, and if the herbal item should work on both or not.Id wager that never occurred to anyone involved in the process, especially since the general response has been..."I/WE don't THINK so"

I will be honest I stopped following this thread. I wonder when I read stuff like this if this is how God feels. I remember at CARPS once I explained what a rule meant to someone who did not know I was a GM another player heard my answer and began to argue with me. I tried to explain that I wrote the rule so I have a pretty good idea what it means. To my surprise the player still thought I was wrong.

No comment.