I like making mithril finesse. I also treat it as a sort of "super silver/cold iron/magic" metal. In my game Mithril and Adamantine were rendered to the prime material plane by a rogue Celestial weapon smith who helped Zariel intially outfit the Hellriders for their charge (sort of works as fugitive mercenary largely on Avernus in the fallen form of Bone Devil). There's a deeper backstory of renegade celestials basically doing some Cold War type proxy resourcing to get mortals to fight skirmishes to influence the Blood War. So prime material worlds were ceded by celestial meterorites ... so the two metals when alloyed are sort of the Voltron metal, I just realized....
Anyway consequent it's more rare than I think canonical lore.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
To me, Mithril is titanium; stronger and lighter than steel. But it requires an understanding of how to fabricate parts with titanium, which is not like steel.
So mithril produces lighter weapons if the smith wishes them to be lighter. If the smith wishes them to maintain some "heft" then he can make the core of the weapon from steel and then coat the weapon with mithril to reduce wear and increase hardness.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
So I was a fan of what the Volos Guide to All Things Magical described Mithral as, Truemetal. Primarily used for armor, could be forged into Adamantine(IF you knew how, aka good luck PC), and its affects on magic were known to be either nullification or warding. Adamantine was known for how well it took magical enchantments, so one can infer that Mithral is equally adept, if not more so at taking enchantments. The same book describes how Adamantine is the best thing for things like War Hammer Heads, nonmithral armor and harbor chains, aka things you DON'T want to break under extreme duress, so to me Mithral is made for more delicate uses.
With all of that, I see it as something like MusicScout said, lighter but at the same time MUCH tougher. I wouldn't grant EVERY mithral weapon finesse, but I definitely would consider it if a player asked me. I also give it the ability to bypass the Shield spell, since Mithral is(was?) known for how it affects magic. It's able to cut through the magical effect of that spell, similar to how in that same guide it would give bonuses in armor form to a variety of spell effects.
It's VERY rare in weapon form though, to me, considering how far more useful it is in armor form. Most adventurers would rather be able to easily conceal mithral chain or breastplates under standard fare rather than have a super stabby longsword. Sentient weapons are typically Mithral in my head, but those are also very rare so it makes sense, in my head that is.
I feel like heavy is a weird property in 5e. It specifically hampers Small sized creatures and that's it. I feel like it's a holdover from previous versions, like how Paladins had to be Lawful Good.
It's worth noting that having a small size also has some advantages, mechanically. Small characters don't get a bonus to AC and attack like they did in 3.0/3.5, but they can still gain significant situational advantages depending on the circumstances. The player that complains about their halfling not being allowed to use an anime-scale axe should be reminded of that logic next time they want a situational advantage for fitting through tight spaces, hiding, or having their unconscious body carried by larger ally without encumbrance penalty while fleeing an unsuccessful fight.
Ya heavy isn't just based on weight look at the Shortbow vs. the Longbow both weigh 2 pounds but the longbow is heavy which to me implies bigger and they need an excuse for small fries to not use them.
So I was a fan of what the Volos Guide to All Things Magical described Mithral as, Truemetal. Primarily used for armor, could be forged into Adamantine(IF you knew how, aka good luck PC), and its affects on magic were known to be either nullification or warding. Adamantine was known for how well it took magical enchantments, so one can infer that Mithral is equally adept, if not more so at taking enchantments. The same book describes how Adamantine is the best thing for things like War Hammer Heads, nonmithral armor and harbor chains, aka things you DON'T want to break under extreme duress, so to me Mithral is made for more delicate uses.
With all of that, I see it as something like MusicScout said, lighter but at the same time MUCH tougher. I wouldn't grant EVERY mithral weapon finesse, but I definitely would consider it if a player asked me. I also give it the ability to bypass the Shield spell, since Mithral is(was?) known for how it affects magic. It's able to cut through the magical effect of that spell, similar to how in that same guide it would give bonuses in armor form to a variety of spell effects.
It's VERY rare in weapon form though, to me, considering how far more useful it is in armor form. Most adventurers would rather be able to easily conceal mithral chain or breastplates under standard fare rather than have a super stabby longsword. Sentient weapons are typically Mithral in my head, but those are also very rare so it makes sense, in my head that is.
I think you could have a number of techniques all or none of which could be known to PCs with magic nullification being a pretty advanced one. Like the titanium analogy, it could have a lot of applications, but having some doesn't mean you know what to do with it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I feel like heavy is a weird property in 5e. It specifically hampers Small sized creatures and that's it. I feel like it's a holdover from previous versions, like how Paladins had to be Lawful Good.
It's worth noting that having a small size also has some advantages, mechanically. Small characters don't get a bonus to AC and attack like they did in 3.0/3.5, but they can still gain significant situational advantages depending on the circumstances. The player that complains about their halfling not being allowed to use an anime-scale axe should be reminded of that logic next time they want a situational advantage for fitting through tight spaces, hiding, or having their unconscious body carried by larger ally without encumbrance penalty while fleeing an unsuccessful fight.
Ya heavy isn't just based on weight look at the Shortbow vs. the Longbow both weigh 2 pounds but the longbow is heavy which to me implies bigger and they need an excuse for small fries to not use them.
The longbow is classified as a heavy weapon because an individual the size of a goblin or halfling is simply too short and has insufficient reach to be able to easily use it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
But if the weapon isn't heavy anymore, then it would deal less damage right?
The damage would be the same. Damage isn't only based on weight. It's magic =)
Ah, so the material itself is inherently magical? So it would bypass damage reduction against non-magical weapons as well I suppose.
No. In prior editions of D&D there were inherently magical metals. But they did away with that this edition. Adamantine Armor is magic armor because it has been crafted as a magic item. It is called Adamantine because it is made of Adamantine, but the Adamantine is not inherently magical.
Similar to Dragon Scale Mail. That is also “magic armor” because it has been made Magic not because dragon hide is inherently magical..
Crafting a Magic Item
Magic items are the DM’s purview, so you decide how they fall into the party’s possession. As an option, you can allow player characters to craft magic items.
The creation of a magic item is a lengthy, expensive task. To start, a character must have a formula that describes the construction of the item. The character must also be a spellcaster with spell slots and must be able to cast any spells that the item can produce. Moreover, the character must meet a level minimum determined by the item’s rarity, as shown in the Crafting Magic Items table. For example, a 3rd-level character could create a wand of magic missiles (an uncommon item), as long as the character has spell slots and can cast magic missile. That same character could make a +1 weapon (another uncommon item), no particular spell required.
You can decide that certain items also require special materials or locations to be created. For example, a character might need alchemist’s supplies to brew a particular potion, or the formula for a flame tongue might require that the weapon be forged with lava
Guess what special material is called for in the formula for making the a set of Adamantine Armor.
Adamantine coated Weapons and ammunition are not inherently magica
Adamantine Weapons
Adamantine is an ultrahard metal found in meteorites and extraordinary mineral veins. In addition to being used to craft adamantine armor, the metal is also used for weapons.
Melee weapons and ammunition made of or coated with adamantine are unusually effective when used to break objects. Whenever an adamantine weapon or piece of ammunition hits an object, the hit is a critical hit.
The adamantine version of a melee weapon or of ten pieces of ammunition costs 500 gp more than the normal version, whether the weapon or ammunition is made of the metal or coated with it.
Ya heavy isn't just based on weight look at the Shortbow vs. the Longbow both weigh 2 pounds but the longbow is heavy which to me implies bigger and they need an excuse for small fries to not use them.
The longbow is classified as a heavy weapon because an individual the size of a goblin or halfling is simply too short and has insufficient reach to be able to easily use it.
That’s funny, I would have bet money it was also in part due to the draw weight on a longbow.
So I was a fan of what the Volos Guide to All Things Magical described Mithral as, Truemetal. Primarily used for armor, could be forged into Adamantine(IF you knew how, aka good luck PC), and its affects on magic were known to be either nullification or warding.
I personally never liked that whole “truemetal” thing. It always annoyed me into believing it didn’t exist outside of alchemical processes.
I like making mithril finesse. I also treat it as a sort of "super silver/cold iron/magic" metal.
Yeah-no. I wouldn’t let it add finesse. Making a Greataxe or Greatsword a finesse weapon is a problem for me.
I honestly think Strength based weapons should get another bump in damage at the top end (2d8/4d4 instead of 1d12/2d6) then stuff like the Longsword and Battleaxe scould shift to 1d10(1d12). That would open up a little room in the middle there for stuff that isn’t possible to represent in this edition without it being the next Trident.. for example, an Arming Sword should currently be 1d8 slashing, but with neither the Rapier’s, finesse nor the Longsword’sversatile property. So nobody would use it. But that entire “category” of average swords that are hlonger than a Shortsword but shorter than a Longsword) But if Str weapons could just pull up that we could leave by 10,)
That would also go a long way towards fixing the massive disparity between Dex & Str builds.
I understand the objections, but mithril and the like are exceedingly rare in my game. It's more "common" (that is 'rare') off the prime material plane where mortal folks need any benefit they can get from a super metal.
Party doesn't realize it but they have found basically space suits they recovered from an ancient weapons lab.... I need to learn how to drop Heroforge images into this chat so I can give an instance of "possibly Mithral weave. It's very glam.
Ya heavy isn't just based on weight look at the Shortbow vs. the Longbow both weigh 2 pounds but the longbow is heavy which to me implies bigger and they need an excuse for small fries to not use them.
The longbow is classified as a heavy weapon because an individual the size of a goblin or halfling is simply too short and has insufficient reach to be able to easily use it.
