Got a Fantasy-World Weapon, Armor or War Question? [Archive] - Page 2

Incanur

2011-05-05, 12:09 AM

The feat is an exaggeration at best. When far enough away one can interpose a shield in the way of an arrow, or get out of the way. The demonstrations that have been made of deflecting an arrow consist of using low powered bows that are pulled back only a little.

Skilled batters manage to "deflect" baseballs pitched at up to 150 fps. That speed matches a heavy arrow. Showmen catch arrows (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQm1Ea9z1b4) and 230 fps paintballs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjSBkK2ZdVA&NR=1). I don't see anything terribly unbelievable about the Japanese accounts. It's tough trick and would only be useful if for some reason you couldn't dodge instead.

Knaight

2011-05-05, 12:32 AM

Showmen catch arrows (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQm1Ea9z1b4)

The shooters barely even pull the bows back, which fits into the scenarios I was describing. Moreover, he has a much better angle than he would if the arrow were set up to actually hit him.

Conners

2011-05-05, 04:17 AM

Well, I must say that was highly impressive. You could make quite a good, dramatic finale with that concept, having to catch enough arrows for the contest, even though your hand is bleeding (he even encouraged the archers, in a way I likened to a well-done protagonist).

However, if he's one of the world's best--I don't think it would be so practical on the battlefield, at all. One of the most terrible concerns, is that you can't focus on the archer firing at you, there's likely to be more than one, and they'll fire from most any angle. The arrows released, as noted by Knaight, don't look to be drawn with a lot of power. Also, they are trying to shoot the target, not him.

Another terrible disadvantage you get, is the arrow-heads. Hard to grab the shaft when a wide knife-like blade comes immediately before it... Be easier with anti-armour heads, which are more needle-like.

So, now I have the question of how accurate those Japanese accounts are. It could happen, as something very rare and impressive--but it could easily be exaggerations to show how great a folk-hero is.

Here's an odd question. In modern sport, which race would you see as doing well at what? I can imagine elves being the best archers, and orcs being great wrestlers/boxers, easily enough.

Incanur

2011-05-05, 10:35 AM

They're not very powerful bows, but obviously still potent enough to inflict injury. What really matters is speed, and those arrows - while certainly not fast - look like they're on the low end of the normal range. I'd guess around 150 fps. Heavy war arrows, particularly at practical ranges, might well be slower. I'd characterize useful arrow blocking as on the edge of human ability - something completely appropriate for fantasy hero to do.

Conners

2011-05-05, 10:40 AM

Tyndmyr

2011-05-05, 10:58 AM

Speed is a ridiculously huge factor. Most larp/foam fighting groups ban arrow catching because with the poundage limits and other safety limitations, arrows move significantly slower than in real life, and thus, are vastly more catchable.

Arrow deflection can be significantly easier, depending on what you're using to deflect. Your hands? No. That's not easy at all. A shield? Quite doable. Very well supported historically. Axe, sword, etc? Well, there's a significant luck element, but it certainly can happen. I would not advise making a career of it, though.

Consider that a historical archery range for longbows was, by order of Henry the 8th, not permitted to be less than 200 yards.

To reach that kind of range, you've got to have some serious speed. Catching arrows at that speed is not at all practical. Even if, by some miracle you managed to time it right, it's not going to just stop in your hand all nicely.

John Campbell

2011-05-05, 10:59 AM

I've actually done it, with greatsword and polearm, as a combat defense, against rubber blunts that were being shot at me from 30-35 pound bows at fairly close range. I'm pretty sure I can't do it cold, but when I'm in the zone, and an arrow comes at me, I parry it just like I would a spear-thrust. The timing's a little trickier, but the arrow's moving in a fixed trajectory and not going to try to weave around my block at the last moment.

Doing it with a weapon is a lot easier than doing it bare-handed, because you're not going to get an arrow through your palm if you rush the timing a little. The "must have a free hand" requirement in D&D's Deflect Arrows feat is nonsense.

Incanur

2011-05-05, 11:17 AM

Consider that a historical archery range for longbows was, by order of Henry the 8th, not permitted to be less than 200 yards. To reach that kind of range, you've got to have some serious speed.

Not really. Longbow arrows shot by Simon Stanley at 174 feet per second flew about 250 yards. At impact they were traveling 142 fps. The lightest arrow tested by Stanley managed 211 fps and 340-380 yards. That's with a 150lb bow. See The Great Warbow by Matthew Strickland and Robert Hardy.

Spiryt

2011-05-05, 11:33 AM

Xuc Xac

2011-05-05, 11:41 AM

Here's an odd question. In modern sport, which race would you see as doing well at what? I can imagine elves being the best archers, and orcs being great wrestlers/boxers, easily enough.

Orcs would be terrible wrestlers or boxers in organized sports. There are many very narrow weight classes in those sports to minimize the strength advantage between competitors. Unfortunately for the orcs, the strength advantage is all they have. The average orc might be stronger than the average human, but that doesn't matter when the competitors are matched up according to strength anyway. They wouldn't be eligible for the lower weight divisions and they would be up against equally strong humans in the upper weight classes. And the humans don't have the mental penalties that the orcs do, so the orcs will be at a strategic disadvantage.

In D&D terms, boxing and wrestling matches aren't encounters balanced by levels: they are matched up with equal Strength scores on both sides. A typical first level orc warrior with Str 17, Dex 11, Con 12, Int 8, Wis 7, Cha 6 won't be fighting a first level human warrior with Str 13, Dex 11, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 9, Cha 8. He has to face a human (or elf or whatever) who also has Str 17 (and probably doesn't have Int and Wis in the single digits).

Spiryt

2011-05-05, 11:48 AM

Orcs would be terrible wrestlers or boxers in organized sports. There are many very narrow weight classes in those sports to minimize the strength advantage between competitors. Unfortunately for the orcs, the strength advantage is all they have. The average orc might be stronger than the average human, but that doesn't matter when the competitors are matched up according to strength anyway. They wouldn't be eligible for the lower weight divisions and they would be up against equally strong humans in the upper weight classes. And the humans don't have the mental penalties that the orcs do, so the orcs will be at a strategic disadvantage.

In D&D terms, boxing and wrestling matches aren't encounters balanced by levels: they are matched up with equal Strength scores on both sides. A typical first level orc warrior with Str 17, Dex 11, Con 12, Int 8, Wis 7, Cha 6 won't be fighting a first level human warrior with Str 13, Dex 11, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 9, Cha 8. He has to face a human (or elf or whatever) who also has Str 17 (and probably doesn't have Int and Wis in the single digits).

That is all assuming that Orc are only bigger, and not generally more powerful and strong for a given build/size

And most organised sports reach the limit of HW, that's high enough to not really matter all that much. Or don't have HW limit at all - like boxing.

So they could be, at least, very good in the heaviest weight categories. Or at maybe had to cut weight very solidly to catch into desired lower category.

Mentality would be a bit bad, but again, many of the greatest fighters weren't exactly very bright individuals. Some are very smart, and make use out of it, of course. But it's not by any means very necessary.

awa

2011-05-05, 11:54 AM

luring the tri kreen into a trap is going to be hard they are more cunning then huimans and have supperior senses. getting a huge mass of barely trained conscripts to be able to ambush anyone particularly individuals like that seems unlikely

it might be really hard for a human to deflect an arrow but trikreen are both much faster and have more arms wich gives them an edge.

I would actualy put nezumi as pretty good for most sports. they have as much stamina as dwarfes but twice the speed. i think they are lighter then humans as well wich helps them for varies martial arts (even if we assume they are not allowed to bite more strength pound for pound cant hurt)

aslo now that i think about it haflings would be great at baseball they are so short they would be hard to strike out they are only slightly weaker and they are great at thorowing things.

Knaight

2011-05-05, 12:21 PM

They didn't look to be going particular fast, as far as arrows go... some of them had trouble reaching the target. Also, if they were going at full-draw with a large bow, they'd probably have inflicted WAY worse injuries on him.

If they were going anywhere near full draw with the bows in question, they'd have been both way harder to so much as get out of the way from and inflict way worse injuries. They pulled the bows back about a decimeter, tops.

Yukitsu

2011-05-05, 01:37 PM

luring the tri kreen into a trap is going to be hard they are more cunning then huimans and have supperior senses. getting a huge mass of barely trained conscripts to be able to ambush anyone particularly individuals like that seems unlikely

it might be really hard for a human to deflect an arrow but trikreen are both much faster and have more arms wich gives them an edge.

You keep saying they're really cunning, where are you getting that they're particularly cunning, or more so than humans? Perceptive sure, but they are also stupid and incapable of subterfuge. That aside, 90% of the time a fantasy setting calls a species "cunning" they actually mean stupid, but capable of military actions, not that they're the Scipios or Hannibals of the day.

Tyndmyr

2011-05-05, 01:46 PM

Not really. Longbow arrows shot by Simon Stanley at 174 feet per second flew about 250 yards. At impact they were traveling 142 fps. The lightest arrow tested by Stanley managed 211 fps and 340-380 yards. That's with a 150lb bow. See The Great Warbow by Matthew Strickland and Robert Hardy.

At impact, yes. When you are shooting for distance, ie, with a nice arc on the shot.

Velocity measuring is traditionally done shortly after leaving the firing weapon, and this is appropriate for most D&D situations, as the vast majority of combats happen at what would be spitting distance for such weapons.

From personal experience, a #25 longbow will spit out arrows that are catchable, by some people, with practice, at reasonable ranges. A #35 longbow is bordering uncatchable. Some extremely fast people can pull it off, some of the time. I didn't see any correlation between years of martial arts experience and the ability to do it, though. Probably because most martial arts don't bother with this sort of impractical thing. These are at a full(28") draw.

I would not suggest that anyone try to replicate these experiments, especially not with faster projectiles. The faster the arrow, the further it slides while your fingers are closing on it. Rapid moving vanes can cut the hell out of your hand. And that's without any major accidents, which could potentially be quite messy.

Incanur

2011-05-05, 01:58 PM

If they were going anywhere near full draw with the bows in question, they'd have been both way harder to so much as get out of the way from and inflict way worse injuries. They pulled the bows back about a decimeter, tops.

I think you're getting confused by the camerawork. It's not at all clear how far anyone is drawing in the video because of how the focus shifts away when the archer draws. Drawing only 4 inches would be pretty absurd. For a few of the weakest shots, maybe - but others stick firmly in the target, vibrating even. Such performance reminds me of the 30-40lb bows I used to shoot. Anthony Kelly also catches paintballs at over 200 fps, so there's no particular reason to believe the arrows are going super slowly.

Tyndmyr

2011-05-05, 02:02 PM

Catching paintballs is ridiculously easy by comparison. Field limits go up to 300 fps, and balls fail to break occasionally at those speeds. At 200...not a big deal to avoid breakage.

There's also fairly little of the difficult bits of arrow catching, like avoiding the tip.

You mostly just have to get your hand in front of the large brightly colored ball. I have little difficulty catching a paintball in controlled conditions like that. It doesn't mean I'm a good arrow catcher, or that in an actual paintball game, I could defend myself by catching paintballs. That would just not work.

Incanur

2011-05-05, 02:52 PM

After learning the range was only 8 meters, I'm more skeptical. 260 fps paintball balls at 20 meters give a 0.25-second window, while 150 fps at 8 meters would only give 0.17 seconds. Considering that human reactions peak around 0.1 sec, that's very little time to move your hands. So I doubt the arrows were going much faster than 100 fps, which is pretty pathetic and slower than any war arrow.

Tyndmyr

2011-05-05, 02:56 PM

You have to keep in mind the controlled conditions. If you're sitting there, waiting to catch the paintball that you know is gonna come to your right, at about torso level, it's far, far easier than catching a paintball randomly shot at you in a game.

But yeah, even so, the arrows are undoubtedly traveling much slower than they would be if they were shot in combat.

And to tag onto what the one gentleman said about deflecting with a weapon haft...that would generally be preferable to using your hands, yes. At a minimum, you won't have your hands getting torn up. I would agree that the empty hand requirement for it does not add any realism.

Incanur

2011-05-05, 03:24 PM

Oh, I think the feat is idiotic. It's the kind of thing a fantasy hero should do to show off or attempt out of desperation, not as a primary defense.

awa

2011-05-05, 04:51 PM

i say they are cunning because their wisdom is higher than a humans.
they have an int of 8 and a wisdom of 12

Yukitsu

2011-05-05, 05:34 PM

"Cunning" in D&D falls under intelligence though. Hence, Fox' cunning. Wisdom as a stat indicates how perceptive you are, and unfortunately doesn't extend to percieving army movements that are beyond line of vision. If the other guy was trying to lure you into a trap, it may on an extremely abstract level be wisdom based to percieve the trap, but mostly ambushes were avoided by intelligence. Both as in head smarts and on the effective scouting and gathering of information.

awa

2011-05-05, 05:45 PM

wisdom srd "Wisdom describes a character’s willpower, common sense, perception, and intuition" So perhaps cunning is not the right word but they are wiser have more common sense and better intuition wich should make them harder to ambush then someone with a lot of book learning.

