PDA

View Full Version : Got a Fantasy-World Weapon, Armor or War Question?



Pages : [1] 2

Conners
2011-04-21, 07:56 AM
In the great, edited words of averagejoe:
This thread is a resource for getting information about how fictional weapons, armour and warfare would function realistically. Normally this thread would be in Friendly Banter, but the concept has always been that the information is for RPG players and DMs so they can use it to make their games better.

A few rules for this thread:


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.
This thread is for fantasy questions using our world's physics, with some exceptions. Anything outside the realm of our own physics is a bit pointless to ask about (IE: Asking about weapons in a movie setting, where common arrows pierce plate armour without the aid of magic). If you are making a setting where there's a race of people who can't bleed to death, however, it's fine to ask about what methods would cause death.
Any weapon or technology-period is open for questions. Medieval and ancient warfare questions seem to predominate, but since there are many games set in other periods as well, feel free to ask about any weapon. This includes futuristic ones - but be aware that these will be likely assessed according to their real life feasibility. Thus, phasers, for example, will be talked about in real-world science and physics terms rather than the Star Trek canon. If you want to discuss a fictional weapon from a particular source according to the canonical explanation, please start a new thread for it.
Please try to cite your claims if possible. If you know of a citation for a particular piece of information, please include it. However, everyone should be aware that sometimes even the experts don't agree, so it's quite possible to have two conflicting answers to the same question. This isn't a problem; the asker of the question can examine the information and decide which side to go with. The purpose of the thread is to provide as much information as possible. Debates are fine, but be sure to keep it a friendly debate (even if the experts can't!).
No modern real-world political discussion. As the great Carl von Clausevitz once said, "War is merely the continuation of policy by other means," so poltics and war are heavily intertwined. However, politics are a big hot-button issue and one banned on these boards, so avoid political analysis if at all possible (this thread is primarily about military hardware). There's more leeway on this for anything prior to about 1800, but be very careful with all of it, and anything past 1900 is surely not open for analysis. (I know these are arbitrary dates, but any dates would be, and I feel these ones are reasonable.) Notably, fantasy politics should be fine for discussion, and recommended considering how much war is related to politics. While it is necessary to reference somewhat to historical politics to give realistic examples, please do this carefully (we'll have to stop all political discussion if things go too far).
No graphic descriptions. War is violent, dirty, and horrific, and anyone discussing it should be keenly aware of that. However, on this board graphic descriptions of violence (or sexuality) are not allowed, so please avoid them.

Let us cry "havoc", and let loose the dogs of war!

TroubleBrewing
2011-04-21, 08:02 AM
*Gets Popcorn*

This is going to be awesome.

Curious
2011-04-21, 08:05 AM
Okay then, an opening topic. How the heck would a Space Marine's armor function with those massive shoulder plates? Would they even be able to move their upper arms at all?

For clarification, I'm talking about Warhammer 40k.

Yora
2011-04-21, 08:13 AM
Exhibit A:
http://www.kodama.ch/cms/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/space_marine1.jpg
Sorry to cut dis discussion short, but the answer is "No". :smallbiggrin:
With pouldrons like this, the soldier would be as flexible as an action figure.

The problem lies in the fact that in warhammer, the pouldrons are 90 degree spheres. But to proteckt the shoulder joint, a 45 degree shpere would be enough. A simple modification and you would have much more flexibility.

Spiryt
2011-04-21, 08:18 AM
Hmmm, I'm pretty sure that people were already asking question about "would, how" and general working of fantasy stuff in "Real" thread.

Anyway, I would say that with all that stuff prevalent in WH40k, oversized pauldrons are really the smallest problem as far as 'working' goes. :smallwink:

Curious
2011-04-21, 08:22 AM
Exhibit A:
http://www.kodama.ch/cms/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/space_marine1.jpg
Sorry to cut dis discussion short, but the answer is "No". :smallbiggrin:

Well, at least it was a prompt answer. :smalltongue:

So, what other fantasy armaments can we rag on? Mechs?

Yora
2011-04-21, 08:36 AM
Hmmm, I'm pretty sure that people were already asking question about "would, how" and general working of fantasy stuff in "Real" thread.
We did, but I think it's appropriate to seperate speculative fiction from historical research. Not that the later wouldn't have a place here as well, but in this thread we can all speculate to our full leisure. :smallbiggrin:

I think the best best version of powered armor that is larger than a mere powered exoskeleton with really heavy body armor are Landmates from Appleseed.
http://wargamesfactory.lefora.com/composition/attachment/9d12dabccc244417996c0caad437cfe0/178829/Landmate%202.jpg?thumb=1

http://www.otakujanai.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/appleseed_landmate.jpg

http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/1/11962/1268191-appleseed_movie_4_super.jpg

Same concept in Ghost in the Shell
http://member.rpg.hu/teron/images/gits-mecha-2.jpg
They look a bit silly with those tiny extra arms, but there's just no way you can get the pilots arms through the shoulders of the suit at those sizes.

Storm Bringer
2011-04-21, 08:49 AM
So, what other fantasy armaments can we rag on? Mechs?


Flying cavaly.

if you were a local DnD era* baron, and you had the ability to recruit knights on peagusi, griffons or some other flying beast, how would you use them?


*by DnD era, i mean the sort of high Fantasy setting where tech has reached the plate armour stage, maybe some cool clockwork stuff, but not yet invented gunpowder.

Eldan
2011-04-21, 09:45 AM
That depends.

If I'm the only one, I'd try to invent a ranged weapon for them. If chemistry is good enough, invent bombs. Use some kind of flammable liquid otherwise. If the thing is large enough, like a dragon, use them like flying war elephants, with archer platforms. They should also make excellent scouts.

If the enemy has them too, there will soon be airfights involved. I guess we'd start a WWI situation.

Ooh, I know a new question. IN the other thread, dwarves came up. Let's discuss different fantasy races.

How would a reasonably fit human being fare against members of other fantasy species with similar levels of training and what tactics should he use? Let's assume three scenarios:
Unarmed, with only a loincloth.
With a knife, but no armour.
With sword, shield and mail.

Opponents:
The dwarf. Even more extreme endurance than a human, can take a few blows more than a human. Has short, but massive limbs and is overall more than a foot shorter than the human.
The elf. Is faster and more dextrous and precise, most likely with longer, more slender limbs, but tires sooner.
The orc. Taller and stronger than the human by quite some degree, but deficient in the mental department.

Zombimode
2011-04-21, 09:53 AM
Flying cavaly.

if you were a local DnD era* baron, and you had the ability to recruit knights on peagusi, griffons or some other flying beast, how would you use them?

It depends on a lot of things, but my first thought would probably be "bomber". Why? Well, a crossbow or bow can only shoot so high in the air, but something droped from an airborne creature has nor range limit.

Yora
2011-04-21, 09:58 AM
As I mention in the other thread, elves should do quite well with Muay Thai. Eberron Drow should have that as their default unarmed martial art. :smallbiggrin:
I imagine Aikido should also serve them very well, especially against orcs who attack with a lot of momentum. However, those are just suplmenentary defense techniques, for ann all round set of fighting techniques, they would also have to expand into other fields. Generally, throwing should work better for them than punching. When it comes to trading punches, an elf would probably be the first to drop.

Spiryt
2011-04-21, 10:06 AM
With similar level of experience, orc would maul all.

Assuming that "mental department" is really dumb guy, but just slower in thinking, noticing, etc.

Going by SRD, relatively small difference of wit, IQ, etc. is not going to overcome being on average 60 or more pounds smaller than opponent.

That's assuming 'unarmed' variant, with swords, shields or knives, sheer size advantage would matter much less.



Generally, throwing should work better for them than punching. When it comes to trading punches, an elf would probably be the first to drop.

Wouldn't say so.... Actually, assuming again that elf is much more slender creature than orc, being fast, elusive, more perceptive and dealing some strikes from outside could work, if he could keep distance.

If orc that would be about 70 pounds (changed it a bit, as stats from SRD are a bit too funky) heavier than him, would lay his hands on him, he would most probably be smothered and pummeled quickly.

Conners
2011-04-21, 10:35 AM
@Space Marine stuff: I see no problem with that armour. I mean, he just is completely unable to raise his arms, that's all..... oh.

I remember a 3D short-film about some Super Marines fighting Chaos Marines. Sadly, don't recall how they animated the shoulder-pieces. If someone wants to check it out more thoroughly, it would be interesting to know how they went about it.


@Flying Cav: I'd first be wondering about how possible it is to ride something big which flies, personally. You'd probably use bumblebees, pterodactyls(really hard to spell), and maybe some other flyers as examples as to how it might work. Really can't imagine any heavy armour on flying cav, at any rate.

As for what sort of weapons would be good... Assuming you have weight constraints without abundant magic, what about light war-darts? Drop some from a long way up, and the soldiers below will probably panic. Depending on what you drop, even good armour and shields might be in peril. Heavy objects, if bearable, would also make great anti-knight weapons when dropped.


@Eldan's Challenge: Ooooh! I like these sorts of questions :D.


Hmmm... Mostly Naked

The dwarf, I feel, has a distinct advantage. Unless the human manages to score them hard in the groin (not sure how easy that is to do against dwarf-height targets), that dwarf has very concentrated strength.
If it gets to a grappling situation, and if the two of them are similarly skilled: The dwarf can probably break joints effectively, resist joint-locks effectively, and they don't need much pull-back for one of their solid punches. Let's not forget they'd take longer to tire....

Of course, one thing to consider against dwarves, is their ability to kick will be quite small. A few kicks to the head would probably end things before the dwarf got a chance, tough as they are.

So, it's a tricky question, and I have a tricky answer. Does the dwarf get to charge in and use his concentrated strength? Or do they fail to defend/counter the human's reach, becoming punch-drunk before they get a chance?


Elves and humans... This is really looking in the human's favour, in a number of ways. They have basically the same reach, and extra precision doesn't sound like the most useful ability for unarmed combat, necessarily. Humans are, in fantasy-fare, less fragile and supposedly stronger. Whether grappling or boxing, the elf doesn't seem like a good bet.

But, if you consider it another way, you don't need a lot of strength to kill someone. Kick them in the groin, it doesn't take much to bring them down. Slam their throat, they need medical attention if you do it right. Jabbing the eyes properly can distract a person, and being quick on your feet can help you to be in an optimal position.

Similar answer to before... On similar skill levels, the elf's precision may lose its usefulness, if the human is capable of anticipating oncoming strikes. However... if it is an even match, there is a certain victor: The Human. If elves tire more quickly than humans, and the fight is indecisively long, the elf will tire and make a mistake.
Of course, with skilled fights, a number of them will end things quick as whip, so this outcome mightn't be what you should expect.


Now, the orc. Evidently, with a lower mental capacity, you can't really say that the orc is of the same skill level as the human. Obviously, this is brain vs. brawn for the larger part, where if the human relies on brawn, the orc will snap their neck (perhaps literally).
Cleverness, however, is much stronger that dumb muscle. If the orc can be tricked, they can be striked vitally, place in a bad position, or otherwise denied their advantage.

So, it really depends on how different the skill/intelligence level of the two is. Sun Tzu would almost definitely make mincemeat out of any orc (providing the orc wasn't invulnerable), But someone of a mildly larger intelligence could mess up, or outsmart the orc indecisively--which eventually will lead to the point where they don't outsmart the orc, and fall to their strength.


That's it for my take on the loincloth bit of it. I'm not a combat expert, of course, just know a few things (I hope), so don't take the correctness of this too strongly.

Anyone want to give their analysis, add to or contest something of mine?

Spiryt
2011-04-21, 10:47 AM
So, it really depends on how different the skill/intelligence level of the two is. Sun Tzu would almost definitely make mincemeat out of any orc (providing the orc wasn't invulnerable), But someone of a mildly larger intelligence could mess up, or outsmart the orc indecisively--which eventually will lead to the point where they don't outsmart the orc, and fall to their strength.



This doesn't really work like that. It's not maneuvering the armies, it's relatively quick and violent moment.

Sun Tzu could be as smart as he wanted, but if he didn't have the prowess and experience to use it in fight, he would be screwed.

You cannot really wrestle with someone and think on the fly "well, now I will maybe put my leg here....."


you can't really say that the orc is of the same skill level as the human.

Eldan had strictly stated that level of skill is roughly similar.

And there isn't even good correlation between skill and intelligence.

Helio Gracie (I think) actually stated once that he prefers to teach BJJ to less intelligent folk, he thought that thinking too much actually makes fluent movement difficult.

So in the end, being great strategist, physicist, doctor, won't help you in a fight.

Intelligence is great thing to have, but on top of skills, strength, athleticism and motion efficiency, alone it's not going to be great help.

Conners
2011-04-21, 11:14 AM
This doesn't really work like that. It's not maneuvering the armies, it's relatively quick and violent moment.

Sun Tzu could be as smart as he wanted, but if he didn't have the prowess and experience to use in fight, he would be screwed.

You cannot really wrestle with someone and think on the fly "well, know I will maybe put my leg here....."



Eldan had strictly stated that level of skill is roughly similar.

And there isn't even good correlation between skill and intelligence.

Helio Gracie (I think) actually stated once that he prefers to teach BJJ to less intelligent folk, he thought that thinking too much actually makes fluent movement difficult.

So in the end, being great strategist, physicist, doctor, won't help you in a fight.

Intelligence is great thing to have, but on top of skills, strength, athleticism and motion efficiency, alone it's not going to be great help. Well, by saying this, you'd be contesting the word of people who have had some greatly violent encounters. If it's a matter that the orc can read their opponent the same as the human can read them, that the orc isn't easily tricked, and that they pursue similar tactics--then the orc isn't mentally impaired.

Sun Tzu and Musashi both said the same thing, after all: It is the same for one man, as one thousand men, or ten thousand men--with one exception: "It is easier to read the movements of a large force of men, than it is to read a single man". Other than that, strategy is the same.

Depending on what you mean, of course, you could be correct. If Sun Tzu had no experience whatsoever, not knowing how to use his body and freezing with the fear of an encounter at hand--his mind wouldn't be able to work under such conditions.

If he did have an idea of what he was doing, however, and the orc was of ill mind... my bet wouldn't be on the orc, since brute strength is useless if not directed.


"Strictly stated" are harsh words to use in the circumstance. Eldan typed, "similar levels of training". Wouldn't guess that everyone benefits exactly the same amount, when given the same training. Either way, I used Sun Tzu as an example of overkill, not the necessary level of wits/natural-ability required to best an orc.
If you give the orc and the human the same level of skill, needless to say, the orc will win. No point mentioning that the orc is mentally impaired whatsoever, if they can think just as well.


Note: Sometimes, when I disagree with people, I worry that I sound sarcastic or bitter when I don't intend it :smallfrown:... My hope is this post does not come across as such, since I have respect for Spiryt.

HenryHankovitch
2011-04-21, 11:19 AM
This doesn't really work like that. It's not maneuvering the armies, it's relatively quick and violent moment.

Sun Tzu could be as smart as he wanted, but if he didn't have the prowess and experience to use in fight, he would be screwed.

You cannot really wrestle with someone and think on the fly "well, know I will maybe put my leg here....."
Exactly. In an actual physical fight, smarts is far less important than quick reactions, and 'dexterity' is much less important than size and strength. There's not a single unarmed-combat sport in the world where they divide combatants by "speed classes" instead of weight classes.

In any martial art built around antagonistic sparring or combat, the vast majority of your training is built around building up muscle memory, endurance, and proficiency with a few tasks. In a fight, being able to do one or two things extremely well--as in, at the right time and with a minimum of delay, without having to think about it--is far more important than having a wide repertoire of 'moves' that one only knows in an academic sense. So in a fight, it's not about how many moves you know, it's about how many moves you can do well enough, at the right time. If my opponent knows only two or three basic punches, and I know every jiujutsu maneuver ever invented, I'm still going to lose if he can do them by instinct and reflex, and I have to think about every move before I do it.

The most important point is, thinking about any martial art--armed, unarmed, sport or combat--as a bunch of maneuvers is flawed. Better to imagine them as a training regimen that allows you to pull off those maneuvers at the right time. The moves are completely useless without the reflexes, strength and endurance to pull them off, and those have to be maintained through training.

So back to the point, if the orc is a dumb violent brute who gets into fights all the time, and our Sun Tzu is a guy who pratices martial arts a couple times a week when he's not sitting around writing books? The orc, almost every time.

Spiryt
2011-04-21, 11:30 AM
Creativity and intelligent application of what you can do is great, but it seems that it can really come to play on rather high level of stuff.

If "Sun Tzu" can at least hold off orc physically and is similarly skilled, then he can win with his greater mental capacity, by finding some good solutions.

If he's really much weaker to the point of being overwhelmed, his skill and brain would have hard time helping him.

Yora
2011-04-21, 11:32 AM
The best way to apply Sun Tzu in this situation is "Do not get in a fistfight with an orc! If you do, run away and face him again later on your terms." :smallwink:

Spiryt
2011-04-21, 11:44 AM
"Preferably with a noble stick in your noble hands" :smalltongue:

Anyway, there's already Sun Tzu for that:


He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be victorious.

Eldan
2011-04-21, 11:53 AM
Clarification: I wrote "similar levels of training" instead of "the same training" because I thought that all these creatures would train in very different ways.

Conners
2011-04-21, 12:02 PM
Exactly. In an actual physical fight, smarts is far less important than quick reactions, and 'dexterity' is much less important than size and strength. There's not a single unarmed-combat sport in the world where they divide combatants by "speed classes" instead of weight classes.

In any martial art built around antagonistic sparring or combat, the vast majority of your training is built around building up muscle memory, endurance, and proficiency with a few tasks. In a fight, being able to do one or two things extremely well--as in, at the right time and with a minimum of delay, without having to think about it--is far more important than having a wide repertoire of 'moves' that one only knows in an academic sense. So in a fight, it's not about how many moves you know, it's about how many moves you can do well enough, at the right time. If my opponent knows only two or three basic punches, and I know every jiujutsu maneuver ever invented, I'm still going to lose if he can do them by instinct and reflex, and I have to think about every move before I do it.

The most important point is, thinking about any martial art--armed, unarmed, sport or combat--as a bunch of maneuvers is flawed. Better to imagine them as a training regimen that allows you to pull off those maneuvers at the right time. The moves are completely useless without the reflexes, strength and endurance to pull them off, and those have to be maintained through training.

So back to the point, if the orc is a dumb violent brute who gets into fights all the time, and our Sun Tzu is a guy who pratices martial arts a couple times a week when he's not sitting around writing books? The orc, almost every time. Using any sport as an example seems counter-intuitive. Sport-fighting and fighting may as well be from separate dimensions. The former, usually you don't want to and aren't trying to kill each other--even if you are, there are rules in place to limit damage and prevent death.
Now, "fighting"... the term is confused, since it can sometimes refer to sport, rough-and-tumble bar-room brawls, or genuine life-and-death. Only the later is any good for example, when it's a fight for survival--unless the question given was who would win in a sports sense.

Your thought pattern seems more relevant to sport. Moves, techniques, are something Musashi was not interested in. Keep the sun to your back, draw your opponent with a false retreat then dive in, suppress your opponent so they are unable to suppress you, etc..

Timing seems dangerous for use... Often, sports fighters have gotten knifed and/or killed (not to say knives are always involved), because they were too used to their routines. Someone who has killed in self-defence warned not to train in any sports fighting--"the mentality cam get you killed". Dumb violent brutes were, also, one of the things he worried about least.


@Spiryt: Even if you say that, a number of people would disagree. Depending, of course, on what your definition of the type of intelligence which effects fighting skill is.

Yes, that's well said. If he hurt his foot on the orc's privates, then that is not a fight he would choose. If he can't raise his leg without hurting his tendons, and has the precision of a chimp: He doesn't have what's necessary to carry out plans.



Better not get too much further into such discussion if we can help it... though, this might be one of those things where we're best to see it through to the end and an understanding (it is pretty necessary for understanding war and weapons).



Clarification: I wrote "similar levels of training" instead of "the same training" because I thought that all these creatures would train in very different ways. Well, that makes things even more vague, depending on how you think about it... For one thing, how much training do elves have in unarmed combat? You'd think much more would be in blade-use and bow-use. Of course, we're better to assume an emphasis on unarmed for this, I suppose.

..xD "Orc training" almost sounds like an oxymoron to me, depending on the version of the orcs.

Spiryt
2011-04-21, 12:02 PM
Clarification: I wrote "similar levels of training" instead of "the same training" because I thought that all these creatures would train in very different ways.

Then it gets more into rather broad realm of imagining what kinds of martial training would they practice and why.

And there can be countless things involved in this...

Like Elves being relatively peaceful, sublime culture and developing some kind of aikido/capoeira mix without much or any hard contact.

While dwarves develop some kind of brutally practical wrestling with elements of actual survival systems and don't count even sporting fight as "good" without broken nose or someone vomiting.

Or the other way around, doesn't matter.

So I would assume that to just compare physiques of fictional races, all should use some relatively similar basic, practical and logical art of wrestling, punching etc.

With some good deal of actual mental preparation, but without really brutal and menacing atmosphere, like crazy karate instructor kicking students legs till collapse, because "pain teaches" or something ridiculous. :smallwink:



Your thought pattern seems more relevant to sport. Moves, techniques, are something Musashi was not interested in. Keep the sun to your back, draw your opponent with a false retreat then dive in, suppress your opponent so they are unable to suppress you, etc..

Sorry, but it doesn't work like that.

If you can't even fight in sport, you can't expect to "dive in and suppress" in real fight.

Techniques and moves are not some crazy stuff that bored Asians were thinking about while bathing, those are simply ways to call effective motions etc. of kicking, moving, clinching and all.


Yes, that's well said. If he hurt his foot on the orc's privates, then that is not a fight he would choose. If he can't raise his leg without hurting his tendons, and has the precision of a chimp: He doesn't have what's necessary to carry out plans.

If you enter the fight with some weird plan like " I will kick him in the balls" or whatever, they you're already lost.

You cannot win a fight by kicking anyone between the legs or doing some other magical trick, because opponent is actually actively resisting.

Not to mention that there's absolutely no reason why orc couldn't do the same if he has obvious advantage - he's bigger so he can actually control you better in the clinch, for one simple example, and then knee you to the groin.

Conners
2011-04-21, 12:22 PM
Yes, that sounds like a good idea, Spiryt.


So recap:

Dwarf vs. Human: 50/50.

Elf vs. Human: 50/50, or human, depending on how long the fight lasts.

Orc vs. Human: Human, if the orc is enough sandwiches short of a picnic. Orc if their on too similar a playing field skill-wise.

Later, we should try Dwarf vs. Elf and stuff.


Now, Clothed but unarmoured, wielding a knife:


Human vs. Dwarf
I'd say human. Reach becomes much more of a problem in this case, unless the dwarf can slash the human's hand, or somehow get a hold of the guy.
Either way, the dwarf' head is at a good stabbing height...


Human vs. Elf
This I'd give to the elf, due to the greater speed and precision. You don't need a lot of strength to use a knife effectively. You just need to grab the other guy from a position where he can't stab you (much), then empty all of his unseeables by making a very large gashes across their body.
Of course, this is not to say the human couldn't win. But the elf has the better odds.


Human vs. Orc
Knives are a great equalizer between those of different mass. The orc's strength is almost moot from the situation, though his size is handy for slightly greater reach, and the fact that the knife is smaller in comparison to his size. This again boils down to how simple-minded the orc is.

Generally, any lack of intellect gives the human the likely win... DEPENDING, on how they fight with knives. Do they jump in, thrust madly, then jump away, or latch on close and make them more cuts than skin? The orc would do better in the former, due to the aforementioned benefits of size. If they both went for the latter, I'd say it's on the guy with more smarts. If one went for the former, the latter-guy has my bet.