That’s funny, I would have bet money it was also in part due to the draw weight on a longbow.
Shorter races are not limited in strength though.
As an aside, why are Dwarves 'medium?' That seems a contradiction in terms somehow.....
Because D&D shamelessly ripped off Tolkien and that's how he portrayed dwarves- shorter than humans but not as small as hobbits.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I'm not going to quote everything I'm responding to so as to avoid enough nested boxes to produce tunnel vision.
Dwarves are medium because, yes they're based directly on Tolkien's description (just like literally every other fantasy setting's dwarves) and also because of that they are shorter than humans but also relatively broader and heavier for their heights. This, combined with still being taller than halflings, gnomes, and other small creatures pushes them up into medium size for mechanical purposes. I did note when first perusing the 5e PHB that dwarves are described as significantly leaner than in the 3.5 I was previously familiar with to the point that I would describe them as being built like short and exceptionally stocky humans as opposed to almost literally half as wide as they are tall as they're generally described in third edition. Though, also in third edition dwarves have lower base movement speed to match small creatures but have a racial feature that negates the movement penalty all other races get when wearing heavy armor.
With the mention of Tolkien as an inspiration source, it's worth noting that I've heard that in very early material halflings were actually called hobbits until somebody from Tolkien's estate caught wind of it and slapped them with a cease and desist order, causing them to switch to "halflings" which is a term unprotected by copyright even though it is also used in Tolkien's work. This should come as no surprise as D&D halflings are obviously supposed to be hobbits.
Further on the subject of small characters and weapons like the longbow that aren't actually heavier: there is a certain degree of "realism" that the designers are attempting to maintain (I know I say that isn't important but I'm speaking objectively here, not voicing a personal opinion). It can easily break immersion for a lot of people if you're describing a three foot tall character wielding a weapon nearly twice as long as they are tall when that weapon is properly held vertically from it's center at shoulder height. And yes, a bow is properly fired vertically and every depiction you see of someone canting a bow does affect the physics of it's arrows' flight and though some shooters practice specifically to compensate for this inefficiency the fact remains that they could achieve objectively better results by shooting the bow from a fully vertical position. And, mechanically speaking for D&D terms, "inefficiency" translates to reduced range and damage so if you're going to apply penalties for that you might as well keep it simpler and just make them use a shortbow instead of a longbow because it has decreased range and damage by comparison.
Third edition originally had small characters treat all weapons as a size category larger than medium creatures, so a dagger was light, a shortsword a standard one handed weapon, a longsword a two handed weapon, and they couldn't use a greatsword without the Monkey Grip feat (which allowed a character to treat a weapon as one size smaller, thust getting around the size restriction but a medium character could use it to wield even larger weapons). 3.5 adjusted this by making weapons themselves size specific, so a small longsword dealt the same damage as a medium shortsword (rather than small character wielding a non-specified shortsword as a medium character does a longsword) producing the same effect for how much damage a smaller character did but also added the complication of a any character being automatically nonproficient (and thus taking penalties to attack rolls) with any weapon of a different size than themselves (a small longsword and a medium shortsword are explicitly notthe same thing).
It's also worth noting that, as a balance to the reduced weapon damage from scaled down weapons, small characters in 3.0/3.5 got other clear advantages. Most readily, they got a blanket +1 to attack rolls and armor class based on the premise that they made for smaller targets and other creatures were bigger than them in perspective thus making it easier for them to hit (tiny and smaller creatures got bigger bonuses, and creatures larger than medium got penalties scaled up with size). Small creatures also received penalties to rolls made while grappling but the less said about third edition grappling rules the better so I'm not even going into that.
Again, all of the weapon size/scale things are based on real physics, not fantasy physics. If you (and your DM, unless that's you) decide that it isn't immersion breaking for itty bitty people to swing around big honking weapons like a bunch of superhuman anime characters, then feel free to ignore that "heavy" quality.
@6thLyranGuard, as to mass being unimportant to damage for slashing and piercing weapons, that is flat out wrong. Again this applies to real world physics, not a fantasy abstraction thereof which is what D&D is. Right above your statement you quoted the equation stating force to be equal to mass times acceleration. It doesn't matter how sharp something is, if it isn't being pushed into an object it will not penetrate. This is especially the case when dealing with armored targets or even a creature with a thick enough hide that D&D mechanics consider it natural armor. A weapon penetrates a tough or solid surface by applying a large amount of force onto a small area so the armor buckles and breaks in that super small area impacted by the point of a spear or edge of a blade. No force means no penetration, and no mass means no force. The less mass you have, such as with an arrow, the more acceleration you need to produce enough force, which is why bows are made to launch arrows very fast. Same goes for the edge of an axe or sword. With swords, in particular, it is possible to continuouslyapply lesser force for a cumulative effect, such as how a large length of a katana's relatively light blade gets drawn across it's target in a strike, all while being consistently pressed forward by the wielder's follow through on their swing (this effect is one of the main reason curved blades are more difficult to wield most effectively but can cut better than straight edged weapons when properly employed). Either way, force is still being applied and any decrease in mass must be compensated for by increased acceleration.