Conners

2011-05-05, 07:31 PM

Someone with book smarts may've read The Art of War. They might know how to arrange formations, good ways to hide a lot of troops, which regions of the land are best to use. DnD segregates intelligence in ways difficult to fathom, of course.

awa

2011-05-05, 10:08 PM

i just saying i think that a tri kreens lower intelligence is negated by their higher wisdom so we can't assume humans will have any advantage when it comes to trickery or tactics and that the tri kreen are just as likely to be able to come up with a clever plan that gives them an advantage as the humans are.

Yukitsu

2011-05-05, 10:10 PM

I'd say it's a good advantage in favour of the humans for tactics and strategy. The devs view tactics and strategy as being knowledge skills, which not only do thri kreen get penalties to, they also don't have them as class skills for at least 2 of their forced level, importantly their first level.

awa

2011-05-05, 10:56 PM

so what? wisdom is used to oppose tricks through sense motive you can come up with a good plan but the trikreen will see right through it. the trikreens plan wont be as good but you wont be as good at seeing through them. your getting back to assuming the humans have exceptional individuals but the trikreen don't.

your also forgetting that were not talking about pces those forced levels just mean they start out better a trikreen commander will have class levels and he can spend skill points to get what ever skill he needs. in fact due to his higher total hit dice he negates the penalty from intelligence anyway with a net gain.

Yukitsu

2011-05-05, 11:12 PM

Strategic level tricks aren't really bluff checks though, and what's worse, they don't even have sense motive as a class skill. The dev's view it as geography and local knowledges, which are more important than perception. Knowing the lay of the land and the local priorities are more important than being able to see 10 feet further.

For a strategic general type I'm only refering to an expert, and for a few things even adepts. He's not some amazing guy, he's just a guy who studies strategy for a job. He gets 4 ranks. To just sort of repeat this, a human advantage is that they have jobs, warriors, experts, adepts, commoners are all about the same as a bug HD.

A thri kreen who cross classes it, even with his superior hit die (an extra one) has 2 and a half ranks (which rounds down in D&D) getting a total bonus of 1. Basically, it's kind of awkward trying to say they're great strategists who will outmanuever even a barely trained armchair general, when they have absolutely no abilities that make them strategic. +2 to wisdom does not a skilled officer make.

awa

2011-05-06, 07:01 AM

wisdom is not just perception actualy read it is also common sense and intuition. when you make an opposed check to resist a trick or detect a trap its wisdom. the trikreen have far better information gathering skills setting an ambush will not help you in the sligtest when the trikreen see the guys hiding in the bushes before they are in postion the trikreens supperior senses and mobility give them a far greater abbility to detect and avoid traps then the humans have to make them.

Conners

2011-05-06, 10:08 AM

why the heck would an army hide in the bushes that close...? You are assuming that "ambush" means twenty feet away in bushes. Ambushes on an army scale could be a huge distance away--with the goal being to cut out the rout of escape (if you can get closer, that's good since the enemy won't have time to react).

I'm also annoyed by the continual discussion of wisdom and intelligence. We need more fluff-level examples of what smarts these creatures have. DnD stats have about 30% usefulness in working out what something is like...

IF you don't know enough details to give me that, make some up, and we'll tell you what would happen in with the race you create/describe.

Fendalus

2011-05-06, 10:55 AM

This thread is for asking questions about how weapons, armour and warfare would really work. As such, it's not going to include game rule statistics. If you have such a question, especially if it stems from an answer or question in this thread, feel free to start a new thread and include a link back to here. If you do ask a rule question here, you'll be asked to move it elsewhere, and then we'll be happy to help out with it.
At this point, I think the Thri-keen discussion should be split to a separate topic. Most discussion of the scenario has been unable to avoid swerving into a rules-based discussion. As such, it would be best to split it to a separate thread.

If doing so, I'd assume the country in question is about the size of England (~50,000 square miles). Given that it should be relatively near hot, open plains (the preferred habitat for Thri-Keen), I would further assume a population density of 60 per square mile (based off this helpful site's (http://www.io.com/~sjohn/demog.htm) numbers). This should give a population of 1,500,000 for the Human country, and a population of 300,000 for the Thri-keen.

Human cities will have their sizes given by the methods given on the linked page. Thri-keen have a reported size of 5-20 man bands as their average, and are nomadic. However, assuming that the entire population lives in 5-20 man groups is insane. I would assume that there are some village-sized groups (up to 1,000 thri-keen). Anything larger would require dropping their nomadic lifestyle, as the concentration of hunters would be to high for the local environment to sustain.

I would then take the population class distribution out of the DMG, presuming it to be more accurate for a fantasy world. This also includes the army percentages given in the DMG: 1 out of 100 is a trained soldier/guard, 1 in 20 can be quickly conscripted. Presumably, the trained soldiers would be available for offensive actions, with conscripts let behind due to logistics. Defensive actions would be able to support both, due to easier logistics.

A rough estimate of the percentage of the population that the Thri-keen could mobilize can be made using the example of the mongol empire in 1219. They had roughly 4 times the area of modern Mongolia under their control. However, only half or so of that could probably be used for recruiting, the rest being recent conquests. Presuming a 15 people per square mile figure (nomads in a relatively hostile area), there would be roughly 18,000,000 persons able to be recruited. The army the mongols used against the Khwarazm Shah that year was 150,000 strong. Assuming that this was 1/3rd of their total offensive force potential, they could muster 1 in 40 people, or about 2.5 out of 100. Assuming defensive muster potential is the same 5x this as the standard D&D civilization (though it would likely be less), 1.25 in 10 could be rallied for defense. Basis for the 4x area estimate (http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/150890) (determined by pausing the .gif at 1219, then comparing in an imaging program). Basis for the army size.
(http://www.jstor.org/pss/25221891)
I would also assume standard D&D technology (~12th -15th century, minus gunpowder weapons.).

From this, we move to standard rules. This should let us to come to a relatively conclusive answer as to who would win in a war.

Yukitsu

2011-05-06, 05:39 PM

Mechanics are going to be an integral part to these sorts of questions though. For example, when a guy asks "will a dark elf assassin beat a clan eshin assassin?" you just generally run the question using the game mechanics, since they represent what the game developers believe they should actually be. Of course you can't ignore fluff, but when fluff leaves a void, mechanics have to come into play, and where fluff is directly contradicted by mechanics, you should turn to mechanics preferably, since most fluff is relative to some unknown factor (so a "genius" Thri kreen may be only int 11.)

There aren't any sources to my knowledge that indicate Thri Kreen are great strategists. In fact, they're an honourable warrior society in the fluff, so odds are, not great strategists when it comes to irregular war.

Conners

2011-05-07, 07:32 PM

Wait, thinking of sports... What kind of sports could come into existence, what with magical and fantasy races? Perhaps there'd be something where you animate a robot-type thing, and have it fight your enemy's animated robot-thing? That'd be pretty cool.

Also, magical weightlifting at the Olympics...?

Fendalus

2011-05-07, 10:49 PM

I've always had this weird idea for a Kobold sport. Basically, the master trap-smiths of the tribe are given a set list of materials that they can use to make traps for a set course. Then, after they complete the course, they either round up prisoners or trick some adventurers into running the course. The trapsmith that made the best trap (determined by scores for lethality, flashiness, humiliation, and efficiency) wins, and any survivors are either rewarded with a pile of loot (also trapped) in the case of adventurers, re-admittance into the tribe for criminals, and freedom for prisoners. Should Kobolds ever become a major power, teams all allowed to voluntarily run the course for major, non-trapped rewards. This goes a surprisingly long way to pacifying marauding adventurer types.

Halflings have their throwing competitions, Dwarves have arm-races (drag yourself around the hold using only one arm, first one to the finish line wins), Elves do... something elfy. Orcs probably play something like rugby or such, although probably much more violent and possibly using severed heads (depending on the capitalization of evil).

FlyingScanian

2011-05-08, 01:45 AM

Elves do... something elfy.
Archery contests, perhaps?

Orcs probably play something like rugby or such, although probably much more violent and possibly using severed heads (depending on the capitalization of evil).
Have by read Grunts, by mary Gentle? There, the orks do play football (soccer, for the yanks), quite often with severed heads, and that's without being all that EEEvil...

Conners

2011-05-08, 04:38 AM

XD I can imagine the Olympics officials going to trouble to make sure athletes haven't drunken any special elixirs (from an alchemist) and that they don't have a wizard enhancing them. They'd need to hire magic-users to be on the lookout for any magic being used to help/hinder the competitors, and set up magical defences for such cases (also to detect any magic the competitors might be using).

What I'm unsure of, is whether there'd be a separate Olympics -- the Magicians Olympics -- like you have with the Winter Sports Olympics, or whether there wouldn't be enough competitors and wizards/sorcerers would just have to share the normal Olympics.

Let's think up some crazy magical sports.

1: Magical Weight-lifting. You need to lift as much weight as you can with pure magical strength--you aren't allowed to get around it by using anti-gravity to make the object weightless or whichever.

2: Magical Track: Wizards need to boost themselves to run as fast as they can around the long track a certain number of times. They aren't allowed to use cheats such as teleporting, becoming ethereal so as to make movement much easier, or other such things.

See if you can think up the third one :).

Shademan

2011-05-08, 07:40 AM

Archery contests, perhaps?

Have by read Grunts, by mary Gentle? There, the orks do play football (soccer, for the yanks), quite often with severed heads, and that's without being all that EEEvil...

doesnt really work with heads tho' as they have a nasty tendency to bite when you kick them in the mouth.

as for other sports, I had this game called Pig-ball in one campaign. it was never explained further than the title but everyone in the land was avid supporters

Yukitsu

2011-05-08, 11:26 AM

In the warhammer universe, pretty much every race plays Blood Bowl. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnontFehx2E&feature=related

Odin the Ignoble

2011-05-08, 04:45 PM

Elves do... something elfy.

Competitive tea parties. Judges vote based on gossip juiciness, backhandedness of compliments and how well veiled their insults are.

Eldan

2011-05-08, 04:51 PM

The Norse did competitive storytelling, lying and insult contests. So, that wouldn't be too far off.

Greysect

2011-05-08, 05:33 PM

Xuc Xac

2011-05-08, 09:08 PM

Sometimes the best solution is the simplest. If you insist on only one "correct" solution, your players will be really annoyed with you. Especially when the one "correct" solution you are willing to accept is the worst plan they could try. That's called "pixelbitching" and is one of the worst DM habits.

Your solution has many flaws. If they don't have time to just light the fuse and run, why would they have time to light the fuse and then push a heavy mining cart that goes slower than they can run? And if they don't get blown up while pushing the cart, how do they time it so the explosion happens after the cart gets to the cave in? And how do they expect the explosives to help clear the cave in if the explosives are just rattling along in a cart instead of being carefully planted in the cave in? Explosives aren't just magic "rocks-be-gone" sticks. They exert an outward force that needs to be directed. If you throw dynamite sticks at a pile of rocks, nothing is going to happen to the rocks. To have any beneficial effect, the sticks of explosive need to be placed into the pile of rocks so they will push the rocks apart with the explosive force.

The best solution is actually to clear the rocks by hand because an explosion could cause another cave in and make things worse. If they don't have time for that, then they don't want to be anywhere near the explosion when it happens. They certainly don't want to be peeking around the corner to watch it. If I had to do this, I would unravel a hemp rope and get a very long string from it and soak it in lamp oil to make an extremely long wick. Then I would light it with one stick of explosives placed in a carefully chosen location in the pile of fallen rocks and run as far from the explosion as possible. And then I would wait for the explosion. And then wait a while longer, just to be sure. Then I would go back to check out the results. Expecting a cartoon style "Boom! Now all the rocks have mysteriously vanished and the path is clear" is ridiculous, but maybe some rocks near the top of the pile can be dislodged and loosened enough that I can easily roll them out of the way to make a passage big enough to crawl through.

If you want them to actually clear the tracks so the mining carts can be used again, that's not a job for explosives.

Autolykos

2011-05-09, 06:52 AM

Rubbing the rope/string with gunpowder should also work, but will burn a lot faster than with lamp oil (I'm assuming this is some kind of Western campaign). But, like Xuc Xac said, Explosives will probably just make things worse if not used veeery carefully. Small quantities could be used to split large rocks into smaller pieces, but the rocks have to be moved by hand eventually.

Yora

2011-05-09, 01:25 PM

It actually seems to depend on the amount of gunpowder. They tested setting up a time delayed explosion by pouring a line of gunpowder on mythbusters. On the first try the whole line of gunpowder poured straight from the barrel burned up in less then a second, but when they made a finer line, it burned at a speed of a person easily walking along with it.
So using that gunpowder sparingly might make it work.

fusilier

2011-05-09, 02:04 PM

Hi there. I'd like to talk about explosives.

I am creating a puzzle involving dynamite/tnt/cute little red tubes and clearing a cave-in. The sticks of explosive they find all have fuses to short to light from a safe distance, so the party must find a way to light the explosives and clear the rock-slide safely. Any player would think about using their own rope to splice into the short wicks and then lighting it.

My question is whether or not using normal hemp or silk rope would make for a decent impromptu wick, and if not, what could players do to the rope to make it so.

My intended solution for the puzzle was to place the explosives inside a mine cart, light one of them, and quickly push the cart off into the rubble. The reason I do not sit well with an impromptu wick is that I think its too simple a solution or simply wouldn't work. If the players could prepare a working wick through a larger expenditure of resources than just rope, or if the solution requires more thought on the players' parts (or at least a decent intelligence or knowledge check), then I'll allow it as an alternate solution. If putting the explosives in the cart sounds too far-fetched, then I'll drop that idea in place of creating a wick.

Well, if they have multiple sticks of dynamite, all with short fuses, then I would remove the fuses and splice them together to make one long one. :-) Then bundle the dynamite together (one stick exploding will set off the others). Making a fuse out of rope will not work very well. Most adventuring rope is too thick.

Mining carts are heavy, and the slopes can't be too steep as loaded carts have to be pushed up hill. So frankly, I would expect that lighting and running away, would be quicker than lighting and pushing a cart.

Odin the Ignoble

2011-05-09, 02:30 PM

Maybe you could get the cart moving fast, chuck the dynamite in it and run the other way? That way you get to ad the distance the cart moves to your distance from the explosion?

Of course then the explosives aren't really planted right.

I'd just take the "volunteer" with the most hitpoints.

awa

2011-05-09, 05:16 PM

no you want who ever has evasion to do it. on a more serious note you should always have multiple solutions to any given problem unless the problem is intended to be a non issue.

Greysect

2011-05-09, 07:38 PM

on a more serious note you should always have multiple solutions to any given problem unless the problem is intended to be a non issue.

Was also considering they could lob an alchemist fire from a distance, but based on Xuc Xac that still wouldn't be a safe distance. The party is first level so they could only have so many solutions. If I am unable to come up with anything plausible I'll just scrap the idea.

The rock-slide is concealing a section of the dungeon that is slowing turning to flesh. I thought if the dynamite were left by the previous adventuring organization that one of them could have used a contact to order a scroll of flesh to stone. The party could use that on the rock-slide to quickly hack it away.

Storm Bringer

2011-05-10, 03:51 PM

the problem witht he stone to flesh idea is that a 1st level party wouldn't be able to cast stone to flesh (as far as i understand the rules)

other options for lighting the fuse:

Lamp oil simply pack the TNT in tight, make sure teh fuses touch the floor, then trail the oil back to your hiding place, and light form their. if the floor tilt would cause oil to run too much, try oil soaked rags.

hurl a lit lamp at the pile. it will smash, spill burning oil all over the fuses, and teh players can duck and cover.

Mage hand? gives you a short head start on the run.

a flaming arrow, or arrow with flaming rags, might do the trick.

Conners

2011-05-11, 09:23 PM

Here's a question: What is the DnD Bard based off of...? I think I've heard of some people who sang as they went to battle or something like that--but I'd like to know more.

Dienekes

2011-05-11, 09:35 PM

Here's a question: What is the DnD Bard based off of...? I think I've heard of some people who sang as they went to battle or something like that--but I'd like to know more.

They're based off of these guys. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZwuTo7zKM8#t=00m16s)

More seriously, I think they were designed to just give the adventuring minstrel feel to the game.

As to singing when going into battle, there were a few cultures who did so. Off the top of my head, the Spartans used singing/flutes (not a current day flute but a pipe instrument whose name escapes me so I'm using flutes) to keep the pace. I'm fairly certain others did the same, could be a suitable way to open up the lungs, keep a steady marching beat, or just pump up the adrenaline of the warriors.

Also Odin in some version used the magic of song as a demonstration of his cunning.

Conners

2011-05-12, 05:47 AM

Wow, didn't realize the Spartans danced marched to music (on a note, I hear Spartans danced as part of their training).

While we're at it, could someone please tell me what other classes are based off?

Clerics are based off bishops who used to fight, right? Originally they didn't let them used edged weapons, like the historical fighting monks.

Druids are just based off general pagan druids from ancient times?

Monks, just martial-arts-movie-based?

Paladins... what are these guys based off?

Barbarians seem a lot like berserkers, with added fluff of not being allowed armour for some weird reason?

Yora

2011-05-12, 06:29 AM

In northern europe you had the skalds, which I believe are very much what the modern fantasy bard is today. Not completely sure what they actually did, but they apparently were keepers of knowledge and words and runes were considered magical in their society.
Using music as part of warrior culture was very widespread though and can probably found in all parts of the world.

Barbarians are obvious: They are just savage warriors of any kind, but especially modeled after skandinavian berserkers with their Rage ability.

Despite the name, druids seem to have more in common with shamans than what we actually know about celtic druids. Again I'm not very good about celts, but it's possible it's just the celtic name for a very similar thing to what shaman describes in other societies.

Monks are kung-fu, plain and simple. Though their supernatural abilities also resemble Taoism, especially the ability to stop againing and disease.

Paladins are most likely modeled after the Crusader Orders. Many of them were knights as well as monks. Specifically the Hospitaler Order was probably the precedent for the Lay on Hands ability, since they are well known for running a hospital (duh).
There were some actual priests among the crusaders, which would be the Clerics of D&D. Though they used swords just like everyone else.

Eldan

2011-05-12, 06:47 AM

Bards: from what I know, the celts, especially on the British Isles, had traveling bards who would go from court to court. In exchange for hospitality, they would praise their hosts (local nobles, mostly), in songs and poems. Plus, they'd serve as a kind of news system, by telling stories they had come across in other places.

Clerics: technically, priests were not allowed to shed blood. Some got allowed that technicality by using weapons that could kill without breaking the skin. Hence blunt weaponry.

Paladins: various. I'd say warrior saints, like St. George and others, who killed heathens, monsters and demons with the power of their faith. "Paladin" was also the name given to the twelve knights of Charlemagne, more or less fictional figures such as Roland (of the song of the same name), who traveled around being generally heroic.

Berserkers: one possible, though probably wrong, translation of the norse word berserkr actually comes from "berr" (bare) and "serkr" (coat, shirt), to indicate that they fought naked. It's probably not derived from that, though.

Shademan

2011-05-12, 07:01 AM

Eldan

2011-05-12, 07:02 AM

Good point... I'll go have a look around.

Edit: endless pages of D&D references, one claim that it's a romantic victorian idea, and a link here: http://www.medievalwarfare.info/weapons.htm which says:

Maces were employed by the clergy in warfare to avoid shedding blood (sine effusione sanguinis). Bishop Odo of Bayeux is shown wielding a club-like mace at the Battle of Hastings in the Bayeux Tapestry. Other Bishops were depicted bearing the arms of a knight without comment, such as Archbishop Turpin who bears both a spear and a sword named "Almace" in the The Song of Roland. Bishop Adhemar of Le Puy, fought as a knight during the First Crusade.

So, who knows.

Spiryt

2011-05-12, 07:03 AM

D&D classes are modeled after pop-cultural&fantasy schemes that were modeled after pop-cultural&fantasy schemes and tropes that were modeled after some early....

:smallwink:

Connection with anything real is obviously second handed.

you hear alot about this "clergy where not allowed to use bladed weapons" yet I never seem to find source for this.
as far as I can tell, this is based off some english bishop who used a warclub at times, yet he was recorded as also using a sword on numerous occasions. tho' this is from memory so dont take my word for it

I believe there were some edicts and stuff about that.

You can see bishop Odo with Good Ole' Club on Bayeux Tapestry.

http://www.mkheritage.co.uk/sga/images/gayhurst/bishop-odo.jpg

Similarly with banning of crossbows, there were probably some weird ideas of
some clerks in Rome, no one really cared about in practice.

Shademan

2011-05-12, 07:15 AM

We begin by taking a look at the two cases most frequently used to illustrate the myth. The first and better known is Odo, Bishop of Bayeux--William the Conqueror's half-brother. Odo fought beside William in the Battle of Hastings (1066), and a scene in the Bayeux Tapestry shows him wielding a club amidst a knot of Norman horsemen. However, the Tapestry's narration does not mention any relation between the club and Odo's clerical status, only that he was carrying the club while he was encouraging his "boys" and directing them into the attack. It would also be unwise to take the bishop's battle scene out of the context of the greater narrative, as the very next scene in the Tapestry shows William--not a clergyman--similarly wielding a club as he lifted his helmet to convince his troops that he had not been killed in battle. Most scholars nowadays believe that the club had nothing to do with Odo's clerical background. Rather, its presence in both Odo's and William's hands implied that it was a mark of authority among the Normans, an idea that derives additional support from the possibility that the Normans might have used the wooden club as a conscious Neoclassical allusion to the vine-branch cudgel used by the ancient Romans. Another line of reasoning that leads to the same conclusion is that the Bayeux Tapestry itself was likely done under Odo's patronage at a time when he was eager to show himself off as an equal (or at least a near-equal) to William's social and political prestige. Certainly he appeared almost as often as William did in the Tapestry!

Found and interesting essay http://l-clausewitz.livejournal.com/394539.html
I particulary agree with the "maces dont shed blood" part. I've been hit with a simple stick and bled like you'd expect a wound to do. I cant imagine that a nobbly club or iron mace wouldnt mess you up good and propa'

Yora

2011-05-12, 10:23 AM

endless pages of D&D references, one claim that it's a romantic victorian idea
The victorians single handedly turned our perception of the middle ages into something much closer to fantasy fiction than the actual reality was.

Thane of Fife

2011-05-12, 11:14 AM

While we're at it, could someone please tell me what other classes are based off?

Monks, just martial-arts-movie-based?

I know I've read that monks are based off of the song "Kung Fu Fighting," because apparently James Ward liked it a lot.

Xuc Xac

2011-05-13, 01:13 AM

All of the classic character classes were later justified or explained by comparing them to historical figures, but they didn't start out that way.

The bard class was added to the game because one of Gary's players wanted to play a minstrel character like Will Scarlet in the Robin Hood stories. It snowballed from there.

Clerics came about because there was one player who had a vampire character. He got really powerful compared to everyone else, so they decided that they needed another character that could force him to back off and flee like Peter Cushing holding up a cross in the Hammer vampire movies. The cleric started out as a fighter type with holy water and turn undead. Then the healing stuff was added. Then Gary started added bible based miracles like "sticks to snakes" and the rest is history. The reason that they could only use bashing weapons is based entirely on Gary seeing Bishop Odo on the Bayeux tapestry and not doing further research (or giving any thought whatsoever to how "bloodless" a morningstar really is). Bishop Turpin was more of a "D&D cleric" than Odo and he used a lance and sword like any other knight.

Druids are mostly made up nature priests with names and equipment loosely based off the ancient pagan druids. No one really knows much about the actual druidic beliefs because they didn't write much down and the Romans who slaughtered them didn't bother to interview them first. They used sickles because there was archaeological evidence of ceremonial sickles. They used scimitars because players whined about sickles being puny little weapons so scimitars were added to their list of allowed weapons because they were also a curved blade (as if being curved was the important part or something). There wasn't really a lot of rhyme or reason to it. It was just a long string of "wouldn't it be cool if...?"

Monks are based on 1970s kung fu movies.

Paladins came from the fantasy novel "Three Hearts and Three Lions" by Poul Anderson, which was also the source of D&D's troll. This book and the works of Michael Moorcock were also the source for the Lawful and Chaotic alignments.

Barbarians were pretty much the movie version of Conan. They don't wear armor because Frank Frazetta portrayed barbarians as oiled up body builders to show off their muscles. In the actual stories, they wear armor but in the movies and illustrations they don't (because the visual medium needs to show off the muscles). In a written story, you can explain things to the audience like "The Spartans were so tough and hardcore that they could wear their armor all the time, which was a very tiring and physically demanding thing that few others could endure." In a visual medium like the movie "300", you can't do that. If you show them all armored up, the uneducated audience won't realize that wearing armor all the time was a sign of their toughness, so you show them running around almost naked to display their rippling muscles so the audience can see how strong they are. Barbarians in D&D are the same way. The ran around topless because that's what Conan and friends did in the fantasy illustrations and movies.

