Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3700975" data-attributes="member: 18280">Armourer has to experiment to determine how best to make and attach said spikes, as well as to make them hinder the fighter as little as possible.&nbsp; This research requires the use of raw materials, and costs.&nbsp; If the armourer is to make truly porcupine-like spikes, they need to be able to be raised and lowered as needed, so as to not get into the way when not needed.&nbsp; Of course, this isn't strictly necessary.How effective any set of spikes will be at deterring said big creature......well, that's research, too, but research that leaves a string of dead fighters instead of dead assistants.The alchemist has no more research to do than the armourer.&nbsp; He has some ideas of the nature of foul-tasting chemicals, and some idea of how these might be bonded to armour.&nbsp; Moreover, the alchemist can determine the effectiveness of his product by a series of field tests....exactly the same way the armourer does so.Moreover, once the alchemist has this product, it will be a superior product to the spikes in many ways, and one which can be combined with spikes if the client so desires.&nbsp; Certainly, his pockets will be filled.Like sunrods, tanglefoot bags, various kinds of weapons and armour, etc., etc., etc.&nbsp; In D&amp;D under the RAW, apparently no one even hides the secrets to making their most powerful magic items, let along simple alchemy.&nbsp; Even the effects of a tanglefoot bag, released when the creature tries to swallow the wearer, coupled with some bright colours, would train monsters in a given area not to swallow those in that sort of garb.&nbsp; It would have the added benefit of allowing the alchemist and his unarmoured buddies to mimic the colouration so that they, too, would appear unappetizing.Once again, I accept that you believe that spikes would be the first and cheapest anti big-enough-to-eat-you-whole beast repellent available, and that you can imagine a scenario in which that is true, but you have put forth no argument that actually makes it true. RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 3700975, member: 18280"] Armourer has to experiment to determine how best to make and attach said spikes, as well as to make them hinder the fighter as little as possible. This research requires the use of raw materials, and costs. If the armourer is to make truly porcupine-like spikes, they need to be able to be raised and lowered as needed, so as to not get into the way when not needed. Of course, this isn't strictly necessary. How effective any set of spikes will be at deterring said big creature......well, that's research, too, but research that leaves a string of dead fighters instead of dead assistants. The alchemist has no more research to do than the armourer. He has some ideas of the nature of foul-tasting chemicals, and some idea of how these might be bonded to armour. Moreover, the alchemist can determine the effectiveness of his product by a series of field tests....exactly the same way the armourer does so. Moreover, once the alchemist has this product, it will be a superior product to the spikes in many ways, and one which can be combined with spikes if the client so desires. Certainly, his pockets will be filled. Like sunrods, tanglefoot bags, various kinds of weapons and armour, etc., etc., etc. In D&D under the RAW, apparently no one even hides the secrets to making their most powerful magic items, let along simple alchemy. Even the effects of a tanglefoot bag, released when the creature tries to swallow the wearer, coupled with some bright colours, would train monsters in a given area not to swallow those in that sort of garb. It would have the added benefit of allowing the alchemist and his unarmoured buddies to mimic the colouration so that they, too, would appear unappetizing. Once again, I accept that you believe that spikes would be the first and cheapest anti big-enough-to-eat-you-whole beast repellent available, and that you can imagine a scenario in which that is true, but you have put forth no argument that actually makes it true. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification