>A sword that cuts skin and phases through all other materials

File: 72c.jpg (18KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 600x450px

>>55328264
not very effective. It'd be great at giving someone skin-deep lacerations.

>>55328264
Lace it with poison, assuming that the poison phases as well you have an un-blockable poisoned weapon

>>55328294
it'd phase through the poison, your plan is shit

It'd be a pretty cool torture device.

Scalping, tanning, and de-scaling becomes easier

>>55328264
Can you design the sword to cut so much skin that bleeding out becomes a real possibility?

>>55328349
not really. you still have to cut the hide away from the body only now there's no resistance in the meat.

It's only good for giving people shaving cuts, it's shit.

>>55328264
What happens if you enchanted a big hammer or something like that instead? Would you just pulp sections of skin?

Does leather count as "skin" and does your fantasy world have widespread leather armor?

>>55328264
Is this a torture item?

>>55328264
maybe for torture

>>55328264
>Cut off someone's eyelids
>Switch to a proper weapon

>>55328264
Highly ineffective, you need to land atleast 1000 hits.

File: 1David4sm_mohel.jpg (115KB, 1200x630px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1200x630px

>>55328264
>TFW I now need to create a character called the 'Circumciser'.

>>55328264

SWORD OF SHARPNESS

>>55328717
Enchant this magic on a cat of 9 tails. Now you can cut 9 times the skin per swing.

Rolled 2 + 1 (1d2 + 1)

>>55328717
Damage d2-1

>>55328264
How do you hold it?

>>55329040
>How do you hold it?
By the hilt, you dingus!

>>55329040
with your skin

>>55329040
I'd be inclined to assume only the blade has this property and you can hold it by the handle. Otherwise this weapon would be very hard to obtain, being at the center of the world and all.

>>55329040
>>55329099
Even if the entire blade had the strange property of "only interacts with skin" couldn't the skin of your hand still hold the hilt?

>>55329161
Yeah, I guess I didn't really think it through. I'll still assert that it does need some way to not fall through the ground, though I guess you could keep it in some kind of kangaroo-like skin pocket if you're into body modification.

>>55329040
OP here, the hilt doesn't have the phasing property, only the blade.
It's magic you doof, don't overanalyze it

>>55329194
I imagine it would still feel really weird to hold, especially if you have gauntlets or something on.

>kangaroo-like skin pocket
I'm really hoping that leather counts as skin so you can just have a sheathe for it.

File: NDTE.jpg (51KB, 728x752px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 728x752px

>>55328264
I'd learn how to reproduce its enchantment to make a safer alternative to bloodletting daggers, then sell them to cultists in need of better tools.

>>55328264
By skin, do you just mean skin or anything that counts as flesh?

>>55329297
yes

>>55329609
That wasn't a yes or no question

It'd be pretty useful for dressing game

>>55329647
Yes it was.

>>55329647

It's pretty obvious he meant anything that counts as flesh.

>>55330205
Wrong thread, my dude.

>>55330245
RIP I had two threads open. I'm bad.

>>55328264
>only cuts skin
I'm sure surgeons could find a use for it.

You could also use it to psych out enemies who are wearing armor. Maybe tag them with this sword, then get in a follow-up with a real weapon while they're trying to process what just happened.

>>5533043
if it phases through internals wouldnt it slice straight through sections of skin? Im imagining degloving (dont google that) but on a larger scale, sounds unpleasant.

>>55330227
No it fucking wasn't.
>Did you mean either A, or B?
>Yes.

>>55328264
>Hurr durr how effective is a sword that ignores all armor?
I get that you really want to talk about magical shenanigans and other /tg/-related stuff, but posting every asinine question that pops into your head is not the way to do it.

>>55331824
There was no either.
>Do you mean: A or B
>Yes, I mean A or B
It was a perfectly valid response.

>>55331896
>There was no either.
How are you this terrible at parsing English?

>>55328264
Large amounts of traumatic skin loss, even assuming the sword phased through the blood vessels in the skin without harming them in, an era without systemic intravenous antibiotics, positive pressure rooms, and modern plastic surgery graft and flap techniques would be fatal. Though not immediately so.

>>55332059
They have magic for all of that

>>55332030
Grammatically, even with an "either," "yes" would still be a valid response. It is grammatically correct to state that "either A or B is what I meant". It's clear what the original question-asker was trying to inquire, but the response is valid nonetheless.

>>55332030
I agree with you that he was a fucking retard, but I assume it's a 46 IQ ESLfag, so not explicitly demarcating your clauses can rot their pathetic Latin brains.

>By skin, do you just mean skin or anything that counts as flesh?
Should technically be:
>By skin, do you just mean skin, or anything that counts as flesh?

I actually had to go back and reread it myself because a native speaker or anyone with more than a handful of functioning brain cells understands what you meant, intuitively.

>>55332065
Sure, but I mean there's magic that can raise the dead so no wound is truly mortal at the end of the day.

Except maybe magic "can't come back to life" wounds

>>55332089
Now there's a useful sword enchantment. Wounds that can heal but not magically

>>55331824
>>55332030
>>55332084
Are you guys not familiar with english colloquialisms? Responding "Yes" to an "A or B" question is something that is done as a humorous or smart-alec response to the question. The person who said "Yes" was likely trying to be funny.

>>55332121
I mean I certainly figured that's what he was doing - some extremely cringe-y reddit bullshit - but given the seemingly serious response I figured I'd explain how someone could actually be dumb enough to respond to that statement with 'Yes'.

>>55332030
You're pretty fucking dumb, anon. Grammatically, you made no distinction between either possible scenarios. You asked "do you mean x or y?"
And anon answered "yes, I mean x and y". This is often referred to as either engineer's humor or programmer's humor, as both skill sets require a very high precision of language.
TL;DR learn English before you talk shit, you ignorant nigger.

>>55332233
How would you phrase it if you wanted to be precise and specify that the answerer should choose from X or Y but not X-and-Y?

>>55328283
Severing straight through every layer of skin and leaving every other organ intact sounds pretty fucking gruesome.

>>55332250
"Which of X or Y did you mean?"

>>55332250
Should I EITHER x OR Y. This precisely indicates that you want one or the other, never both. There's a fun joke about a similar situation.
A woman sent her husband, a software engineer, to go grocery shopping. She said "could you go to the store and get a gallon of milk, and if they have any fresh eggs could you please get a dozen." The dutiful husband went to the local grocer and sure enough they had farm fresh eggs. He came home with a dozen gallons of milk.

>>55332298
Except that "Do you want either x or y?" can still be responded to with a "yes," indicating that the person does indeed want one of x or y.

>>55332250
Use a comma, as indicated here

>>55332084

>>55332312
That's because in your question "Do you want either x or y" the two options are not mutually exclusive. Yes is a valid answer in that instance because it is possible for someone to want both a Maserati AND an ice cream cone. Answering flatly "yes" is simply a humorous way to answer "I would like both". Now let's say you needed to get to the bottom floor of a building. If you asked "should I take the stairs or jump off the roof?" The answer of "yes" would indicate that you should indeed either jump or take the stairs, but not which one. If you asked "should I EITHER take the stairs or jump off the roof?" an answer of yes would be meaningless drivel as the two possibilities are mutually exclusive.

>>55332321
OXFORD COMMAS DO NOT ALTER GRAMATICAL STRUCTURE. THEY ARE FOR COMFORT OF READING AND TO INDICATE A NATURAL BREAK IN RHYTHM, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ELSE.

Let's be realistic here. The kind of mong that needs to ask whether an armor-piercing sword is any good probably isn't a software engineer.

>>55328264
>constantly cutting your skin while holding it
>go to sheathe it
>goes through sheathe
>drop it
>phases through ground
>phases through to the center of the earth (doing pretty sick orbital trips in the earth's innards as the lack of friction keeps it going unabated)

>>55332351
But that's wrong, you sickly, ill-brained trog. Commas serve many grammatical functions, including acting as separation between clauses.

>>55332357
It's not piercing armor, it's phasing through it doing no damage to anything but the target's skin.

>>55332371
The OXFORD comma, you ignorant swine. The specific comma that comes between one part of a compound sentence and the words "or" or "and". In a collection of objects with only two pbjects, the use of a comma one way or the other is not necessary and its use is entirely regional.

>>55332373
It's penetrating the armor. Effortlessly.

Might as well call it armor-piercing. It's close enough, and armor-ignoring doesn't roll off the tongue.

>>55332396
It's not being pierced, fuck this whole thread is about precision of language. PIERCINGS something means you're creating a hole in the object by forcing material out of the way. A laser doesn't pierce glass, you stupid shit.

>>55332379
It is necessary depending on the context, as it clearly was in this case. Technically speaking, the "or" in that sentence does break up the objects - but if you want insurance against the kind of serial autism he got in response, you need to go further. Is a comma strictly necessary there? No. Does a comma in that sentence absolutely reject the possibility of a Yes/No response? Yes, 100%.

>>55332406
>PIERCINGS something means you're creating a hole in the object by forcing material out of the way.
Piercing is a perfectly adequate description for a sword moving through armor.

The potential issue is that if it only deals damage to the skin it will not stop someone in a fight unless they bleed out, which will take a LONG time with only surface level, relatively narrow injuries. Plus, the phasing is a two way street. You won't be able to parry or block with your blade which means you need a shield and even then you're at a defensive disadvantage.

Thank you for joining us. It's been approximately eight hours since that point was first made.

I think the better question is how would you sheath that?

>>55328264
Shit man, we talked about this a few days ago in the "cursed sword" thread.

It's a shit tier edgelord weapon that's completely useless as soon as you have more than one competent enemy.

sage'd

If only flesh is affected, a bone armor could stop it?

>>55332935
>This level of reading comprehension
Jesus Fucking Christ.

My question is: Does the blade actually cut or effect materials that it "phases"? If so, than it is more useful for that purpose than killing or cutting flesh.

>>55328264
if you stab someone, then scrape the knife through them by the broad side, would you scrape away a huge portion of skin?

>>55328264
How would you forge such a weapon? It'd fall THROUGH the forge.

>>55333382
Enchant after forging?

>>55333429
You can never take your hands off of it or else it'll fall to the center of the planet the moment you set it down.

Unless you make a flesh-sheathe. Then you just have to worry about being disarmed and the fact that you are a monster.

>>55328264
A weird sword in my friend's setting will slice through all organic material (skin, bone, leather, dragonscale) but it has this fucked up effect of petrifying the wound, meaning your arm gets sliced off and you're left with nothing but cold stone where there should be visible muscle and bone. He enjoys body horror.

>>55333382
That's how you know it's done.

>>55333382
In the belly of a dragon!

>>55333473
Leather is skin, you vegan.

What if you stab the dude and leave the sword in him and start using your more conventional sidearm? I dont know about you, but i'd be pretty freaked out with a sword in me.

>>55333517
Wouldn't that mean that leather armor practically negates the phasing effect?

>>55328264
>try to put sword back in scabbard
>phases through the scabbard horizontally and slices your leg to shreds

File: LMAO.jpg (60KB, 991x902px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 991x902px

>this thread
>these autists sperging out

>>55328311
What if the poison is made of skin?

File: 20131119_130341.jpg (342KB, 1200x1600px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 1200x1600px

>>55328955
I have an idea

>>55331848
It also phases through organs and only cuts the literal skin