In the early days of D&D, there was surprisingly little in-depth research being done (except for Gary and his weird polearms). It was mostly just players saying "I just saw this cool movie and I want to be like the guy who..." or "I just read this cheap paperback and there was a cool part where..."

Talakeal

2011-05-13, 01:25 AM

you hear alot about this "clergy where not allowed to use bladed weapons" yet I never seem to find source for this.
as far as I can tell, this is based off some english bishop who used a warclub at times, yet he was recorded as also using a sword on numerous occasions. tho' this is from memory so dont take my word for it

Having just completed a bible study class I can tell you that the scriptures make numerous referances to how holy blood is and forbid spilling blood upon the ground, which is almost certainly the source of this belief.

Xuc Xac

2011-05-13, 01:30 AM

Having just completed a bible study class I can tell you that the scriptures make numerous referances to how holy blood is and forbid spilling blood upon the ground, which is almost certainly the source of this belief.

Nope. Gary saw Bishop Odo on the Bayeux tapestry and thought it would be a simple way to balance the cleric's holy water and turn undead against the fighting man (fighter). That's all there is to it.

Shademan

2011-05-13, 09:48 AM

Having just completed a bible study class I can tell you that the scriptures make numerous referances to how holy blood is and forbid spilling blood upon the ground, which is almost certainly the source of this belief.

I believe in the russian translation it's literally "dont bear sword against your fellow man" so the priests used axes.

Conners

2011-05-13, 09:57 AM

I believe in the russian translation it's literally "dont bear sword against your fellow man" so the priests used axes. Yeah, it's amazing some of the rules abuse used...

Xuc Xac

2011-05-13, 10:00 AM

Rules lawyering is only slightly younger than rules.

DrewID

2011-05-13, 10:02 AM

Nope. Gary saw Bishop Odo on the Bayeux tapestry and thought it would be a simple way to balance the cleric's holy water and turn undead against the fighting man (fighter). That's all there is to it.

I recall an ancient Dragon article that pointed out that in OD&D, the fighter had 8-sided hit dice, and could use swords (which did 1d8, the cleric had 6-sided hit dice, and was limited to the mace (which did 1d6), the magic user had 4-sided hit dice, and was limited to the dagger, which did 1d4.

DrewID

vcvcvc12

2011-05-13, 11:35 PM

Dienekes

2011-05-13, 11:49 PM

Earlier (page 4, page 5), there was a discussion about how useful double weapons would be. According to John Campbell, double swords are very useless. I agree, but my question is: How effective would a double sword be with a longer handle? In other words, if it was a quarterstaff with daggers on the ends instead of a sword with another blade on the handle, would it work well?

Yes, it's very reasonable. That's called a spear with a buttspike.

The problem as I see it in using such a weapon is to try to use both daggers would make your attacks very wide, and very obvious, so you're probably only going to really poke at them with the knife as they get close, making it a spear, or bash them with the wood meaning it's a more unforgiving quarterstaff (unforgiving for both you and your opponent).

Of course, this is coming from someone who's never actually used a quarterstaff in anything other than whacking my brother, so my views are likely flawed.

That said, I know there is an example of a double sword, I believe the weapon of some Chinese general but not sure, that is on display. The blades on end are about shortsword size with a longer handle, not quarterstaff length but a decent sized handle.

I have no idea if this was ceremonial or if he used it or if the general was suicidal but it technically existed.

vcvcvc12

2011-05-14, 01:07 AM

Okay, what kind of fighting style would be ideal? A more defensive one (block and counter), a more offensive one (stabby slashy) or a combination of the two? Assume that the guy has supernatural reflexes and agility, the guy is good at it, and the weapon is made out of the best materials for whichever style is used.

Oh, and I probably should have been more specific about the length. I was thinking a little bit over 6 feet, daggers included. Here, I'm assuming the daggers are a little more than a foot long, leaving about a 4 foot handle.

Yukitsu

2011-05-14, 01:10 AM

Standard pike use. When an impact breaks the end off, you switch sides around and use it as an X spear (where X is the remaining length of the shaft). Trying to use both ends of a weapon such as that at the same time, you're probably going to off yourself before you get off the training field. Whether this was offensive or defensive changed with era, but I prefer an offensive spear use.

Xuc Xac

2011-05-14, 02:37 AM

Trying to use both ends of a weapon such as that at the same time, you're probably going to off yourself before you get off the training field.

That applies to every double weapon. Realistically speaking, double weapons don't let you attack more often. When you do attack, they give you more options in how you attack.

John Campbell

2011-05-14, 12:00 PM

Yeah, the problem with the double sword is that the handle is too short, which enforces a grip position that's... not really ideal, in that it limits the selection of attacks you can use without endangering yourself with other end of the thing, denies you the reach that you should have with a weapon that long, and doesn't let you shift grips.

Giving it a longer grip, and shorter blade on at least one end, would help considerably, but then it's not really anything I'd describe as a "double sword", and is more a double spear. Or, as mentioned, a spear with a buttspike. Then you'd just pick one end as your primary and use regular hewing spear or polearm techniques with it, and just use the other end for occasional opportunity attacks. (Not to be confused with the D&D attack of opportunity mechanic.) You don't really gain anything from flipping it around like it's a kayak paddle...

endoperez

2011-05-14, 04:17 PM

There's a chinese "double-sword". It has two saber-like blades on a shortish handle. It looks a bit like a klingon bat'leth. The weapon is custom-made, and so is (probably) the design. Even if it happens to be based on a real historical weapon, it's so rare and ridiculous I've yet to see any other references to it.

http://youtu.be/TXgjjRjQpTI

The same guy also has a video about a double-headed spear.

http://youtu.be/0acbdyIyn9s

lightningcat

2011-05-14, 04:44 PM

Berserkers: one possible, though probably wrong, translation of the norse word berserkr actually comes from "berr" (bare) and "serkr" (coat, shirt), to indicate that they fought naked. It's probably not derived from that, though.

I think the translation is "Bear" not "Bare", but it has been a while since I did research on that.

Conners

2011-05-15, 06:35 AM

Speaking of berserkers, any interesting accounts of their mightiness anyone knows of?

Thane of Fife

2011-05-15, 09:59 AM

Speaking of berserkers, any interesting accounts of their mightiness anyone knows of?

At the Battle of Stamford Bridge, one Viking Berserker single-handedly held a bridge against the English army while the rest of the Vikings regrouped. Supposedly, he killed about 40 Englishmen, and was only defeated himself when somebody used a boat to float under the bridge and stab him through the holes in it.

Supposedly, anyways. Obviously, I wasn't there.

Daremonai

2011-05-15, 10:33 AM

I particulary agree with the "maces dont shed blood" part. I've been hit with a simple stick and bled like you'd expect a wound to do. I cant imagine that a nobbly club or iron mace wouldnt mess you up good and propa'

I was always under the impression (can't remember why, so no reference to provide) that "clubs don't spill blood because they're blunt and can't cut. If the other guy bleeds, it must be god's will" was the justification for hitting people with a blunt stick when violence was banned.

Who knows, it may be a very early example of the RAW vs RAI argument?

Spiryt

2011-05-15, 10:49 AM

At the Battle of Stamford Bridge, one Viking Berserker single-handedly held a bridge against the English army while the rest of the Vikings regrouped. Supposedly, he killed about 40 Englishmen, and was only defeated himself when somebody used a boat to float under the bridge and stab him through the holes in it.

Supposedly, anyways. Obviously, I wasn't there.

I don't think anything states that he was a berserk, does it?

Anglo Saxon Chronicles (http://omacl.org/Anglo/part5.html) only mention "one of the Norwegians" it seems.

He was probably a huscarl, or some other chosen warrior, well equipped and trained, since he was able to halt many people and withstand the attempts to javelin him.

Speaking of berserkers, any interesting accounts of their mightiness anyone knows of?

"Accounts" may be generally hard to do, because berserks are obviously largely mythological figures.

Sagas seem to suggest in many places, that they were some kind of thugs, from one or other reason feared by people, whether from mundane, or not mundane reasons, that liked to taunt, insult, and generally force men to defend their honor. And challenge them to duels, to win their possession.

Supposedly, it was becoming quite a problem in some places.

Storm Bringer

2011-05-15, 11:09 AM

At the Battle of Stamford Bridge, one Viking Berserker single-handedly held a bridge against the English army while the rest of the Vikings regrouped. Supposedly, he killed about 40 Englishmen, and was only defeated himself when somebody used a boat to float under the bridge and stab him through the holes in it.

Supposedly, anyways. Obviously, I wasn't there.

the account i read indecated he was in wearing full chain armour, and the blow form below only felled him because it went up the skirt of his hauberk and took him in the nads.

it must be noted that a lot of the Viking soldiers at Stamford Bridge fought the early stages of the battle sans armour, because they had been caught on the march and suprised*, with thier heavy, tiring armour in thier baggage rather than on thier person.

* the english army had forced marched half way up the country to catch them. the vivkings thought it was still in london waiting to parry William the B***ards** attack

** he became the Conquorer after hastings. at the time, B***ard was not profane, merely a discriptor meaning "illegitimate son" (which William was).

Dienekes

2011-05-15, 12:08 PM

"Accounts" may be generally hard to do, because berserks are obviously largely mythological figures.

Sagas seem to suggest in many places, that they were some kind of thugs, from one or other reason feared by people, whether from mundane, or not mundane reasons, that liked to taunt, insult, and generally force men to defend their honor. And challenge them to duels, to win their possession.

Supposedly, it was becoming quite a problem in some places.

Grasping at old memories here (so probable inaccuracies) but I remember reading that there was a shift in the Sagas after berserkers went out of style. Before that they were portrayed in a romantic light as noble warriors who understood the passion of combat and glory.

After they became less popular they were more commonly portrayed as ignorant brutes who were more trouble than they were worth.

Thane of Fife

2011-05-15, 09:11 PM

I don't think anything states that he was a berserk, does it?

Anglo Saxon Chronicles (http://omacl.org/Anglo/part5.html) only mention "one of the Norwegians" it seems.

He was probably a huscarl, or some other chosen warrior, well equipped and trained, since he was able to halt many people and withstand the attempts to javelin him.

I don't have any particlarly scholarly evidence of such, and will certainly bow to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. I just seem to recall first hearing about it with him described as a berserk. My fault, I suppose. I should have checked.

Autolykos

2011-05-16, 05:42 AM

You don't really gain anything from flipping it around like it's a kayak paddle...The main problem is IMHO that you gain nothing by taking two perfectly good weapons and connecting them at the handles. Using two swords is perfectly possible (although sword and shield would be preferable) but a double sword is just awkward. Not as awkward as the infamous swordchucks though :smallsmile: ...

Conners

2011-05-16, 09:36 AM

Notably, I have heard of accounts where berserkers would start going crazy outside of battle. One featured a berserker holding his new baby son. He suddenly went into a rage, and tried to kill the baby. A loyal female servant saved the baby, and got killed in the act.

Problem is, I've never heard story of the blows they could take or so forth.

Eldan

2011-05-16, 12:00 PM

I have a vague memory of a Roman account where a berserker was described as fighting on with a javelin through his stomach. He died later, but apparently wasn't hindered much.

Of course, pretty much no chance of ever finding that one again.

Conners

2011-05-17, 01:41 AM

If that is the barbed, iron javelin I've heard of... then that could be scary :smalleek:!! Those things are terrifying in general, but not as scary as someone who fights when there's one in his stomach...

TroubleBrewing

2011-05-17, 08:18 AM

There are several potential explanations for the Berserker phenomenon.

They include group psychosis, toxic fungi, or, and this is my personal favorite, insanity-inducing beer.

Eldan

2011-05-17, 08:27 AM

Well, the explanation I read for the javelin thing was basically "the guy was so drugged, he didn't feel much pain, and he just fought for a few minutes before bleeding out". Or it could just be an exaggeration.

Conners

2011-05-17, 09:07 AM

TroubleBrewing

2011-05-17, 09:38 AM

Someone got shot through the head (possibly twice) by a sniper, yet continued to shoot at the military base with their handgun.

{{Citation needed}} :smallconfused:

Incanur

2011-05-17, 10:07 AM

Drugs aren't required to allow folks to continue fighting through horrific injuries. Sufficient determination works too. I don't know about multiple headshots, though. That's impressive.

John Campbell

2011-05-17, 10:17 AM

We produce our own drugs when we really need them, too. Adrenaline is an amazing thing.

Conners

2011-05-17, 10:38 AM

{{Citation needed}} :smallconfused: Afraid I don't have one. I heard it from a friend I trust, who heard it from his brother who was in the American military.

Shademan

2011-05-17, 01:17 PM

I think berserkers used a mixture of drugs (probably mushrooms, and conditioning themselves to be insane.

Notably, drugs do have amazing effects on your survivability, for a short period. Someone got shot through the head (possibly twice) by a sniper, yet continued to shoot at the military base with their handgun. He was brought down by several soldiers' assault rifles.

very unlikely. tests have been carried out using the more fantastic mushrooms native to scandinavia at the time. none of them did anything to help the fighter excel, unless your goal was to pacify him.
the general consensus among historians seem to be that it was all psychology. They would trance and work themselves into a frenzy.

This fury, which was called berserkergang, occurred not only in the heat of battle, but also during laborious work. Men who were thus seized performed things which otherwise seemed impossible for human power. This condition is said to have begun with shivering, chattering of the teeth, and chill in the body, and then the face swelled and changed its colour. With this was connected a great hot-headedness, which at last gave over into a great rage, under which they howled as wild animals, bit the edge of their shields, and cut down everything they met without discriminating between friend or foe. When this condition ceased, a great dulling of the mind and feebleness followed, which could last for one or several days

It is not har to imagine that you could unlock the barriers that your body has in place to protect you. We've all heard of people who have done great feats of strenght and endurance to save their life or that of loved ones. If the berserkers were able to do this on demand... hoooh boy.
Cant have been healthy tho'... I seem to remember, but dont qoute me on this, that berserkers tended to die fairly young, not just in battle but because their bodies and minds got so wrecked

Haruspex_Pariah

2011-05-19, 12:01 PM

Spiryt

2011-05-19, 12:05 PM

If you had a sword that only you could see, how much of a combat advantage would that be? Obviously from ambush it would be killer, but once the opponent becomes aware of it would you still have the edge?

I would say that it would be indeed very big edge.

In most cases most important thing to observe is body language, legs, hips etc. movement, but still not being able to see how the blade exactly is moving would be damn crippling.

kardar233

2011-05-19, 12:50 PM

In Italian longsword (what D&D calls bastard sword in two hands) which is the style I'm most comfortable with, a lot of the advantages you can gain have to do with sword orientation, direction and location. Having an invisible sword would be a massive advantage in this case, especially as it's difficult to tell the sword's orientation by looking at their body.

awa

2011-05-19, 09:38 PM

a sword only you could see would definitely be useful particularly depending on the kind of sword a light fast sword would give you a bigger benefit because you have more ability to move it around quickly and therefore take advantage of its invisibility.
but your foe can still see your hand so assuming hes a skilled warrior he should have a pretty good grasp of where the sword is particularly if its a two handed weapon.

so in my opinion it would give you an edge but it wouldn't win the battle on its own.

Knaight

2011-05-20, 08:04 AM

but your foe can still see your hand so assuming hes a skilled warrior he should have a pretty good grasp of where the sword is particularly if its a two handed weapon.

Well, they have some idea of where part of it is. However, they have no idea if it curves, how long it is, if it is actually a sword as opposed to any other weapon held in a similar manner, what sort of guard it has and what can be done with it, or if it is heavy or light. That much alone is a huge disadvantage, add in that they can't actually see it and they are likely all kinds of hosed.

awa

2011-05-22, 02:53 AM

i suppose if you were using an unusually sword that would give you a bigger edge. although thinking about it i think the largest advantage would be psychological. Assuming no other magic exists the unnerving effect of an obvious display of the supernatural may well exceed any purely physically advantages.

DodgerH2O

2011-05-22, 04:26 PM

Just have to chip in re: Weapon invisibility (to opponents.)

Given my (rather limited) experience with historical fencing styles:

With foil (smallsword and epee may also apply) the feel of the opponent's weapon can play more of a role than the sight of it, but having said that, this probably would only apply to a one on one duel situation with primarily thin thrusting weapons and I could easily see devising a fencing style that relied on unconventional grips and guards to fool an opponent.

One could probably generalize and say that "duels" where both combatants use identical weapons will limit the utility of an invisible weapon since not knowing the shape/style/type of weapon gives a huge disadvantage, both psychological and as far as technique.

Now, an invisible knife, dagger, or stiletto would probably give less advantage since at close range a lot of defensive moves rely on blocking the wrist or arm rather than the weapon itself. Having said that, the ability to hide which direction the blade protrudes from the grip means certain defenses will bring the weapon into rather than away from oneself and that could be... problematic.

I can only imagine a spear/polearm/larger sword would have more potential for deceptive uses of an invisible weapon due to the ability to draw an opponent into reach without their knowledge.

awa

2011-05-22, 04:38 PM

lerg2

2011-05-22, 10:50 PM

Caustic Soda

2011-05-23, 01:27 AM

I think much of what you said is true but i disagree that the biggest benefit would be with the largest weapons due to their weight they have the least different ways they can be held and the harder it would be to hide where the weapon is.

That really depends on the weapon in question. At least, over on the "real-world weapons" thread they often mention how polearms, staves and two-handed swords have a variety of different ways they can be held, and how a significant advantage lies in being able to change the range of the weapon by changing your grip. So you can half-sword or half-staff or the equivalent at close range. Halberds and the like are purpose-built to work as spears, picks, poleaxes etc. as fits the situation best. But if you want to know more details about how people wielded weapons IRL, you should really ask over there. I mostly just read the thread.

I think, but this is just a guess, what would make a larger difference is whether the shaft of the weapon or only the "business end" is invisible, and whether the wielder can see the weapon or not. There isn't much of an advantage to a spear where only the spearhead is invisible. Likewise, wielding a weapon that you can't see would take practice, at least.

Autolykos

2011-05-23, 05:44 AM

I recently stumbled across the Hwacha and wonderd if I could build it with 5,000 gold and ranks in craft: weaponsmithing. 200d6 damage every time, and if you build it with a cart it's mobile! Could it work, and if the siege engine does, what would need to be changed?
We don't answer rules questions in this thread (and I don't have much experience with D&D anyway), so I won't comment on price and damage. With Hwacha you mean that thing that looks like a medieval version of a Stalin's organ, right? Weaponsmithing is probably the completely wrong skill for this. You'd need carpentry (or cartwright if it's meant to be mobile) for the launcher itself, price a little more than a hand cart. The hard (and expensive) part will be the ammunition. Alchemy is a must (and you'd need quite a bit of experimenting with the correct mix and placement of the powder, so the rockets will fly and not just stay in the launcher and burn or blow up in your face). Something like fletching or bowyer (that might actually be covered with Weaponsmithing, I don't know the system very well) would help a lot in stabilizing the rockets, so they fly at least in the correct general direction.
Keep in mind that the rockets will still be somewhat imprecise, no matter what you do (hand crafted from natural-grown wood and feathers...). You might aim for a couple of squares, but not for single targets (smaller than, say, a dragon).

Yukitsu

2011-05-23, 04:29 PM

I recently stumbled across the Hwacha and wonderd if I could build it with 5,000 gold and ranks in craft: weaponsmithing. 200d6 damage every time, and if you build it with a cart it's mobile! Could it work, and if the siege engine does, what would need to be changed?

Hwacha arrows weren't much more damaging than a normal arrow. Their primary advantage was the volume of fire and demoralizing affect, and a slightly enhanced range. The Koreans built some hand rockets that would do more damage, but the typical d20 assumption is a modern rocket (with a blast more powerful than the entire fuel and payload grade of a hwacha's full volley) deals 10d6 damage.

A Hwacha would more accurately have explosive burst (mundane) arrows fired automatically using the heroes of battle volley fire rules, hitting each individual in a specific area for about d8 piercing+d6 fire.

They aren't overly practical in the typical fantasy setting, being completely surpassed by magic. It would be an interesting addition to a race of peoples who had no magic, and needed an analogue to say, a simple fireball spell.

lerg2

2011-05-23, 04:34 PM

K, thanks, now I'm going to build it!!!:smallbiggrin:

DodgerH2O

2011-05-23, 06:47 PM

I think, but this is just a guess, what would make a larger difference is whether the shaft of the weapon or only the "business end" is invisible, and whether the wielder can see the weapon or not. There isn't much of an advantage to a spear where only the spearhead is invisible. Likewise, wielding a weapon that you can't see would take practice, at least.

This is important. So much of melee combat relies on keeping away from the "hurty part" of the opponent's weapon. If you get to where they can hurt you, you want to have a good reason for being there, such as hurting them first or instead. Holding a spear, say, with two hands and 4 feet of point in front of you can look the same as with two hands and 3 inches of point in front of you, but your opponent can "get inside your guard" if they can close the 4 feet before you stab them whereas the point can come straight out at you no matter the distance if it's held close to the body. Thinking you have someone with a shorter weapon means you will put yourself into danger without knowing it. This ignores all the nasty tricks that staff-type weapons with specialized business ends can do, which would only give more advantage.

Given was a sword that only the opponent couldn't see, I generalized based on personal combat experience, since I haven't used the typical fantasy hack and slash swords, only thin thrusting weapons and knives. I've seen several other weapons used and participated in limited "mixed weapons" melees but have less than a year experience overall, so am hardly an expert.

Caustic Soda

2011-05-24, 02:54 AM

^Exactly. having a largely or completely invisible weapon should be a major advantage if you know how to sue it, even against an enemy who is prepared for it mentally. But on the other hadn it would also be easy to come to rely on the invisibility, which would leave the wielder at a disadvantage against someone capable of seeing invisible things and/or dispelling the enchantment.

Autolykos

2011-05-24, 06:46 AM

But on the other hadn it would also be easy to come to rely on the invisibility, which would leave the wielder at a disadvantage against someone capable of seeing invisible things and/or dispelling the enchantment.Or just being able to read your moves/stances better than most other guys.

LOTRfan

2011-05-28, 12:22 PM

Spiryt

2011-05-28, 12:30 PM

Alright, I have a question that will most likely be a pain to answer, but here it goes: I am trying to make a comprehensive list of all 3.5 weapons that would give the wielder an advantage to parrying. Since this would require some real-world knowledge of weaponry, would anyone care to help me out? So far, the list includes:

• Dagger
• Quarterstaff
• Sword, short
• Rapier
• Sai
• Axe, orc double
• Sword, two bladed
• Shuang Gou (homebrewed)
• Lynxpaw (RoW)
• Elven Thinblade (RoW)
• Chain-and-Dagger (A&EG)
• Panther Claw (A&EG)
• War Fan (A&EG)
• Triple Fagger (A&EG)
• Gnome Swordcatcher (RoS)

Books I've already checked include all the Races of Stone/the Dragon/Destiny/Stone/the Wild, Arms and Arms and Equipment Guide. I will continue to look for more as well. Still, would anyone with time to kill, a bunch of sourcebooks, and some knowledge in weaponry like to help out?

Answer can be very "tricky" because depending on what you mean by "parry", against what, what exact attack etc. answer would be different.

The fact that many of those weapons weren't really used, or not much is known about their practical use doesn't help either. :smallwink:

But, in short, everything that is a large stick in some way - here quarterstaff, double axe, double sword - can be used to deflect and parry most stuff, even to straight out cover yourself and ordinary block stuff with it, if need arises.

Stuff like rapier is awesome defending against other "personal" weapons - nimble, reaching, hand protection - but against polearms or heavier stuff it may get tricky.

Short, close quarters stuff like dagger or short sword is even less practical in it, but by no means useless.

LOTRfan

2011-05-28, 12:39 PM

I see what you mean. Basically, I am looking at Rizban's parry rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136100), where he starts a list of weapons that would give a +2 bonus to parry attempts, but only stops at core. Perhaps I should just leave the list as is?

Spiryt

2011-05-28, 12:42 PM

Depends on what you're aiming for.

Dagger or short sword is rather weird choice for "parrying weapon", and just from your list Shuang Gou and cutlass would fit much better.

LOTRfan

2011-05-28, 12:48 PM

Personally, I think that the dagger was included because of the french Main Gauche, a dagger often used by musketeers as a parrying weapon.

Spiryt

2011-05-28, 12:54 PM

Personally, I think that the dagger was included because of the french Main Gauche, a dagger often used by musketeers as a parrying weapon.

Eh, this is getting complicated rather quick.... :smalltongue:

Not every dagger would be very good as a main gauche, and the fact that it was used that way, doesn't mean that it was particularly good at "parrying" in general.

It just means that it was practical to use with a "proper" weapon, with no better use for the other hand available.

Defending with just main gauche, as only weapon, would be looking pretty grim compared to other options, to say at least.

So, alternatively, one can just use "parrying" as property for any weapon, for additional cost, or - 1 to attack, for example - a sword that's good at defensive maneuvers.

