Forums of the Megaverse®

Where I GM for that call, I'd let it work against fortifications on the ground but not starships. That just seems a bit too much for my taste. The spirit and intent of the weapon is to destroy fortresses I believe, so I'd stick with that. That's just me though.

What does the power say?

If it says the target has to be on the ground, has to be touching the ground, only affects rock, causes an earthquake, causes a vibration in rock, creates a chasm underneath the fortification, then it would only affect things on the ground against that target element/ substance.

Anything in the air, or does not fulfil conditions, no.
CES

Bloodspray wrote:

csyphrett wrote:What does the power say?

If it says the target has to be on the ground, has to be touching the ground, only affects rock, causes an earthquake, causes a vibration in rock, creates a chasm underneath the fortification, then it would only affect things on the ground against that target element/ substance.

Anything in the air, or does not fulfil conditions, no.
CES

I take it you haven't read Dragons and Gods? I'm sure that KS would not be too keen on me reprinting the stats here, so you'll have to dig it out.

It does not indicate an earthquake, but it does imply some sort of vibration, as one of it's secondary powers is similar to the MA ability, and can affect ANY material. It seems to be a combination of that, plus force blasting that takes the building down. It's not just the stone in the building that is implied to be affected. And remember the point I made initially - this is a sword of legend in the PFR world. Any legend will be based around only what the tellers and hearers can comprehend. If it was only ever used on stone buildings because that is all that they ever knew, then why would it's legend say anything more? That wiggle room, plus the spirit of the "conquerers sword", plus the super-charged magic atmosphere leads me to think it could be used on non-stone structures (as others have concurred with).

But that also means that it doesn't have to be connected to the ground, per se. Just large enough for the power to create a cascading effect over the structure, something smaller would be inherently tougher and more less likely to get the proper "sway" going.

Let's look at it from another angle - steam-punk it. Take the castle and lift it, and put it on treads and drive it around. Then what? Arguably, it should still work on it, as I see it at least.

Palladium Fantasy is not much use to me. I looked it up with your mention of the book. The answer is no. This sword's main power can only be used to knock down walls of fortified cities. It's pretty clear on that. Worse than that, you have to be able to stab the wall you are going to bring down.

Now the other powers can be used with effect.
CES

There's a spell in the Federation of Magic book, "Collapse" I think it's called. I'd might use that as a basis for using Castlerake in Rifts.

Greetings and Salutations. As for the main ability ... hmm ... that is interesting. It does specifically mention stone (three times!) and not any other substance. This actually makes me wonder if it will work against the Wood Forts (Timiro has some Wood Forts and at least one Wood/Clay Fort). I would almost have to say it would only work on stone structures. Now, beyond "the book says" I'll try to explain some of my reasoning.

Let's go with the vibration concept from one of the secondary abilities. This gives a focused vibration that works against any solid object. Now, the other is a much greater form for far larger objects. Now, I'm not a science guy, but based on the psuedo-science in my mind right now for some reason I'm thinking every substance as its own properties and, in a sense, their own frequencies. The vibration effectively operates at a specific frequency that is devastating to stone in particular. It won't have the same affect on other substances because it's so large and spread out (while the minor power focuses it into a small area).

Now, I would say it still damages other items, just not as well. So instead of it destroying one third and weakening the rest, I would say it weakens that one third only (which can still be a benefit). Would it work against M.D.C. structures? Hmm ... well, I could see it. However, I would require a higher strength rating. To penetrate stone you need a P.S. of 20 or higher, to penetrate M.D.C. I would think something like 25 or 30 (high, but still possible). With M.D.C. I would say it weakens the M.D.C. structure, and potentially makes it high S.D.C. instead of M.D.C. (while this wouldn't give it less damage capacity, it would allow S.D.C. attacks to whittle away at it normally). Again, not the end all be all of attacks, but I'm figuring still an advantage. At the very least (for any non-stone object) I would think you would have to leave it in there for twice as long (the normal time being to have the reduced affects and the doubled duration for the full normal affect). Meh, just a random thought.

Anyways, not sure of all the logic of it. Maybe it's one of those days I think I'm really clever and I'll read it another day or two from now and thinking "What was I saying?!" Hopefully not. Well, either way, take it or leave it as you please. I'd like to think some of this has been of help, or at least interesting if not useful. Farewell and safe journeys to all.


P.S. Well, I'll admit never having cared much for Castlerake. It's nice in a game involving armies and going up against fortresses, but just didn't wow me otherwise. *Shrugs.* Looking at it again now I guess it's not so bad, but I guess for this legendary allegedly most powerful rune weapon of all time it just didn't grab me. It's impressive, I won't argue that part, but rune weapons are the type you're supposed to give a kingdom for just the weakest of them, and this is the type you're supposed to give a kingdom of rune swords for and I just don't get that feel from it. To address a different topic (in a different forum, because I'm too lazy to start a second post) I would have to say the best rune weapon is variable on what you want to do. Castlerake is great if you're leading an army against a fortress, otherwise probably not my top pick. Having a melee combat preference myself I always thought Vagan's Hook (Library of Bletherad, page 93) was rather powerful (if you don't have a magical weapon don't bother trying to parry because it's meaningless, the weapon shatters and you're still hit, and magical weapons may break as well). But if you're a mage neither of these may that impressive. Best is based upon the character type. I think Vagan's Hook is powerful for melee combat, but I wouldn't want any of my characters to ever have it either (just no fun). Random musing at the end. Have fun all.

Greetings and Salutations. It's me again. Anyways, I see your point. While I have no objection to it, it's just not the way I would probably do it (for one reason or another it works in my head). Though I tend to either run lower powered games or massively munchie games (the latter we don't use stats so much, still rolls, but it would take forever using Palladium stats of doing 1D6x10 damage for a powerful weapon and the character in questions can take like 5000). Though I mainly responded to say there are indeed metal golems. Well, iron, that counts as metal, right? And PF Main Book doesn't have mention of Clay Golems. Anyways, I will also note that Castlerake mentions increased damage to earth elementals and golems (no specifics of what types). It does help give your side some extra support.

On the other side, I don't agree that stats were written from rumor point of view. I would find it odd for a PF inhabitant to say "It can destroy one third of the structure, and the S.D.C. of the rest of the building is reduced by half and it's A.R. dropped by 5." That just sounds ... well, I don't see it being actual conversation or rumor. It's a stat plain and simple (and does mention stone). Now, with that said, again, I'm not opposed to the other view. If I was in the game and the GM ruled it worked on all solid matter like that I wouldn't bat an eye. But, at the very least, I wanted to give the "by the book" rule some explanation beyond "it says."

With all of that said, I will say it was mainly designed for Palladium Fantasy, so they didn't consider things such as M.D.C. structures for instance. While the gods have some M.D.C. conversions, the end of the book seems to have none. I agree that to give it the power legend says it has that it should work on M.D.C. structures. However, I do also believe a P.S. requirement should be required (if stone requires a certain P.S., I think metal and M.D.C. should require an even higher one) and I don't think I can be convinced it shouldn't require it. The rest of it, well you don't have to convince me because I can see it. It's just a matter of tastes (for me). I would probably use one of the alternate rules mentioned in my last post (like taking twice as long for anything non-stone). All right, guess that's it. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

Palladium spells are designed for one effect only. Stone to flesh, fire ball, wall of krytios all do one thing. Now if you want to use Castlerake to destroy chi-town, I have no problem with that since that is what the spell says it will do.

If you want to destroy the enterprise in orbit, the nimitz at sea, a tank, anything at a distance, then no.

CES

Is the Enterprise a city?
CES

I forgot but you could just do a sword with the secondary powers and have the main power destroy whatever it stabs. Instead of Castlerake, it would the Destroyer or something.
CES