I'd say the human is the more likely candidate, based on my assumption on what the situation would be. Of course, it's more like 55/45 in the human's favour, really.

Spiryt
2011-04-21, 12:31 PM
Generally, orc form societies and do different things, even if "primitive" from our point of view, so they're not really dumb, just at it is in 3.5 - lower capabilites.

Can be very well more intelligent than human if they roll w in some examples.


Anyway, size of the orc would give him benefit of greater resistance to cuts and thrust, more meat and fat can after all make all difference between artery being severed or not.

Plus, all other things stay, you can still grab, out wrestle and strike aside/in addition to using knife.

If one can grab arm with knife and not let it go....

While other can release his grabbed hand by one violent move - there is difference.

But indeed, knife + no armor of any kind neutralities size and strength advantage quite a lot. Other things come to play.

Conners
2011-04-21, 12:42 PM
@Spiryt: Evidently, one does, of course, need to be able to attack to expect to have much chance. Practising the motion until it becomes natural is a great method for survival. Thinking entirely on the moves, however... that's what Musashi said not to do. Notably, he comes from an error where the Samurai had little experience aside from dojos and the occasional duel, where emphasis of flashy technique was likely to an extent that annoyed him.

I would agree that you can't win any fight with such a plan in mind. To say it would never work, however, that's cancelling out a gigantic number of techniques. Unless your opponent is not expecting it whatsoever, of course they won't leave their legs wide-open. Also, you need to consider not just one weak-point, otherwise you're shark-bait... It's a matter of getting an opponent to expose a weakness, and striking like a lightning bolt.
Either way, that example was one of comedic design, referring that if the orc was so tough that he literally couldn't be hurt in any feasible unarmed method then the fight would be hopeless.
Regardless, if the orc truly knows and understands the subject matter so much better than the "Sun Tzu" used--that entirely discourses the subject from the scenario I originally stated.



I never heard much to say that orcs weren't dumb, within DnD reckoning O.o. Read at least one fluff book about them, and it described the typical orc as easily tricked and bullied, with extremely simple desires ("Can I have sex with it? Can I eat it? Can I kill it?"). If orcs really aren't meant to be short of wits DnD-wise, this whole thing has been a misunderstanding with our different ideals of what an orc is XD.

As for the points you mention... I didn't think the orc was meant to be that much stronger than a human. I figured they'd be like a pretty strong human, coupled with the fact they're large.

Dienekes
2011-04-21, 01:45 PM
I never heard much to say that orcs weren't dumb, within DnD reckoning O.o. Read at least one fluff book about them, and it described the typical orc as easily tricked and bullied, with extremely simple desires ("Can I have sex with it? Can I eat it? Can I kill it?"). If orcs really aren't meant to be short of wits DnD-wise, this whole thing has been a misunderstanding with our different ideals of what an orc is XD.

As for the points you mention... I didn't think the orc was meant to be that much stronger than a human. I figured they'd be like a pretty strong human, coupled with the fact they're large.

This is an odd opinion, since they're natural boost to strength is twice their natural penalty to intelligence. If they only are slightly stronger than a man, then they should barely be dumb at all. Not even noticeable really. But I'm with the others on this, any idiot can be trained to be good in a fight. I've seen such idiots.

HenryHankovitch
2011-04-21, 01:49 PM
I never heard much to say that orcs weren't dumb, within DnD reckoning O.o. Read at least one fluff book about them, and it described the typical orc as easily tricked and bullied, with extremely simple desires ("Can I have sex with it? Can I eat it? Can I kill it?"). If orcs really aren't meant to be short of wits DnD-wise, this whole thing has been a misunderstanding with our different ideals of what an orc is XD.

As for the points you mention... I didn't think the orc was meant to be that much stronger than a human. I figured they'd be like a pretty strong human, coupled with the fact they're large.

The point is, a statistical deviation in size and strength is going to benefit someone in hand-to-hand fighting far more than a statistical deviantion in intelligence or even 'quickness'. If the truly average orc is, say, 15% bigger and stronger than the average human, that will make orcs far more dangerous to humans in a fight than if they were 15% quicker or 15% smarter.

Storm Bringer
2011-04-21, 01:53 PM
As for the points you mention... I didn't think the orc was meant to be that much stronger than a human. I figured they'd be like a pretty strong human, coupled with the fact they're large.

i think the depends on how you read the DnD stat ranges.

we all know that a value of 10 is suppose to be the "normal" value for a "normal" human, but it's not clear to what extent abnormally high or low scores are for non adventuring folk.

I know some people who work on the basis that everyone has a even 10 across the board, or at least a +0 modifer, and that someone with an above average score or below average score is an exception to the norm. to these people, someone with 18 strength is a one in a million freak, blessed with inhuman levels of muscle.

i know other people who take the view that the whole of the population roughly follows the bell curve that the 4d6b3 create, where a 18 strenght person is rare but not unknown (the strongest person at a westling gym, for example).

in the former view, the relativly small raical adjustments are a lot more important, and mean that, for example almost every orc is stronger than almost every human, rather than most orcs being on average stronger than most humans.

HenryHankovitch
2011-04-21, 01:58 PM
Now, "fighting"... the term is confused, since it can sometimes refer to sport, rough-and-tumble bar-room brawls, or genuine life-and-death. Only the later is any good for example, when it's a fight for survival--unless the question given was who would win in a sports sense.

Your thought pattern seems more relevant to sport. Moves, techniques, are something Musashi was not interested in. Keep the sun to your back, draw your opponent with a false retreat then dive in, suppress your opponent so they are unable to suppress you, etc..

And yet, fun fact: you can't learn sword-fighting from reading Musashi. If I write a PhD thesis on the Book of Five Rings and pick up a stick, I'll have my skull caved in by a kendo practitioner who has never read the book but practices hitting people on the head with a stick five times a week. Similarly, Bruce Lee wasn't an amazing fighter because he sat around thinking about Jeet Kun Do; he was an amazing fighter because he had an almost insane dedication to physical practice and conditioning, every single day.

Musashi's book says a lot about tactics and philosophy in the broad sense; but its application to combat is only relevant in the context of someone who has already learned to fight. Reading Clausewitz wouldn't teach me how to lead a regiment of Marines into battle either; it has useful precepts to be applied once I know how to manage mechanized logistics and radio communication & control, company-level tactics, et cetera.

Storm Bringer
2011-04-21, 02:09 PM
a related question to the ongoing discussion of one on one combat:

how do YOU think a races racial traits affect it's art of war on a macro level, rather than a micro level?

eg how would a Elven army fight differently than a Orcish army? how would you take, say, a halflings dexterity and ability with throw weapons and make a battle plan and army to take advantage of it?

Spiryt
2011-04-21, 02:16 PM
eg how would a Elven army fight differently than a Orcish army? how would you take, say, a halflings dexterity and ability with throw weapons and make a battle plan and army to take advantage of it?

You can't really make army out of thrown weapons, and halfling ability to hurt stuff with thrown weapons would be still limited.

They could throw a rock accurately and all, but couldn't send javelin fly as far, fast and true as human, because they would be, well, too small.

In general, halfling army that would want to stand against other races in open field would have to be mainly mounted. Mounted shooters, probably, as well.

Shield wall or pike wall against creatures that are 5 times more massive (like humans) couldn't really end well.

Yora
2011-04-21, 02:21 PM
Tiny archers on ponies bred for speed. If you're without horses, that's actually quite scary. :smallbiggrin:


i think the depends on how you read the DnD stat ranges.

we all know that a value of 10 is suppose to be the "normal" value for a "normal" human, but it's not clear to what extent abnormally high or low scores are for non adventuring folk.
Let's just assume the standard generation method of "roll 3d6".

By that you end up with
25% with a modifier of +0
20% with a modifier of +1 or -1 each
10% with a modifier of +2 or -2 each
5% with a modifier of +3 or -3 each
0,5% with a modifier of +4 or -4 each
(very strongly rounded)

Regarding other racial traits, dakrvision is probably the real winner here. 60 ft range isn't much for scouting, but makes all the difference during a nighttime raid on an enemy camp. Even of there are torches and campfires, the advantage should still be substential.
Not sure if low-light vision would make much of a difference.

LOTRfan
2011-04-21, 02:22 PM
Anyone want to explain how Kore's Crossbows (http://www.goblinscomic.com/09102005/) works? It seems to be four crossbows built into each one, but he reloads it so fast...

Spiryt
2011-04-21, 02:31 PM
Anyone want to explain how Kore's Crossbows (http://www.goblinscomic.com/09102005/) works? It seems to be four crossbows built into each one, but he reloads it so fast...

Seriously?

That wouldn't work, that's pure fantasy, like his whole kit.

Even if he could span them all so precisely, somehow, he wouldn't gather any sort of sensible energy in the prods.

Shademan
2011-04-21, 03:35 PM
i think the depends on how you read the DnD stat ranges.

we all know that a value of 10 is suppose to be the "normal" value for a "normal" human, but it's not clear to what extent abnormally high or low scores are for non adventuring folk.

I know some people who work on the basis that everyone has a even 10 across the board, or at least a +0 modifer, and that someone with an above average score or below average score is an exception to the norm. to these people, someone with 18 strength is a one in a million freak, blessed with inhuman levels of muscle.

i know other people who take the view that the whole of the population roughly follows the bell curve that the 4d6b3 create, where a 18 strenght person is rare but not unknown (the strongest person at a westling gym, for example).

in the former view, the relativly small raical adjustments are a lot more important, and mean that, for example almost every orc is stronger than almost every human, rather than most orcs being on average stronger than most humans.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that 14 str is normal for a trained soldier.
then again, str is the seasiest stat to measure to irl standards as you can just compare how much weight a character can lift

Curious
2011-04-21, 03:40 PM
Anyone want to explain how Kore's Crossbows (http://www.goblinscomic.com/09102005/) works? It seems to be four crossbows built into each one, but he reloads it so fast...

Actually, there is one page that shows how it reloads, at least.

http://www.goblinscomic.com/11122010-2/

I believe Thunt has stated that the crossbow fires certain bolts depending on how hard the trigger is pulled, alowing for his almost automatic fire rate.

Yora
2011-04-21, 03:52 PM
I seem to recall reading somewhere that 14 str is normal for a trained soldier.
Assuming a 3d6 distribution, that would be roughly the top 1/6 of the total adult population. Not that unreasonable.

John Campbell
2011-04-21, 05:48 PM
Okay, about intelligence and fighting...

The human (and, presumably, humanoid) brain is not a homogeneous mass. It's divided into different sections with different capabilities and roles, and different evolutionary ages.

The ape-brain, up front, where conscious thought lives, is smart, creative, capable of complex thought and data synthesis. But it's slow. It'll get places that the older parts of the brain can't, but it needs time to chew its way through things.

The lizard-brain, back at the top of the spine, is the old part of the brain. The stuff it does is way below the level of conscious thought. That's where autonomic responses and reflex live. It's all about stimulus/response. It can't deal with creative situations or complex thinking... all it does is, when it gets triggered, it fires off the reflex response. It's stupid. It doesn't figure things out or invent new things. It has to be taught, and teaching it something new requires doing it again and again, hundreds of times, until the motion is ingrained into the muscle memory and the lizard-brain finally grasps it. But it's incredibly, blindingly fast. It doesn't waste time thinking about things... it just does.

And if you go into a fight with your ape-brain running the show, and your opponent's lizard-brain is in the driver's seat, you're going to be dead so fast that you literally will not know what hit you. Real fights happen way, way faster than Hollywood has shown you, and the ape-brain isn't fast enough to keep up. If you're waiting to consciously see an opening, it'll be gone before your sword starts to move. If you have to intellectually evaluate the trajectory of a blow in order to figure out where your shield has to go to intercept it, you'll be dead before you even start the block.

And while the lizard-brain isn't very smart, handling simple stimuli like that is the thing it does. As soon as that opening appears, the lizard-brain hits it. No thinking, no evaluating, just targetBAM! As soon as the opponent's weapon starts to move, the lizard-brain blocks. No thinking, no evaluating, just ohcrapBLOCK. (And, really, the "target" and "ohcrap" parts are ape-brain responses... they don't happen until after the fact, generally.) And this is the way you want it, because, at real fight speeds, a good-enough response in a tenth of a second is way, way better than a perfect response a half-second later.


D&D's Int stat is all about the ape-brain. The lizard-brain doesn't do Int things. It's BAB and a sizable chunk of Dex (but not all; there's a purely physical component to Dex, too).

Orcs get penalties to their Int. They don't get penalties to BAB or Dex. Orcs aren't good at complex thought, calculation, or figuring things out. You don't want an orc for your quartermaster. You don't want an orc as your strategist or probably even your weapons instructor. But as a pure fighter? Yeah, that part of their brain is as good as a human's. And their size and strength gives them tremendous advantages over those puny short-tooths.

tordirycgoyust
2011-04-21, 06:27 PM
That said, all else being equal, the guy with the smarter ape brain is going to win. The ability to plan ahead is invaluable.

Curious
2011-04-21, 08:49 PM
In a macro situation, yes, but in a one-on-one fight? The orc is going to win nine times out of ten. Greater weight, leverage, and general strength definitely give the orc the win in most close in situations.

gbprime
2011-04-21, 09:11 PM
Okay, about intelligence and fighting...

And if you go into a fight with your ape-brain running the show, and your opponent's lizard-brain is in the driver's seat, you're going to be dead so fast that you literally will not know what hit you. Real fights happen way, way faster than Hollywood has shown you, and the ape-brain isn't fast enough to keep up. If you're waiting to consciously see an opening, it'll be gone before your sword starts to move. If you have to intellectually evaluate the trajectory of a blow in order to figure out where your shield has to go to intercept it, you'll be dead before you even start the block.

Reflexes are the "lizard-brain", sure. But strategy is the "ape-brain". Using my "ape-brain", I know what your next move is just by watching your shoulders. The orc may not care what you're doing, he knows you're trying to smash him and he's trying to smash you. But the EXPERIENCED fighter is on a level above that.

You tense just so, your eyes lock on your intended target, i read that. And as your arm flashes out to strike me, I land a blow on your forearm, hurting you and spoiling your strike. This isn't theory, this is 20 years of live action, heavy weapon combat in armor.

Now two equally experienced opponents... it comes down to reflexes. But in brain (or experience) versus brawn... brain wins by wearing brawn down with small strikes.

TheThan
2011-04-21, 09:36 PM
Tactics question:
How would dwarves fight against another subterranean foe like drow or kolbolds. I’m thinking about largish scale combat here. What sort of formations, weapons and general combat principles would they use?
I’m thinking they would use a 300 style phalanx (is that the right term here?). Heavy infantry armed with spears and shields. Inside narrow tunnels (much like the pass at Thermopylae) they would have the advantage of reach, and since spears are primarily thrusting weapons, they don’t need to worry so much about whirling or swinging them around. In addition the combined weight and mass of a force of heavily armored dwarves supporting each other would make it very difficult to break into their ranks. They could easily use their mass to “push” an enemy force back.

What do you all think about it? does anyone have any better ideas?

[edit]
Now this makes me want to play a 300 style dwarf spartan!

Dienekes
2011-04-21, 09:47 PM
Yeah I'm seeing tight confines and low ceilings making arrows and larger swords impractical. About all they could do would be some form of phalanx. Considering that means that subterranean combat would be an endurance test/pushing test it's a wonder they haven't wiped out their opponents yet. They seem far more suited to that kind of combat than elves or kobolds are.

The one weakness I can see is side tunnels. Maybe they'd develop heavy shield carriers on their sides to create a phalanx/testudo mixed formation.

Shademan
2011-04-21, 10:07 PM
Yeah I'm seeing tight confines and low ceilings making arrows and larger swords impractical. About all they could do would be some form of phalanx. Considering that means that subterranean combat would be an endurance test/pushing test it's a wonder they haven't wiped out their opponents yet. They seem far more suited to that kind of combat than elves or kobolds are.

The one weakness I can see is side tunnels. Maybe they'd develop heavy shield carriers on their sides to create a phalanx/testudo mixed formation.

kobolds would use traps and guerilla tactics I think.
with these underground digging races war would prolly just be a race to see who can under(or over?)mine their enemies first

Dienekes
2011-04-21, 10:11 PM
kobolds would use traps and guerilla tactics I think.
with these underground digging races war would prolly just be a race to see who can under(or over?)mine their enemies first

An entire campaign fought by siege works then? With the dangerous areas between armies laden with traps defensive positions and the key points of defense to build cities and heavy forts determined what has solid rockbed beneath it.

That'd be pretty cool.

Shademan
2011-04-21, 10:13 PM
An entire campaign fought by siege works then? With the dangerous areas between armies laden with traps defensive positions and the key points of defense to build cities and heavy forts determined what has solid rockbed beneath it.

That'd be pretty cool.

like WW1 underground with german dwarves and french kobold...
This is your next campaign!

Dienekes
2011-04-21, 10:15 PM
like WW1 underground with german dwarves and french kobold...
This is your next campaign!

Yes, yes it is.

Conners
2011-04-21, 10:29 PM
But I'm with the others on this, any idiot can be trained to be good in a fight. I've seen such idiots. Boxing, bar-brawl?



The point is, a statistical deviation in size and strength is going to benefit someone in hand-to-hand fighting far more than a statistical deviantion in intelligence or even 'quickness'. If the truly average orc is, say, 15% bigger and stronger than the average human, that will make orcs far more dangerous to humans in a fight than if they were 15% quicker or 15% smarter. Well yes, 15% smarter doesn't seem like enough of a difference. Someone who is only mildly or somewhat wiser isn't likely to have much of an advantage in physical fighting.


@General orc stuff: The DnD stat system is pretty vague as to what INT really is to begin with. Notably, having a penalty to INT and WIS sounds pretty dumb. Thusly, I go more on fluff material--which makes them seem pretty simple minded.

Storm Bringer also makes a valid point.


@HenryHankovitch: Yes, you need to know something of an art before Musashi's strategy has any point. A random guy put up against any intelligent sort of killer is a lamb to the slaughter. Putting a random guy against a sports fighter will make them a random guy who was beat up by a sports-fighter.

Bruce Lee seems a good example... Do you believe there was no one in the world who trained as hard as he did, that Bruce Lee's only good quality was ability to train more than the other guys? Obviously, training isn't all there is to it. Ten thousand men could train with the same ferocity, yet some would be better than others. The strongest one wouldn't necessarily be the best fighter, unless they were also among the most intelligent.



On Large Scale Wars: Ooh, this is a good subject :).


Elves
For elves, I see various kinds of warriors... Horse Archers would be a good bet.
Sneaky guerilla tactics from elven rangers also seems a must.
Rather like the samurai, elves would likely be proficient and skilled in both their bow, and their melee weapon, making them multi-purpose.
Long life spans also mean that elves could become MONSTROUSLY experienced over time.

Generally speaking, elves are the mobile skirmishers of a fantasy world, surely. Known for being great archers, generally for quick nimbleness, their tactics would largely revolve on superior missile fire from a good position, I'd reckon. Of course, this would mean they'd be vulnerable to cavalry which are still more mobile then they can be... I imagine the elves would have skilled light cavalry units in fair numbers, with at least some kind of heavier knight or ningata-wielders to fight the cav.


As for orcs, they generally are the untrained barbarian hordes.. Weak archers and skirmishers, disorganized charges, low amount of cavalry most-likely, and their main strength being pure numbers rushing to the ford.


@General Fighting Stufff: This mightn't deal with the exact subject we've all been discussing, but it is a fairly sobering read: http://mbx.streetofeyes.com/index.php/topic,1343.0.html


@gbprime: This sounds quite interesting. Could you tell me a bit more about your training and experiences? I like to learn what I can of the subject from multiple sources.



Anyway, onto the Arming-sword, Shield and Mail


Human vs. Dwarf
I'm not sure how much the dwarf's lack of reach would hurt their swings, leverage-wise. Either way, with mail, a sword is very little good against a person to begin with. Since no helmets were mentioned, the human would have the wonderful advantage of being able to swipe at the dwarf's skull. What it comes down to for the dwarf, is deflecting the skull-centred attacks with their shield, and trying to smash one the human's leg or groin with blunt-force. Alternatively, the dwarf could try and turn things into a grappling situation, abandoning their sword and shield when they achieve this, and exerting the advantages I reckoned for dwarves grappling humans.

I'm not sure... at similar levels of skill and might, it's sort of a toss up. If it gets too stand-off-ish, then the dwarf could win due to greater endurance.


Human vs. Elf
The elf's precision might be more useful in this situation than before. A good cut to the enemy's head, or other exposed places could end things, whereas a hard strike to the elf's mailed torso will only hurt. The human still could use their shield to null the elf's precision, but if he concentrates too much on protecting his head, they leave themself open to other tactics.

Getting a decisive victor out of these is pretty hard. The Elf, depending on things goes, seems to have the advantage.



Orc vs. Human
Depending on how much smarter the human is over the orc, the human could win via smarts (ride the orc's blade up to their throat), or the orc would win if the human isn't smarter by a large enough degree (slam the human HARD on any part of the body, break a bone, rinse wash and repeat).

So, Human if they're smarter by enough, Orc if the human is only somewhat smarter.



As for the dwarf vs. drow/kobold question... "300 phalanx" sounds a bit like, "underwater bonfire". If not that it didn't exist, it certainly isn't seen or common, from my memory of the movie.

Either way, a dwarven phalanx... that could work quite well. The main problem with tunnels, is that the larger weapons one could use to break up a phalanx don't have adequate room to move. However, dwarves are smaller--so their "big two-handed" weapons might work fine in tunnels. Axes, also, would reach out less than swords, meaning they have less chance of clipping walls.

Kobolds... I honestly don't see them winning any attack with their weakness and low levels of technology--unless it's just a matter of they keep coming and dying till they're literally on top of the dwarves and wrestle them to death with 10-to-1 ratio. This is because of dwarven armour, largely, and the inability to use their numbers fully in the tunnels.
However, if the kobolds could be more tricky, causing a cave-in here, tricking the dwarves into going to this area they trapped, attacking the dwarfs from multiple sides, including kobolds jumping down from a tunnel above them... That could win the battle with relatively low casualties.

Drow are known more for swords, but they would need hammers or picks against dwarven armour. Pikes are also relatively good against armour, and it may become a phalanx against phalanx battle. Throwing weapons also need to be considered, as a javelin is great against armour.

Generally, any crossbow able to penetrate dwarven armour, I reckon, needs two men to carry.


I also would like to compliment Shademan and Dienekes for their points here--that is a viable and very interesting idea :smallsmile:.



Here's a question to add to the topic... How would throwing weapons work for dwarves? With a compact physique, I imagine they could put a lot of force into what they throw... but without size or reach, or ability to run like a human javelin-thrower, I feel they'd come short on distance.
What usefulness do you think dwarven throwing weapons would have?

Dienekes
2011-04-21, 10:39 PM
Boxing, bar-brawl?

Look at any fighter, Bruce Lee, the last heavy weight wrestler, whatever. I'm guessing they don't do rocket science. Now I was in martial arts for awhile, and I always got beat by a guy. I am smarter than him, it's not a matter of pride, or gloating, I just was. He was better trained and had far better instincts than I do. I could make battle plans all I wanted (and I did) but when it got time to fighting, what is the saying? Any battle plan doesn't survive contact with the enemy. I place far more emphasis on instinct and physicality than intelligence, and i have seen nothing to show me otherwise.



Bruce Lee seems a good example... Do you believe there was no one in the world who trained as hard as he did, that Bruce Lee's only good quality was ability to train more than the other guys? Obviously, training isn't all there is to it. Ten thousand men could train with the same ferocity, yet some would be better than others. The strongest one wouldn't necessarily be the best fighter, unless they were also among the most intelligent.