Autolykos

2011-05-29, 03:36 AM

Yep, I'd say that a (plain) dagger is one of the least useful weapons for parrying (together with shorter axes and chain weapons). And, like others said, trying to parry a two-handed weapon with a rapier will get you pwned.
That said, pretty much any off-hand weapon can be used for parrying, even when it's a phenomenally bad choice for parrying when wielded in the main hand.
EDIT: You could house-rule that any (remotely plausible) off-hand weapon gives +1 AC, -1 ACP like a buckler or small shield.

awa

2011-05-29, 09:33 AM

most parrying weapons were only designed to be used a against other light weapons. Personally i would say something like a double axe which is typical depicted with 4 blades would be so slow and awkward that parrying would be quite difficult.

I don't think most pole arms were historically used for parrying they were used in formation fighting i would suspect that their weight would make parrying quite difficult.

I agree daggers are a weird choice since most daggers would be pretty lousy at parrying.

Hades

2011-05-29, 12:39 PM

And, like others said, trying to parry a two-handed weapon with a rapier will get you pwned.

This really actually depends on precisely what the two-handed weapon is, Christian Tobler and Tom Leoni found that it was more than possible to parry a full-intent longsword (real-life longsword, D&D bastard sword) strike with a rapier. Link here (http://www.salvatorfabris.com/RapierParryingLongsword.shtml).

Knaight

2011-05-29, 04:31 PM

I don't think most pole arms were historically used for parrying they were used in formation fighting i would suspect that their weight would make parrying quite difficult.

It depends on the specifics. Shorter pole arms are easy to parry with, as their weight is largely mitigated by the leverage you can get with them. In general, a 2 to 2.5 meter polearm is an incredible parrying weapon. Lances and pikes on the other hand, which are usually in the 4 meter or higher range are absolutely terrible parrying weapons, and useless in single combat.

Spiryt

2011-05-29, 05:19 PM

This really actually depends on precisely what the two-handed weapon is, Christian Tobler and Tom Leoni found that it was more than possible to parry a full-intent longsword (real-life longsword, D&D bastard sword) strike with a rapier. Link here (http://www.salvatorfabris.com/RapierParryingLongsword.shtml).

I don't think that anyone doubts that one could even straight out block a sword whack with lower part of the blade and guard few times, it's more of a heavier weapons swinging, being rather hard to deflect and control with lanky rapier point.

While other rapiers, swords and similar "personal" weapons could be bound and controlled pretty damn well, that's the rapier thing. :smallwink:

Hades

2011-05-29, 05:37 PM

Certainly, I just wanted to point out that the rapier is capable of parrying certain two-handed weapons with ease and no damage to the weapon or wielder.

Conners

2011-06-01, 08:01 AM

Knaight

2011-06-01, 08:21 AM

Harder and sharper than a normal sword would be..?

I assume that the basics would just be a level of hardness, durability, and presumably slipperiness. You can block with the edge without chipping it, the sword isn't going to break, period, and its slipperiness allows better cutting through cloth.

Another fun idea would be that, in addition to all that, it has increased mass without increased weight. Its easier to block with, as the incoming blow knocks it around less. Its harder to block, as that knocks around whatever is used to block (presumably a shield, given the sort of blocking applicable), and it has more force once it actually hits, which both cuts through softer armor better, and leaves bruises through the good stuff better. Added mass without weight also works really well for armor, in addition to hardness and such.

Storm Bringer

2011-06-01, 10:05 AM

Here's an interesting puzzle: How would magical swords/weapons be better than regular swords (this is ignoring special abilities, like shooting lightning bolts)? Harder and sharper than a normal sword would be..?

i always assumed that a DnD style magic weapon wasn't just really well made, but actually helped the use wield it correctly. you pick it up, and you just naturally hold it right. when you swing, your bodys justs moves to follow though without you really telling it to. when you block, your frantic twitch just happens to set you up well for a riposte. etc

just my 2 cents.

Incanur

2011-06-01, 10:11 AM

I don't think most pole arms were historically used for parrying they were used in formation fighting i would suspect that their weight would make parrying quite difficult.

Even pikes parry well enough; some sixteenth-century manuals mention warding for the field, though Sir John Smythe recommended against fencing in formation. Shorter staff weapons such as halberds and partisans perform defensive action ably.

I agree daggers are a weird choice since most daggers would be pretty lousy at parrying.

They're fine against thrusts from swords and rapiers.

This really actually depends on precisely what the two-handed weapon is, Christian Tobler and Tom Leoni found that it was more than possible to parry a full-intent longsword (real-life longsword, D&D bastard sword) strike with a rapier.

Yes, though Giacomo di Grassi wrote that a strong blow from a polearm could cut through a blocking sword.

Lances and pikes on the other hand, which are usually in the 4 meter or higher range are absolutely terrible parrying weapons, and useless in single combat.

While this feels intuitively correct, the historical record shows otherwise. Tons of sixteenth-century writers gave instructions for dueling with the pike: di Grassi, Meyer, and Silver, to name a few. Silver even gave the pike odds over shorter weapons such as the halberd, two-handed sword, sword & target, and so on.

Knaight

2011-06-01, 10:36 AM

While this feels intuitively correct, the historical record shows otherwise. Tons of sixteenth-century writers gave instructions for dueling with the pike: di Grassi, Meyer, and Silver, to name a few. Silver even gave the pike odds over shorter weapons such as the halberd, two-handed sword, sword & target, and so on.

Technically a pike can be as short as 9 feet, I specified 13 foot plus in my post. A 9 foot pike is very much a dangerous weapon in single combat, a 13 foot pike, less so.

Incanur

2011-06-01, 10:39 AM

Technically a pike can be as short as 9 feet, I specified 13 foot plus in my post. A 9 foot pike is very much a dangerous weapon in single combat, a 13 foot pike, less so.

The authors I listed wrote about the 15-18ft battlefield variety. Despite what you might think, these weapons functioned in single combat.

Yora

2011-07-09, 06:19 AM

Here's one question that got me thinking a lot.

In all space movies, shows, games, and novels, a space ship that sustains critical damage will always explode with almost no pieces of debris greater than a meter left.
I think the reason people believe such a thing would happen is because of two things: Some naval battleships did explode in one massive fireball when suffering a direct hit to the ammunition storage, and nuclear power plants also can explode with a very large blast.

But I think on a space ship, both things would not happen:
Cannons have become out of fashion decades ago. What you would expect on a space ship are missiles, railguns, and possibly lasers and plasma guns. Lasers and railguns include no explosives and while capacitors can explode under certain conditions, I don't think it would cause serious structural damage to a military spaceship designed to withstand enemy fire. Missiles do have explosives, but are designed to not detonate when damaged. I guess they could explode all at once on a direct hit with the right weapon, but that still seems rather unlikely to me. I have no idea how plasma weapons would actually work, though. Maybe the storage containers that hold the plasma or the substances to generate it could create big explosions, I don't know.
Also, nuclear reactors don't exactly explode and release all their energy in one huge burst. When you have a nuclear accident with an explosion, it's the superheated water and steam under high pressure that ruptures. But modern nuclear power plants don't use such systems anymore and proposed and experimental fusion reactors would simply shut down when damage and stop generating any more energy, making an out of control chain reaction impossible.

The complete loss of naval vessels is probably mostly the fact that they sink and disappear from sight, being effectively gone without much of a trace.
But what would happen when a space battleship gets destroyed? I imagine it would keep on running until the power supply breaks down and then keep on drifting with lots of huge holes all over the hull. Possibly even ripped apart at structual weak points, but I don't see any huge explosions.

Mike_G

2011-07-09, 07:41 AM

Knaight

2011-07-09, 07:50 AM

Actually, guns would work very nicely in space, since the limits on range are largely due to gravity, and that isn't much of an issue in space. Low tech chunks of metal being flung at your ship would be hard to defeat with jamming or chaff or other anti missile defenses. And shells are cheaper than missiles, don't need external power like railguns or lasers, and a nice DU penetrator on a delayed fused warhead would punch a hole in the hull then explode inside and that would suck for the enemy spaceship.

So, I think the high tech weapon look really cool, but I wouldn't mind a few 120 mm guns on my star destroyer.
The issue with guns are that the distances in space are far beyond anything seen in modern engagements. 1 light minute - which is really, really close - is almost 18 million kilometers. If you assume something a kilometer wide on average on the side being shot at -which is incredibly large- you can still only miss by 500 meters. That means that you can be approximately 1/100, 000 degrees off at the range of 1 light minute. Good luck with that. A missile of some sort, however, could correct its course after being fired, which would greatly expand range.

Eldan

2011-07-09, 07:57 AM

Knaight

2011-07-09, 08:00 AM

And that's before you get into the time factor. I'm not sure how fast a bullet would move in vaccuum, really, but it would be nowhere near c, so by the time you reach your one kilometer target, it's long, long gone.

And you have to have very accurate data for both bullet movement rates and target movement rates relative to yourself to correct for this, as minor deviation at the scales involved will cause a complete and utter miss.

Yora

2011-07-09, 08:03 AM

Mike_G

2011-07-09, 08:14 AM

And how fast do you guys seem to think missiles can fly?

Lasers, sure, speed of light and all, but engagement at that kind of distance with anything is going to create a time lag.

You could use an old M2 Browning .50 and fire a burst across the enemy arc of movement, bracket him nicely and make sure he runs into something a lot cheaper than you can replace a single missile. A few half inch holes in you engines and now you aren't moving all that fast, and the big guns can line you up.

Like demasting a Man o' war.

Knaight

2011-07-09, 08:22 AM

Distance should not be that much of a problem for advanced targeting computer, but speed is. Even at 2000 m/s, that's several seconds of delay for the projectile to cross the distance to the target (same problem for plasma weapons). You would have to know the targets exact position for many seconds in advance.

On distance: The problem is not one of a targeting computer. The problem is a matter of the mechanical precision of the machinery. 1/100,000 of a degree is not exactly easy to build something to. Look at another 1km wide absurdly over sized warship. If the gun is mounted at one end, and the bullet comes absolutely 100% straight out of the barrel (not going to happen), with a variable height mount 1 km away, you have 22 nanometers of wiggle room on the variable height. With a 100 meter gun, that is down to 2.2 nanometers, with a 10 meter gun .22 nanometers. That is 220 picometers. The diameter of an iron molecule is 140 picometers, which is to say that with a 10 meter gun you have about 1 molecule of wiggle room. That assumes some really, really impressive manufacturing capability there.

On time: 2000 m/s is not a matter of several seconds of delay. That is 2km/s, and even with the conservative 1 light minute, there is a distance of 18 million km. That is approximately 8 orders of magnitude difference, and it takes 9 million seconds to hit. Note that a missile could continuously accelerate for some time, and thus the time lapse would be somewhat reduced. Which is very much a good thing, as at 1 light minute and 2km/s, it would take about 200 days for the shot to hit.

Autolykos

2011-07-09, 09:57 AM

The problem with chemically-powered (conventional) guns is that the muzzle velocity is limited by the speed of sound in the hot gases (a few km/s at most, depending on temperature and pressure), and the projectile will never get faster than that without an internal source of thrust (like a missile has).
Firing rocket-assisted projectiles from conventional guns would give virtually unlimited top speed (as long as there's fuel left), but still very limited acceleration after the start (same problem with missiles).
Railguns are only limited by the speed of the current (NOT the single electrons) in the rails, which is not c but usually in the same order of magnitude while coilguns are practically unlimited (you just need to synchronize the coils before the shot).
What could cause spaceships to explode in a spectacular way is the huge amount of energy that must be stored for the engines (high energy density -> big kaboom). There isn't really a way around that, since the storage container must allow at least the desired maximum power output of the engines to be available (it can't be more stable than that, and that's quite a lot of power when it hits the wrong place - imagine channeling the engine exhaust inside the ship).

Yora

2011-07-09, 09:58 AM

Destruction of a space ship is certainly possible. But I don't think in the magnitude of a star trek warp core breach that completely atomizes a 400 meter ship.

And how fast do you guys seem to think missiles can fly?
Well, obviusly less fast. For which you have guided missiles. They just have to be (substentially) faster than the target. With the downside of being able to be shot down.

Autolykos

2011-07-09, 10:16 AM

With the distances involved, anything traveling significantly slower than c needs to be guided in some way (otherwise it's too easy to dodge).
And I agree, complete atomization should not happen in a sufficiently well-designed ship unless it is hit with an awful lot of energy (but antimatter warheads do contain an awful lot of energy, and are not designed to be stable...).

Yora

2011-07-09, 10:41 AM

I think FreeSpace 2 is the only case I know in which battleships break apart instead of being vaporized. Though the debris still vanishes shortly after for performance issues, I assume.

GraaEminense

2011-07-09, 11:02 AM

Interesting discussion. I for one would take this to mean that space battles would be fought at relatively close quarters after all, as too far away would simply allow the target to take defensive action?