@6thLyranGuard, as to mass being unimportant to damage for slashing and piercing weapons, that is flat out wrong. Again this applies to real world physics, not a fantasy abstraction thereof which is what D&D is. Right above your statement you quoted the equation stating force to be equal to mass times acceleration. It doesn't matter how sharp something is, if it isn't being pushed into an object it will not penetrate. This is especially the case when dealing with armored targets or even a creature with a thick enough hide that D&D mechanics consider it natural armor. A weapon penetrates a tough or solid surface by applying a large amount of force onto a small area so the armor buckles and breaks in that super small area impacted by the point of a spear or edge of a blade. No force means no penetration, and no mass means no force. The less mass you have, such as with an arrow, the more acceleration you need to produce enough force, which is why bows are made to launch arrows very fast. Same goes for the edge of an axe or sword. With swords, in particular, it is possible to continuouslyapply lesser force for a cumulative effect, such as how a large length of a katana's relatively light blade gets drawn across it's target in a strike, all while being consistently pressed forward by the wielder's follow through on their swing (this effect is one of the main reason curved blades are more difficult to wield most effectively but can cut better than straight edged weapons when properly employed). Either way, force is still being applied and any decrease in mass must be compensated for by increased acceleration.
It sounds like you’ve got that backward. The mass of the weapon is not producing force. A bow is going to produce the same amount of force regardless of the mass of the arrow, and a combatant will swing a weapon with the same amount of force regardless of the mass of that weapon (all else being equal, of course). That force just can’t accelerate a more massive object as much as a less massive one.
Regardless, 6thLyranGuard’s point (I believe) is that with piercing or slashing weapons, the more relevant quantity is pressure: the sharper the weapon, the more force it carries per area, and the more efficiently it can deliver destructive kinetic energy to its target. A scalpel can be more damaging than a punch, even if the attack carries the same force, and the reason has little to do with mass (or with acceleration).
@6thLyranGuard, as to mass being unimportant to damage for slashing and piercing weapons, that is flat out wrong. Again this applies to real world physics, not a fantasy abstraction thereof which is what D&D is. Right above your statement you quoted the equation stating force to be equal to mass times acceleration. It doesn't matter how sharp something is, if it isn't being pushed into an object it will not penetrate. This is especially the case when dealing with armored targets or even a creature with a thick enough hide that D&D mechanics consider it natural armor. A weapon penetrates a tough or solid surface by applying a large amount of force onto a small area so the armor buckles and breaks in that super small area impacted by the point of a spear or edge of a blade. No force means no penetration, and no mass means no force. The less mass you have, such as with an arrow, the more acceleration you need to produce enough force, which is why bows are made to launch arrows very fast. Same goes for the edge of an axe or sword. With swords, in particular, it is possible to continuouslyapply lesser force for a cumulative effect, such as how a large length of a katana's relatively light blade gets drawn across it's target in a strike, all while being consistently pressed forward by the wielder's follow through on their swing (this effect is one of the main reason curved blades are more difficult to wield most effectively but can cut better than straight edged weapons when properly employed). Either way, force is still being applied and any decrease in mass must be compensated for by increased acceleration.
It sounds like you’ve got that backward. The mass of the weapon is not producing force. A bow is going to produce the same amount of force regardless of the mass of the arrow, and a combatant will swing a weapon with the same amount of force regardless of the mass of that weapon (all else being equal, of course). That force just can’t accelerate a more massive object as much as a less massive one.
Regardless, 6thLyranGuard’s point (I believe) is that with piercing or slashing weapons, the more relevant quantity is pressure: the sharper the weapon, the more force it carries per area, and the more efficiently it can deliver destructive kinetic energy to its target. A scalpel can be more damaging than a punch, even if the attack carries the same force, and the reason has little to do with mass (or with acceleration).
Yes, that's why I said their mass was less important, not unimportant. If you're trying to, for instance, kill someone by striking them in the throat, it takes far less force to use a dagger or handaxe than to use a mace. If your blade is sharp enough, it doesn't take that much effort to puncture the carotid artery or jugular vein. Certainly a lot less than is needed to crush their trachea or neck vertebrae.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
The damage would be the same. Damage isn't only based on weight. It's magic =)
it comes from a regular ol' ore in the ground. very tough, very light, can held a nice edge, very rare. that's it. an axe or sword made of out mithral isn't magical because mithral isn't, as a pure metal, magical.