And I could postulate that if I found someone far smarter than Bruce Lee but who didn't have his body and put him on the same regiment he would not have succeeded as well either. This is pure speculation without fact, I can make up whatever I want to say on the subject so long as it sounds reasonable.

Conners
2011-04-21, 10:54 PM
Look at any fighter, Bruce Lee, the last heavy wait wrestler, whatever. I'm guessing they don't do rocket science. Now I was in martial arts for awhile, and I always got beat by a guy. I am smarter than him, it's not a matter of pride, or gloating, I just was. He was better trained and had far better instincts than I do. I could make battle plans all I wanted (and I did) but when it got time to fighting, what is the saying? Any battle plan doesn't survive contact with the enemy. I place far more emphasis on instinct and physicality than intelligence, and i have seen nothing to show me otherwise.




And I could postulate that if I found someone far smarter than Bruce Lee but who didn't have his body and put him on the same regiment he would not have succeeded as well either. This is pure speculation without fact, I can make up whatever I want to say on the subject so long as it sounds reasonable. Trying to beat someone at their own game isn't really the use I was talking about with intelligence. Generally, it's doing everything you can to make them play a new game altogether. Like Sun Tzu says, make the enemy fight on terms favourable to you, win before you fight, etc..


This is contrary to my point, which was that Bruce Lee doesn't need to be physically stronger than someone to survive an a struggle. Nor does he need to have better muscle-memory. Of course, with sports fighting, it does come down greatly to muscle-memory and physical strength, due to it's design. Smarts certainly would help... but when you're in a small soft ring, with a referee watching you and no reason to really hurt the other guy, your options minimize.

Shademan
2011-04-21, 11:31 PM
Trying to beat someone at their own game isn't really the use I was talking about with intelligence. Generally, it's doing everything you can to make them play a new game altogether. Like Sun Tzu says, make the enemy fight on terms favourable to you, win before you fight, etc..


This is contrary to my point, which was that Bruce Lee doesn't need to be physically stronger than someone to survive an a struggle. Nor does he need to have better muscle-memory. Of course, with sports fighting, it does come down greatly to muscle-memory and physical strength, due to it's design. Smarts certainly would help... but when you're in a small soft ring, with a referee watching you and no reason to really hurt the other guy, your options minimize.
no poisoning his water supply, hiring a sniper or kidnapping his daughter and enprison her in a skycastle guarded by twelve magical dragons.

:/

Conners
2011-04-22, 12:10 AM
no poisoning his water supply, hiring a sniper or kidnapping his daughter and enprison her in a skycastle guarded by twelve magical dragons.

:/ That might be a bit over-convoluted anyway.

Knaight
2011-04-22, 12:58 AM
Trying to beat someone at their own game isn't really the use I was talking about with intelligence. Generally, it's doing everything you can to make them play a new game altogether. Like Sun Tzu says, make the enemy fight on terms favourable to you, win before you fight, etc.

The assumption here is an even duel. If you break that framework and let intelligence play in when it comes to how it originates, things change a bit. Consider the Human vs. Orc duel, if the Human is smarter then they are more likely to dictate the terms of the fight. What this means varies, if Orc's are set up to be nocturnal this would involve attacking during the day where they are a sleep deprived mess with vision problems. Though just shooting the guy from ambush seems a better idea.

Conners
2011-04-22, 01:04 AM
This is true, in that you should customize the situation as much as is possible from the most basic level. However, if not given the option to work out the situation to fight in, it's not to say that p[arts of your brain become dead-weight.

Of course, any pacifist with even a highly superior brain, will find they don't know what to do because they haven't thought about it before. If you have someone who is fit, not very experienced, but has considered violent situations, then you get something to work with.



Aside from the dwarf throwing weapon question... How about Dragon Slaying? This depends an amount on what kind of fantasy dragon we're talking, of course. We'll assume two types of dragons, therefore.

1* Crocodile-type Hide. The Dragon is much like a giant crocodile, where hurting it is concerned.
2* Scales like Steel. The more fantasy-ish version--how do you deal with a dragon if their not only huge, but also their hide is like plate armour?

Mostly, I'm thinking powerful magic, or siege equipment.

Narren
2011-04-22, 01:51 AM
I've been training in martial arts most of my life. I've also been in countless street fights, with and without weapons. In a number of these, I was literally fighting for my life. I've been a bouncer, a correctional officer, and am now a police officer, if you were wondering why I've had so many altercations. I PROMISE you, intelligence has nothing to do with a fight once it's on. Sure, intelligence matters when planning a calculated use of force, but not when it's thrust upon you. All that matters is experience, training, conditioning, strength, size, tenacity, numbers, and weapons. These are not facets of intelligence, and I've seen some goobers that are pretty handy in a fight.

I also believe that size and strength matter more than most people give them credit for. I've fought people that were clearly better fighters than me (mostly sparring, in this case) but I still won because of my size. I've also been pummeled by some bears that dressed up as men (or so I claim) not because they were skilled, they were just FREAKIN HUGE and very tough to hurt. I've seen and experienced size beating skill more than a few times, in the sparring ring and in the street (or bar...or cell block).

Spiryt
2011-04-22, 02:15 AM
I also believe that size and strength matter more than most people give them credit for. I've fought people that were clearly better fighters than me (mostly sparring, in this case) but I still won because of my size. I've also been pummeled by some bears that dressed up as men (or so I claim) not because they were skilled, they were just FREAKIN HUGE and very tough to hurt. I've seen and experienced size beating skill more than a few times, in the sparring ring and in the street (or bar...or cell block).

I don't think anyone doesn't give them credit.

In any sort of full contact combat competition on serious level there's at least ~ 7 or so weight classes where one can fight, because otherwise it doesn't have sense.

Knaight
2011-04-22, 02:36 AM
I've been training in martial arts most of my life. I've also been in countless street fights, with and without weapons. In a number of these, I was literally fighting for my life. I've been a bouncer, a correctional officer, and am now a police officer, if you were wondering why I've had so many altercations. I PROMISE you, intelligence has nothing to do with a fight once it's on. Sure, intelligence matters when planning a calculated use of force, but not when it's thrust upon you. All that matters is experience, training, conditioning, strength, size, tenacity, numbers, and weapons. These are not facets of intelligence, and I've seen some goobers that are pretty handy in a fight.

I'm reasonably sure armor should be added to that list, as should reaction time (though this is obviously way less important than training and conditioning, it doesn't matter how quickly one can react if their reactions are the wrong ones).

Conners
2011-04-23, 02:06 AM
Here's something I've been wondering about: How would the "Orc Double-Axe" type of weapon work? Or is it impossible or too awkward to use such a weapon?

To clarify, I mean a long shaft (a bit like a quarterstaff) with an axehead/blade on both ends of the shaft.

Yora
2011-04-23, 06:27 AM
I think the short answer is: It wouldn't.

Matthew
2011-04-23, 07:03 AM
This is a bizarre thread. Is it not the case that fantasy weapons work because you want them to? :smallbiggrin:

Autolykos
2011-04-23, 07:09 AM
Here's something I've been wondering about: How would the "Orc Double-Axe" type of weapon work? Or is it impossible or too awkward to use such a weapon?

To clarify, I mean a long shaft (a bit like a quarterstaff) with an axehead/blade on both ends of the shaft.
Could you post pictures of what you mean? Guessing from your description it should handle quite similar to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monk's_spade). Not super-practical, and definitely not useful for warfare, but still quite a flashy weapon that might be usable with some training. You'd still be better off with a pollaxe or halberd though.

Eldan
2011-04-23, 07:09 AM
Sure. But this is the thread for mixing real and fantasy physics to ridiculous degrees. It's fun!

So, I've been thinking. Thri-kreen. How would you fight them in a military setting?

Ignoring their psychic powers for now, they:
Are stronger and quicker than humans.
Faster on their feet, too.
They can see in the dark.
Are naturally armoured nearly as well as a human wearing a chain shirt, and can add more armour to that.
Have four arms.
Have a paralysing poison.
Can jump 30 feet or more easily.
Are quick enough to knock arrows out of the air.

How would medieval humans fight these things? Let's assume high medieval technology on both sides, say about 12th century. To balance it out, humans outnumber Thri-kreen about 5:1.

Edit: the double axe is way more ridiculous. Here:

http://videoflashback.com/store/media/orcaxe.jpg

Yora
2011-04-23, 07:10 AM
But he askes how would it work, which I assume also implies "if one were actually made and put into a persons hand".

How is an orc double axe supposed to work is a different question.

Spiryt
2011-04-23, 07:28 AM
Sure. But this is the thread for mixing real and fantasy physics to ridiculous degrees. It's fun!

So, I've been thinking. Thri-kreen. How would you fight them in a military setting?

Ignoring their psychic powers for now, they:
Are stronger and quicker than humans.
Faster on their feet, too.
They can see in the dark.
Are naturally armoured nearly as well as a human wearing a chain shirt, and can add more armour to that.
Have four arms.
Have a paralysing poison.
Can jump 30 feet or more easily.
Are quick enough to knock arrows out of the air.

How would medieval humans fight these things? Let's assume high medieval technology on both sides, say about 12th century. To balance it out, humans outnumber Thri-kreen about 5:1.



They have level adjustment, no?

So humans still win. :smallwink:

Seriously, though in "real world" sense, it would just mean that nothing comes "for free".

If they are quicker and stronger in some sense, jumpy and what not, their other motor functions must suffer somehow, or just other capacities of brain limited.

"How" should be question for actual medieval commanders no longer among us, in short, well drilled, disciplined infantry, well organized knights charging, archers....

With such numerical advantage of well leaded men, they could dictate their terms.

Marusu
2011-04-23, 07:57 AM
Here's something I've been wondering about: How would the "Orc Double-Axe" type of weapon work? Or is it impossible or too awkward to use such a weapon?.

I think the orc double axe would favour a fighting style in circles, always spinning so an axe head hits while the other compensates the weight and protects your rear. I imagine the orc could jump in the middle of a bunch of his enemies and then start spinning, using the weight of the weapon, the broad of his shoulders and his superior force to at leats knock down his enemies. And perhaps it can explain why both axe heads are double.

And, occasionally, using the weapon with both hands very near of one of the axe heads, would give more reach to the weapon and a nasty surprise to the orc's enemy. Hiding the length of your weapon was a common technique with spears and even swords according to historical fencing manuals. And using the axe this way would make it a little similar to a short halberd -a lochaber axe, perhaps- or a saxon axe, thus a good weapon against cavalry.

Conners
2011-04-23, 08:01 AM
That picture of the orc axe looks totally ridiculous. From what I understand, it is so short that you're more likely to cut yourself than the enemy, by that picture -.-" (those axe heads also look very heavy).

As for the Monk-Spade: Thanks for that Autolykos! That was my main interest in the question, as to whether a similar weapon existed usably. Now I wonder how dangerous the monkspade is in skilled hands (compared to other weapons)...


Now, as for Thri-kreen....

Right from the start, humans have a problem here. Being able to move faster overland and in a fight is always dangerous--especially since darkvision can be used to attack people in night-fights (which are effective). On the bright side, I guess Thri-kreen look very different from humans, which reduces chances of mistaking a buddy as the enemy attacking in the dark.

Now, saying they have armour nearly as well as mail... might need to elaborate a bit more. Main thing is, mail is almost totally useless against blunt trauma, but almost flawless against slashing--even a lance charge from two sides doesn't always pierce mail (yes, there was a case where someone was hit from two sides, by lances... he was OK) :smalleek:! Thicker shirts of mail can make you pretty well invulnerable to arrows (except that you'll get so bruised and battered that you won't be able to stand, eventually), while more common stuff will deflect arrows about 50ish% of the time up-close (depending on the bow, of course) and maybe more like 70% of the time at longer ranges.
Now, the point is, I don't guess their hide is like a mail shirt? That is possible, with iron/steel-like hide, with surprisingly squishy bones and innards by contrast. In such a case, they'd be utterly vulnerable to blunt weapons, but very formidable against anything else. A more solid design with a lesser but similar level of hardness (like crocodiles, maybe), would mean that slashing isn't totally useless (but still fairly close), piercing weapons (particularly picks) and arrows ought to work pretty well, with blunt's effectiveness being moderate (assuming the creature has tough bones as well).
__ Note: Halberds, while they may seem like slashing weapons, also would work pretty well against either case (mail or crocodile-hides). Those weapons were big, and scary.

As for adding more armour to that... it really depends on what they're able to make. If they all had plate armour, heck, everyone would be done for. Notably, whatever it is they wear, their think hides - if really comparable to mail - would make them like tanks if coupled with decent armour. Even cheap armour will be pretty darned effective, when coupled with a hide like a crocodile's....
So, the question is: What sort of armour do they have? Do they have any restrictions to what armour they can use (IE: Can't wear plate because it doesn't work with their extra arms).


Assuming they can use their four arms properly, that is an enormous problem for humankind. Whether they just use an extremely big weapon with all of their arms, or a mixture of shield with several weapons, or two crossbows each... depending on how well they can manage it, this is pretty war-changing stuff here.
Coupled with the other things, I can't imagine a human besting one in singles combat unless they're stupid as bricks and the human in question is an expert (if they're smart, it'd take Musashi to beat them). Luckily, war is more about strength as a group and good tactics... Therefore, the main thing I can think of is the humans using their numbers, defensive points (assuming these monsters are attacking) and hopefully superior technology against them.
I'll need more details on their methods of war and technology before I can give a better analysis.

Depending on how the venom(assuming it's injected) is transferred, this mightn't be much of a problem. If it's fangs which need to pierce the body and inject into the bloodstream, metal armour will make the ability useless. It's more a question as to how effective it is on lighter armours, if the human armies have a lot of lightly armoured troops--I don't know how well snakes/whatever can pierce leather of armour quality, though I don't imagine very well (depending somewhat on whether it's soft leather or hard leather).
However, there could still be much danger if they're able to attack the arms, face, hands, whatever parts are unarmoured (or pretty close to). Also, if the poison was instead sprayed and breathable... that's VERY deadly. Then you have the question as to how deadly the poison/venom is, from writhing on the ground from contact, to feel weak but still able to help, to feeling a little light-headed but fine aside from that.

30 feet easily... surely, this will change with armour worn and weapons carried. None the less, that's higher than an amount of castles' outer walls, from my understanding. This also makes it possible to cross certain areas of terrain very quickly. I can imagine a tactic of sending lightly armoured warriors to jump on the walls to distract everyone, while some kind of "step" (IE: A big platform about 10 feet high, which they jump on, then jump from onto the castle walls) is placed--allowing the more heavily armed to scale the walls. While boiling oil and storms of bolts/arrows will make sieges fairly costly all the same, these guys can probably take far less casualties than the norm (unless they're stupid).

I draw the line at quick enough to knock arrows out of flight. Mostly, because this is probably based on the same rules as the DnD monk snatching arrows. If someone can do that, in a non-clumsy way, I don't think there's anyway of fighting such a creature. Really, it'd be so fast, that if it knew where to cut, unless you were Musashi himself or better...

Will need some of the questions I have answered before I could give an answer. Better think about it, too.



Marusu makes a point about the orc axe. I've considered it before... but I really wonder how successful spinning in circles is likely to be. If you do it fast, and appear from nowhere, I don't doubt you could cut or maim a couple of people in the surprise of it. However, if they see it coming at all--probably isn't much harder (and in fact is probably easier) to duck past and stab deeply (good armour could make it more viable, but they could still grapply you and stop your spinning and momentum).

Yora
2011-04-23, 08:05 AM
That picture of the orc axe looks totally ridiculous. From what I understand, it is so short that you're more likely to cut yourself than the enemy, by that picture -.-" (those axe heads also look very heavy).
A warhammer is an anvil on a stick.

Eldan
2011-04-23, 08:08 AM
Ah, well. The armour thing: it's a +3 armour bonus in D&D. They look like this:
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/mm2_gallery/88268_620_121.jpg

So, they are insectoid. Chitinous plates, then. Chitin, opposed to what most people think, isn't very hard, but rather elastic. So, I suppose it could take a blunt hit pretty well.

Conners
2011-04-23, 08:09 AM
Note: Reply to Marusu added to the end of my above post



A warhammer is an anvil on a stick. That may be a bit of an exaggeration. While a sledgehammer feels that way when used, military hammers - from what I heard from people who practice with such weapons - aren't nearly so unwieldy.

Eldan
2011-04-23, 08:10 AM
Actual warhammers actually look rather wimpy, if compared to what you see in fantasy. But that just means you can actually use them.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/War_hammer2.jpg

Conners
2011-04-23, 08:20 AM
As for chitin... I'm not sure about its properties. If the creature is similar to flies, ants, fleas, etc... I do recall times I have impacted a fly solidly (sometimes even from two sides) only to have it escape alive! That's pretty impressive blunt-resistance, considering my hands' size to its.

Cutting weapons, depending, might be pretty effective, depending on the exact harness and thickness of the chitin. If its thick and fairly hard, though, cutting weapons will have trouble (though still will be usable).

Will need some more explanation - as to my other curiosities of the species aforementioned - before I can say much more about these creature's chances...
IE: How smart are they? What technology do they have? Are there any notable problems, like there method of mating requires them to kill almost every other male warrior every month?


Come to think of it, based off that picture... aren't those claws, rather than hands? Two claws and two hands is very different from four hands.

Yora
2011-04-23, 08:34 AM
I think just 1 or 2 mm thick chitine should be incredibly durable. Could probably be as effective as full plate.

Dienekes
2011-04-23, 08:57 AM
In all seriousness, kill it with fire? I don't think chitin is resistant to flames, and while they can dodge some arrows volleys might give them trouble. So flaming arrow volleys to weaken them up.

But really, I'd just use castles. They're a nomad race with fewer numbers who refuse to despoil the land. Yeah, I'm not seeing how they'd handle a siege. If they come around, just find a defensive position with a good wall and try to wait it out.

Starshade
2011-04-23, 09:02 AM
The reason it do not exist so large insects in real life, is the insect's way of breathing. I assume thri-kreen got some better respiratory system than a ant, like real lungs, if so I'd assume the external skeleton they got would make them durable fighters.

Though, they don't organize themself in bigger packs than about 10 according to the monster table? If so, would not their immense durability simply be offset by the other races' ability to cooperate in bigger groups?

Eldan
2011-04-23, 09:04 AM
I actually study entomology, I'm well aware of hte problems.

By the stats, it's not as good as plate by quite a margin. They do indeed have claws, but they can still use their hands as hands. They also have a bite attack that delivers poison.

As for walls: that would have to be massive walls, considering that they could just jump over a low one.

Dienekes
2011-04-23, 09:14 AM
As for walls: that would have to be massive walls, considering that they could just jump over a low one.

Hmm, how high can they jump?

And even then, a jumping target is an open target, and jumping walls would do terrors to any sort of formation, meaning the 5x army would have a much easier time of killing them. Assuming they were ready for that jump of course. If they got surprised, oh the horror.

Xuc Xac
2011-04-23, 09:30 AM
On the orc double ax:

It completely negates the leverage advantage that an ax gets from its handle. You can't swing an orc double ax because that would require only using one end to fight (and using the other end to attack yourself). You can only hold it in front of you and "punch" with the two ends. It's like using two awkward katars with your hands tied together.

I would recommend using the stats for the orc double ax and just say that it looks like a Klingon batleth. That's a silly weapon too, but at least it has a bit more utility for stabbing and slicing.

Eldan
2011-04-23, 09:34 AM
Or just use two battle axes.

Yora
2011-04-23, 09:44 AM
I would recommend using the stats for the orc double ax and just say that it looks like a Klingon batleth. That's a silly weapon too, but at least it has a bit more utility for stabbing and slicing.
There's a chinese weapon that has the edges and points in a very similar configuration. Now idea how practical that was, however.

Spiryt
2011-04-23, 09:56 AM
Or just use two battle axes.

Pretty terrible idea too.

If anything, two stabby weapons can work somehow, if you don't have anything better (like case of rapier).

With two axes.... Not really.

gbprime
2011-04-23, 10:05 AM
Yeah I'm seeing tight confines and low ceilings making arrows and larger swords impractical. About all they could do would be some form of phalanx. Considering that means that subterranean combat would be an endurance test/pushing test it's a wonder they haven't wiped out their opponents yet. They seem far more suited to that kind of combat than elves or kobolds are.

Actually, having participated in mass combats and even underground combats, the press of bodies does restrict archery a bit, but at the same time it makes it more lethal.

When someone is firing an arrow or bolt at you and you are aware of their presence, you defend against the incoming shot with either mobility or shield. But in a mass battle or tunnel fight, you cannot clearly see the archer since he's not the front rank. The archer or crossbowman literally stands aiming at the backs of his allies, and when a gap appears in the line, he puts an arrow through it. The target has no time to react and the shot is practically an auto-hit (even if it's just a shoulder or arm).

Eldan
2011-04-23, 10:23 AM
Ballistae or Scorpions would be nice in tunnels, I think...

Dienekes
2011-04-23, 11:23 AM
Actually, having participated in mass combats and even underground combats, the press of bodies does restrict archery a bit, but at the same time it makes it more lethal.

When someone is firing an arrow or bolt at you and you are aware of their presence, you defend against the incoming shot with either mobility or shield. But in a mass battle or tunnel fight, you cannot clearly see the archer since he's not the front rank. The archer or crossbowman literally stands aiming at the backs of his allies, and when a gap appears in the line, he puts an arrow through it. The target has no time to react and the shot is practically an auto-hit (even if it's just a shoulder or arm).

Now that is interesting. And cool experiences that I really wish I could have taken a part in (how did you pull off underground fighting?)

Maybe, within each phalanx, there would be crossbowmen and the dwarves are trained to let them fire a bolt and move back sort of like how the Romans trained to relieve each wave. They fire, head to the back reload and get back into the formation and repeat ad nauseam.

I say crossbows instead of normal bows because I'd think that you wouldn't require as much space for your arms. Unless I'm wrong or you can think up other advantages.


Ballistae or Scorpions would be nice in tunnels, I think...

Might require more room than they have to set up.

Eldan
2011-04-23, 12:09 PM
Small cannons, then. Or large crossbows. Depends on how large those tunnels are.

Aux-Ash
2011-04-23, 01:26 PM
They fire, head to the back reload and get back into the formation and repeat ad nauseam.

Wouldn't it be a lot smarter to have each crossbowman (crossbowdwarf?) to have a loader following about, handing him a loaded crossbow after each shot? Keeping 2-3 crossbows in rotation per two-man team.
Especially considering the limited space they'd have to move about in.

Eldan
2011-04-23, 01:31 PM
Musketeer-style, then?

They could use something like a Pavise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavise), then. Three man crossbow teams: one with a shield, one reloading, one aiming and firing. With a fourth man, one could hold a pike.

Aux-Ash
2011-04-23, 01:40 PM
Musketeer-style, then?

They could use something like a Pavise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavise), then. Three man crossbow teams: one with a shield, one reloading, one aiming and firing. With a fourth man, one could hold a pike.

Wouldn't that be a pain to move about though? The pavise limiting the speed in which the dwarves can advance, withdraw and reform? And difficult to set up in uneven terrain like subterrean tunnels?

Wouldn't it be preferable to have the dwarves with spear and shield formations in the front and the crossbows and loaders behind them, shooting over their heads/between the gaps. One crossbowteam for every two units?

Perhaps two blocks of 3x3 dwarves, followed by one crossbow team? Twenty dwarves. This being a standard unit in their formation. Expanding upwards from there?