Yora

2011-07-09, 11:59 AM

Eldan

2011-07-09, 12:13 PM

One space battle I really liked was in one of Alastair Reynold's Revelation Space books (forgot which one), when two ships were chasing each other across interstellar space at significant fractures of c.

The front ship built a giant sail, microscopically thin, hard to detect, but miles and miles and miles across and unfolded it behind them, then let it fall back. Totally devastating weapon.

Yora

2011-07-09, 12:38 PM

With basically no mass and spread over a large area, I'm not sure it actually would make such a big dent. But at high enough speed, even very small and flexible objects make quite big holes.
(And the chance of the pursuing ship following right in your path seems very slim. :smallamused: )

Knaight

2011-07-09, 06:20 PM

Well, obviusly less fast. For which you have guided missiles. They just have to be (substentially) faster than the target. With the downside of being able to be shot down.

A missile in space could easily get faster than a bullet by orders of magnitudes. Consider how quickly modern jets accelerate, then remember that air resistance is no longer a worry at all, and consider that you don't actually need all that much mass, nor do you need an actual explosive. The issue is the fuel, chemical reactions are fairly limited in the amount of energy put out used to accelerate. However, with space being what it is, a small scale project Orion styled missile- accelerated by multiple nuclear explosions - would really be rather usable, and the energy available there. Ion engines would also be a possibility, and while those take ages to accelerate, considering how long it would take for a bullet to reach a target any distance away, its not as if time is in short supply.

Autolykos

2011-07-10, 06:12 AM

Note that ion engines give a lot of energy per reaction mass used (which is a very valid concern for satellites and space probes), but have a low power output. They are more of a marathon runner than a sprinter.
Since missiles are unmanned, their propulsion can be a lot less "safe" (e.g. nuclear propulsion just needs enough shielding to not fry the electronics), which would give a nice boost - but it will also be less efficient because of their small size.
On lasers: They become quite defocused over even small cosmic distances (a few miles after just a lightsecond). This is a quantum mechanical effect, so better design won't solve it. It might be counteracted by using a better frequency distribution or building a large "phased array" laser (but this is limited to the size of your ship), but you won't get rid of it or even reduce it by more than a few orders of magnitude.
One concern might be to predict evasive maneuvers. If they are done by computers (which would be sensible with large fast ships), this might have more to do with cryptography (cracking their RNG) than with marksmanship.

Storm Bringer

2011-07-10, 06:57 AM

Well, "relatively" close. With current technology, it's possible to aim a laser at a 30 cm reflector on the moon. While the moon is moving at a high speed relative to a "fixed" position on earth, it's movement is very predictable.
As changing the speed and direction of a massive object like a space ship is quite difficult, it probably wouldn't be able to make any drastic evasive maneuvers. Knowing where the target is and where it will be should not be that difficult, especially in space as there is no stealth in space. You can always target at heat signatures. Aiming a targeting laser really shouldn't be much of a problem.
But building a mass driver or cannon with the precission to reliably hit the targeted spot over such distances is a lot harder. With lasers that problem would be highly reduced, but current models have nowhere near the required power to transport enough energy to a target in the fraction of a second. Anything we have now would have to stay focused on one small spot for a few seconds and that is a lot more difficult when the target is trying to evade. I'm also not sure for how far a laser could stay focused enough to actually heat the target with enough power to cause damage.
Which leaves us with guided missiles, but I think automated coil guns or something like that should not have much problems to destroy them from a safe distance. And inside a vacuum, I think anything that does not touch the hull would be rather safe.

I think you would be able to spot a hostile vessel from very far away. But to get a hit with directed weapons, I'd say it would have to be at least within 1 light second distance, probably a lot less.

the thing about evasion is that it's closly linked to the attacks travel time/ at one light second, a laser takes only a second to reach that far, but a railgun round might take several minutes, barring some handwavium to give them c fractional speeds..

practically, a railgun would have an effective range of a few thousand KM, due to the extended flight time (and room for the traget to manuver. guided weaponry (i.e. missles) would be the only option for extended range combat.

as pointed out, point defense could damage a missle, but remember that a cloud of fragments still contains as much KE as the orginal missle did. so it's possible for a missle to be hit by PD, turned into a cloud of shrapnel.......which then goes on to cause multiple hull breaches in the target. a mix of EW and Point Defense, as used by modern ships, would be the best mix.

Yora

2011-07-10, 09:04 AM

A kinetic rocket. I've never seen that concept mentioned anywhere, but it would be the perfect weapon for such situations. At the speeds such a thing could reach in space, knocking it to the side just before impact would be extremely difficult. And a deformed tip would probably not destroy its ability to steer in vacuum, and the engine would be positioned safely behind the big tungsten or uranium slug in the front. The only way to destroy them would be to get behind them and you would have to get that done a considerable distance before it impacts to get it meaningfully of course to miss the target. If you destroy it to late, the slug will still just crash into your ship at full speed.
Primitively simple, but sounds like the most effective weapon for space.

As Mass Effect said it "That means Sir Isaac Newton is the deadliest SoB in space!"

Autolykos

2011-07-10, 10:15 AM

Storm Bringer

2011-07-10, 10:33 AM

AFAIR the best defense against kinetic missiles would be to detect them while there's still time for evasive maneuvers (might be the hardest part if they travel without thrust until quite near the target*), jam/damage their sensors or controls and get out of the way. Could be hard to pull off when a lot of missiles is fired at once, especially if mixed with cheap decoys (which can still hurt a lot considering the speeds involved).
That would be the chief advantage of projectiles (in the broadest sense) traveling at or near c - you can't dodge (actively) what you can't see.

*EDIT: You still need to cool them down to roughly 3K and/or give them a highly reflective coating to make them practically invisible.

barring some sort of handwavium system, passive stealth in space is not possible. what would be possible is active EW, using dedicated missle bodies filled with jammers, chaff clouds, etc that would confuse the Point Defense and decrease PD effectiveness, alongside self-coordinating savlos that used wireless networking to co-operate during terminal manvuering, working to gether to spilt PD fire and thus lessen the amount each missle recieves (i.e. spliting into different groups, making attack runs form several angles, etc).

conversly, the best denfense agianst missles is a mix of point defense to disable the motors (or ignite the fuel, eithers good), and ECM/ECCM to both counter the missles EW and to confuse thier sensors to prevent a solid lock on, or temp them into wasting thier attack run on a decoy drone of some sort.

both ideas stolen shamlessly form the Honour Harrington series.

Autolykos

2011-07-10, 01:24 PM

Well, passive stealth is impossible for anything having its own propulsion (or anything else generating heat) on board for longer periods of time (since the energy has to go somewhere). Otherwise, cool its surface down to 3K and make it look like an asteroid, and presto, passive stealth. Or, since it doesn't need to radiate heat, cleverly shaped reflective surfaces should also work. As long as it doesn't radiate energy at frequencies different from cosmic background radiation and reflects nothing back, it should be pretty much undetectable. Or, if it looks like a mundane and boring object (asteroids, comets, random junk) it will be ignored. This is practically impossible to pull off for a spaceship, but might be possible for missiles (as long as their engine isn't running).

Lapak

2011-07-10, 05:21 PM

Storm Bringer

2011-07-11, 12:19 AM

I'm not sure that stealth would be completely impossible; it's just a matter of not radiating in every direction. Would it be theoretically possible to collect the waste heat and use it to fuel a directed emission? I'm thinking of the sci-fi solution in Sundiver here, where they controlled external heating by using it to generate a laser; would something less dramatic be possible to at least choose a single direction from which you'd be vulnerable to passive detection?

to a degree, yes, you could install all your radiatiors and heat sinks to radiate in a single direction, while using active cooling and isulation to keep the hull temp down (remember your not only dealing with internal heat, but direct haeting form the sun. in earth orbit its just as stronger than it ever gets on earth as the atmosphere is not flitering it)

Eldan

2011-07-11, 02:25 AM

Slightly different topic:

Somewhere (and I don't even remember where, some kind of SciFi story) I read about a weapon that fired 1 metric ton of antimatter. An absolutely ridiculous amount, but I've been wondering.

One kilogram of antimatter would yield 2 × 8.99 ×10^16 J. So, we're looking at 1.8 x 10^20 J. 42 Gt of TNT. Over 8 times the energy of the complete nuclear arsenal as it is today. Over 1000 times the Tunguska event.

And, well. Of course, it's a matter of No Sense of Scale, but I just can't really imagine what that would do. Any ideas?

Yora

2011-07-11, 04:05 AM

This might get you into the range of breaking a planet to pieces.

Autolykos

2011-07-11, 04:13 AM

would something less dramatic be possible to at least choose a single direction from which you'd be vulnerable to passive detection?You'll not only have to hide your engines, you'll also have to hide the exhaust cloud behind your ship - which is freaking hard to pull off since objects under pressure tend to expand in space. A lot.
Using an engine without reaction mass (say, a big honkin' laser, or just aforementioned thermal radiation) would be theoretically possible, but extremely inefficient until you get to speeds near c. Photons have very low momentum per energy.
Switching your engines off and just radiating excess heat off your back would be much easier. If you haven't been detected yet, you'll probably not need to change your velocity.

Eldan

2011-07-11, 05:00 AM

This might get you into the range of breaking a planet to pieces.

Probably. But I have no idea how to calculate such a thing.

Autolykos

2011-07-11, 05:09 AM

Probably. But I have no idea how to calculate such a thing.
If it has enough energy to vaporize a significant portion of the planet, you're on the right track...
On a rough guess though, 8 times the current worldwide nuclear arsenal isn't that much. We don't even have enough for overkill anymore (only about 10% IIRC), so this wouldn't even wipe out humanity and be far from actually damaging the planet.

Yora

2011-07-11, 11:54 AM

When you want to kill all life on earth, it's not the raw amount of energy. All nuclear bombs detoonated high in the atmosphere with a one day delay betwen blasts would probably create massive ammounts of irradiation, but when you would detonate all at once at the same location underground, you would probably have to deal with terrible earthquakes and nuclear winter that would last for decades or centuries.

Storm Bringer

2011-07-11, 02:47 PM

the earth is a 12,000 km wide ball of iorn. It can take punishments that would completely render the surface unihabitable and not even blink. seriously, it takes far more than simply dentonating the Cold War Nucular Stockpiles to damage the planet much more than scratching the paintwork a bit.

Yora

2011-07-11, 03:05 PM

Except the paint is all that keeps all known life alive. :smallbiggrin:

hamishspence

2011-07-13, 04:46 AM

Probably. But I have no idea how to calculate such a thing.

It's been done by the people estimating the energy of the death star's superlaser- basically, enough energy to accelerate the entire mass of the Earth to "escape velocity".

Plus a bit more (100 x as much?), to account for wastage.

Autolykos

2011-07-13, 07:15 AM

It's been done by the people estimating the energy of the death star's superlaser- basically, enough energy to accelerate the entire mass of the Earth to "escape velocity".

Plus a bit more (100 x as much?), to account for wastage.
You'll also have to account for structural cohesion, hence the requirement to vaporize the planet (but I forgot gravity, shame on me). It should be the sum, plus losses to radiation, minus the energy from earth's rotation and the pressure in earth's core. I'd wager a guess that the energy required for vaporization is by far larger than the rest, but can't know until I calculated it.

hamishspence

2011-07-13, 07:39 AM

It doesn't necessarily have to be reduced to a cloud of atoms.

A bunch of chunks rocketing away in all directions still qualifies as "breaking the planet to pieces".

Storm Bringer

2011-07-13, 08:55 AM

How to destroy the earth (http://qntm.org/?destroy)reckons at 100% effcientcy, you'd need about 1,246,400,000,000 (1.2 trillion) tons. they also reckon you'd need about 20 times that to "really" do it, given what is know about how energy is relesed in anti-matter explosions.

so, you;d need about 25 trillion tons of anti-matter to blow the earth up.

bansidhe

2011-07-22, 03:11 PM

Spiryt

2011-07-22, 03:54 PM

Looking at a Frostburn/Game of thrones type of game enviroment,would plate and chain type armour really be a good idea,wouldnt it hold the cold and freeze up and such?
Y,know that iron helm turning your brain and ears too ice?

Would covering it in leather ,brigandines etc be effective?

Sort of like the opposites of the crusades I suppose...thoughts?

Nor plate, nor mail would be worn over naked body, or even "normal" clothes so that's kind of irrelevant. Cold environment would need thicker clothing, anyway, that would go well with mail, if tailored properly.

Not sure what would be the point of covering it in leather or anything to be honest... :smallconfused:

Knaight

2011-07-23, 01:52 AM

Looking at a Frostburn/Game of thrones type of game enviroment,would plate and chain type armour really be a good idea,wouldnt it hold the cold and freeze up and such?