@6thLyranGuard, as to mass being unimportant to damage for slashing and piercing weapons, that is flat out wrong. Again this applies to real world physics, not a fantasy abstraction thereof which is what D&D is. Right above your statement you quoted the equation stating force to be equal to mass times acceleration. It doesn't matter how sharp something is, if it isn't being pushed into an object it will not penetrate. This is especially the case when dealing with armored targets or even a creature with a thick enough hide that D&D mechanics consider it natural armor. A weapon penetrates a tough or solid surface by applying a large amount of force onto a small area so the armor buckles and breaks in that super small area impacted by the point of a spear or edge of a blade. No force means no penetration, and no mass means no force. The less mass you have, such as with an arrow, the more acceleration you need to produce enough force, which is why bows are made to launch arrows very fast. Same goes for the edge of an axe or sword. With swords, in particular, it is possible to continuouslyapply lesser force for a cumulative effect, such as how a large length of a katana's relatively light blade gets drawn across it's target in a strike, all while being consistently pressed forward by the wielder's follow through on their swing (this effect is one of the main reason curved blades are more difficult to wield most effectively but can cut better than straight edged weapons when properly employed). Either way, force is still being applied and any decrease in mass must be compensated for by increased acceleration.
It sounds like you’ve got that backward. The mass of the weapon is not producing force. A bow is going to produce the same amount of force regardless of the mass of the arrow, and a combatant will swing a weapon with the same amount of force regardless of the mass of that weapon (all else being equal, of course). That force just can’t accelerate a more massive object as much as a less massive one.
Regardless, 6thLyranGuard’s point (I believe) is that with piercing or slashing weapons, the more relevant quantity is pressure: the sharper the weapon, the more force it carries per area, and the more efficiently it can deliver destructive kinetic energy to its target. A scalpel can be more damaging than a punch, even if the attack carries the same force, and the reason has little to do with mass (or with acceleration).
Yes, that's why I said their mass was less important, not unimportant. If you're trying to, for instance, kill someone by striking them in the throat, it takes far less force to use a dagger or handaxe than to use a mace. If your blade is sharp enough, it doesn't take that much effort to puncture the carotid artery or jugular vein. Certainly a lot less than is needed to crush their trachea or neck vertebrae.
The mass of the weapon is absolutely integral to the force. Force is mass times acceleration, which means less mass means less force unless you increase the acceleration (speed of the strike) proportionately to compensate. A bow does not directly deliver force to a target, it uses force to provide acceleration to an arrow and the force delivered to a target is equal to that acceleration times the mass of the arrow. And the example of "sharp things go into soft things easier" misses the point I was making, which was that mass still matters. Most of the time his entire subject would be relevant, a target is going to be armored. To penetrate that armor, you still need significant force behind your sharp thing and that is a function of speed and mass. This means that a sword or spear has to be swung/thrust with greater speed than a heavier weapon to effectively damage, even with the point/edge. There's also the physics of how bludgeoning weapons don't need to penetrate armor to deal serious damage but that's an entirely different can of worms. Still, a razor sharp paperclip isn't going to penetrate as well as a javelin traveling at a fraction of whatever speed one manages to propel the near-massless paperclip.
For purposes of simplicity, I've been explaining under the assumption that people can understand the general concept of "thing hits harder if it's heavy and fast."
For purposes of simplicity, I've been explaining under the assumption that people can understand the general concept of "thing hits harder if it's heavy and fast."
For purposes of simplicity, I've been explaining under the assumption that people can understand the general concept of "thing hits harder if it's heavy and fast."
you loose the ‘heavy’ with mithral
Heavy in the mass sense, not the attribute sense.
Lose, not Loose.
I am talking in the mass sense, it’s a lighter metal, you’d need to basically double the physical size of the weapon to have that same mass….which is why it loses its heavy attribute.
@6thLyranGuard, as to mass being unimportant to damage for slashing and piercing weapons, that is flat out wrong. Again this applies to real world physics, not a fantasy abstraction thereof which is what D&D is. Right above your statement you quoted the equation stating force to be equal to mass times acceleration. It doesn't matter how sharp something is, if it isn't being pushed into an object it will not penetrate. This is especially the case when dealing with armored targets or even a creature with a thick enough hide that D&D mechanics consider it natural armor. A weapon penetrates a tough or solid surface by applying a large amount of force onto a small area so the armor buckles and breaks in that super small area impacted by the point of a spear or edge of a blade. No force means no penetration, and no mass means no force. The less mass you have, such as with an arrow, the more acceleration you need to produce enough force, which is why bows are made to launch arrows very fast. Same goes for the edge of an axe or sword. With swords, in particular, it is possible to continuouslyapply lesser force for a cumulative effect, such as how a large length of a katana's relatively light blade gets drawn across it's target in a strike, all while being consistently pressed forward by the wielder's follow through on their swing (this effect is one of the main reason curved blades are more difficult to wield most effectively but can cut better than straight edged weapons when properly employed). Either way, force is still being applied and any decrease in mass must be compensated for by increased acceleration.