Incanur
2011-04-23, 01:45 PM
Dwarves operating within in the framework of known physical laws and martial principles would be at a significant disadvantage against taller races in unarmored combat with sharp weapons. Sixteenth-century English master George Silver considered even the relative minor height difference between tall and average humans relevant in a duel. Being threatened without threatening in return is the worst position to be in, and that's exactly what four-foot-tall beings would face against six-foot-tall ones. No reasonable amount of toughness would help enough against thrusts and cuts to make closing distance an acceptable proposition. Because of this, they would presumably favor sturdy armor and/or shields in order to safely close the gap against taller foes. They would also excel at skirmishing because of the smaller target profile.

Autolykos
2011-04-23, 02:03 PM
I think ballistae/scorpions are a bad idea in tunnels - the concentration of fire is just too low. You could easily fit five crossbowmen in the same room as a ballista, plus they could fire faster and use multiple ranks. A ribauldequin (sp?) or, better yet, a cannon with grapeshot would be quite scary though. But when you have gunpowder, mines and bombs should work even better...

Yora
2011-04-23, 02:18 PM
Having seen a lot of natural caves, range in underground environments would be almost no factor at all. 20 or 30 meters would be the absolute maximum even when you're in a very large cave because cave floors tend to be very uneven.
And when you have to carve roads for troop movements and carts through miles of rock, tunnels and leveled cave floors would all be as narrow and low as possible. Field battles would be impossible and large battles would mostly consists of small units chasing each other through a labyrinth of tunnels. Think about staircases and corridors in a typical office or school building. That's the size of spaces you'd have to work with.

Spiryt
2011-04-23, 02:23 PM
That's the environment in which dwarves could indeed use their stature a bit.

Easier to maneuverer with more compact lenght, low center of gravity, better static strength results (push, pull, bench) than human of such weight.....


Because of this, they would presumably favor sturdy armor and/or shields in order to safely close the gap against taller foes.

If talking about "Standard" fantasy world situation and weapons, everybody would favor sturdy armor, especially in environment when you don't move around that much.

But indeed, it would be particularly desirable for dwarves.

Dienekes
2011-04-23, 02:47 PM
Wouldn't it be a lot smarter to have each crossbowman (crossbowdwarf?) to have a loader following about, handing him a loaded crossbow after each shot? Keeping 2-3 crossbows in rotation per two-man team.
Especially considering the limited space they'd have to move about in.

Way I see it, even dwarves grow tired eventually. They'll need to swap out, and the Romans showed that can be done quickly and efficiently with enough discipline (and dwarves seem to seldom lack in discipline, except when drunk of course). However, keeping a crossbowman ready in the ranks of a phalanx has some problems.
1) They'll only be able to attack when in the second line or so.
2) When they get pushed up to the front (which will eventually happen if they stay put) they will be holding this crossbow and no spear and doubtfully a useful shield. They'd be at a huge disadvantage, and probably more of a disadvantage than that 1 shot was worth.

If the dwarves can pull it off, I definitely think the rotation could work fine. But to have them continuously struggling to stay behind the lines would likely mess up the phalanx and get them caught in situations in which they'll likely get killed.

Yora
2011-04-23, 03:15 PM
Mixed formations of pikemen and muskets had proven as extremely effective, I think in the 16th and 17th century. No idea how that actually worked, but I think dwarves would not fare any worse.

Switching units underground or even in very rough terrain as found in mountains would be extremely difficult. The romans usually fought in wide open spaces where there was much room to move around freely both for individuals and formations. When Armenius defeated the legions of Varus, he set everything up exactly so the romans could not use any formation tactics. All 20,000 men were completely slaughtered by the german barbarians.

Eldan
2011-04-23, 03:16 PM
That was extremely long pikes behind the musketeers, actually. As putting anything even close to the muzzle of a musket meant it would probably be shot. Those things are extremely inaccurate. I've read descriptions of things like balls coming out at 45° angles.

Dienekes
2011-04-23, 04:27 PM
Mixed formations of pikemen and muskets had proven as extremely effective, I think in the 16th and 17th century. No idea how that actually worked, but I think dwarves would not fare any worse.

Switching units underground or even in very rough terrain as found in mountains would be extremely difficult. The romans usually fought in wide open spaces where there was much room to move around freely both for individuals and formations. When Armenius defeated the legions of Varus, he set everything up exactly so the romans could not use any formation tactics. All 20,000 men were completely slaughtered by the german barbarians.

With pikes yeah, but given the close confines, I don't see pikes being useful. The army would be completely unable to turn if necessary. With shorter spears the crossbows/archers/gunners would be right ready to be slaughtered.

And aye, Romans loved to maneuver, but I still think the dwarves could pull it off. And if they can't, I think it would probably be better to leave the bowmen behind in such a fight. Since he has experience, I'd like to hear gbprime's take.
Though really in all cases, I think the earthworks view of warfare would be the most accurate and practical.

awa
2011-04-23, 05:00 PM
tri kreen have another advantage over humans they are stronger faster more agile and while they are less intelligent they are wiser. the biggest advantage is they don't need to sleep and can see in the dark tri kreen. the way i see it as nomads they would probably be raiders they don't have the organization to destroy armies but they would be able to raid and take whatever they wanted avoiding any concentration of forces large enough to be a threat. Never underestimate an army that as a monopoly on maneuverability.
Also their weapon tech is pretty advanced their double weapons do 2d6 damage which is comparable to most human two handed weapon so heavy armor is probably not the way to go since even a moderately trained tri kree would be putting out 4 times as many blows. not including the bite

Also their natural armor is more like studded leather then chain mail.

gbprime
2011-04-23, 07:09 PM
Now that is interesting. And cool experiences that I really wish I could have taken a part in (how did you pull off underground fighting?)

Underground fighting was done in this cave system in Kentucky...

http://www.zama.azmandius.com/Zama2/Site_Photos.html#0

gbprime
2011-04-23, 07:17 PM
Way I see it, even dwarves grow tired eventually. They'll need to swap out, and the Romans showed that can be done quickly and efficiently with enough discipline (and dwarves seem to seldom lack in discipline, except when drunk of course). However, keeping a crossbowman ready in the ranks of a phalanx has some problems.
1) They'll only be able to attack when in the second line or so.
2) When they get pushed up to the front (which will eventually happen if they stay put) they will be holding this crossbow and no spear and doubtfully a useful shield. They'd be at a huge disadvantage, and probably more of a disadvantage than that 1 shot was worth.

If the dwarves can pull it off, I definitely think the rotation could work fine. But to have them continuously struggling to stay behind the lines would likely mess up the phalanx and get them caught in situations in which they'll likely get killed.

Again, having done this kind of [heavy stick larp] combat as a crossbowman, a team is not necessary. You load, aim for a while, and take a single shot when it presents itself, then reload. You're only worried about defending yourself if your line collapses. Two or three crossbowmen behind the main line is plenty.

And fatigue isn't much of an issue either, since using a crossbow isn't that fatiguing if you're not also moving fast across a field. I was able to keep up 3 hours of near constant combat with the aid of a 5-hour-energy shot, so I don't see why a dwarf (who has a better con than I do) couldn't do the same thing, sans alchemical drink. :smallamused:

Conners
2011-04-24, 05:09 AM
@Yora: If Chitin is flexible, how can it be like full-plate o.o? Either way, if these guys really have bodies like masterfully constructed steel armour... combined with the other stuff everyone is done for (you either need to have twenty men sitting on them and pounding/stabbing at weak points, or somehow hit them with a sledge-hammer a couple of times).
Even arrows will just bounce off to no effect, even with flames I'm not sure how well the flames spread if the arrow doesn't stick in.


Walls: Walls, from what I looked up, tend to be about 25 feet on the outside, and 45 feet for a inner wall--they couldn't jump over the second one without a 15-foot boost--and that's if they aren't carry any extra equipment!


Dwarfs/Tunnels/Etc: Yeah, I can easily imagine a few dwarves behind the first two ranks, firing over their front-line's shoulders. Also, since dwarfs are short, that gives them an advantage against any taller creatures coming at them--IE: Being able to aim higher means less chance of hitting your friends, more chance of hitting you enemy, and more ranks will be able to shoot.


@awa: ..DnD weapon and armour stats are unusable for discussion of actual weapons. Daggers do a mere "1d4" damage in DnD... in reality, a blade little more than an inch long can be used to kill a man in less than one round (aka: 6 seconds).


Someone made a good point that depending on the tunnels, long-pikes would be immobile to a terrible extent. This puts more reasoning into the dwarves using axes theory. Swords would be just as good, depending on how much room there is to swing. Maces, axes, hammers, they tend to be a bit shorter than a sword, to keep the weapon balanced--so it makes sense if you use a shorter weapon when you have little room to work with (of course, it isn't to say these weapons are way shorter... but it might make a difference in group-fighting).



You know, we've been talking about dwarves a lot... but come to think of it--what weapons are good for elves, considering their physiology? They're often depicted as being skilled archers, using the longbow specifically. However, the longbow, from my understanding, requires a lot of strength to use... are elves likely to muster such, when they are known for a light physique?

Eric Tolle
2011-04-24, 06:50 AM
Sure. But this is the thread for mixing real and fantasy physics to ridiculous degrees. It's fun!

So, I've been thinking. Thri-kreen. How would you fight them in a military setting?[/IMG]

Overwhelming force of numbers. Alternatively, large numbers of horse-mounted archers using move and fire tactics.

As for frontier fortifications, given the presence of magic, I would see them resembling Napoleonic or industrial-age fortifications. Think large star-fortress set-ups but with the tops covered over leaving only slit windows, surrounded by wide moats. Put a 40' moat around the whole thing, and it'll be very effective. The only problem is, these forts will be expensive as hell, and require a nearby water source.

awa
2011-04-24, 08:53 AM
i know dnd damage is unrealistic but their weapons do 2d6 damage which indicates they hit with force comparable to most two handed weapon.

Their natural armor is only +3 i have no idea why people are saying its like full plate.

Their ability to never need to sleep would make them almost impossible to force into a confrontation a horse might be faster but horse get tried pretty easily tri kreen and since tri kreen are nomads and thus have nothing to defend they could just avoid any force large enough to give them a fair fight.

even ignoring their ability to deflect arrows their raw speed would still make them hard to pin down in a fight.

also keep in mid the +35 to jump is for a trikreen with bare minimum ability and no ranks in jump. skilled tri kreen or ones that are particularly strong or fast would have a higher jump score. even with minimum stats a few allies carrying a log to make a ramp for him to jump off of so hes making the jump from a couple feet of the ground is all they would need to be able to reach the lip of the wall.

Knaight
2011-04-24, 09:45 AM
Thri-keen.


Overwhelming force of numbers. Alternatively, large numbers of horse-mounted archers using move and fire tactics.


Massed archers should also do the trick fairly well. They are large targets, and while it was stated that they are fast enough to knock an arrow out of the way that gets a little more difficult once they are on the receiving end of volley fire. If poisoning arrows is useful at that scale, that also works well.

Obviously they need to be protected, which is where armored pike men fit in. Thri-keen can jump, but getting over a bunch of pike wielders without being stabbed or knocked out of the air requires decent clearance on both sides, which they simply don't have in one case. Fast as they are Thrikeen would be a very dangerous opponent even with this strategy, but they are far from unbeatable.

Moreover D&D assumes magic, which means that some sort of mass production of armor should be doable. While most plates need to be fitted, mail only needs to be about the right size, and mass production of pikes and bows isn't difficult by any stretch of the imagination. Companies of professional soldiers are inherently deadly, but this also helps with stuff along the lines of forming a dangerous peasant levy.


Tunnel Fighting

A key point in tunnels is that they are easy to choke up. What this means is that a handful of extremely good troops can effectively handle a great many inferior troops, as surrounding them is difficult. This gives Dwarves an advantage, simply because they are smaller and thus more able to pack a tunnel, and thus have superior numbers in a fight at any given time. That is huge.

That said, layering is still possible. A rank of people with shields and highly maneuverable weapons in the front can be supplemented by a rank behind them with spears that can make opportunistic two handed strikes. With these two critical layers, plus any ranged troops that are potentially useful. Given that shooting over the people in front of them is going to be difficult this would consist primarily of an initial volley, then getting behind melee troops. As heavy armor is standard (see next paragraph) this means crossbows. In addition to that, having the heavily armored troops throw a javelin or two could be useful.

Given the two layers plus ranged weapons, heavy armor is immensly valuable, as are heavily trained troops. This means that the concept behind knights (elite soldiers trained from a very young age), ignoring nobility and horses is still useful. The front two ranks are absolutely critical, which leaves a different opening for normal soldiers. Said different opening is fairly obvious.

Larger and more cavernous areas are virtually guaranteed in any meaningful underground habitation. Not only do natural caves have cavernous areas -as indicated by the terminology- but carving out a few is necessary for effective habitation. Given the changes in elevation this means that massed projectiles are immensely useful, being able to kill highly trained troops by sheer numbers is easier, and in general more typical troops are useful.

A point that has been ignored until now is the interaction between liquids and elevation in caves. Cutting off water sources is the obvious one, but it is really easy to get a relatively thin layer of liquid under opposing troops in a tunnel slanted downwards. This makes flammables incredible useful, for several reasons. Igniting the troops is one, but air flow is going to be terrible in general, and large smoke clouds can prevent an area from being save to travel through for an extended period of time. As ventilation shafts are a must they will probably need to be somewhat closed off for this strategy to work, which means that surface fighting is inevitable. Caustic liquids also have some utility, as do liquid disease carrying agents.


Another point of interest:
What changes in arms and armor developments would one expect to be induced by magically improved strength? Say people are able to enhance their strength to lift about twice as much as they normally would, both temporarily and for extended periods. I've an interest in both the temporary and extended cases, so hypothesizing as to both is useful.

lesser_minion
2011-04-24, 09:57 AM
You know, we've been talking about dwarves a lot... but come to think of it--what weapons are good for elves, considering their physiology? They're often depicted as being skilled archers, using the longbow specifically. However, the longbow, from my understanding, requires a lot of strength to use... are elves likely to muster such, when they are known for a light physique?

I agree that elves probably wouldn't be able to handle a full-fledged Welsh longbow -- they might try using crossbows, firearms, or simply going with lighter bows, however. They'd also be at a disadvantage compared with humans when using most other weapons, particularly polearms (stopping 6000 Ns of charging knight is not easy).

Elves tend to be resistant to fatigue, exposure, disease, starvation, and thirst, which does give them a pretty major advantage in warfare. Elves might also be able to get away with armour in environments like deserts and jungles, where humans would effectively cook. This may or may not be significant.

In pitched battles on plains against humans, elves would have some serious difficulties to overcome. Humans are individually stronger, breed faster, come in greater numbers, and can use weapons that are better suited to formations. At range, the sole advantage elves possess is skilled archery. At 300m, the limitations of your weapon mean that skill does precisely nothing. Humans can send an 'unskilled' shot further than an elf, and they can send more of them as well.

There are a few different tactics elves might be able to use effectively on plains -- fighting predominantly from horseback, or employing heavily armoured soldiers not unlike Roman legionaries, for example (I'm not sure how well they could pull this off, however). They might also employ engineering in the form of vehicles like war wagons.

Incanur
2011-04-24, 10:25 AM
Wait, what fantasy tradition has elves that are weaker than humans? D&D elves stand fully equal in that department; Tolkien's are equal or superior.

lesser_minion
2011-04-24, 10:28 AM
Wait, what fantasy tradition has elves that are weaker than humans? D&D elves stand fully equal in that department; Tolkien's are equal or superior.

D&D 3rd edition elves are significantly smaller and of much lighter build than humans. They might not (normally) have a strength penalty, but I think it's fair to assume that they should have one*.

* And note that even then, an elf's favoured class has strength as a dump stat.

Spiryt
2011-04-24, 10:33 AM
Elves tend to be resistant to fatigue, exposure, disease, starvation, and thirst, which does give them a pretty major advantage in warfare. Elves might also be able to get away with armour in environments like deserts and jungles, where humans would effectively cook. This may or may not be significant.

Well, how is this included in standard D&D setting? :smallconfused:

It was often mentioned in Tolkien, but hell, Elves there were simply different kind of being than anything else, so there's not much to talk about here.

Conners
2011-04-24, 10:44 AM
@awa: Problem is, I can't work out what sort of weapon it is from the damage listed. I'd need a basic idea of what it looks like (does it look like a slashing weapon, or a mallet?).

If it was, they'd be the scariest monstrosities out there. I reserve full-plate-like natural armour to dragons (and some demons).

While they can probably walk forever in theory, wouldn't the amount of energy constant walking entails mean that they'd need to stop and get food constantly? It depends on how much they need to eat/drink in comparison to people, what they can eat/drink, and whether they take baggage trains.
The point you make is excellent, that they don't have any home to defend. Makes them excellent attackers, as long as they can remain self-sufficient.

Being able to move around is pretty useful--as is being able to attack quickly.

I'm not sure how jump ranks work in comparison to reality. Notably, we do get people who practice jumping in the Olympics--but I don't know much about average jump heights compared to trained ones, or how it'd vary with a different biology/anatomy.


@Knaight: Interesting points with tunnel-fighting you have there.

-----
As for your question about if a person's strength could be increased temporarily... If it lasted a short time, you could have a soldier throw a ridiculously large javelin (it would need to be carried by several men until then, however). Should it last more time, you could have someone wield one of the ridiculously powerful bows the Japanese made (it was said that only ten men in Japanese history could use them, I think). A good archer with a bow like that would even be a hassle to knights (not by piercing the armour, but by the fact they might be knocked off the horse).

Finally, you could have something even heavier than tournament armour, which the King/important-guy wears for the duration of the spell (too heavy to wear otherwise).


@lesser_minion: Hmm... part of this comes down, I guess, to the precise version of elves used. I tended to figure that the typical elf couldn't hope to draw such a bow, even with standard longbowmen's training--however, I figured that they could still learn to use it, with many years practice (they have plenty to spare, normally). Of course, you'd need to have some kind of regular training set up for those elves, either as a hobby (hunting, etc.), or as their job--though professional soldiers won't match in with some of the Wood Elves type varieties, unless there are present threats to the elves (generally speaking).

At the same time as their resistance to disease etc., however, aren't elves usually less enduring than humans? Like, while their quickness is fine for running about for a couple of hours, they will get exhausted and do poorly in long marches (especially compared to humans if both do a forced-march).

Makes me wonder how much the elves nimbleness would help them in formation fighting... Whether they are good with formations, depends once again on the type of elves used.
Notably, on range, shortbows tend to actually fire further than longbows (due to lighter arrows)--of course, they are also less penetrative and do less flesh-damage (still, if they're quick on the firing...).

Horses and elves get along, in most fiction. Reminds me of an earlier question... how would it effect things if the elves brought their forest friends along? One bear won't last long, of course, but twenty bears might make hell of a formation--at least for a short opportune moment.

With besieging elves, that depends on their dwellings. Of course, if they don't live off farming, they are pretty free to move around and live off the land/forest.'


Also wondering what kind of melee weapon elves would use. Since they tire fairly easily over long distances, I guess shields might be problematic...? I don't know a lot about how tiring shields get. Heavy armour, supposedly, would also be a key thing elves would avoid, so that they can bear to march long distances and still fight.

lesser_minion
2011-04-24, 10:45 AM
Well, how is this included in standard D&D setting? :smallconfused:

Tolkien depicted elves as being resistant to those things, and I decided that I might as well throw them a bone.

I'm not entirely certain what D&D elves are supposed to be good for -- mechanically they can't do much, and lore-wise they seem like they'd be even worse.

Most of their favoured combat tactics, according to the lore, are things that a D&D elf would be fundamentally incapable of doing. They don't have anything even approaching the toughness needed for sniping or guerilla tactics, for example, yet they apparently rely on them in wartime.


At the same time as their resistance to disease etc., however, aren't elves usually less enduring than humans? Like, while their quickness is fine for running about for a couple of hours, they will get exhausted and do poorly in long marches (especially compared to humans if both do a forced-march).

Elves lacking endurance is entirely a D&D trope. It doesn't, as far as I'm aware, fit with any pre-D&D depiction of elves.

The overall variant of elves I based that analysis on was loosely derived from D&D, with a few bones thrown to them -- in essence, I assumed that they didn't have a bizarre religious obligation not to engage in any industry whatsoever.

awa
2011-04-24, 10:53 AM
gythka (long link)
its a bladed double weapon each head dealing substantial more damage them most one handed weapons. No way of knowing if this extra damage is supposed to represent penetrating power or its ability to cause large amounts of tissue damage.
edit okay i cant get the link to work but you can Google it

you what to talk about unrealistic look at hafling gnomes and the other size small races they weigh like 40 pounds but are only slightly weaker than a human

Conners
2011-04-24, 11:04 AM
gythka (long link)
its a bladed double weapon each head dealing substantial more damage them most one handed weapons. No way of knowing if this extra damage is supposed to represent penetrating power or its ability to cause large amounts of tissue damage.
edit okay i cant get the link to work but you can Google it

you what to talk about unrealistic look at hafling gnomes and the other size small races they weigh like 40 pounds but are only slightly weaker than a human Looking at the weapon, its like the monkspade shown earlier o.o".

As for damage... I wouldn't say it'd have much more than any spear. The fact that it's double-sided also will take a lot of the kick out of it, if wielded like a staff, so it couldn't be compared with two handed weapons' force. Still, it could be pretty threatening if used correctly, in that there are two ends to defend against, which keeps people on edge.


As for gnomes and halflings... that is a terribly good point. I never thought of how small they're meant to be. This makes me wonder if there are any advantages to being a halfling/gnome in a realistic sense. Supposedly, you'd have some advantage in agility and speed, since smaller creatures tend to be faster. You might have a bit of the Terry Pratchett Gnome Strength (just a bit) where you are unexpectedly strong for your size--but not so much that it'd be particularly helpful.

Halings are, if I'm not mistaken, known for wit and sharp senses, aren't they? Brightness, wittiness, that could be very handy. Also, notably, being small does have the advantage of having less to hit... but also less reach...
Any other ideas, for benefits of being a halfling (as a culture, I don't expect them to be any more than vagabonds and oddities in human society)?

lesser_minion
2011-04-24, 11:19 AM
You what to talk about unrealistic look at hafling gnomes and the other size small races they weigh like 40 pounds but are only slightly weaker than a human

That's just an extension of the same fundamental problem. I'll agree that it's hardly an elf exclusive, but elves do suffer one of the worst cases.

D&D actually depicts halflings and gnomes as being even weaker than their -2 strength might indicate -- note that small size actually does affect what weapons you can use, also changes what you can lift with a given strength score, and gives you an additional penalty to grapple checks among other things.

awa
2011-04-24, 11:21 AM
actualy with their short legs they would be slower probably even slower then their dnd speed

Knaight
2011-04-24, 11:24 AM
As for gnomes and halflings... that is a terribly good point. I never thought of how small they're meant to be. This makes me wonder if there are any advantages to being a halfling/gnome in a realistic sense. Supposedly, you'd have some advantage in agility and speed, since smaller creatures tend to be faster. You might have a bit of the Terry Pratchett Gnome Strength (just a bit) where you are unexpectedly strong for your size--but not so much that it'd be particularly helpful.

There are plenty of advantages. They need to eat and drink far less, which makes desert existence much easier in large groups. Moreover they have options for domesticated animals that most don't, such as being able to potentially ride smaller animals, or put a whole bunch of people on a camel. Smaller shelters that are lower to the ground also makes architecture much easier, particularly as concerns desert winds.

The reduced needs of haflings and gnomes also makes them very useful for work where physical strength is a non issue. If, as a noble, you are responsible for food board and payment of two equally skilled potential workers, one of whom needs a 125 cubic foot room, an 1/4th of a pound of food a day, and whatever payment is, and one who needs a 1000 cubic foot room, 2 pounds of food a day, and whatever payment is the first is a far better option unless the payment is extremely high -though the relative living space difference stays, and the absolute living space difference grows. For that matter, one expects that required food quality also goes up, which makes the quantity far more relevant.

Incanur
2011-04-24, 11:37 AM
In general, smaller creatures are stronger for their weight because of how muscles function. They're also more stealthy for obvious reasons. Without guns, halfings and gnomes would do best militarily with some sort of crossbow.

John Campbell
2011-04-24, 12:33 PM
Reflexes are the "lizard-brain", sure. But strategy is the "ape-brain". Using my "ape-brain", I know what your next move is just by watching your shoulders. The orc may not care what you're doing, he knows you're trying to smash him and he's trying to smash you. But the EXPERIENCED fighter is on a level above that.

You tense just so, your eyes lock on your intended target, i read that. And as your arm flashes out to strike me, I land a blow on your forearm, hurting you and spoiling your strike. This isn't theory, this is 20 years of live action, heavy weapon combat in armor.

Now two equally experienced opponents... it comes down to reflexes. But in brain (or experience) versus brawn... brain wins by wearing brawn down with small strikes.
If you really want to wave credentials around, I'm an SCA heavy fighter with a decade and a half experience (http://www.ci-n.com/~jcampbel/images/auth.jpg). Mostly polearm these days - it's more fun, especially in a melee - but I spent a decade fighting mostly sword-and-board before that. I'm not just making things up based on crap I read in a book once.

Virtual stick-size comparisons aside, none of the stuff you're talking about is covered by what D&D classifies as "Intelligence". Or by real-world definitions of the term, really. They aren't ape-brain functions. Sure, your ape-brain can say, "Hey, when he throws the flat snap, his arm will be open and I can take it," but if you're relying on it to pull the trigger, you're not going to be able to do it fast enough to stop that incoming shot. That's the lizard-brain's job. And this is what training is for... teaching your stupid-but-fast lizard-brain to recognize that situation and throw that arm shot without the intervention of the smart-but-slow ape-brain.

In D&D terms, there's a bit of Wisdom involved - that's the stat linked to Sense Motive and Spot - but experience and training are described by experience level, and the hit points (representing defensive skill) and attack bonus that come with it.

Where D&D falls down is that intelligence is useful in training. You've still got to drill moves into your muscle memory if you want any prayer of them being fast enough in combat, but intelligence is useful for figuring out what you want to be drilling into your muscle memory. Smart people - or at least people with smart trainers - should level faster.


Here's something I've been wondering about: How would the "Orc Double-Axe" type of weapon work? Or is it impossible or too awkward to use such a weapon?

To clarify, I mean a long shaft (a bit like a quarterstaff) with an axehead/blade on both ends of the shaft.

The double axe is one of the less ridiculous double weapons, after the urgrosh and of course the quarterstaff. The double sword and dire flail are going to be completely unusable, but the double axe isn't so bad... though the specific one pictured in the PHB is typically fantasy-useless: heads too big and heavy, haft too short.

Basically you'd just use it like a regular axe, with the leading hand a third to halfway up the haft, and the trailing hand right up against the lower axe head, and completely ignore that lower axe head unless you've got a good opening to punch up into your opponent's armpit with it or the like. It won't usually work as well as a regular axe, but it's something you could fight with (unlike the double sword, which is as likely to disembowel you as do anything to your opponent, or the dire flail, which is a self-nutshot waiting to happen), and even gives you a couple of low-utility moves that you can't do with a regular axe.

The urgrosh, similarly... you ignore the spearhead and use it like a regular axe, except occasionally if you get a good opening for a buttspike-stab. Alternately, if the situation calls for it (e.g., defending a narrow front like a tunnel with a mass of your fellow dwarves), ignore the axe head and use it like a standard spear. What you don't do is switch off strike-stab strike-stab, which mostly just wastes a lot of time spinning your weapon around uselessly.

Narren
2011-04-24, 06:00 PM
The double axe is one of the less ridiculous double weapons, after the urgrosh and of course the quarterstaff.

I agree with much of what you said, but why is the quarterstaff a ridiculous double weapon? It seems to me that it's the only "double weapon" that can be realistically used.

Granted, I've never actually fought with one (though I did have to defend myself with a pair of crutches once). But I've trained and sparred with a bo and jo staff for years, and have always used both ends.

Knaight
2011-04-24, 06:20 PM
I agree with much of what you said, but why is the quarterstaff a ridiculous double weapon? It seems to me that it's the only "double weapon" that can be realistically used.

Granted, I've never actually fought with one (though I did have to defend myself with a pair of crutches once). But I've trained and sparred with a bo and jo staff for years, and have always used both ends.

What was being said is that the urgosh was more practical than the orc double axe, and the quarterstaff* as well, with the practicality of the quarterstaff* obvious due to its use in real life.

*The use of this term with the implied style of the weapon in D&D is just obnoxious, "staff" would be fine. That, however, is a different matter entirely.

Yukitsu
2011-04-24, 06:44 PM
Elves are just as strong as humans. You can expect a typical elf 1 warrior to be just as good with a full composite longbow as any Yeoman archer, and slightly more accurate.

What they lack are staying power, so they would typically rely on night raids. They're better than pretty much any other race for this task.

Low light vision that works well at night, all of them are proficient at long range, rapid fire weaponry, a standard 30 foot move (halflings would be better at this, but are too slow for irregular warfare proper) superior accuracy, spotting, and they can hide trap doors into tunnels that they can easily and rapidly find and disappear into that can take enemies hours to hunt down, and no need for sleep. A human invasion force could very well be forced to head back home, when they wake up in the middle of every night with their sentries peppered with arrows, and alchemic fire filling their encampment, spreading to their tents and bedding, only to equip themselves, even see the enemy, only for them to outrun you in the bushes (since you will be exhausted from lack of sleep, while they will not.)

Eric Tolle
2011-04-24, 06:49 PM
Their ability to never need to sleep would make them almost impossible to force into a confrontation a horse might be faster but horse get tried pretty easily tri kreen and since tri kreen are nomads and thus have nothing to defend they could just avoid any force large enough to give them a fair fight.

They are living creatures, which means they have to rest at times. They also have to eat something, which means a food source that my army can seize and destroy. Likewise for their swords and other weapons- they won't be hauling a smithy around, so I'll seize or destroy the towns that supply them.

Basically if they run and refuse to fight head on, I win. I've gained the local area, I build a fort, and then leave a garrison it while the main force moves on to chase the cheap Phraint knock-offs out of the next area. This goes on until I've got all the territory that's good, and the faux-Phraints are starving in the badlands.


also keep in mid the +35 to jump is for a trikreen with bare minimum ability and no ranks in jump. skilled tri kreen or ones that are particularly strong or fast would have a higher jump score. even with minimum stats a few allies carrying a log to make a ramp for him to jump off of so hes making the jump from a couple feet of the ground is all they would need to be able to reach the lip of the wall.

That's why the fortresses have moats 60 feet wide. And for good measure we'll make the walls 40 feet high. Assuming of course we don't just dig into a cliff or hillside; in a D&D style magical world, dungeons make a lot of sense as fortifications.

awa
2011-04-24, 07:07 PM
massive walls and huge moats requires a huge expenditure of resources meanwhile they are eating all your commoners out in the farm country if you have a force big enough to stop them they don't attack that town they target a different town a 60 foot moat is a huge expense and most towns will not have one their raiders they don't need to take your fort they can just go around it a fort is only useful if you can force them not to ignore it and you really cant.

they are eating your commoners, their weapons are crystal so i have no idea how the manufacture process works but even with out it they have deadly natural weapons. sharks don't need to sleep either. but again all they need to be is faster than you and they are faster than humans and have better stamina than humans and have no supply train.

edit (they have no towns and make their own weapons so they can carry their "smithy" around)

lesser_minion
2011-04-24, 07:56 PM
Elves are just as strong as humans. You can expect a typical elf 1 warrior to be just as good with a full composite longbow as any Yeoman archer, and slightly more accurate.

There is no consistency between an elf's D&D stats and what elves are stated and implied to be in the lore. And this is not a rule thread (or even a D&D thread).

So I don't see how the lack of a mechanical strength penalty in rules that are known not to depict accurately what is actually happening in the game world is evidence in a thread that is explicitly about how things would work based on what we know about the real world, not how things work in Zombie Packet Relay Service land.

Gaius Marius
2011-04-24, 08:04 PM
Think one second how effective would an army of klingons with Bath'Leths fare on an antiquity or medieval battlefield.

If you use this weapon in a battle formation, how effective can it be? And mixed with shielded swordsmen? With spears? On a cavalryman?

Knaight
2011-04-24, 08:07 PM
Think one second how effective would an army of klingons with Bath'Leths fare on an antiquity or medieval battlefield.

If you use this weapon in a battle formation, how effective can it be? And mixed with shielded swordsmen? With spears? On a cavalryman?

The Bath'Leth is pretty much a terrible weapon. First you get shot down for not having shields, then you get impaled repeatedly on spears for now having shields, and on the off chance you get to someone with an arming sword length weapon you get killed in any manner of ways due to having horribly restricted motions and no reach. Basically, it just waters down the mix.

awa
2011-04-24, 08:25 PM
they don't have the reach to stop lances.
although im not familiar with star trek minutia they may be made of some super material that can cut through steel like a hot knife through butter in that case they would be good against the spear men and the swords men

Gaius Marius
2011-04-24, 08:34 PM
The Klingons also used spears and swords, most probably shields. How the combined arm including the BLth?

Yukitsu
2011-04-24, 08:38 PM
There is no consistency between an elf's D&D stats and what elves are stated and implied to be in the lore. And this is not a rule thread (or even a D&D thread).

So I don't see how the lack of a mechanical strength penalty in rules that are known not to depict accurately what is actually happening in the game world is evidence in a thread that is explicitly about how things would work based on what we know about the real world, not how things work in Zombie Packet Relay Service land.

OK. Realistically a guy that works out with a composite longbow for 150 years, and who doesn't weaken with age will realistically be a massive arm wrestling champion compared to your typical human yeoman.

awa
2011-04-24, 08:45 PM
unless the bathliths material gives it some special property like cutting steel they would be better off just replacing them with swords or axes, as far as i can tell nothing a bathlith can do cant be done better with a sword and shield.
edit
I mean they are better then many exotic dnd weapons that dnd invented its just they arnt as good as normal weapons.

lesser_minion
2011-04-24, 09:06 PM
OK. Realistically a guy that works out with a composite longbow for 150 years, and who doesn't weaken with age will realistically be a massive arm wrestling champion compared to your typical human yeoman.

No, he wouldn't. At best, he might be able to wield the weapon effectively, but he would not be a "massive arm wrestling champion". Elves often do get weaker with age into the bargain.

Moreover, he clearly wouldn't be an ordinary elf, most of whom are clearly depicted as being much smaller and lighter than humans. There might, I imagine, be a few elves like this, but they would be nowhere near as common as D&D asserts.

John Campbell
2011-04-24, 09:21 PM
I agree with much of what you said, but why is the quarterstaff a ridiculous double weapon? It seems to me that it's the only "double weapon" that can be realistically used.

Granted, I've never actually fought with one (though I did have to defend myself with a pair of crutches once). But I've trained and sparred with a bo and jo staff for years, and have always used both ends.

Yeah, Knaight has it. I was ranking the D&D "double weapons" something like:
LEAST RIDICULOUS

Quarterstaff
Urgrosh
Double Axe
Double Sword
Dire Flail

MOST RIDICULOUS

The hooked hammer (which I'd forgotten about) probably goes in just above the double axe in the, "Yeah, you could use that, I guess, but why?" category, and the batleth is probably just above the double sword, being roughly as useless but much less likely to actively injure its wielder.


Also, note that the "elves are small and weak" thing is largely unique to D&D, and not even all D&D settings. Tolkien's elves certainly weren't small or weak. Forgotten Realms elves (most types... drow are small, which kind of makes sense) are roughly the same size as humans. Elves in Shadowrun and Earthdawn are significantly taller than humans - as tall as orks - and your average elf out-masses your average human.

Incanur
2011-04-24, 09:37 PM
I don't see why a double sword would be more ridiculous than the double axe. I'd use middle-grip quarterstaff techniques with the former and middle-grip pollaxe techniques with the latter. The double axe's lack of thrusting ability hurts. The more reasonable double sword illustrations resembled double-pointed spears, which actually existed. I can't think of anything remotely like the double axe.

Yukitsu
2011-04-24, 10:04 PM
No, he wouldn't. At best, he might be able to wield the weapon effectively, but he would not be a "massive arm wrestling champion". Elves often do get weaker with age into the bargain.

Moreover, he clearly wouldn't be an ordinary elf, most of whom are clearly depicted as being much smaller and lighter than humans. There might, I imagine, be a few elves like this, but they would be nowhere near as common as D&D asserts.

Only very slowly, by the time they started to feel weaker, they've had a century of body building manual labour to call upon. And as all elves do practice archery with bows described as being very powerful, there is no basis, fictional or mechanical that they would be spindly armed weaklings.

Small and light isn't perfectly correlated to upper body strength. Bruce Lee for instance weighs less than your average athlete, but can bench press more than many other fighters that are much larger.

awa
2011-04-24, 10:52 PM
their is an upper limit to strength. the elf would just reach his maximum possible strength he might be effective at it longer but i would point out that it takes a dnd elf 110 years to reach the same competence a human has at 15. so we can conclude that elves are just really terrible learners and humans would mop the floor with them because humans would be able to replace their loses far faster. so a human would go from an infant to a veteran warrior by the time the elf was the mental age of a 3 year old.

even worse look at the aging table a human hits adult hood at 15 an elf hits adult hood at 110 a human reaches middle age at 35 so he gains 20 years of work with his full youth full vigor. a net gain of 5 years.
but an elf hits middle age at 175. 65 years of youthful vigor but that means we have a net loss of 45 years.

the comparison get even worse at the venerable category a human might spend 40 years as venerable nearly half his total life span.
an elf might spend 400 years as venerable longer than his entire life span so far.

your average elven community would have a tiny number of healthy young (relatively speaking )men and women and large number of children and old people they would logically never have time to do anything but barely subsist because the vast majority of their population is non productive.

and no where does it say elves don't suffer penalties for aging.

edited because apparently i cant do basic addition
my thesis still holds though

TheThan
2011-04-24, 11:00 PM
warning massive wall o text, spoilered for your convenience.

on dwarves and caves

I didn’t quite consider large caves when I opened the discussion up to dwarf combat tactics. It seems like any entrance into a cave would be heavily fortified, the previously mentioned ballistae and scorpions would come into play here, as the dwarves retreat into their cave. That is assuming something bad happens and things go south.
I imagine dwarves to be primarily a static defensive force. Very rarely would they go on the offense. I imagine them using phalanx tactics to drive their enemies back out of their territory and then withdraw, or you know, push them off a cliff.
In my experience, natural caves provide a very interesting environment to fight in, there are multiple levels, rock and mineral formations providing cover and potentially ways into and out of a cave, as well as networks of tunnels running any direction. I imagine fighting in such an environment to be at the least, difficult. Short bows could come in handy, they’re smaller and easier to maneuver than long bows and have a faster reload time than crossbows. At the distances we’re thinking about, I don’t think they will be at a disadvantage power wise.
That’s really all I’ve got when it comes to caves, as my experience is limited to pictures in national geographic. I’m just thinking about it from a military standpoint.


on elves

I imagine elves to be an almost purely skirmishing force. They are all trained in bows for a reason after all. As skirmishers, use hit and run tactics and ambushes, causing as much damage as they can, then disappearing back into the woods. They would hit supply lines, attack at all hours (they don’t require sleep), and just generally cause havoc to their enemies without even being seen for more than a moment.
Invading an elfish kingdom would be a slow grind that will eventually halt as your supply lines are cut off and your troops suffer from fatigue, casualties, injury, gear damage, and food & water shortage. Of course this is assuming that your elves are the standard issue forest dwellers. I see rangers and scouts being their primary military solider, while civilians (which are also trained in bows) can easily act as militia units. A military like this would have to stay far away from getting in a stand up fight on open ground. If this happens then they’d have to be regulated to magic and archery roles.

Xuc Xac
2011-04-25, 12:06 AM
their is an upper limit to strength. the elf would just reach his maximum possible strength he might be effective at it longer but i would point out that it takes a dnd elf 110 years to reach the same competence a human has at 15. so we can conclude that elves are just really terrible learners and humans would mop the floor with them because humans would be able to replace their loses far faster. so a human would go from an infant to a veteran warrior by the time the elf was the mental age of a 3 year old.


Or, elves reach physical and mental maturity around the same age as humans do, but their culture requires them to finish raising their grandchildren before running off to do silly adventuring things. So an elf grows up, gets a job, works half the day then plays half the day because their culture doesn't put as much emphasis on economic success but does stress the importance of quality time with family and friends. The elf enjoys a lot of life experience, but not the kind of experience that earns "Experience Points" to make you a better fighter, wizard, or whatever. They fall in love, have kids, watch their kids grow up, watch their grandkids grow up, etc. Once their grandkids are grown, their familial obligations are done and they're getting bored with the simple life, so they head out to see the world. Sort of like when an affluent human decides to go on a cruise to see the world when they retire, except the elf still has all the vigor of youth and several centuries left to explore the world. And the elf doesn't have to worry about dying in a ditch somewhere before settling down to have a family because they've already raised their grandkids. The rest is just gravy.

Humans go adventuring and do all that dangerous stuff first, because they don't have a lot of time to do it, then they retire. Elves have plenty of time, so they do the "retirement" stuff first before doing something stupid and dangerous that might get them killed.

Yukitsu
2011-04-25, 12:16 AM
their is an upper limit to strength. the elf would just reach his maximum possible strength he might be effective at it longer but i would point out that it takes a dnd elf 110 years to reach the same competence a human has at 15. so we can conclude that elves are just really terrible learners and humans would mop the floor with them because humans would be able to replace their loses far faster. so a human would go from an infant to a veteran warrior by the time the elf was the mental age of a 3 year old.

Actually, races of the wild states that elves grow to the age of 20 at a comparable rate to humans both physically and mentally, but stop from there. The 110 age for adventurers is apparently a societal one. Frankly, the other hypothesis is just strange from a physiological point of view, though given the coddling they take when under 110, you can expect they won't be any sort of legendary warriors by then, but they will know how to shoot a bow by that age.

Tolkien had a similar system for his elves, in that they weren't children notably longer. They just stop faster.

And frankly, most humans, elves, warriors or anything else won't come anywhere close to their racial maximum strength. Only body builders manage something close to that (and are not a common or even desired body type for a warrior), and the remainder will have what is sufficient to the job. The case of archers by racial preference means a higher degree of average upper body strength than your typical farmer or spear man.

Conners
2011-04-25, 09:26 AM
So... to recap, elves ought to be weaker than humans, if they're shorter/lighter/etc.. However, with constant practice with the bow, it's reasonable to assume they could wield longbows and the like, even if it took 10 years (a small amount of time to an elf).

For movement, they'd be faster than humans for a battle, but they cover less distance in the long-march. They could probably move through forests and swamps with less hindrance, as well as provide for themselves better than humans generally do (if most of the elves are hunters, that's a lot of potential meat).
Would elves eat less than humans?

DnD has the weird "no-sleeping" thing for elves, which would be handy. Being able to hear a surprise attack from your meditative state. Needing less rest, meaning you can recover more quickly even if you tire more easily (handy for if they used the tactic of a reserve force and an attack force).
Mostly, though, I don't like this concept.

TheThan makes a good point about the elves as guerilla fighters, which I agree on.


I do wonder what weapons elves are suited with, in melee combat. They're depicted as using "longswords" (aka: arming swords) in DnD. What about cut-and-thrust blades, or scimitars? Personally, I think they'd do quite well with Asian-styled spears.

Yora
2011-04-25, 09:43 AM
For movement, they'd be faster than humans for a battle, but they cover less distance in the long-march. They could probably move through forests and swamps with less hindrance, as well as provide for themselves better than humans generally do (if most of the elves are hunters, that's a lot of potential meat).
Next to brain capacity, long marches are actually the superpower of humans in the animal kingdom. Compared to other land animals, humans can march for rediculously long distances. A common tactic to catch horses when you don't already have a horse yourself, is to simply walk up to them, let them run away, and keep following at a comfortable pace. Sooner or later, but much sooner than humans, they will collapse from exhaustion and you can put a rope on them while they catch their breath. Works also very well when hunting gazelles without bows and probably helped a lot in bringing down mammoths as well. Works even better in hot and dry climates where humans can just pack a few skins of water which eliminates the need to stop at water holes.
The other animal with such a stamina are dogs. It's a match made in haven.

Conners
2011-04-25, 10:02 AM
Yes, and elves would tire before humans would due to this.

Autolykos
2011-04-25, 10:03 AM
The urgrosh, similarly... you ignore the spearhead and use it like a regular axe, except occasionally if you get a good opening for a buttspike-stab. Alternately, if the situation calls for it (e.g., defending a narrow front like a tunnel with a mass of your fellow dwarves), ignore the axe head and use it like a standard spear. What you don't do is switch off strike-stab strike-stab, which mostly just wastes a lot of time spinning your weapon around uselessly.Actually, one of the popular ways to use a pollaxe (which is, basically, an urgrosh with a hammer opposite the ax) is just the other way round: Attack with fast stabs using the buttspike and only whack with the axehead when you see a good opening.

Yukitsu
2011-04-25, 10:39 AM
Yes, and elves would tire before humans would due to this.

Not much. We have that stamina due to our particular form of bipedalism, which we share with all D&D humanoids.

Where are people getting this dramatically weaker nonsense? It's not like if you find a guy who is 5-3, and compare him to someone who is 5-6 that the 5-6 guy is going to be considerably stronger, and once they have swords in their hands the advantage fully ceases to matter. The degree to which a few pips of lifting capacity actually matters with armed combatants is virtually nill, the only advantage this insignificant value of strength may lend itself to is unarmed combat.

Eldan
2011-04-25, 10:42 AM
Not just that. It's also lack of body hair (which we share) and our ability to sweat like waterfalls (which is never really addressed).

HenryHankovitch
2011-04-25, 11:12 AM
I don't see why a double sword would be more ridiculous than the double axe. I'd use middle-grip quarterstaff techniques with the former and middle-grip pollaxe techniques with the latter. The double axe's lack of thrusting ability hurts. The more reasonable double sword illustrations resembled double-pointed spears, which actually existed. I can't think of anything remotely like the double axe.

The problem with the double-sword is that it restricts you solely to middle-grip techniques. You can't grip it closer to one end than the other, which totally eliminates the reach and/or leverage advantages you should get with a polearm or two-handed sword. Nevermind the fact that your non-leading sword edge is going to be a constant hazard to your own person.

You would be far better off with a two-handed sword or axe, or a spear/glaive. The 'double sword' has none of the advanges of those weapons and all of their disadvantages combined.

This of course assumes we're talking about a double sword as usually depicted in RPG books, which is perhaps 2.5-3 feet of shaft with a 20+ inch blade at each end. If you re-fluff it so that it's basically a glaive with a buttspike, well...you have a glaive with a buttspike.

Conners
2011-04-25, 11:13 AM
@Yukitsu: Personally, I don't put them as much weaker than humans. However, they are known for being light-weight, quick and nimble. Generally, that lends itself to weaker muscle, just form the way I see it (heavy things tend to be strong, light things tend to be weak).

Thing with bows is, I don't know how close to its peak the human muscles need to be to use longbows.


@Eldan: Notably, elves have even less hair than humans xD.

