Mercurial Weapons -- good idea or bad idea?

[Fade]

(warning, physics ahead)
Angular momentum is conserved. That means that when the angular moment of the sword is increased as mass shifts to the tip, the velocity decreases by the same factor. The inertia of the mercury resists the sweep of the sword. Now momentum is related to mass and velocity, but kinetic energy is related to mass and velocity^2. That means that by linearly trading off velocity for mass you are reducing the net kinetic energy delivered to your target.
(/physics)

 

[Xeriar]

Well, the benifit of water bats, or mercurial greatswords is not so much the increased power, but the fuller swing you end up getting out of it, giving a better technique in theory.

The pain of doing this with a weapon is that recovery is going to be more difficult unless a technique, or set of techniques for such a weapon is used.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I don't know if it'll throw some light on the subject (especially given my post above garnered no response), but in the Gene Wolfe "Book of the New Sun" series, where these swords get their inspiration from, they are used almost exclusively for beheadings. They weren't intended for melee combat.

 

[Crothian]

Think about this - ancient castles never took flying attackers into account. Armorsmiths never took into account attackers so large as to be able to grasp the wearer of the armor in a hand or paw. If these things had to have been dealt with in the real world, how different would these things now look? How many innovations would have been made to them that would look nonsensical to us in our non-magical world?

And this is really something that has not been covered in and FRPG I've seen, but is a very good point. THere are many areas that we take for granted becasue of the way we know of the world. However, in a land that magic ahas ruled sicnce the begiining of time these things would be changed greatly. Even the subtle changes could have lasting impacts. Most of the time we see magical ways to do things that technology does and to me this is far less interesting.

 

[DiFier]

Well, part of that would be the EWP training to learn how to choke back on the swing to prevent overextending like that.

wouldn't choking up on the sword take away the advantage (and cut up your hand)?

imagine weilding a sledge hammer with a head that could slide along the handle. It would be great for breaking concrete. hell it woulld do great a smashing skulls. the first attack. then your screwed.

Another part is the fighting style that would have to be employed. I run a fighter/weapon master that uses one of these things, and I envision his style to be one of constant motion, with swinging slap-parries rather then a set hard-block of an incoming weapon. The longer the blade stays in motion, the less momentum he needs to fight to bring it back up to speed. It also meshes well with Whirlwind Attack.

I'd have no problem allowing them. old rules or new. but you would open yourself up to an AoO. you can use them to parry attacks but when you attack with one: AoO.

 

[Someone]

I don't see a prob with either version of the Merc Greatsword. It takes a feat and IMO if you want to spend a feat on it go ahead.

Huge Golden MercGreatswords unerrated and being used Keen and with Improved Crit by a minotaur are what gets kinda mean. 4d8 18-20/x4

LOL. Do you know that mercury dissolves gold?

 

[Blackthorne]

Mercurial Weapons: Silly, cheesy, Not In My Game (TM).

 

[Oni]

I've been doing some research, and while I haven't really come up with anything conclusive, there seems to be some precedent in folklore and history for weapons with this type of idea behind them. MacColla's sliding weight claymore to the "Tears of the Wounded" a modification evidently used on some Eastern swords that involved channels in the blade filled with ball bearings. I'm doing more research, but I think that the idea has at least some historical precidence (not just the deranged ravings of a game designer) makes it reasonable for a DnD hero.

 

[Oni]

Ah, found a little more on what I was talking about above.

Check out the link, its got some interesting pictures of swords that use the Tears of the Wounded.

http://thomaschen.freewebspace.com/photo2.html

 

[Tetsubo]

I've been doing some research, and while I haven't really come up with anything conclusive, there seems to be some precedent in folklore and history for weapons with this type of idea behind them. MacColla's sliding weight claymore to the "Tears of the Wounded" a modification evidently used on some Eastern swords that involved channels in the blade filled with ball bearings. I'm doing more research, but I think that the idea has at least some historical precidence (not just the deranged ravings of a game designer) makes it reasonable for a DnD hero.

You are correct that both thses mobile designs were used. But there is one critical different between them and the proposed Mercurial Weapons. The former weren't filled with a highly toxic chemical.

Additionally, how common were these historical mobile weapon modifications? Not very I'd surmise. And there is a reason for that. The added benifits do not outweigh the disadvantages.

Just because we play a fantasy game doesn't mean we should put up with poorly designed weapons. Weapons look like they do because those forms work or have some social standing (i.e. the Vatican still uses Halberds).

The Dwarven Urgosh is a tad odd. But I can see how a tunnel dwelling people might develope such a design.

The use of mercury inside a weapon is still silly.