Need DM opinions

[bigdndfan]

Hey DMs, I have a question about the working of an exotic weapon, the harpoon (Sword and Fist p.73)

In particular how much damage is done when the harpoon is pulled out of the target.

"The harpooned creature can pull the harpoon from its wound if it has two hands free and takes a full round action to do so, but in doing so it inflicts on itself damage equal the initial damage the harpoon caused.

If you hit with the harpoon and do 8 points of damage and the target removes the harpoon, it takes another 8 points of damage."

Ok that sound pretty straight forward, the same damage coming out than coming in. We though got caught up with what 'initial damage' really means.

Lets say a Ogre is hit for 12 points, 8 for base damage, 3 for strength and 1 for sneak attack.

The argument was given that the creature pulling the harpoon out wouldn't pull as hard as the strength damage that forced the harpoon in. Ditto for the sneak attack. So the damage coming out is just the base. There is a realistic point here, the damage might be different because of the particular strength of the harponee vs. harpooner

The rule seems worded to be vague on purpose to avoid these problems of realism.

What do you all think?

Thanks

 

[bloodymage]

So what if I crit with that harpoon on a sneak attack and do mega-damage? Does the punctured one take critical pulling it out? Taking things literally to their extremes can sometimes be ludicrous. Removing the harpoon does the same amount of damage that the weapon inflicted. Base damage only.

 

[jasper]

I would rule the base damage before mods.
so 8 hits plus this harpoon kind brings in called shots

 

[Zenon]

I would use the damage base done on the hit.

For example (If a harpoon is 1d8 damage):

1) A hit is rolled:

1d8(harpoon)+3(Str)=5(harpoon)+3(Str)=8
Pulling out the harpoon would deal an additional 5 points.

2) A hit is rolled with a ranged sneak attack by a rogue who gets +2d6:

1d8(harpoon)+3(Str)+2d6(sneak attack)=5(harpoon)+3(Str)+7(SA)=15 points.
Pulling out the harpoon would deal 5 points.

3) However, on a critical, I'd count the base critical damage(If a harpoon is x2):

2d8(harpoon)+6(2xSTR)=10(harpoon)+6(Str)=16.
I'd give the creature the 10 points for pulling it out to represent that the critcal hit really went into a sensitive area.

I could see it argued that a sneak attack also puts the harpoon in a sensitive spot, but I don't think I'd allow sneak attack damage to be given again on pulling the harpoon out. I think that would be a little overboard.

Realize, the above is only an opinion. I've never had on used in my game.

 

[kreynolds]

I'd give the creature the 10 points for pulling it out to represent that the critcal hit really went into a sensitive area.

I could see it argued that a sneak attack also puts the harpoon in a sensitive spot, but I don't think I'd allow sneak attack damage to be given again on pulling the harpoon out. I think that would be a little overboard.

Uhhh...you're kinda arguing with yourself here, which isn't weird in and of itself, but I'm wondering if you're gonna resolve your argument with yourself. I don't see how you could allow one without the other.

 

[Li Shenron]

Why not full damage?

If attacker had a big strength bonus, maybe he would be able to push it hard and deep into the defender's chest, thus more painful to take it out.

If it was a critical hit, let's say for example in a kidney (usually we think critical hit = very serious or painful spot ), I guess you'd better leave it there or almost die for pain trying to stick it out.

Am I a mean DM?

 

[Artoomis]

Okay, first the harpoon is a silly weapon because it has special "realistic" rules that have little to do with D&D.

That said, I'd have it do damage equal to that inflicted in the first place - it is, after all, a full-round action to pull it out AND takes two hands. Yes, that means sneak attack damage and all - that is, after all, how the weapon is written up. It's pretty wimpy if you only allow the weapon's base damage in exchange for a full-round action.

What I'd really do, though, is disallow this silliness as having no place in the D&D abstract combat system.

 

[kreynolds]

That said, I'd have it do damage equal to that inflicted in the first place - it is, after all, a full-round action to pull it out AND takes two hands.

Maybe it takes a full-round action to pull it out because your being careful?

It is a silly weapon, but because it's a full-round action to remove it, I'll rule that it only deals have the base weapon damage.

 

[Zenon]

Uhhh...you're kinda arguing with yourself here, which isn't weird in and of itself, but I'm wondering if you're gonna resolve your argument with yourself. I don't see how you could allow one without the other.

I've been know to talk to myself, so arguing with myself should come as no surprise...

I don't mind doubling(tripling, etc) the base weapon damage from a critical, but the additional dice from a class special I hesitate on.

They're not the same things, even though their effects are similar (increased damge from good placement).

Beside, all the eskimos would be rogues, and I can't see that!

 

[Zenon]

Okay, first the harpoon is a silly weapon because it has special "realistic" rules that have little to do with D&D.

That said, I'd have it do damage equal to that inflicted in the first place - it is, after all, a full-round action to pull it out AND takes two hands. Yes, that means sneak attack damage and all - that is, after all, how the weapon is written up. It's pretty wimpy if you only allow the weapon's base damage in exchange for a full-round action.

What I'd really do, though, is disallow this silliness as having no place in the D&D abstract combat system.

Doesn't it have another effect (like slowing your movement or being able to have a line attached to it) also? I don't have it in front of me right now.