HenryHankovitch
2011-04-25, 11:23 AM
on dwarves and caves

I didn’t quite consider large caves when I opened the discussion up to dwarf combat tactics. It seems like any entrance into a cave would be heavily fortified, the previously mentioned ballistae and scorpions would come into play here, as the dwarves retreat into their cave. That is assuming something bad happens and things go south.
I imagine dwarves to be primarily a static defensive force. Very rarely would they go on the offense. I imagine them using phalanx tactics to drive their enemies back out of their territory and then withdraw, or you know, push them off a cliff.
In my experience, natural caves provide a very interesting environment to fight in, there are multiple levels, rock and mineral formations providing cover and potentially ways into and out of a cave, as well as networks of tunnels running any direction. I imagine fighting in such an environment to be at the least, difficult. Short bows could come in handy, they’re smaller and easier to maneuver than long bows and have a faster reload time than crossbows. At the distances we’re thinking about, I don’t think they will be at a disadvantage power wise.


People tend to ascribe phalanx-type formations to dwarves; but the more you think about cave and tunnel landscape the less sense that makes. Both are likely--natural caves especially--to have irregular terrain, sharp changes in slope, crevasses and obstructions, and sharp corners. All things that actively hinder phalanx combat, since the large formation has extremely poor maneuverability.

Perhaps dwarves might organize on a sort of 'micro-maniple' type system. You have squads of 3-10 troopers who drill to shift formation to cover each other, to take advantage of natural cover and narrow defiles. En masse, they can form an ad-hoc shield-wall, but would tend to advance as a body of individual squads, rather than as a phalanx block. This also would likely encourage shield-and-sword/axe/hammer methods rather than pikes, since each trooper would need to be ready to shift his facing at any point. Small combined-arms elements might exist within the micro-maniples: several melee dwarves, plus a few with crossbows or other ranged weapons (or spellcasters).

Yukitsu
2011-04-25, 11:29 AM
@Yukitsu: Personally, I don't put them as much weaker than humans. However, they are known for being light-weight, quick and nimble. Generally, that lends itself to weaker muscle, just form the way I see it (heavy things tend to be strong, light things tend to be weak).

Thing with bows is, I don't know how close to its peak the human muscles need to be to use longbows.

Well that's just the thing though. If you want to talk about elves as a fantasy thing, they have whatever nonsensium is required to make them as strong, and in most stories stronger than humans despite their stature. If you appeal to realism, quick nimble people are generally strong, not weak, since it requires well coordinated, defined muscle mass (which is more useful than water inflated giant bulgy heavy muscles for combat) to actually be quick or nimble.

For the peak on a longbow draw, you don't really need to be that close to it. The theoretical maximum a human can lift is some absurd value, like 550 pounds or something. A longbow has what, 185 at most? I can lift that, and I am only as tall as an average elf. (yeah I'm short, so sue me.)


People tend to ascribe phalanx-type formations to dwarves; but the more you think about cave and tunnel landscape the less sense that makes. Both are likely--natural caves especially--to have irregular terrain, sharp changes in slope, crevasses and obstructions, and sharp corners. All things that actively hinder phalanx combat, since the large formation has extremely poor maneuverability.

This is probably why people tend to describe dwarven cave systems as carved perfectly smoothly, where dense ranked troops can keep a formation as they march down the halls. They don't need to worry about flanks while in formation, so their ability or inability to turn or otherwise manuever would be irrelevant letting them just slowly grind down anything that gets in front of them.

Yora
2011-04-25, 11:55 AM
But there's not much room for tactics but for 300 style "block the corridor with shields and spears". If works, but only to block of one tunnel.
Against the Persians it worked because it was meant to buy time for a lot more other military operations taking place in other locations. While a good shield wall of dwarves should be able to block almost any tunnel or passage, you'd need more alternative tactics than turning every skirmish into a siege.

Eldan
2011-04-25, 11:59 AM
Well, I've been in a few larger cave (the Höll-Loch is one of the largest ones in the world, though I only took the safe tourist tour), and I'd imagine with skirmishing, home advantage would be huge there. Sometimes, you walk into a cavern that is just huge, with a dozen tunnels, shafts and chimneys going off in all directions. Some of those will be blind ends, some will go on for miles, some will end in labyrinths. You could probably hit-and-run nearly forever, with a good knowledge of the layout and a dwarf's endurance. Plus, water is relatively easy to find in many caves.


@Eldan: Notably, elves have even less hair than humans xD.

Though they often get described as cleaner, and sometimes they moan about the stench of humans and dwarves. Perhaps they just naturally don't sweat much?

Yukitsu
2011-04-25, 12:08 PM
But there's not much room for tactics but for 300 style "block the corridor with shields and spears". If works, but only to block of one tunnel.
Against the Persians it worked because it was meant to buy time for a lot more other military operations taking place in other locations. While a good shield wall of dwarves should be able to block almost any tunnel or passage, you'd need more alternative tactics than turning every skirmish into a siege.

True, but appealing to warhammer in this case (Since they considered this more strongly I think) dwarf holds are designed to constrict fighting to a few key tunnels, and have many points that converge into a single corridor, letting a regiment here and a regiment there deal with an enemy onslaught without having to worry about breaking formation, and so long as each tunnel holds (or can fall back without letting the enemy gain free reign), they don't have to worry about being flanked.

They also command armies. An army isn't 300 guys, an army of dwarves in a hold should number well into the thousands, and in their larger keeps may very well equate to 10,000 troops, auxilliaries and armed citizenry.

Odin the Ignoble
2011-04-25, 03:05 PM
But there's not much room for tactics but for 300 style "block the corridor with shields and spears". If works, but only to block of one tunnel.
Against the Persians it worked because it was meant to buy time for a lot more other military operations taking place in other locations. While a good shield wall of dwarves should be able to block almost any tunnel or passage, you'd need more alternative tactics than turning every skirmish into a siege.

That's why, in a lot of fiction, dwarves have cannons or firearms. A phalanx can hold a corridor, then they step aside let out a volley of whatever projectile they have that can pierce the enemy's defenses. To a lesser extent, balistas could work.

Unless the enemy also has guns/cannons in which case, defense probably amounts to blowing up any entrances and having a cannon loaded and waiting for whoever digs through the rubble.

@Elves
I'd guess that sweating is typically beneath them.:smalltongue:

How long would you expect elven gestation to be? Would it be relative to how long it takes an elf to grow to adulthood ~12monts or relative to their lifespan ~4-5 years? In either case the growth rate of humans would be about 25-33% faster which would create an exponential lead.

I don't know if gureilla tactics would work well for elves. What happens when the enemy smarts up and just burns down the woods as they advance on the Elven capital to ensure there aren't any hiding places?

Yukitsu
2011-04-25, 03:09 PM
It should be identical, since gestation relates to cranium size to hip displacement, not to maximum age.

Relating to incindiaries, that doesn't really prevent the elves from simply killing the lot of them in their sleep. A forest worth noting isn't a small thing, it would take months to burn the entire thing down.

Odin the Ignoble
2011-04-25, 03:54 PM
I kind of assume that all the normal biological processes slowed down after the elf reached physical maturity, or age 20. Meaning that a baby conceived before the mother turned 20 would probably be carried around the same amount of time as human mother, but a child had later in life would be carried for a time relative to the slowing of the aging process.

But it was just sort of an idea, nothing ever gives a real explanation why elves age slower. It might just be 'magic' in which case it's kind of useless arguing any side because it's up to the GM/writer or who's ever creating the specific setting.

There's no reason why an army wouldn't have sentries. Especially night sentries if they know that elves don't sleep and have excellent night vision. If the objective is to destroy the forest, then the invading army would probably have plenty of wood to build palisades and forts with too. They only have to come out to burn stuff down.

New Question: I was thinking of having someone in a DnD type setting create a hot air balloon using one of the various sources of infinite heat. Given an effectively weightless fuel source and motive, what is the practical limit to the size of a hot air balloon?

awa
2011-04-25, 07:16 PM
so if elves reach mental maturity as fast as humans they either deliberately avoid gaining any practical skills or even mental mature elves learn super slowly.
an elf reaches adventuring age 7 times latter then humans if they were as smart as humans and learned as fast as humans then logical dnd elves should start with 7 or more times more starting skills. but dnd elves start with less skills then humans.

so either it's a culture designed to fail because mental and physically adult individuals never pull their weight until their at least 110 or they are so terrible at learning that they cant because they need to practice basic skills for decades.

so i conclude in a logical world elves would die out under the dead weight of the noncontributing members of society. (unless of course you altered their minimum adventuring age that would fix the problem to)

HenryHankovitch
2011-04-25, 07:33 PM
New Question: I was thinking of having someone in a DnD type setting create a hot air balloon using one of the various sources of infinite heat. Given an effectively weightless fuel source and motive, what is the practical limit to the size of a hot air balloon?

I don't have the math to answer with any precision, but in broad terms, pretty darn low. Hot air gives you less of a lift ratio than helium or hydrogen. And then you run into the basic problem of lighter-than-air ships: to lift more weight, you need more gas volume; but to hold that gas, you need more fabric, more structural support and ropes and such. All of which weighs more, which takes away from the amount you can lift.

Very quickly you'll run into problems with rigidity and controllability. The bigger the dirigible, the harder it is to keep it from buckling or twisting in the air. (You have the same problem with oceangoing ships, especially wooden ones: make it too large, and you'll have trouble keeping the hull from twisting and breaking in rough seas.) A big round balloon is going to give you the best lift-to-weight ratio, but can't be controlled aside from going up and then down again. For controlled flight, you need a rigid shape; but rigid shapes are obviously much heavier.

The short version? Magical flight is always better than magical heat used to make SCIENCE flight.

Conners
2011-04-25, 08:36 PM
As someone pointed out earlier, yes: Long spears/pikes in natural tunnels don't mix nicely. So, it'd have to be a short-spear phalanx if dwarves went outside their purpose-made halls.

Oddly enough, either Tolkien thought this out well, or we got back to here by coincidence: Axes would be handy... Shorter length than swords means they work better in cramped conditions. Daggers, maces, hammers and picks(?) would also work, since they tend to be short weapons.


@Yukitsu: True, but then, a chimpanzee is terribly clumsy, yet has the way more strength than a human. So, I think you could get elves who are very agile and also are stronger, but I think you could also get elves who are more agile and weaker. All depends on how their biology works.


More notes on elves: Come to think of it, in DnD, elves don't need to go to the toilet more than once a week, wasn't it? How would that work, if it could (there's an insect that never has to, I recall)...?

As for burning down forests... sounds like a bad idea. If the win changes, your army might get burnt. Come to think of it, elves would probably cut their trees down, in such a way as to prevent large forest fires (and lower the effectiveness of such tactics). They stopped this practice in Australia.... which resulted in the biggest fire I ever heard of in my life (not sure how it compares to the fire of London).
Potentially, elves might even be willing to sacrifice a small part of their forest, by setting it alight, so as to stop the human invaders.


As for sentries against elves... Ghurkas. That should be a good enough example.

@awa: Largely, it comes to DnD elves being poorly thought out. You should be able to get a 20 or 30 year old elf adventurer fairly easily (not that they necessarily adventure a lot, but they'd be physically capable)--just that they wanted to design the age-rolling charts around maximum age, rather than having cultural reasoning.



Come to think of it.... How much metal are elves likely to have? Mining is pretty cruel work--and not very suited to elven bodies I assume. So, they'd either have to trade for metal, or hire dwarves (hahaha, like that's going to happen) or something to mine for them. If they're trading for metal...
I doubt they have a lot that other cultures want, so they'd probably be limited to small knives as their weapons. Steel arrowheads would be a luxury, and need to be recovered after battles/hunts.

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-04-25, 08:46 PM
I had a question, and I'm not sure if this would be the place to get it answered. Basically, I need to set up a war for a game, and I'm basically not sure how to run the opposition so my players have an enemy to fight.

I was wondering if this would be the place to ask about military tactics and such.

Conners
2011-04-25, 10:02 PM
Well, depends what you want to do. Do you want them to lead armies, fight in huge battles, or have small manageable skirmishes in a war backdrop?

For the former, you'll need a system that lets them control armies.

The second requires a system that lets you resolve attacks and track HP/initiative VERY fast. For this, you have something like, "If the enemy rolls a 80 on a d100, four soldiers on the player's side die that round" then pick four random soldiers. You'd use normal combat rules for the players and any enemies that oppose them.
As for the setup... have them as officers of an infantry unit among the first couple of ranks? Depending on how quickly/effectively they deal with the opposing unit, they could continue on to flank an enemy unit engaging one of their allies--or they could be beset by cavalry or whatever.
---
Vague description of what's going on with the rest of the battle is a good idea (you don't normally have much idea of what's happening around you). You'd probably want a vague plan for what each side is trying to do, which units have what amount of chance and what places they are fighting. Then, you roll for some of those happenings (IE: "The nearby spearmen are overrun by the orc swordsmen! Now, they're coming around to flank you!").
Of course, this means that the players don't have a lot of control over the battle's outcome... but that's to be expected. Better prepare for them to lose and have to retreat, or some reason the enemy wants to take them alive (it's normal to take officers and torture them for information--or bribe them). This'll change if they're epic level players beyond the danger of a common sword... but I don't have much advice for that craziness.

For the last.... Have them ordered to scout an area, get in a fight with other scouts? Assassination attempt on the enemy general, where they need to strike hard and fast then get GTHO? Small scale army, where the skilled players are expected to take out a small enemy unit of archers?
Those are a few of the possibilities.


Might've gotten a bit more into the gameness of the question than I should've, considering the nature of this thread... Still, the tactical side of it ought to be a logical question for here.

awa
2011-04-25, 10:09 PM
In regards to running warfare
for anything even slightly like real world tactics to be relevant then the maximum level has to be relatively low or have some plot device making high level charterers caster in particular from dominating.

once people can summon shadows then an army of level 1 characters becomes a liability not an asset.

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-04-25, 10:32 PM
Well, depends what you want to do. Do you want them to lead armies, fight in huge battles, or have small manageable skirmishes in a war backdrop?

For the former, you'll need a system that lets them control armies.

The second requires a system that lets you resolve attacks and track HP/initiative VERY fast. For this, you have something like, "If the enemy rolls a 80 on a d100, four soldiers on the player's side die that round" then pick four random soldiers. You'd use normal combat rules for the players and any enemies that oppose them.
As for the setup... have them as officers of an infantry unit among the first couple of ranks? Depending on how quickly/effectively they deal with the opposing unit, they could continue on to flank an enemy unit engaging one of their allies--or they could be beset by cavalry or whatever.
---
Vague description of what's going on with the rest of the battle is a good idea (you don't normally have much idea of what's happening around you). You'd probably want a vague plan for what each side is trying to do, which units have what amount of chance and what places they are fighting. Then, you roll for some of those happenings (IE: "The nearby spearmen are overrun by the orc swordsmen! Now, they're coming around to flank you!").
Of course, this means that the players don't have a lot of control over the battle's outcome... but that's to be expected. Better prepare for them to lose and have to retreat, or some reason the enemy wants to take them alive (it's normal to take officers and torture them for information--or bribe them). This'll change if they're epic level players beyond the danger of a common sword... but I don't have much advice for that craziness.

For the last.... Have them ordered to scout an area, get in a fight with other scouts? Assassination attempt on the enemy general, where they need to strike hard and fast then get GTHO? Small scale army, where the skilled players are expected to take out a small enemy unit of archers?
Those are a few of the possibilities.


Might've gotten a bit more into the gameness of the question than I should've, considering the nature of this thread... Still, the tactical side of it ought to be a logical question for here.

It's less about rules and more about getting into the mind of the enemy. Let me explain the situation:

The PCs gain control of a city, and they want to secede from the empire that city belongs to, or go one better and topple the regime. In order to do that, the PCs are going to somehow need to survive the enemy's response. There are a lot of problems, however:

1. The Empire has a massive army that is constantly out in the field looking for any signs of rebellion. Given that the capitol of the Empire is just a day or two upriver from the PCs city, they could send troops out to lay siege within days. Those troops would be supplemented by devils summoned from hell, as per an agreement between the Empire's leader and Asmodeus himself. They get support from Hell in exchange for making Asmodeus' faith the state religion.

2. The Empire's navy is one of the strongest in the world, and has two strong naval bases to the east and west of the City, one of which is essentially a cork that could prevent them from getting supplies in or out. Furthermore, that navy has a fleet sitting right on the City's doorstep. If the fleet's general thought sometihng was amiss, he could likely come in and crack down with martial law immediately (he gives the city to the PCs as a means of pacifying them, so they don't get ideas about rebelling). Also, the most important districts in the city are on islands in the middle of the river delta, which could easily by blockaded by ship.

Given the likely possibility of a swift, overwhelming military response, I don't know if the PCs would even be able to dig in for a siege, especially since the city doesn't have a standing army of its own, just the local guards and a military order that maintains its own holdings outside city limits, and that military order would immediately side with the empire since the empire represents law and order.

3. In addition to the fact that they have to deal with troops literally from Hell, if the PCs wanted to take out the Empire, they'd basically have to wage war on the state religion, which has heavily entrenched itself in the bureaucracy. That essentially means they'd have to tear down the existing social order and start from scratch. The whole reason this evil empire came to be was because the people wanted law and order after the chaos of civil war and their patron god dying.

4. The empire also has a few allies that could cause trouble, namely a nation to the north that is essentially a theocracy dedicated to a Wes Craven Cenobite. They provide the Empire with shadowy creatures and powers that they use to enforce order and prevent rebels from organizing, and they're waiting for an opportunity to overthrow the Hell-worshiping empress so they can grant the Empire's people the joy and honor of being constantly tortured in their god's name.

5. The only option I could see the PC's turning to for aid are not very appealing allies, one being rabidly democratic, which could turn the PCs allies, who are nobles, against them, and abolitionistic, meaning they'd tear down the slave economy the empire depends upon, again bringing up the issue of the people wanting stability more than freedom. The other potential ally is just a power-hungry expansionist nation, looking for a chance to expand its military rule over more land.

If the paranoid empress suspected even thoughts of insubordination, I can only assume she'd send the full might of her empire's army, her allies both mortal and infernal, and her own considerable magic to reduce the offending city to rubble. How are the PC's supposed to win against such odds, or at least stand their ground long enough that the empress decides it's not worth holding the city?

Conners
2011-04-25, 11:06 PM
Well, there a many possible answers. Potentially, the most correct answer might be A) Your PCs just f***** themselves... However, depending, all might not be lost.

A lot depends on how much power the PCs have... Could they kill the Empress and her bodyguards, if the chance arose? Could they kill an army of 1,000 human soldiers? How many demons are there at the Empress's command and how strong are the PCs in comparison?


Generally, though--you want to attack in this circumstance. Yes, attack. Defending currently is waiting for your death, unless the PCs are power-gaming monsters. Baffle the empire. Let the shadowy creatures think they have a good chance to rebel, make the admiral think the Empress suspects him of treason so he should attack haphazardly (and thus fall into a trap).

Sow rumours of terrible rebellion and discord which is taking place all over the empire ("everywhere except here is falling apart! ...AND WE'RE NEXT!!!"), causing the citizens to be panicked and giving credibility to the rumour when spread to other nations (IE: "What? That empire is falling apart...? TIME TO ATTACK IT!!". Stall the army heading your way or divert them elsewhere. IF they besiege you, make their life hell with boiling oil and every other trick of the trade--but keep a party outside the castle so they can be pressed from both sides (assassinating their commanders, for example). For political purposes, stall them and make their efforts useless even if it's stand-off.

At this time, if the Navy has been captured, rumours of the Empire's power collapsing are rampant, small are large rebellions are appearing, and the army is busy with one city... the Expansionist Lord and the Democracy should act on their own. If they don't, coax and trick them.

Note that, if you do well enough with the rumours and panic the nation, actually causing some rebellions which are taking advantage of the chaos--you might be able to get the Empire to spread their army thin. If the players can get a sizeable force at this time (promise lots of loot to mercenaries?), they could storm the undefended capital (perhaps on their captured navy), or take out the Empire's forces piece by piece (Sun Tzu was big on spreading an enemy out, then easily mopping up each of its divisions).


Of course... it's hard to get players to do the smart thing, unless they're already smart. This may come down to dropping a Sun Tzu NPC who tells them how to win (if they're dumb), dropping hints (if they can think for themselves), or just providing them with necessary data (if they can plan and procure victory by themselves).

Also, a lot of what I suggested depends on more detailed specifics of the politics, what the populace thinks, how tough the army actually is, how strong the players are, what magic the players have, how available mercenaries or the like are, their diplomatic skills (remember to give them big bonuses or have them succeed automatically if they set it up very well), and luck.


That's my advice, hope it helps.

Yukitsu
2011-04-25, 11:17 PM
so if elves reach mental maturity as fast as humans they either deliberately avoid gaining any practical skills or even mental mature elves learn super slowly.
an elf reaches adventuring age 7 times latter then humans if they were as smart as humans and learned as fast as humans then logical dnd elves should start with 7 or more times more starting skills. but dnd elves start with less skills then humans.

so either it's a culture designed to fail because mental and physically adult individuals never pull their weight until their at least 110 or they are so terrible at learning that they cant because they need to practice basic skills for decades.

so i conclude in a logical world elves would die out under the dead weight of the noncontributing members of society. (unless of course you altered their minimum adventuring age that would fix the problem to)

It's not actually that bad. Most humans die as level 1 commoners, so most people just don't gain any adventuring skills at all no matter how long they live.

The problem is D&D has its roots in war-gaming, so it becomes pretty unlikely for any commoner to become more competent when they are 110 years old without gaining adventurer levels. I would bet if you could ask the wizards of the coast guys about that sort of thing, they'd agree that the elves should have abilities and skills that are completely unrelated to adventuring by the time they hit 110, or a linear age related profession that has no mechanical benefit.

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-04-25, 11:21 PM
The PC who's sort of set himself up as the ringleader has plans of basically training a corps of snipers. I'm not sure what's going through his head, but I'm thinking he basically plans on assassinating the Empress and courting the Democracy for aid, which at the moment is guarding its own borders because the Empire seems to be making preparations to expand outwards (both the Democracy and Expansionist Kingdom were former territories of the Empire that gained their freedom when the Empire was too spread out to try and hold on to them).

Also, to give you an idea of just what the mindset of this place is, there's another nation that's a former imperial holding that had a similar rebellion. But since that time, the rebellion hasn't stopped. The mob rules the streets, and anyone they deem traitors gets guillotined (basically imagine if the French Revolution had never ended). That's exactly what the Empire fears becoming more than anything. They accept the Church of Asmodeus and the fear of harsh law in exchange for peace, stability and a shot at regaining the glory they lost when their own god died. In fact, they arrogantly claim that they do not serve Hell. Hell serves THEM.

Though Hell is currently making attempts to rectify that situation. The event that catapaults the PCs to power is that they foil an attempt by the Archdevil Mammon to take control of the city by proxy through his tiefling son, and in the capitol, a devil managed to sire an entire generation's worth of tiefling children that he was indoctrinating to serve Hell, so when they grew up and took their positions in the Empire's Church, government and nobility, they'd basically just hand the empire over to their infernal masters. After the plot was unearthed, there was a string of assassinations and deaths as the nobles have tried their darndest to exterminate the infernal bastards.

Eric Tolle
2011-04-26, 01:44 AM
[QUOTE=Eldan;10856238]Well, I've been in a few larger cave (the Höll-Loch is one of the largest ones in the world, though I only took the safe tourist tour), and I'd imagine with skirmishing, home advantage would be huge there. Sometimes, you walk into a cavern that is just huge, with a dozen tunnels, shafts and chimneys going off in all directions. Some of those will be blind ends, some will go on for miles, some will end in labyrinths. You could probably hit-and-run nearly forever, with a good knowledge of the layout and a dwarf's endurance. Plus, water is relatively easy to find in many caves.

If you look at some of the largest caves, like these in Vietnam (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/01/largest-cave/peter-photography), there's enough room to build a city in there- and a lot of the terrain is nothing I'd want to try moving an army through.

