Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Grommilus" data-source="post: 253690" data-attributes="member: 5863">UK: I'm well aware that glass is as hard or harder than stone (hardness being the physical property of being able to scratch)  Toughness, I think, represents how hard it is to damage with a sudden, powerful blow, instead of scratching which is a weak scrape across the material.  As for determining the hardness of most objects, while physics will help, a certain amount of eyeballing is necessary, such as how hard is it to damage an iron ball that weighs 10 pounds as to a 10 foot long iron stick, weighing 10 pounds.  Why would an iron golem of similiar volume have to be stronger than a stone golem?  The strength of the golem would depend on the animating magic, not the matierial used.  basically if i built a robot arm out of plastic, and then built one out of steel, with the same servos, they would have the same strength (altho the plasitic one could damage its self with it's own force).If you have ever seen the anime Ghost in the Shell, you'd notice a perfect example in it where a cyborg rips off her own arms trying to open the hatch on a tank.  She is obviously too strong for her toughness =)  If making a creature, artificially or not, I'd definatly limit the strength of my creation in terms of wether or not using it's full strength does physical damage.  Maybe make it capable of hurting its self, which is sometimes neccassary (like lifting that car off your foot, even tho you strain your back doing it) but not over do it so that using full strength causes serious harm, like ripping off your own arms. How so? Strength isn't dependant on material, altho the stone golem could have more strength animated into it based on the fact that it would be able to support more weight with it's appendages, but this does not mean the stone golem does have more strength, only that it could.  See above Ghost in the Shell reference.I was thinking more along the lines of 1.5 times normal flesh value.  A stone giant being one and a half as hard to injure as a flesh giant of the same mass sounds about right.  Like I said, a certain amount of eyeballing is required to come up with toughness stat.  And I prefer toughness compared to absolute hardness or even hardness, because hardness is just how difficult an object is to scratch, whereas toughness is how difficult it is to physically deform. I don't know if I would say one of those monks that trains with getting hit with boards, or say a boxer, has typical flesh.  I would say it's atypical, because they can take alot more punishment than thier size would indicate.As for skill based advancement, I've always had a problem with it in that if you make a warrior with skill based, and you want to be good at what you do, you almost always have to be completely worthless when it comes to non-combat skills.  Level based advancement is cool because it often seperates combat skills from non combat skills, giving rise to the fighter than can climb and jump, as well as swing a sword. I was thinking that it would take the place of specialty combat skills, aka feats (like in 3e).  Feats just make the game generally more fun by providing more options in character creation and in play.Oh, and just one other thing, I wouldn't be too worried about putting numbers to damage or items, aka monkey work, until ya get the ideas exactly how ya want em.Grom</blockquote>

Verification