Statting Custom Weapons

Yes the full calculations for power of a swung strike are even more complex then what I provided. There is the spring reaction from back swing and pre tension of muscles, acceleration per unit of time per unit of time (yes there are two per unit of time), resistances including air resistance and moment of inertia, the requirement for continued force after contact (follow through), and a whole host of other points, both minor and major. I figured I was being complex enough to prove my point.

I will accept that I over emphasized the desire for lightness to some extent, because in addition to meeting the minimum weight requirements for structural strength you must also meet the design requirements for it to function in the desired manner. I did not believe that I was implying that a simple pole would do the job of a hammer or axe head better because it was lighter. If it comes across that way it was a mistake on my part. I have spent far to much time tying to explain melee weapons to those who have never made or used one.

Weapon design is always about trade offs. However the head design of a fighting axe or hammer, while putting a block of weight at the end of a weapon, is still kept at a far lower weight then on a work axe or hammer. The fighting ones need much more fine control since you are trying to hit a moving target, as well as needing to be able to recover quickly from a strike to allow follow up attacks. They also need to have a short "windup" and "delivery" time to allow the target less chance of successful defensive action.

Side note: The katana fairs worse because it is a draw cut rather than straight cut focused design. Draw cuts favor initial contact closer to the hand, allowing more of the blade to be drawn through the target. Without follow through draw cut blades will always be less effective, because they are designed to cut during the follow through. However with that follow through they will always beat straight cut blades (of comparable size) in the size and depth of the cut inflicted.

1 Like

You see this in weapon and armor design over the ages. They repeatedly cycled between inflicting/reducing blunt impact, cutting, and piercing. The designs of each just got more complex each time the cycle repeated.

At least we're all in agreement. :slight_smile: I still want to try out modeling a hammer/axe and see how close I can get with some approximations.

I think we're also all agreeing that doing this crazy sword would be more about sticking in some ReTe effects (probably with great penetration) or similar that might require some high user Str to trigger rather than trying to stat a new sword. This would seem especially so since the giant clubs rules and giant natural weapons rules give exactly the same weapon stats as for the normal-sized ones.

unless of course you are making a giant sized weapon to be wielded by a giant sized person, whether an actual giant or a person grown with MuCo... that provides all kinds of new opportunities...

Yes, that's certainly viable. The pile of stats so far basically say to just keep the weapon the same, probably adjusting load and minimum Str since those aren't listed and it makes sense. For minimum Str, we could probably just add +2 for each Size above a certain point, but that point is a little fuzzy for me with the way Dwarf, Small Frame, Large, and Giant Blood work. Load could be figured out, but it may be tricky separating out weight from awkwardness from the originals to figure it out well, especially with the originals' granularity.

Especially when you sometimes get +2 str for +1 size and other times you don't...

Exactly. That's what drives me nuts with those four V/F compared to all the other Size stuff. With MuCo I allow 1 higher magnitude, matching the MuAn guideline, to have Str and Qik adjust with Size. I believe there is a spell somewhere that grows you without a mass change, which fits not shifting the Characteristics reasonably well. But normal MuCo growth I feel should match normal MuAn growth.

The matter of tradeoffs is actually quite relevant to the discussion here. The main issue that justified the Dragonslayer concept in the source material was that combat with the supernatural threats Guts constantly had to deal with was so much different than fighting people. Like if you're using a sword in melee against a heavily armored opponent, your main plan to do damage is aiming for gaps, and if you have a better pick of weapons you might go for a hammer instead because of reasons already discussed upthread. But when your primary enemy isn't a small, agile, squishy human hoping desperately that the thin sheet of metal he's wearing continues to be in the way of stuff, and is instead a lumbering brute who's just rocking rock-hard flesh and being big enough that you've gotta get through a lot of it, priorities change.

I'm not suggesting a sword heavier than its user is ever practical, but if taken to a much less extreme extent, I can at least understand how "hit hard" and "wider cutting area" could result in "heavier-than-average sword" making sense. Guts in canon tried using regular swords against demons and tended to snap them in half trying to hit hard enough to do damage... Which, I know, not really something Ars represents, but. Makes that whole "maintaining structural integrity" point come to mind.

