forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

FWIW, I don't care about balance insofar as the characters in the source are not balanced. It's a big-boy pants RPG and I've been happy to expect players to choose wisely and play their role. And this game is just going to require the LM to work. It's an exquisite and refreshing game.

Excessive mechanical balance for the sake of making all players happy will not distinguish the game and adds an artificial vibe that can be jarring to the source. Especially when the LM can manage this. But I'd hope it's not an issue for players of this game by definition. It's not PF Society.

But then again I was LM when a PC Hobbit, armed with a frying pan, nearly won the grand melee in Dale at the Gathering of Five Armies. And all the players were into it. Even the grand fighters.

I lean more toward the cooperative aspects of this game. If the player invokes a trait with a good story, there's no roll and we move on. There are plenty of opportunities for all character types to do so.

I find that implausible.

Historically, frying pans weren't effectively used as weapons until the late 17th century, when alloys were developed that enabled the handle to withstand the shock of impact. Some sources claim "skillet" use among Merovingian military units in the 4th and 5th centuries, but that is due to a mis-translation. The Frankish "skellere" was more of a dutch oven than a skillet and was wielded by means of a hinged handle, not a fixed one, allowing for much greater impact forces.

The defensive use of skillets or frying pans defensively is also largely fictional. The offset grip results in large torquing forces on the wrist when trying to withstand swung weapons, and the mass of cast iron makes it hard to maneuver quickly enough to block projectiles or stabbing weapons. In my SCA tests with a frying pan and butcher knife (I was using a Lodge 10" model, with a handstrap made from a vintage Enfield rifle sling that I retrofitted) I was handily outmaneuvered by an opponent dual wielding rolling pins.

Tolkien, of course, would have been aware of all of this, being both an expert on military history and being something of an epicurean. I'm sure the absence of kitchen implements as weaponry in the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings was intentional, and I find the inclusion of such to be decidedly non-canonical.

So, you are saying that one of these early skillets would function similarly to a flail, unless I am mistaken.

Halbarad wrote:So, you are saying that one of these early skillets would function similarly to a flail, unless I am mistaken.

If you picture a large, hollow flail that smells like Coq au Vin, then yes.

Elfcrusher wrote:I find that implausible.

Historically, frying pans weren't effectively used as weapons until the late 17th century, when alloys were developed that enabled the handle to withstand the shock of impact. Some sources claim "skillet" use among Merovingian military units in the 4th and 5th centuries, but that is due to a mis-translation. The Frankish "skellere" was more of a dutch oven than a skillet and was wielded by means of a hinged handle, not a fixed one, allowing for much greater impact forces.

The defensive use of skillets or frying pans defensively is also largely fictional. The offset grip results in large torquing forces on the wrist when trying to withstand swung weapons, and the mass of cast iron makes it hard to maneuver quickly enough to block projectiles or stabbing weapons. In my SCA tests with a frying pan and butcher knife (I was using a Lodge 10" model, with a handstrap made from a vintage Enfield rifle sling that I retrofitted) I was handily outmaneuvered by an opponent dual wielding rolling pins.

Tolkien, of course, would have been aware of all of this, being both an expert on military history and being something of an epicurean. I'm sure the absence of kitchen implements as weaponry in the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings was intentional, and I find the inclusion of such to be decidedly non-canonical.

This is ANOTHER one of those cases where shoddy knowledge on Gygax's part when writing up weapon descriptions has tainted gamers' collective understanding of weapons and weapon names. Just like that whole "long sword" thing.

Until the late 1700's, what we now would refer to as a "skillet" was in truth a wide collection of cooking implements that ranged in size from a gigantic, feeds-twenty omelet pan — the most popular of these being the German "Doppelwanne" — to the Spanish sidearm, "Cuchara Tenedor", which closely resembles a modern KFC spork.

Over time, the once long handled, shallow bowled weapons became shorter and deeper to account for the changes in warfare brought on by the rise of gunpowder weapons. The resulting skillet that we see in gaming books and cutlery magazines are largely ceremonial. They were not meant for field combat, and instead use their wide and deep bowl to emphasize the masculine traits of its bearer. They also fry up a sausage nicely.

doctheweasel wrote: Over time, the once long handled, shallow bowled weapons became shorter and deeper to account for the changes in warfare brought on by the rise of gunpowder weapons. The resulting skillet that we see in gaming books and cutlery magazines are largely ceremonial. They were not meant for field combat, and instead use their wide and deep bowl to emphasize the masculine traits of its bearer. They also fry up a sausage nicely.

Once again gross misunderstanding of societal changes distorts historical understanding. Changing culinary habits and tastes influenced military tactics and weaponry, not vice versa. The huge influx of salt cod (bakala) that spread through the continent after the Portuguese discovered the Grand Banks affected the size and shape of cooking implements, from Sicily to Northern France, necessitating much heavier skillets. These skillets could not be penetrated by either longbow or crossbow, and this military need drove the R&D into gunpowder that turned firearms from unreliable novelty to battleground staple.

Elfcrusher wrote:Tolkien, of course, would have been aware of all of this, being both an expert on military history and being something of an epicurean. I'm sure the absence of kitchen implements as weaponry in the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings was intentional, and I find the inclusion of such to be decidedly non-canonical.

OK, in the next melee only skinchangers, giant eagles, elves, dwarves, magic swords, wizard staffs, etc allowed. But absolutely no frying pans!

Elfcrusher wrote:I find that implausible... <snip>

... um, so where were we?

Oh, yeah.


I wonder what would happen if you have a party that all Rangers. Do they get to use the Fellowship Pool, or are they not allowed to share the burden they all share?

What if a party has 2 Rangers? Do they get their own pool?

doctheweasel wrote:I wonder what would happen if you have a party that all Rangers. Do they get to use the Fellowship Pool, or are they not allowed to share the burden they all share?

What if a party has 2 Rangers? Do they get their own pool?

I was wondering this as well. You'd think that two rangers would be likely to share a subset of the FP in such a way as they share the same burden, but that assumes that the culture adds to the FP when calculating its total/max amount; if it doesn't then there's no FP to share for the two PCs. Perhaps such a thing isn't within the spirit of the rules though and therefore they can never access the FP.