You wear mail or plate over a lot of padding. It won't get any colder than anything else, and as none of it is anywhere near skin in most cases, so how quickly it transmits heat (or in this case has heat transmitted to it) is largely irrelevant.

awa

2011-07-23, 11:40 PM

Ive always heard all that padding is basically equivalent to a heavy snow suite overheating is a much bigger problem under normal circumstances. now snow snow would be bad all that extra weight would make every thing miserable. also that snow suite is probably not water proof and once that gets soaked through your going to not only be soaked but carrying a lot more weight all kinds of not fun

warty goblin

2011-07-23, 11:57 PM

You wear mail or plate over a lot of padding. It won't get any colder than anything else, and as none of it is anywhere near skin in most cases, so how quickly it transmits heat (or in this case has heat transmitted to it) is largely irrelevant.

I've worn chainmail over light padding in moderate cold, around 10 or 20 degrees Fahrenheit, and it's not terribly uncomfortable so long as you keep moving. It's heavy enough that unless it's stupid cold or windy you generate plenty of heat just walking in the stuff.

What you don't want to do is stand still in the stuff, because you definitely bleed heat faster. It's twenty five pounds of steel - which transmits heat quite well - sitting on top of you, it certainly doesn't keep you warmer. What'll really kill you is doing something strenuous like fighting that makes you sweat, and then standing still. Now you're a damp person wearing a giant radiator. Just hope like hell your padding is made of wool, because most other things don't insulate worth a damn wet.

Which is mostly irrelevant, since nobody in their right minds fights a war in winter anyway. Even with the five or six month winters you see on Earth, serious fighting during the winter months is, until recently, quite unusual. It's too hard to move supplies by period means, and surviving takes too damn much energy to leave much for fighting.

awa

2011-07-24, 09:19 AM

some groups fought in winter but they were the exception and they typically only did it to get an advantage on someone who didn't expect it.

Knaight

2011-08-09, 05:40 PM

I'm resurrecting this thread just before the deadline with a single, basic question.

How well could a tungsten plate stop a bullet from an early breech loading bolt action rifle?

awa

2011-08-09, 11:14 PM

im far from an expert on metals or guns but if your referring to a plate of metal i imagine it depends on the thickens if your referring to full plate a quick reading of wikipedia indicates that its extremely heavy so armor would likely be highly impractical for humans to use whether it would stop a rifle though i have no idea. Although part of that would depend on the quality of the armor im pretty shure armor designed to stop bullets was angled to deflect them .

Autolykos

2011-08-10, 03:52 AM

While tungsten is harder than pure iron, it is quite brittle, very heavy, and not stronger than good steel - not what I would use for armor. Best to use it in alloys, where you'll get much more for your money.

Yora

2011-08-10, 07:22 AM

The most important trait of tungsten (at least in sci-fi) is it's density, or weight.
It's one of the heaviest elements but still relatively common on earth. And though only half as common as uranium, it has the huge advantage of, well not being uranium and radioactive.
Depleted uranium is still toxic so tungsten is the material of choice if you want to manufacture projectiles that have a really heavy punch. (Though depleted uranium is cheaper, so it's still used in heavy armor piercing ammunition, even though it's illegal by international law, but that never really bothered US armed forces.)

awa

2011-08-10, 04:04 PM

my understanding is that most steel was pretty poor quality during the epriods that pepole were wearing plate armor. so tungstun might be better then the steel avaliable although i think tungstun is difficult to work so probbaly by the time tugstun armor is even an option good steel will be as well. (also steel will be cheeper)

Martin Greywolf

2011-08-10, 04:44 PM

Well, as to the effectivnes of plate mail, there is some evidence (disputed, as anything) that well-made full plate (usually from Milan) could stop musket round at 30 paces (roughly 30 m, depends on which paces exactly you are talking about), so the steel was by no means of poor quality.

As for weight, it was about 15 kg (some 30-35 pounds) for full harness, minus the padding as an upper bound. It was actually lighter than mail, one of the selling points (and boy, did it need those, with the purchase and maintaining costs, both in money and time).

As for thickness, well, it varied over the time period and quality of harness, but notice how it´s almost always slanted. That gives the armor quite a bit more in terms of thickness. This same technique was later rediscovered for tank armor.

As for stopping a rifle, depends on the ammunition used, but there is no point in making it a full plate harness. helmet restricts your vision, so return fire would be too difficult and arm and leg pieces are a lot thinner than the torso piece, so a rifle would just blow through (they just might stop small arms). Also, shotgun slugs are a big problem (Karl May´s Bear rifle was described in a way that reminded me of a hunting shotgun with slug ammo rather than rifle).

There are actually some stories from Wild west period about guys who wore thick cuirasses (breastplate) to stop bullets (you aim at the center of mass, headshots aren´t nowhere as popular in real life as they are in games), but if they were true or just embellished, no one can say.

For movie case that seems rather plausible, look to For a few dollars. A door for some old boiler (good inch thick) were used there to stop repeated fire from a rifle, though they were dented wit each shot.

Spiryt

2011-08-10, 04:59 PM

As for weight, it was about 15 kg (some 30-35 pounds) for full harness, minus the padding as an upper bound. It was actually lighter than mail, one of the selling points (and boy, did it need those, with the purchase and maintaining costs, both in money and time).

I found it rather hard to believe.....

Well, rather there's nothing hard to believe about that weight, but that would be weight of some "light" armor, not really some 'bullet proof' variety.

In most cases, 20 kg seems to really be the down limit for full armor, actually half armor like that :

From Wallace collection (http://wallacelive.wallacecollection.org/eMuseumPlus?service=direct/1/ResultLightboxView/result.t1.collection_lightbox.$TspTitleImageLink.l ink&sp=10&sp=Scollection&sp=SfieldValue&sp=0&sp=3&sp=2&sp=Slightbox_3x4&sp=240&sp=Sdetail&sp=0&sp=F&sp=T&sp=247) weighs 16 kg.

13 - 16 kg was generally weight of 17th century polish hussar armors, which weren't full body armors, obviously, often didn't even had back plate.

So while really 'fine' and thin plate could be made lighter than baldy fit mail, usually weight was at least comparable.

Martin Greywolf

2011-08-10, 05:35 PM

Well, period difference here, I was thinking more 15 - 16th century...

And the link doesn´t work, something about an expired session...

Yukitsu

2011-08-10, 05:46 PM

There are actually some stories from Wild west period about guys who wore thick cuirasses (breastplate) to stop bullets (you aim at the center of mass, headshots aren´t nowhere as popular in real life as they are in games), but if they were true or just embellished, no one can say.

There are reports of officers in the trenches wearing steel plates (that wouldn't even be considered armour by most) to stop sniper fire from across the trenches. IIRC, Russian officers also wore steel breast plates in urban combat. From accounts I've seen (mostly Canadian army historical books, don't know if the Germans were doing the same, and I think the British and French may have had actual cuirass), they would stop rifle fire at those distances. Same should apply to those guns in the west.

Knaight

2011-08-10, 11:30 PM

awa

2011-08-11, 11:14 AM

i hear tungstun steel is pretty good but its still probbaly pretty heavy

Autolykos

2011-08-12, 01:40 PM

i hear tungstun steel is pretty good but its still probbaly pretty heavyTungsten steel is primarily used as tool steel, because it is rather hard - for armor, tensile strength is usually more important.
Nickel alloys containing tungsten (and a lot of other metals) can become pretty resistant to acid, high temperatures and mechanical stress (which might be a good thing in a fantasy setting), but are still not as strong as a good spring steel.

Xuc Xac

2011-08-13, 04:41 AM

The most important trait of tungsten (at least in sci-fi) is it's density, or weight.
It's one of the heaviest elements but still relatively common on earth. And though only half as common as uranium, it has the huge advantage of, well not being uranium and radioactive.
Depleted uranium is still toxic so tungsten is the material of choice if you want to manufacture projectiles that have a really heavy punch.

How much would tungsten or uranium cost in a fantasy world? It would probably be more cost effective to just use golden bullets. They would be super dense and you can make them in the same mold you use to cast your lead bullets. If you have the gold pieces to "buy" them, then you don't even have to go anywhere to buy them. Just melt them and put them in the bullet mold.

awa

2011-08-13, 09:46 AM

it appears much to by surprise that lead is both softer and lighter than gold. while the cost would be crazy it might actually be mildly better.

edit gold piece to gold bullets assumes the coin is pure gold which might not be the case.

Endon the White

2011-08-13, 10:18 AM

What was the role of Archers on a large open battlefield? It seems to me that after the front lines clash, they become useless.

Storm Bringer

2011-08-13, 03:35 PM

What was the role of Archers on a large open battlefield? It seems to me that after the front lines clash, they become useless.

not really.

when large bodies of formed men clash, you have the frist two or so ranks on each side in contact, fighting, and a large number of other ranks stood behind, waiting thier turn or stood by in reserve formations to prevent or exploit breakthoughs, as needed. these would be within arrow range of archers formed behind the main lines, who would fire high, arcing shot into the rear ranks and reserve formations, both damaging the enemy reserves, and "isolating" the leading elements of the other side, so you can defeat them in detail (one part at a time).

also, the initial archery duels were very protracted and important. medieval battles would often have up to an hour or more of the archers and crossbowmen exchanging fire, causing casualites and disrupting formations, until one side felt it could no longer take the heat and advanced to contact. during the charge, the archers fire would disrupt the formations and slow the charge, robbing it of it's cohesion and killing speed, and sometimes even break the charge before contact was made (though, before repeating firearms came in in the 1860's, no unit could defend it's frontage with firepower alone against an enemy determined to push into melee).

thus, when the charge hit home, it was (hopefully) a disorganised mass of indeviduals arriving in small groups along the line, and quickly overwhelmed, rather than solid mass hitting as one that could break a line.

Spiryt

2011-08-13, 04:14 PM

It all depended on particular forces, tactics in particular period....

Saying "archers" and "battles" gives us pretty much nothing.

English archers were forming large "V" shaped echelons on the side of main army, who could fire to the sides of enemy formations.

Obviously, such formations needed appropriate deployment protection etc. to not get ridden trough.

Central/Eastern European mounted crossbowmen were operating inside the cavalry formations, presumably shooting above their allies heads as well.

Also, obviously, very few larger battles consisted of one clash of fighters, without further maneuvering, swapping places with other formations, regrouping etc. Human cardiovascular system doesn't really allow it, leave alone horses...

Similarly, not much longer battles consisted of one huge uncontrolled line of battling dude. Maneuvering towards positions to shot would again be important.

Another thing, archers obviously participated in melee very often if it was needed.

these would be within arrow range of archers formed behind the main lines, who would fire high, arcing shot into the rear ranks and reserve formations,

Arching shots in such situation seem mostly a bit of waste of effort.

At 50 m heavier bolts would usually have enough drop for shot ~ 2m above your frontline heads to be sufficient.
So, all in all it depended on many things.

Talented commander would indeed obviously want to cause situation were opposing archers are mainly "useless", for example.

Knaight

2011-08-14, 01:39 AM

How much would tungsten or uranium cost in a fantasy world? It would probably be more cost effective to just use golden bullets. They would be super dense and you can make them in the same mold you use to cast your lead bullets. If you have the gold pieces to "buy" them, then you don't even have to go anywhere to buy them. Just melt them and put them in the bullet mold.

Within the setting which spawned the question, tungsten is relatively easy to come by. Sure, you aren't going to just mine it like iron, but if you can get your hands on a sufficiently skilled alchemist mass production is reasonable.

Xuc Xac

2011-08-14, 07:40 AM

Within the setting which spawned the question, tungsten is relatively easy to come by. Sure, you aren't going to just mine it like iron, but if you can get your hands on a sufficiently skilled alchemist mass production is reasonable.

Are tungsten pieces a standard unit of currency? If gold pieces are, then they are much easier to get. If you have enough gold pieces and you want tungsten bullets, then you can buy tungsten bullets from a sufficiently skilled alchemist. If you have enough gold pieces to buy gold bullets, then you already have gold bullets: no alchemist (of any skill level) is required.

Knaight

2011-08-16, 05:33 AM

Are tungsten pieces a standard unit of currency? If gold pieces are, then they are much easier to get. If you have enough gold pieces and you want tungsten bullets, then you can buy tungsten bullets from a sufficiently skilled alchemist. If you have enough gold pieces to buy gold bullets, then you already have gold bullets: no alchemist (of any skill level) is required.
Gold pieces aren't (Paper money is fairly common, otherwise copper and nickel tend to show up), and gold would make terrible armor to begin with, which is where this discussion started. The bullets in question are usually steel jacketed lead, and the original question was about armor, which gold is pretty terrible for.