It sounds like you’ve got that backward. The mass of the weapon is not producing force. A bow is going to produce the same amount of force regardless of the mass of the arrow, and a combatant will swing a weapon with the same amount of force regardless of the mass of that weapon (all else being equal, of course). That force just can’t accelerate a more massive object as much as a less massive one.
Regardless, 6thLyranGuard’s point (I believe) is that with piercing or slashing weapons, the more relevant quantity is pressure: the sharper the weapon, the more force it carries per area, and the more efficiently it can deliver destructive kinetic energy to its target. A scalpel can be more damaging than a punch, even if the attack carries the same force, and the reason has little to do with mass (or with acceleration).
Yes, that's why I said their mass was less important, not unimportant. If you're trying to, for instance, kill someone by striking them in the throat, it takes far less force to use a dagger or handaxe than to use a mace. If your blade is sharp enough, it doesn't take that much effort to puncture the carotid artery or jugular vein. Certainly a lot less than is needed to crush their trachea or neck vertebrae.
The mass of the weapon is absolutely integral to the force. Force is mass times acceleration, which means less mass means less force unless you increase the acceleration (speed of the strike) proportionately to compensate. A bow does not directly deliver force to a target, it uses force to provide acceleration to an arrow and the force delivered to a target is equal to that acceleration times the mass of the arrow. And the example of "sharp things go into soft things easier" misses the point I was making, which was that mass still matters. Most of the time his entire subject would be relevant, a target is going to be armored. To penetrate that armor, you still need significant force behind your sharp thing and that is a function of speed and mass. This means that a sword or spear has to be swung/thrust with greater speed than a heavier weapon to effectively damage, even with the point/edge. There's also the physics of how bludgeoning weapons don't need to penetrate armor to deal serious damage but that's an entirely different can of worms. Still, a razor sharp paperclip isn't going to penetrate as well as a javelin traveling at a fraction of whatever speed one manages to propel the near-massless paperclip.
And as I already explained in my last post, less force is necessary to achieve the same results if you concentrate the force on the smaller area of a cutting edge or tip.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I like making mithril finesse. I also treat it as a sort of "super silver/cold iron/magic" metal. In my game Mithril and Adamantine were rendered to the prime material plane by a rogue Celestial weapon smith who helped Zariel intially outfit the Hellriders for their charge (sort of works as fugitive mercenary largely on Avernus in the fallen form of Bone Devil). There's a deeper backstory of renegade celestials basically doing some Cold War type proxy resourcing to get mortals to fight skirmishes to influence the Blood War. So prime material worlds were ceded by celestial meterorites ... so the two metals when alloyed are sort of the Voltron metal, I just realized....
Anyway consequent it's more rare than I think canonical lore.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
To me, Mithril is titanium; stronger and lighter than steel. But it requires an understanding of how to fabricate parts with titanium, which is not like steel.
So mithril produces lighter weapons if the smith wishes them to be lighter. If the smith wishes them to maintain some "heft" then he can make the core of the weapon from steel and then coat the weapon with mithril to reduce wear and increase hardness.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
So I was a fan of what the Volos Guide to All Things Magical described Mithral as, Truemetal. Primarily used for armor, could be forged into Adamantine(IF you knew how, aka good luck PC), and its affects on magic were known to be either nullification or warding. Adamantine was known for how well it took magical enchantments, so one can infer that Mithral is equally adept, if not more so at taking enchantments. The same book describes how Adamantine is the best thing for things like War Hammer Heads, nonmithral armor and harbor chains, aka things you DON'T want to break under extreme duress, so to me Mithral is made for more delicate uses.
With all of that, I see it as something like MusicScout said, lighter but at the same time MUCH tougher. I wouldn't grant EVERY mithral weapon finesse, but I definitely would consider it if a player asked me. I also give it the ability to bypass the Shield spell, since Mithral is(was?) known for how it affects magic. It's able to cut through the magical effect of that spell, similar to how in that same guide it would give bonuses in armor form to a variety of spell effects.
It's VERY rare in weapon form though, to me, considering how far more useful it is in armor form. Most adventurers would rather be able to easily conceal mithral chain or breastplates under standard fare rather than have a super stabby longsword. Sentient weapons are typically Mithral in my head, but those are also very rare so it makes sense, in my head that is.
Ya heavy isn't just based on weight look at the Shortbow vs. the Longbow both weigh 2 pounds but the longbow is heavy which to me implies bigger and they need an excuse for small fries to not use them.
I think you could have a number of techniques all or none of which could be known to PCs with magic nullification being a pretty advanced one. Like the titanium analogy, it could have a lot of applications, but having some doesn't mean you know what to do with it.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
The longbow is classified as a heavy weapon because an individual the size of a goblin or halfling is simply too short and has insufficient reach to be able to easily use it.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
No. In prior editions of D&D there were inherently magical metals. But they did away with that this edition. Adamantine Armor is magic armor because it has been crafted as a magic item. It is called Adamantine because it is made of Adamantine, but the Adamantine is not inherently magical.