Also, the mention of the river gives me some ideas for how the dwarves might defend their city; say, have a river that can be diverted through the entrance passage with the turn of a screw (I remember a children's book that had an underground city with that system. It involved something like ancient Celts in Appalacia)

And then there's the example of historical underground refuges, such as Derinkuyu (http://coilhouse.net/2008/12/underground-city-deep-down-into-derinkuyu/) Underground (http://turkishtravelblog.com/derinkuyu-underground-city-cappadocia/) City (http://www.cappadociaturkey.net/derinkuyu_underground_city.htm) which included things such as passages that could be sealed off with millstones, protecting a city with almost all the amenities of a surface city. Honestly, with places in reality like this, one really doesn't need to really stretch the imagination to come up with incredible places for adventure.

Conners
2011-04-26, 08:33 AM
@Archpaladin Zousha: Well, if he can assassinate the empress and anyone who could replace her quickly/efficiently, then sow chaos and discord--that could work. IF they can do it.

Aside from that, my advice remains largely the same. Not sure I can add much more. Depending on what kind of questions are left to be asked, might be better to start a new thread.


Wow, great example you put forward there, Eric Tolle :D!

So... on the matter of underground cities and dwarves.... Would the dwarves have livestock? With grazing animals, you'd need to let them out to graze once a day, or have tons of hay to use. With pigs, you can feed them scraps. Generally, it doesn't matter if your livestock barely ever see the light of day.

The_Werebear
2011-04-26, 08:53 AM
On Dwarfs in Combat:
Rather than going with longer spears, what's to prevent them from using short stabbing swords and shields? That would reduce their already weak reach, but if they're fighting other short underground races, then that levels itself out. Come to think of it, could bayonets be brought into it? Dwarfs do tend to be the first to come up with gunpowder in most settings, so they could use bayonetted rifle/musket groups. That would allow concentration of fire in tunnel that need to be outright blocked, in addition to allowing effective skirmishing in smaller or more rubble and cover filled areas.

The Mass Combat Scenario
I'm thinking that your players are in a whole heap of trouble if they try to rebel without waiting for the right situation. It seems like that, if they did go on their own, their bureaucracy and army would turn on them as well. I'd suggest they start smaller, purging the bureaucrats and officers who are disloyal in the name of stopping Mammon's Children from gaining power.

As for how to play the Empire, I would have them be quite twitchy. Especially after stopping a recent plot around overthrowing their form of government. Perhaps give the PC's a few opportunities by having other Cities draw the wrath of the Army/Navy by refusing to instigate purges, and thus forcing the military to do it for them. Maybe, after the insult to Mammon, he and his allies quit sending forces, reducing the numbers of Devils available for summoning at any given time. They might even start an outright war with one of the other factions, depending on how Paranoid they are that they seem weak in light of recent events.

Autolykos
2011-04-26, 11:16 AM
With bayonets, you should keep in mind that they are not there to be used (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKRa966S5Dc). They are there to scare the other guys away. This doesn't work so well when the other guys can't see it or have nowhere to retreat to (like in caves). It would be a great thing for dwarven surface armies, but not so much underground.

Incanur
2011-04-26, 11:59 AM
Bayonets got used plenty. All weapons exist partially to instill fear, but a legitimate threat works best. I also question the suggestion that cave fighting would automatically make everyone fearless. From my experience spelunking, I'd suspect the opposite. Dwarves would be used to such environments, of course, and typically have a reputation for tenacity. But invading armies might well break in terror after a volley and bayonet charge.

Yora
2011-04-26, 12:08 PM
Bayonets become important when you don't have time to relead your gun. Even during the american civil war, the primary rifle was a single shot muzle loader and once that shot is gun and there's an enemy right in front of you, you don't have the time to take 10 seconds or more to reload. If there's a stabby end at your rifle, you stab.

Eldan
2011-04-26, 12:40 PM
@Elves
I'd guess that sweating is typically beneath them.:smalltongue:


That should explain the low stamina, then :smalltongue:

Yukitsu
2011-04-26, 01:39 PM
Wouldn't they just outright die in warm weather though? :smallconfused:

On that military issue, asymmetric warfare and provocateuring are pretty much their only hopes. Any stand and fight is very likely to either be completely futile, or lead to enough of their forces deaths that the rebellion would have to capitulate. Their best bet is to cause a small problem for the Empire, but escape completely intact. This will undermine the belief that they can provide law and stability, eventually deteriorating the populace' willingness to being subjugated by devils.

Autolykos
2011-04-26, 01:55 PM
Bayonets become important when you don't have time to relead your gun. Even during the american civil war, the primary rifle was a single shot muzle loader and once that shot is gun and there's an enemy right in front of you, you don't have the time to take 10 seconds or more to reload. If there's a stabby end at your rifle, you stab.Actually, that's not always the case. People tended to stop and reload muskets for a second shot even at ridiculously short ranges (instead of just using their bayonet) - even if that's not the logical thing to do. People don't want to get stabbed, period. The American civil war is a poor example anyway, it has very few bayonet charges - they usually just slugged it out with muskets and cannons.

fusilier
2011-04-26, 03:51 PM
Re: Bayonets
The use of bayonets on the battlefield is fairly complex. Autolykos is correct, there are stories of troops lined up 20 yards from each other firing volley after volley, never attempting a charge. The primary purpose of a charge, was to break the enemy, *not* get involved in hand-to-hand. If the defenders didn't break, sometimes the attackers simply stalled at close range.

On the other hand, sometimes troops would be ordered to charge with empty muskets, to prevent them from stopping to shoot (which typically made them stop altogether). Emphasis on bayonet training increased in the mid 19th century, especially after incidents in the Crimean War demonstrated its value. Hand-to-hand combat *did* occur. Even if the point of a charge was to break the enemy before coming to hand-to-hand that didn't always happen. Hand-to-hand combat could be very costly, with whole units effectively being wiped out. Given the thin, linear formations of the time, I suspect that it was difficult to disengage troops that were in hand-to-hand. Americans during the Civil War seem to have had an aversion to "sticking" their opponents, and generally preferred to fight with clubbed muskets and fists. I suspect that many of the officers didn't think to order the troops to fix bayonets before going into combat.

Eorran
2011-04-26, 04:01 PM
I seem to remember a post from the Real-World Weapons & Armor thread to the effect that bayonet charges were used very effectively by the British as late as WWII, to the point where they were even able to break some Japanese formations by shouting the command "fix bayonets!" so the enemy could hear them.

However, this requires a high degree of discipline in the troops as well as plenty of training time. Being on either side of a bayonet charge is reputedly a terrifying experience.

It would probably work quite well for dwarves, particularly as a counter-attack.

fusilier
2011-04-26, 04:21 PM
I seem to remember a post from the Real-World Weapons & Armor thread to the effect that bayonet charges were used very effectively by the British as late as WWII, to the point where they were even able to break some Japanese formations by shouting the command "fix bayonets!" so the enemy could hear them.

However, this requires a high degree of discipline in the troops as well as plenty of training time. Being on either side of a bayonet charge is reputedly a terrifying experience.
. . .


Discipline, or, probably better yet, high morale. Ideally both.

Spiryt
2011-04-26, 04:25 PM
If we're talking about fairly "standard" fantasy setting, being at the end of bayonet charge would not be so terrifying relatively, considering that everyone would actually be armed towards close fighting in one way or another, in results being at least somehow prepared for charge of actual melee weapons.

Odin the Ignoble
2011-04-26, 05:00 PM
I don't have the math to answer with any precision, but in broad terms, pretty darn low. Hot air gives you less of a lift ratio than helium or hydrogen. And then you run into the basic problem of lighter-than-air ships: to lift more weight, you need more gas volume; but to hold that gas, you need more fabric, more structural support and ropes and such. All of which weighs more, which takes away from the amount you can lift.

I figured about as much. It might be a little easier to maneuver if they have access to something that manipulates winds or something/someone with flight to pull it.

I just kind of wanted to go with the hot air idea because I didn't want to have to incorporate a magical equivalent to helium.

Although making hydrogen with electricity might be possible, but that gets into a sort of weird magi/science overlap.


As for burning down forests... sounds like a bad idea. If the win changes, your army might get burnt. Come to think of it, elves would probably cut their trees down, in such a way as to prevent large forest fires (and lower the effectiveness of such tactics). They stopped this practice in Australia.... which resulted in the biggest fire I ever heard of in my life (not sure how it compares to the fire of London).
Potentially, elves might even be willing to sacrifice a small part of their forest, by setting it alight, so as to stop the human invaders.


Hmmm that's something I didn't think about. It might be a useful tactic to just let the invaders into the woods without resistance. Then set them on fire to capture the invading army, preferably on the march.


Wouldn't they just outright die in warm weather though? :smallconfused:


That's why they live int he woods, to get to the shade. Then they take dips in springs to cool down and sun themselves to warm up. Like lizards.

Alternatively they could wallow in the mud like pigs. lol



Stuff

They aren't likely to last that long unless they can get allot more people on their side, or at least break up the empire's unity.

It the Empire is getting Infernal aid, maybe the PCs could look into getting divine or demonic aid if it comes to it.

It might also be useful to send a Sun Tsu NPC to the party to offer advice. Bonus points if the bizarrely helpful and insightful old man turns out to be a archon or aismar in disguise.

Eric Tolle
2011-04-26, 08:26 PM
Wow, great example you put forward there, Eric Tolle :D!

Thanks!



So... on the matter of underground cities and dwarves.... Would the dwarves have livestock? With grazing animals, you'd need to let them out to graze once a day, or have tons of hay to use. With pigs, you can feed them scraps. Generally, it doesn't matter if your livestock barely ever see the light of day.

You know honestly, food production is one of the weak points of any underground civilization. Dwarves are bad enough, in that you can assume maybe they use mountain valleys, terraced fields, or farms in sinkholes. But truly underground cultures like the Drow really brings up questions of food supply. Only half in jest I at one point decided that Drow relied on "Stone to Flesh" spells as the base of their farm economy.

awa
2011-04-26, 10:18 PM
dnd tends to assume massive mushroom forest exist underground. capable of supporting any ecosystem.
but you could probably make an at will magic item of create food and water would not be to expensive for a city to make and if you gave it to a zombie and had him shake it once a round you could feed a bunch of people.

assuming my math is correct that should feed 27,000 people a day for a cost of 27,000 gold huh funny. since the magic item doesn't wear out it would pay for its self pretty quickly and you free up all those farmers and backers to be warriors.

Curious
2011-04-26, 10:28 PM
Stone to flesh. . . How would that actually work on a rock wall? Would it become living flesh, or dead flesh? Would it be edible? Would it have organs? And if you took the time to shape stone into a statue of some creature that did not exist, could you then flesh it into life?

Knaight
2011-04-26, 10:44 PM
Space Opera Weaponry
About how much variance in air pressure would be reasonable for a standard issue space opera firearm, as regards capacity to dissipate heat well?

awa
2011-04-26, 10:51 PM
It was mentioned on the wizards website that if you cast stone to flesh on a normal statue you get a man shaped pile of meat. very much not alive.
also stone shape kills a petrified creature it does not work like polymorph.

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-04-26, 11:10 PM
They aren't likely to last that long unless they can get allot more people on their side, or at least break up the empire's unity.

It the Empire is getting Infernal aid, maybe the PCs could look into getting divine or demonic aid if it comes to it.

It might also be useful to send a Sun Tsu NPC to the party to offer advice. Bonus points if the bizarrely helpful and insightful old man turns out to be a archon or aismar in disguise.

Both are unlikely, as the demons are currently pouring out in hordes from a canyon in the far north (this started shortly after the Empire's god died), and the most likely force for divine aid (an ascended mortal from the Empire who was the dead god's champion), is currently occupied with her crusader nation which is struggling to keep the demons from rampaging all throughout the north.

This occupies her so that the devilish corruption of her homeland is a secondary concern.

There IS another option though. Dragons. When the Empire signed their pact with Hell, virtually all the lands' copper dragons got up in arms about it, attempting to free the Empire. They failed, and most retreated to the democracy to lick their wounds, though one still lives in the City, disguised as a scribe who runs a small band of rebels. The problem is that those rebels (who are unaffiliated with the PCs) haven't been able to do much of anything, and people who support them do so only out of pity.

Honestly, if the Empire with its devilish aid can fend off an army of copper dragons? It seems like they're all but invincible!

Yukitsu
2011-04-26, 11:50 PM
Depends on how much hell can muster. If the dragons got knocked out the first time, not much chance that they'll be able to muster anything that can match them.

The problem as I see it, is you, the DM will probably just be like "OK, PC group does X, Y, Z, rebellious things" and those will accomplish pretty much only what they were trying deliberately to do. What should happen, is that the empire loses support, their enemies around them see them as vulnerable, and the citizens realize that the empire can't sustain their precious "law and order". Basically, any rebellious act that goes uncrushed will pretty much seriously undermine their political position. All the PCs have to do with their merry band of rebels is speak out publicly, then survive. Easier said than done.

Odin the Ignoble
2011-04-27, 04:34 AM
There IS another option though. Dragons. When the Empire signed their pact with Hell, virtually all the lands' copper dragons got up in arms about it, attempting to free the Empire. They failed, and most retreated to the democracy to lick their wounds, though one still lives in the City, disguised as a scribe who runs a small band of rebels. The problem is that those rebels (who are unaffiliated with the PCs) haven't been able to do much of anything, and people who support them do so only out of pity.

Honestly, if the Empire with its devilish aid can fend off an army of copper dragons? It seems like they're all but invincible!

Dragon's would definitely help. What did the dragons do the first time around? They might not stand a chance in a direct confrontation, but there's no reason the confrontation would have to be a straight fight.

Unless the Empire has the ability to move allot faster then I'd think they could, a group of flying dragons should be able to out maneuver them. Even if the dragons are just willing to play taxi it would greatly help the resistance.

If the Empress, along with other major power players in the Empire, could be drawn out into the open by the resistance, a concerted strike from a small army of dragons should be able to leave the Empire leaderless.

Of course that might not be a good thing. Without the Empress, as a check on their power, The Church might try and make another push for control. Even if the rebellion largely succeeds you could end up with two nations one of which is directly controlled by devils.

The players might be better off just trying to attack The Church itself. There's already proof that The Church has been trying to take over, maybe with some effort, the populace could be convinced that the Empire doesn't need Hell's help. They might just try assassinating clerics and priests until they get somewhere. A whole city worth of taxes could probably buy some fairly competent assassins.

If they succeed in killing or crippling the church, it would make cleaning up the Empire that much easier.

But then you sort of run into the problem of getting the players to come to that conclusion, without making them think it was their idea.

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-04-27, 08:21 PM
The CHURCH isn't involved. The DEVILS are. There's a difference. It's deliberately unclear whether these attempts at undermining the Empress' power over Hell were done with Asmodeus' blessing, in which case he's trying to weasel out of the contract, or if the actions of these devils are of their own initiative, in which case Asmodeus would be right PO at their interference with his plans and the fact that such actions threaten to void the contract he already has with them.

Herr Munchkin
2011-04-28, 01:24 AM
New topic:
In an upcoming session, I plan to have one players nation declare war on a nearby kingdom. The system I will use for the battles is already designed, but the units are not.
The players nation is a monarchic theocracy of Kord, and the citizens are dragonborn. The system is 4e, he is level 12, and has slightly too much money. His nation is based off of Rome.
Help with flavor?

Storm Bringer
2011-04-28, 04:08 AM
New topic:
In an upcoming session, I plan to have one players nation declare war on a nearby kingdom. The system I will use for the battles is already designed, but the units are not.
The players nation is a monarchic theocracy of Kord, and the citizens are dragonborn. The system is 4e, he is level 12, and has slightly too much money. His nation is based off of Rome.
Help with flavor?

a roman army?

heavy infanty.

massed ranks of plate armoured dragon born warriors, advancing to the slow chant of a kordic battle hynm. above, the armies champions fly around (it#s been awhile since i read a 4e book. can dragonborn learn to fly? i know they get breath weapons), leading leadership and firepower where needed. other dragonkin form the auxilary units, maybe kobald skirmishers, etc.

I'd post more, but I´m not too sure whats in 4e off hand.

Conners
2011-04-28, 09:42 AM
New topic:
In an upcoming session, I plan to have one players nation declare war on a nearby kingdom. The system I will use for the battles is already designed, but the units are not.
The players nation is a monarchic theocracy of Kord, and the citizens are dragonborn. The system is 4e, he is level 12, and has slightly too much money. His nation is based off of Rome.
Help with flavor? While it's OK for us to give political advice, I hope this doesn't become a running thing... or it might be already o.o".

I guess the other players don't matter for this question, then?
As for "slightly too much money".... I don't know if his money will even compare to the expenditure related to war (he might be able to fund his army for a week). That's what taxes are for, anyway.

Now, as to what kind of units he has... shouldn't that be more for the player to decide? If he doesn't want to, there are plenty of ideas..... but I'm not sure how they'd translate into 4E.

Questions:

How much cavalry is the nation likely to have? Do dragonborn get along with horses? Are their heavy forms more draining on the horse?

Is there loads of magic to use?

What kind of race-traits are featured? Can Dragonborn all breath fire/lightning/whatever into the enemy ranks when they close in?

Can they fly...?

Any preferred weapons or notable factors from the country (IE: There are tons of bronze mines, there is very little forest)?

What kinds of personalities do they have? Would they run away at the first chance they get, or fight to the death? Will they listen diligently and follow military training, or resent taking order and do their own disorganized thing? Are they experienced in fighting, or pacifist farmers?

Most importantly: How does their enemy fight?


That'd help me to give a more definitive answer.

Eldan
2011-04-28, 11:38 AM
One thing about the Romans is that they were very willing to take designs from their neighbours and enemies when they proved superior. The Marian legionary, which is what most people think of as a Roman soldier, had Celtic mail and helmet and an Iberian sword.

randomhero00
2011-04-28, 11:41 AM
Does any weapon actually exist like a metal whip? And I mean whip, not a length of chain or something. I mean, fatter toward the front, thinner toward the end, so that it creates a wave of increase force that breaks the sound barrier at the tip. Is anything like that real?

Yora
2011-04-28, 12:42 PM
The weapon most similar to such things is probably the rope dart, which is 4 to 5 meter long rope with a pointed metal spike tied to the end. It doesn't crack and doesn't look like a whip at all when used, but it seems to be the most practical realization of the idea of a flexible weapon.

Therse also something from india which I think was called a sword whip or lashing sword or something like that. It's a sword hilt with flexible and sharpened bands of steel in place of a blade. Looks a bit like a whip, but no cracking there either.

Herr Munchkin
2011-04-28, 05:05 PM
The Dragonborn cannot fly, and do breathe elements. My origional concept was to give them bows and axes, and to line up. They snipe the enemy archers, and use their breath in melee and their axes. The terrain is hilly, but good farmland, and some ores are in the area. Wood is easily purchased from nearby nations. The dragonborn use horses, and the horses can support them (due to selective breeding).
Thanks for ideas!
EDIT: They use axes and swords, and the player expresses interest in primitive guns and constructs.

awa
2011-04-28, 09:54 PM
the Indian sword is called a Urumi. I don't think you could make a metal weapon that cracked like a whip. I just don't think it would be flexible enough

Conners
2011-04-29, 03:21 AM
@Herr Munchkin: The breath weapons could be incredibly useful. It's hard to dodge a flamethrower while in a tight medieval formation... but you can bet those soldiers will try it! What I mean is, when your dragonborn unleash their elemental-breath, the enemy formation will break up and become weak, I suspect.

Note that you should consider what kind of armour dragonborn are likely to have... though it doesn't matter much in DnD.
I think you can work out the rest yourself :). (Remember that fighting from the top of a hill is advantageous).


The talk about demons earlier raised a question to me... What sort of creatures would fantasy demons be, as far as killing them is concerned? Supposedly, they're be sentient, and could use weapons but don't always do. But... would they feel pain?

If they don't feel pain, how would that effect fighting them?
Would they bleed to death, or have organs? Let's say they didn't have any vitals as such... could you kill such a creature simply by cutting it up a heap (you could, notably, mince a demon so that even if it is still alive magically, it can't move or do anything)?

Just wondering about this sort of thing, since sometimes in fantasy things they have creatures which don't die when you stab them in the head, yet they still die after they are cut up sufficiently much.

The_Werebear
2011-04-29, 12:08 PM
What they would be as far as killing them goes, is a nightmare. Even the incredibly weak ones are tougher than a human given basic combat training (Dretch vs Warrrior 1), and have a variety of abilities that can be used to incapacitate or kill disproportionate numbers. Top that off with a hide that is a match for armor and resistant to all but specially processed weapons, and you have a recipe for living tanks.

However, I would argue that demons do have vitals of some sort, because they are vulnerable to being critically hit and are subject to sneak attack. Thus, they would probably bleed and die if you chopped all their bits off. For something like a construct or undead, then I could see the necessity of having to actually dismember it completely before it stops trying to kill you.

Conners
2011-04-30, 10:31 AM
Something to ponder: How would a flamethrower-like weapon effect someone wearing armour...? I guess it'd make things worse rather than better..? Just considering dragons.

Herr Munchkin
2011-04-30, 12:17 PM
If you use armor, you are almost a lightning rod. And with red dragons, your armor will heat up roast you alive. It happened to the crusaders. Now, on to acid. The armor will protect you from some of the acid. Frost breath is the same as fire, only colder. And finally, poison. Armor does not stop gases well.
Well, that's the most common breaths.

Yora
2011-04-30, 12:33 PM
Breath are instantaneous effects, so you're actually exposed to them for only a second or so. Not sure about electricity, but the other energy types should be blocked quite well, as the armor prevents them from reaching your skin. You have some flames and acid leak through the joints, but that's a lot less then would get through closes and armor that only cover parts of the body. And a one second burst of fire shouldn't be enough to heat metal to a temperature that hurts the wearer through the padding.

Dienekes
2011-04-30, 12:57 PM
Armor acts as a ground if you're wearing it all around you. So long as it can pass from metal to metal to the ground you should be completely untouched. If you're wearing just a mail shirt though, to reach ground it must pass through skin so you'd get fried.

And Yora has the right of it about heat and cold, metal changes temperature fast, but not instantaneous you would be probably be marginally better off with armor when facing a quick burst of flame than without. Sustained flame though you'll get cooked.

Knaight
2011-04-30, 01:37 PM
Armor acts as a ground if you're wearing it all around you. So long as it can pass from metal to metal to the ground you should be completely untouched. If you're wearing just a mail shirt though, to reach ground it must pass through skin so you'd get fried.


This could be extremely interesting if explored further. Armor acting like a Faraday cage is cool enough on its own, but what if magical armor does the same thing to transmissions (e.g. divination)? What if there are yet other kinds of magic that armor cages out like that? So on, so forth.

Incanur
2011-04-30, 02:03 PM
Medieval warriors actually faced primitive flamethrowers and developed ways to protect themselves. A thirteen-century Mamluk military manual (http://the-mamluk-faris.blogspot.com/2005/06/know-your-weapons-know-your-enemy.html) suggests using clothing fire-proofed with raw talc or employing a metal shield.

awa
2011-04-30, 11:17 PM
keep in mind a person wearing armor is not really going to be touching all that much metal he has a ton of padding on underneath.

by the time a dragon puts enough fire to heat armor hot enough to matter the armors owner is already dead or crippled anyway. And as for cold all the padding underneath should protect him whether its enough to mean anything is another story.

poison well all the armor and padding will likely prevent it from getting to his skin unless he gets hit in the face and then it doesn't matter.

for acid it depends on how long it remains acidic and how quickly it burns stuff.
if it burns slowly a armored man might be worse off because an unarmored man could take off a affected pieces of clothing so he could role in sad or scrape the acid off but if acid gets under your armor then your doomed.
on the other hand if it burns super fast armor would be better because it would offer some protection if it say the breast plate.