If I've gotta ditch "heavy mundane sword," it's probably preferable to switch weapon types than to switch to magic. No point to the darn thing if it pings off the primary enemy it was built differently to deal with. Then you've just got something for killing mundanes harder, and nobody needs help doing something that easy.

If it's a special sword rather than a just slightly bigger sword, I would go with Troy's suggestion of a ReTe effect. I'd probably set it to trigger by a very strong swing, so only someone with incredible strength could actually manage it. Give it plenty of penetration so it works against the big baddies. Then you can justify some much better damage with the high Strength while being consistent with all the statted weapons.

Which brings up the question- would an item of quality weapon hit issues with magic resistance?

No it would not.

Per HoH:MC

...items of quality are not magical devices per se. Weapons of quality are not resisted by Magic Resistance...

1 Like

Folkloristically, bury him in a pit trap.

2 Likes

Hi guys,
I love the ideas and theories expressed here, you guys are amazing, I only know basic physics and maths. I agree that large weapons like this would need magic to be useful, but does the whole weapon need to be enchanted? Can you use a composite device to make such a massive sword. A sword with an enchanted hilt but a mundane blade. The enchantment allows the wielder to move the hilt at will, and the attached blade will follow accordingly.

Similar to how a train has 1 engine providing motion but several carriages are being moved.

This is still using a ReTe or even Re(InMe)Te, but the blade itself would be mundane and doesn't need any penetration.

An alternative would be to do it Invisible Sling of Vilano style ReTe effect, the ReTe effect gives a momentary boost of force in a specific direction, physics takes over after that.

This means that the weapon is not under any active magic effects when it hits an enemy.

Even if you enchant the hilt to move the blade, the blade is moved by magical power, and remains in contact with the hilt as opposed to being flung as per the invisible sling.
Technically the invisible sling itself should not work according to the underlying ars Magica physics, but the editor allowed it from an author who either didn't understand that or ignored it so now it is canon, because if you read art & acadame it explains how these spells should not work...

Hi Silveroak,
Sorry if I wasn't clear. The magical effect on the hilt is only moving the hilt. The hilt is a standalone magic item which affects itself. The blade is attached to the hilt after it has been enchanted. (I'm not a blacksmith or weaponsmith, but I believe this isn't the best way to make a sword.)

In a similar way to a magus using ReTe to make a rock levitate, then sitting on the rock. The rock is under a magical effect, not the magus.

There are lots of examples of one thing being moved by magic which in-turn move other things.

In the X-Men 2 Movie Magneto uses magnetism to manipulate some iron filings to make a platform that he can stand on.

I can't remember if it was 4th Ed or 5th Ed but there was a magus with an animated corpse and he sat on its shoulder.

An animated skeleton wielding a normal mundane sword.

If we look at this last one in more detail, this is similar to what I am after. I'm not talking about the structural integrity of the sword or the iron/steel. I was just trying to address the issue of lifting up something heavy and swinging it around.

Of course, there is a major flaw in my proposed sword - whatever linking mechanism is used to attach the sword to the hilt will be under tremendous strain everytime the sword is moved or hits something. Because the sword wasn't made as a "whole" all of the stress will end up on the junction point.

As for your comments about the Sling, I must have missed that discussion or Errata. Although I do agree that it completely flies against all the other parts of the system.

You could use ReHe, for example, to move the hilt to move the sword, but as written parma and magical defenses would still protect against it, though the skeleton wielding a mundane sword would not- the idea of a compound weapon where the entire thing is moved by magic but the striking surface is non magic simply does not work, and has been discussed ad nauseum.
Note, for example, that a skeleton would suffer the same restrictions of mechanics on being able to wield the weapon that a human does, which the enchanted hilt would not suffer from.
Also if you look earlier in the conversation the problem is not simply a matter of the weight of the sword, but of balance and angular momentum versus tip speed.