Similar to Dragon Scale Mail. That is also “magic armor” because it has been made Magic not because dragon hide is inherently magical..
Guess what special material is called for in the formula for making the a set of Adamantine Armor.
Adamantine coated Weapons and ammunition are not inherently magica
Adamantine Weapons
Adamantine is an ultrahard metal found in meteorites and extraordinary mineral veins. In addition to being used to craft adamantine armor, the metal is also used for weapons.
Melee weapons and ammunition made of or coated with adamantine are unusually effective when used to break objects. Whenever an adamantine weapon or piece of ammunition hits an object, the hit is a critical hit.
The adamantine version of a melee weapon or of ten pieces of ammunition costs 500 gp more than the normal version, whether the weapon or ammunition is made of the metal or coated with it.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
That’s funny, I would have bet money it was also in part due to the draw weight on a longbow.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I personally never liked that whole “truemetal” thing. It always annoyed me into believing it didn’t exist outside of alchemical processes.
Yeah-no. I wouldn’t let it add finesse. Making a Greataxe or Greatsword a finesse weapon is a problem for me.
I honestly think Strength based weapons should get another bump in damage at the top end (2d8/4d4 instead of 1d12/2d6) then stuff like the Longsword and Battleaxe scould shift to 1d10(1d12). That would open up a little room in the middle there for stuff that isn’t possible to represent in this edition without it being the next Trident.. for example, an Arming Sword should currently be 1d8 slashing, but with neither the Rapier’s, finesse nor the Longsword’s versatile property. So nobody would use it. But that entire “category” of average swords that are hlonger than a Shortsword but shorter than a Longsword) But if Str weapons could just pull up that we could leave by 10,)
That would also go a long way towards fixing the massive disparity between Dex & Str builds.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I understand the objections, but mithril and the like are exceedingly rare in my game. It's more "common" (that is 'rare') off the prime material plane where mortal folks need any benefit they can get from a super metal.
Party doesn't realize it but they have found basically space suits they recovered from an ancient weapons lab.... I need to learn how to drop Heroforge images into this chat so I can give an instance of "possibly Mithral weave. It's very glam.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Because D&D shamelessly ripped off Tolkien and that's how he portrayed dwarves- shorter than humans but not as small as hobbits.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I'm not going to quote everything I'm responding to so as to avoid enough nested boxes to produce tunnel vision.
Dwarves are medium because, yes they're based directly on Tolkien's description (just like literally every other fantasy setting's dwarves) and also because of that they are shorter than humans but also relatively broader and heavier for their heights. This, combined with still being taller than halflings, gnomes, and other small creatures pushes them up into medium size for mechanical purposes. I did note when first perusing the 5e PHB that dwarves are described as significantly leaner than in the 3.5 I was previously familiar with to the point that I would describe them as being built like short and exceptionally stocky humans as opposed to almost literally half as wide as they are tall as they're generally described in third edition. Though, also in third edition dwarves have lower base movement speed to match small creatures but have a racial feature that negates the movement penalty all other races get when wearing heavy armor.
With the mention of Tolkien as an inspiration source, it's worth noting that I've heard that in very early material halflings were actually called hobbits until somebody from Tolkien's estate caught wind of it and slapped them with a cease and desist order, causing them to switch to "halflings" which is a term unprotected by copyright even though it is also used in Tolkien's work. This should come as no surprise as D&D halflings are obviously supposed to be hobbits.
Further on the subject of small characters and weapons like the longbow that aren't actually heavier: there is a certain degree of "realism" that the designers are attempting to maintain (I know I say that isn't important but I'm speaking objectively here, not voicing a personal opinion). It can easily break immersion for a lot of people if you're describing a three foot tall character wielding a weapon nearly twice as long as they are tall when that weapon is properly held vertically from it's center at shoulder height. And yes, a bow is properly fired vertically and every depiction you see of someone canting a bow does affect the physics of it's arrows' flight and though some shooters practice specifically to compensate for this inefficiency the fact remains that they could achieve objectively better results by shooting the bow from a fully vertical position. And, mechanically speaking for D&D terms, "inefficiency" translates to reduced range and damage so if you're going to apply penalties for that you might as well keep it simpler and just make them use a shortbow instead of a longbow because it has decreased range and damage by comparison.
Third edition originally had small characters treat all weapons as a size category larger than medium creatures, so a dagger was light, a shortsword a standard one handed weapon, a longsword a two handed weapon, and they couldn't use a greatsword without the Monkey Grip feat (which allowed a character to treat a weapon as one size smaller, thust getting around the size restriction but a medium character could use it to wield even larger weapons). 3.5 adjusted this by making weapons themselves size specific, so a small longsword dealt the same damage as a medium shortsword (rather than small character wielding a non-specified shortsword as a medium character does a longsword) producing the same effect for how much damage a smaller character did but also added the complication of a any character being automatically nonproficient (and thus taking penalties to attack rolls) with any weapon of a different size than themselves (a small longsword and a medium shortsword are explicitly not the same thing).
It's also worth noting that, as a balance to the reduced weapon damage from scaled down weapons, small characters in 3.0/3.5 got other clear advantages. Most readily, they got a blanket +1 to attack rolls and armor class based on the premise that they made for smaller targets and other creatures were bigger than them in perspective thus making it easier for them to hit (tiny and smaller creatures got bigger bonuses, and creatures larger than medium got penalties scaled up with size). Small creatures also received penalties to rolls made while grappling but the less said about third edition grappling rules the better so I'm not even going into that.
Again, all of the weapon size/scale things are based on real physics, not fantasy physics. If you (and your DM, unless that's you) decide that it isn't immersion breaking for itty bitty people to swing around big honking weapons like a bunch of superhuman anime characters, then feel free to ignore that "heavy" quality.
@6thLyranGuard, as to mass being unimportant to damage for slashing and piercing weapons, that is flat out wrong. Again this applies to real world physics, not a fantasy abstraction thereof which is what D&D is. Right above your statement you quoted the equation stating force to be equal to mass times acceleration. It doesn't matter how sharp something is, if it isn't being pushed into an object it will not penetrate. This is especially the case when dealing with armored targets or even a creature with a thick enough hide that D&D mechanics consider it natural armor. A weapon penetrates a tough or solid surface by applying a large amount of force onto a small area so the armor buckles and breaks in that super small area impacted by the point of a spear or edge of a blade. No force means no penetration, and no mass means no force. The less mass you have, such as with an arrow, the more acceleration you need to produce enough force, which is why bows are made to launch arrows very fast. Same goes for the edge of an axe or sword. With swords, in particular, it is possible to continuously apply lesser force for a cumulative effect, such as how a large length of a katana's relatively light blade gets drawn across it's target in a strike, all while being consistently pressed forward by the wielder's follow through on their swing (this effect is one of the main reason curved blades are more difficult to wield most effectively but can cut better than straight edged weapons when properly employed). Either way, force is still being applied and any decrease in mass must be compensated for by increased acceleration.
It sounds like you’ve got that backward. The mass of the weapon is not producing force. A bow is going to produce the same amount of force regardless of the mass of the arrow, and a combatant will swing a weapon with the same amount of force regardless of the mass of that weapon (all else being equal, of course). That force just can’t accelerate a more massive object as much as a less massive one.
Regardless, 6thLyranGuard’s point (I believe) is that with piercing or slashing weapons, the more relevant quantity is pressure: the sharper the weapon, the more force it carries per area, and the more efficiently it can deliver destructive kinetic energy to its target. A scalpel can be more damaging than a punch, even if the attack carries the same force, and the reason has little to do with mass (or with acceleration).
Yes, that's why I said their mass was less important, not unimportant. If you're trying to, for instance, kill someone by striking them in the throat, it takes far less force to use a dagger or handaxe than to use a mace. If your blade is sharp enough, it doesn't take that much effort to puncture the carotid artery or jugular vein. Certainly a lot less than is needed to crush their trachea or neck vertebrae.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
it comes from a regular ol' ore in the ground. very tough, very light, can held a nice edge, very rare. that's it. an axe or sword made of out mithral isn't magical because mithral isn't, as a pure metal, magical.
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
Deck of Decks
The mass of the weapon is absolutely integral to the force. Force is mass times acceleration, which means less mass means less force unless you increase the acceleration (speed of the strike) proportionately to compensate. A bow does not directly deliver force to a target, it uses force to provide acceleration to an arrow and the force delivered to a target is equal to that acceleration times the mass of the arrow. And the example of "sharp things go into soft things easier" misses the point I was making, which was that mass still matters. Most of the time his entire subject would be relevant, a target is going to be armored. To penetrate that armor, you still need significant force behind your sharp thing and that is a function of speed and mass. This means that a sword or spear has to be swung/thrust with greater speed than a heavier weapon to effectively damage, even with the point/edge. There's also the physics of how bludgeoning weapons don't need to penetrate armor to deal serious damage but that's an entirely different can of worms. Still, a razor sharp paperclip isn't going to penetrate as well as a javelin traveling at a fraction of whatever speed one manages to propel the near-massless paperclip.
For purposes of simplicity, I've been explaining under the assumption that people can understand the general concept of "thing hits harder if it's heavy and fast."
you loose the ‘heavy’ with mithral
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
Deck of Decks
I am talking in the mass sense, it’s a lighter metal, you’d need to basically double the physical size of the weapon to have that same mass….which is why it loses its heavy attribute.
yeah, lose.
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
Deck of Decks
And as I already explained in my last post, less force is necessary to achieve the same results if you concentrate the force on the smaller area of a cutting edge or tip.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.