Odin the Ignoble
2011-05-02, 04:25 PM
I've got a bunch of questions for this thread. Allot of them relate to the questions I posed in the Real-World thread.

The list so far is:

Assuming "Mithril" has the same physical properties as titanium, would it be possible to create a steam engine that was both light enough and powerful enough to move a primitive tank?

How do you think a standard Psuedo-Medieval Fantasy setting would react to the development of gunpowder?

What about Steam Power?

The Printing Press? This question kind of breaks down into several related questions. Could the printing pres be used to create propaganda, or would the average medieval village not contain enough literate peasantry for it to matter to any non-noble? What would it do for magic if all the highly prized magical tomes can be mass produced?

fusilier
2011-05-02, 04:43 PM
The Printing Press? This question kind of breaks down into several related questions. Could the printing pres be used to create propaganda, or would the average medieval village not contain enough literate peasantry for it to matter to any non-noble? What would it do for magic if all the highly prized magical tomes can be mass produced?

Good questions. The first question is really up to you, but keep in mind that not everybody has to be able to read to be familiar with written works. Meeting halls, etc. can be used to read things to others. Books could still be expensive after the invention of the printing press, so even if people could read, they couldn't necessarily afford to collect an extensive library. Most likely, the "middle-class" will be the target audience for written propaganda. Burghers (city dwellers), etc., are not technically peasants.

Don't know about magic. Can magic books be printed on a printing press? Even after the printing press was invented, many people still preferred hand-written books, especially religious ones (made by holymen -- monks). Also, printing couldn't compete with the "illumination" of hand written books; this sometimes lead to hybrid books, that were part printed on a press and part hand illuminated.

Odin the Ignoble
2011-05-02, 04:58 PM
As far as reactions, I'm looking mostly at the short term, less then 5 years. Since any long term alterations to the game world aren't likely to come up in the process of play.



Don't know about magic. Can magic books be printed on a printing press?

That's something I was considering as well. I guess it's up to me if I'm GMing to decide whether spells from a book are simply writing on a page or if there's something magical about them in and of themselves.

I'm kind of leaning towards them not being magical themselves, but that kind of opens it's own can of worms, and I'm not sure if I'm quite smart enough to work out all the resulting complications.

awa
2011-05-02, 08:05 PM
scribing spells is insanely expensive far more expensive then just a page of writing could possible cost so there must be some other factor cranking the price up. So i don't believe you could mass produce them.

gunpowder would have a limited affect on the dnd battle field primitive guns are worse then bows just cheap and easy to train. The thing that made them dangerous was large numbers of cheap troops but dnd monsters and magic make large numbers of unskilled warriors a liability. a druid (or cleric of air) can annihilate a huge chunk of an army with control wind. a level 10 druid can make a 400 foot radius area hurricane strength wind for 100 minutes.

big forces of level 1 characters are to slow and to vulnerable to casters and creatures with exotic abilities like shadows.

So i feel guns would have no meaningful impact on your standard dnd world

edit
also it take a superhuman genius 24 hours to write 1 spell regardless of whether the wizards is writing 1 page or 9. So because it takes so long because the time is not dependent on length or complexity and because it costs 100 gp worth of materials everything points to the books being magic in some way.

Incanur
2011-05-02, 08:50 PM
Historically, decent guns achieved better penetration against steel armor than crossbows. D&D rules don't model this at all, but it matters.

Fendalus
2011-05-02, 09:10 PM
On Thri-Keen jumping:
Thri-Keen would need to make a DC 88 Jump check to jump 30ft vertically ((30-8)*4=88), and would then need to make a DC 15 climb check to pull themselves up. The highest they can reach without needing to make a jump check (assuming a +10 from ability mods and ranks) would be 18 feet. The maximum they could reach with a natural 20 (or take 20) would be 23 feet up. And that assumes either a running start or that feat who's name I cannot recall that lets you always count as having a running start. So 25ft walls will serve you fine (They would need a total of +48 to jump to make that 1/20th of the time, and +68 to succeed every time.)

Moats would need to be at least 60 feet wide or have the wall go into the moat in order to prevent leaping assaults. So moats are useless, but walls are good as long as there is nothing for them to gain extra height from for their leap. So flatten the land around your walls for about 200 feet to make sure.

For confirmation, the jump rules:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/jump.htm

Of course, this is a bit to mechanics-based, but it's rather important to point out that they don't jump 30ft vertically.

On Dwarf tunnel tactics:
While pikes may be to unwieldy, I don't see them dropping any reach advantage they can get by using short swords. Using mid to short length spears and polearms that they can use behind a shield wall seems most likely. That would negate their natural reach problem, and still be maneuverable enough in tunnels. They would probably use different tactics in natural caverns instead of their carefully designed and precisely smoothed holds. The smoke produced by gunpowder weapons would likely do more harm than good in the stagnant underground air, so I don't see dwarves using firearms in tunnels.

On Flying Cav (Totally forgotten though the discussion of it may be):
Depending on the mounts in question, I'd either use them as ranged flank harassers (for the lighter, faster mounts) or as have them pull heavy bomber duty by releasing a bunch of rocks and/or alchemists fire in a wide dispersal over enemy formations. Mid-weight mounts would be used to counter-attack enemy fliers and provide arial cavalry charges if needed.

On Guns not being useful because higher level threats:
That entirely depends on the average level of the militaries in question. In a world where level 10 casters are common and played intelligently, your point is correct. In a world were you're lucky to have a level 7 in your entire armed forces, and they go for big and shiny instead of effective, massed conscripts with firearms are still usefull.

And it would be windstorm level at max for a level 10 Druid (Assuming calm beforehand). You don't take 10/3 and round up to 4 levels of change, you round down to 3.

awa
2011-05-02, 11:02 PM
i did make a mistake when reading control wind but that still means that none of those gunners can shoot. and a level 12 can wipe out most of the army.

trikreen don't need to jump walls they can just go around them to hit any farms or small villages. hiding in a castle wont help because they don't need to capture the castle when they can eat your farmers. they can go where ever you don't have troops around and you cant shoot them with arrows because they have deflect arrows as a racial feat.

a single shadow can completely wipe out a mundane army. their are plenty of things that make level 1 commoners with guns irrelevant.

Incanur
2011-05-02, 11:13 PM
a single shadow can completely wipe out a mundane army. their are plenty of things that make level 1 commoners with guns irrelevant.

Yeah, shadows and their kin are ridiculous. With available prey, they've got an average replication time of twenty seconds. That's thirty-six times faster than the fastest bacteria! My 3.5 group concluded that some organization of high-level characters must constantly keep an eye out for hamlets converting into shadows and intervene immediately.

Yukitsu
2011-05-02, 11:42 PM
A common village has a few arcanists about who can magic missile a shade or two back to the abyss, and I woud imagine a ghost waking out of a shell that has been submerged in holy water would have an improbable chance of arising again. I think most villages have at least those defenses in place in case one or two shades wander into town. Even if they are too few in number to be truly useful in an army, they could be paid off to snipe out those sorts of threats.

Fendalus
2011-05-02, 11:54 PM
...and you can't shoot them with arrows because they have deflect arrows as a racial feat.

Deflect arrows works once per round though. So while a few potshots can easily be ignored, volleys of arrows will get through And it does nothing to counter magical attacks or siege weapons, although your average farmer won't have those.


they can go where ever you don't have troops around

Barring light cavalry, which with half again your speed can still match your speed, even if you can move continuously and they have to sleep for 8 hours. More likely, they catch your small raiding band (because Thri-Keen tend to not be in groups larger than ~10, according to earlier in the thread) and then pepper you with enough shots to take you down. And if the local lord has ANY flyers the Thri-keen are in big trouble, what with the whole "not slowed by terrain, and able to most twice as fast" bit. Of course, that both sides tend to have different areas of habitation (Thri-Keen preferring hot, barren areas while humaniods tend to prefer temperate areas with some woods nearby.), and the Thri-keen do not appear to have any need for the resources that the humanoids tend to have, so actual conflict is unlikely.

Xuc Xac
2011-05-02, 11:54 PM
Assuming "Mithril" has the same physical properties as titanium, would it be possible to create a steam engine that was both light enough and powerful enough to move a primitive tank?


This is a non-sequitur. What does mithril/titanium have to do with making a steam engine? Titanium isn't a "super" metal which is better than anything else. It's really strong for its weight and that's it. It's basically "masterwork aluminum". You wouldn't want to make an engine out of it. Why not just use iron/steel like real steam engines? Are you familiar with trains or tractors? They originally ran on steam and they can move quite a bit of weight.



How do you think a standard Psuedo-Medieval Fantasy setting would react to the development of gunpowder?


In European history, gunpowder was in use on the battlefield before full plate and two-handed swords. If your pseudo-medieval fantasy setting has fighters in plate using greatswords and rogues with rapiers, then you're already more "advanced" than the historical period when guns were in use. They would probably react the same way: stop making peasants train for 2 decades to use a bow and replace archers with handgunners. Why hire a wizard to use "fireball" spells when you can hire a whole unit of grenadiers for the same money (and the grenadiers don't have to sleep for 8 hours after lobbing a couple grenades).



What about Steam Power?


Gunpowder can be produced at a remarkably low level of technology. If you have trees, fire, and a herd of cows, you can produce gunpowder. It was discovered so late in the real world because it's a rather strange thing to do. To discover it, we needed a lot of alchemists with a lot of free time to mix weird things together and stumble across it. There's no infrastructure required to make it. It could have been done in the stone age if there was a large enough civilization with enough idle hands playing at alchemy. For example, the Aztecs could have done it if their priest class were focusing on making potions instead of on astrology and sacrifices.

Steam power on the other hand, requires a lot of industrial infrastructure that a feudal society won't have. You need a lot of metal. Do you know how many spears you can make with the metal from one small steam engine? No feudal lord is going to invest that much valuable material into a labor saving device if it only saves serf labor. Practical steam power requires a lot of industrialization with large scale mining and forging.


scribing spells is insanely expensive far more expensive then just a page of writing could possible cost so there must be some other factor cranking the price up. So i don't believe you could mass produce them.

DVDs cost around $20 even though the plastic disc is only about 25 cents. They can be mass produced because the studio only has to film the movie once to make as many copies as they want. They can also charge a lot more than one disc really costs because they control the rights to it. When you buy a scroll, you're not paying for the parchment it's written on. You're paying for the spell, which is a rare commodity in the hands of people who jealously guard it. Those "other factors driving the price up" don't have to be material costs. Sometimes (or most of the time) people charge more for something just because they can.



gunpowder would have a limited affect on the dnd battle field primitive guns are worse then bows just cheap and easy to train.

"Cheap and easy to train" is all it takes. If you were outfitting an army, would you want troops that do an average of 3 hit points of damage per round after 20 years of weekly training sessions or troops that do a little less average damage but only need an afternoon of training to learn to use their weapons? And the "return on investment" economic analysis doesn't even come close when you look at magic. A musket might be much worse than a wand of magic missile, but the muskets can be used by any idiot with at least one eyeball and one finger to pull the trigger. Using the much more expensive wand requires the equivalent of a college degree.

Adventurers who only care about outfitting themselves will still go for the magic missiles or heavy armor or composite bows or whatever, but the feudal lords who have to go to war with a few knights and a horde of farmers will go for the cheaper and easier options. In a world with primitive gunpowder weapons, armies will look different but adventuring parties will stay the same (at least until the gunpowder weapons surpass the effectiveness of the bow in well-trained hands).

Incanur
2011-05-03, 12:05 AM
A common village has a few arcanists about who can magic missile a shade or two back to the abyss, and I woud imagine a ghost waking out of a shell that has been submerged in holy water would have an improbable chance of arising again. I think most villages have at least those defenses in place in case one or two shades wander into town. Even if they are too few in number to be truly useful in an army, they could be paid off to snipe out those sorts of threats.

You're overestimating both the number of low-level PC class in small communities and their ability to deal with shadows. Your basic shadow, for instance, takes an average of six magic missile to destroy. And being incorporeal means they always get a surprise round.

Knaight
2011-05-03, 12:48 AM
This is a non-sequitur. What does mithril/titanium have to do with making a steam engine? Titanium isn't a "super" metal which is better than anything else. It's really strong for its weight and that's it. It's basically "masterwork aluminum". You wouldn't want to make an engine out of it. Why not just use iron/steel like real steam engines? Are you familiar with trains or tractors? They originally ran on steam and they can move quite a bit of weight.

There's a lot aluminum does better actually.

Eldan
2011-05-03, 02:35 AM
You're overestimating both the number of low-level PC class in small communities and their ability to deal with shadows. Your basic shadow, for instance, takes an average of six magic missile to destroy. And being incorporeal means they always get a surprise round.

Actually, take a look at the population tables in the DMG. Low-level casters are all over the place.

Conners
2011-05-03, 04:04 AM
Please let's not get too much onto the DnD rules. This thread is largely for any type of fantasy setting, after all.


It's interesting to hear that metal armour might actually make you immune to lightning (assuming that's what "grounded" means)...? That's highly ironic. But then, how much does it need to cover of a person to get the result (no armour will cover you absolutely, without magic or high-tech)?


Someone mentioned the dwarves reach disadvantage again. However, one thing people fail to consider, I feel: Reach can work against you. If you're holding a short weapon and get really close to someone when they're using a long weapon, you have the advantage. Notably, in tunnels, reach advantages will be short-lived, if they can be used at all (of course, it could be the difference of your third rank of infantry being able to stab at you over their buddies' shoulders).

Odin the Ignoble
2011-05-03, 04:29 AM
scribing spells is insanely expensive far more expensive then just a page of writing could possible cost so there must be some other factor cranking the price up. So i don't believe you could mass produce them.

I always thought it was more of a result of high demand and limited supply. Everyone wants to learn new spells, but not everyone is willing to let someone else get their grubby mitts on their spell book for an entire day.



gunpowder would have a limited affect on the dnd battle field primitive guns are worse then bows just cheap and easy to train. The thing that made them dangerous was large numbers of cheap troops but dnd monsters and magic make large numbers of unskilled warriors a liability. a druid (or cleric of air) can annihilate a huge chunk of an army with control wind. a level 10 druid can make a 400 foot radius area hurricane strength wind for 100 minutes.

big forces of level 1 characters are to slow and to vulnerable to casters and creatures with exotic abilities like shadows.

So i feel guns would have no meaningful impact on your standard dnd world

The question isn't strictly limited to DnD, since at the moment I'm considering a few different systems to run it in.

And the setting if I run it is probably going to be a little on the low end as far as DnD is concerned. Most Court Magicians probably aren't above level 8. And there might be a few epic level characters around the world, but they are going to be rare.



also it take a superhuman genius 24 hours to write 1 spell regardless of whether the wizards is writing 1 page or 9. So because it takes so long because the time is not dependent on length or complexity and because it costs 100 gp worth of materials everything points to the books being magic in some way.

I kind of thought the same thing. But in Dnd terms spell books really don't do anything cool and magical other then contain spells. They don't explode when they burn, or become sentient, float by themselves, glow faintly or provide any real benefit other then being a book.

And if it's just the cost of materials, then it might be solved with a printing press who's blocks are from tree's struck by lightning and ink mixed with faerie blood and gold, or whatever material makes it possible to write the spell.


i did make a mistake when reading control wind but that still means that none of those gunners can shoot. and a level 12 can wipe out most of the army.

Level 12 characters could wipe out armies with or without guns, but armies still exist in most dnd settings.



a single shadow can completely wipe out a mundane army. their are plenty of things that make level 1 commoners with guns irrelevant.

In DnD terms a large swarm of cats is a pretty potent threat to an army of commoners.

@Xuc Xac
I apologize if the steam question didn't appear to be apropos of anything. It was a hold over from anther thread.

Apparently the problem with building a light weight steam engine in a medieval setting is that the metallurgical science isn't up to snuff. There's no way of telling if the steal used will be strong enough that the boiler won't explode under pressure. The problem could be mitigated by using more steel to reinforce the boiler, but then the engine becomes to heavy to pull the tractor/tank.

At least in DnD terms, mithril is supposed to offer the same protection at a lighter weight. I was using a Titanium as a possible analogue, but aluminum is fine if you think it's a better analogy.

awa
2011-05-03, 06:30 AM
well i personally think large armies of commoners in dnd are stupid you can deal with one shadow using a low level caster but what happens when an evil overlord feeds takes over a village of 500 people and feeds all of them to his pet shadow now he has enough shadows to overwhelm a small village low level casters and adventures. one shadow wont do much but if its working for an army it wont stay one shadow for long.

So when i say one shadow can destroy an army i don't mean literally send one shadow at a huge force i mean take one shadow turn it into 2 thousand even high level adventures would have a hard time with a mass ambush of shadows if they weren't optimized for fighting shadows.

in regards to other fantasy worlds it depends heavily on how that world works i would need more information.

tri kreen don't sleep its in their mechanics. Second edition had their activity cycle listed as continuous in 3rd edition it just says they don't sleep. that's why they are so mobile (also they live off the land)

im not talking about the price of scrolls i'm talking about the fact it takes a wizard 100gp per page and 24 hours to copy a spell into a spell book once he has that scroll. so 100 gp per p[age of raw materials because the wizards is doing it him self so no labor cost that implies spell books are more than just pieces of paper with funny scribbles on them.

Xuc Xac
2011-05-03, 09:55 AM
im not talking about the price of scrolls i'm talking about the fact it takes a wizard 100gp per page and 24 hours to copy a spell into a spell book once he has that scroll. so 100 gp per p[age of raw materials because the wizards is doing it him self so no labor cost that implies spell books are more than just pieces of paper with funny scribbles on them.

It's only 50gp per page if the wizard is making a copy of a spell book he already has. And it's free for the two spells that he gets when he gains a level because he's assumed to be doing the research in his spare time between levels. There is obviously an economy of scale at work. It should be possible to mass produce them, but it might be a more complicated printing job than just running off a textbook. It might be as involved as printing currency or other documents with anti-counterfeiting measures (but still much cheaper and faster than doing it by hand).

Conners
2011-05-03, 10:16 AM
How many common people can afford a price of 50 GP in DnD...? Don't the non-nobles use proportions of Copper and occasionally silver?

Of course, the DnD economy is pretty bloated, I'd say. The amount of gold PCs need to lug around would probably require a wagon.

Incanur
2011-05-03, 10:19 AM
Gunpowder matters/would matter a great deal in D&D worlds according to the fluff. Salvatore wrote about smokepowder, the Faerunian magical equivalent, being more destructive than any wizard.

Knaight
2011-05-03, 10:57 AM
At least in DnD terms, mithril is supposed to offer the same protection at a lighter weight. I was using a Titanium as a possible analogue, but aluminum is fine if you think it's a better analogy.
The thing is, neither titatnium nor Aluminum is nearly as strong as steel by volume, which makes steel essentially the best option. If mithril is just as strong while lighter, or stronger while lighter it works in the fantasy sense, its just not an analog to either titanium or aluminum.

Honestly, I think you just happened to brush a couple of pet peeves, the whole "titanium is a super metal idea" really irritates me, and I suspect the same is true for Xuc Xac.

Dienekes
2011-05-03, 11:02 AM
Please let's not get too much onto the DnD rules. This thread is largely for any type of fantasy setting, after all.


It's interesting to hear that metal armour might actually make you immune to lightning (assuming that's what "grounded" means)...? That's highly ironic. But then, how much does it need to cover of a person to get the result (no armour will cover you absolutely, without magic or high-tech)?

Yes, electricity takes the path of least resistance, or tries to anyway. Let's say lightning strikes your head and you're wearing a metal helmet. Well the lightning has no reason to touch your hair or skin since it's easier to pass through the metal of the helmet. But let's say that helmet isn't attached to some other form of metal, then to reach the ground (which is where all lightning will try to go) it must pass through your skin so you will get electrocuted.

I've seen folks get blasted with electricity while wearing a mail gown that kept the face open but it dragged to the ground. They were completely fine, because the electricity was hitting them on the top of their head and not the face.

So, in theory as long as their is a direct path of metal from the point of being struck by lightning to some other, closer to ground object you should be fine. Now, I wouldn't try to test this myself with just one strip of metal from the top of my head to the ground because there's always room for error, but it should work.


Someone mentioned the dwarves reach disadvantage again. However, one thing people fail to consider, I feel: Reach can work against you. If you're holding a short weapon and get really close to someone when they're using a long weapon, you have the advantage. Notably, in tunnels, reach advantages will be short-lived, if they can be used at all (of course, it could be the difference of your third rank of infantry being able to stab at you over their buddies' shoulders).

That's generally why most folks also seem to be pairing dwarves with shortswords as well. Or at least, I am. Spears to close the distance and make sure the bigger folk need to actually engage them and short blades to stick 'em once they're close enough.

randomhero00
2011-05-03, 11:19 AM
the Indian sword is called a Urumi. I don't think you could make a metal weapon that cracked like a whip. I just don't think it would be flexible enough

That sounds like a challenge! Seriously, I'll bet I can make a whip out of metal wire. I'll post it later on.

Bucky
2011-05-03, 11:46 AM
Gunpowder matters/would matter a great deal in D&D worlds according to the fluff. Salvatore wrote about smokepowder, the Faerunian magical equivalent, being more destructive than any wizard.

As a level-13 commoner(?) demonstrates (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8543660&postcount=5), explosives are dangerous even in fantasy.

Fendalus
2011-05-03, 12:47 PM
tri kreen don't sleep its in their mechanics. Second edition had their activity cycle listed as continuous in 3rd edition it just says they don't sleep. that's why they are so mobile (also they live off the land)

I realize now my wording my have been unclear. I was stating that, even with the rest time humanoid light cavalry need, they should still be able to match the speed of a thri-keen warband that does not need to sleep.


Someone mentioned the dwarves reach disadvantage again. However, one thing people fail to consider, I feel: Reach can work against you. If you're holding a short weapon and get really close to someone when they're using a long weapon, you have the advantage. Notably, in tunnels, reach advantages will be short-lived, if they can be used at all (of course, it could be the difference of your third rank of infantry being able to stab at you over their buddies' shoulders).

A dense enough wall of spears should be able to keep the reach advantage for a good amount of time. As I see it, they'd probably all have the same equipment: A large shield, a shortsword, and a spear. When the enemy gets to close for the spear to be effective, they drop it and draw the sword while the next pair of ranks supports them. Combine this with heavy armor, and it'll be able to slowly grind most enemies to death. Such a formation would be vulnerable to area of effect attacks, such as fireballs from a wizard. A few ranged troops in the back of the formation just looking for the first caster to step forward could help deal with that. Of course, if you make your tunnels tall enough to use pikes but still narrow enough that you can't get flanked, then you've got a vary potent formation with pikes that can only be approached from the front. In smaller areas such formations would be unable to position their pikes from the back quickly enough, so this only works if the tunnel is tall enough.

awa
2011-05-03, 06:48 PM
their is a problem with your light cavalry tactic. your standard midevil army doesn't have a lot of them particularly not ones that can ride nonstop for 8 hours and that means their advantage of numbers is gone and the fact that tri kreen can use ranged weapons and sheilds at the same time can fight at night and can deflect your arrows just means you are unlikely to ever see the light cavalry you send after them ever again.

also when i looked back over the original post it indicated the human population was only 5 times greater than that of the tri kreens the savage nomadic warriors are going to have a far higher percent of their population as warriors then a settled midevil society so its possible the trikreen have the numerical advantage.

LOTRfan
2011-05-03, 06:57 PM
How many common people can afford a price of 50 GP in DnD...? Don't the non-nobles use proportions of Copper and occasionally silver?

Of course, the DnD economy is pretty bloated, I'd say. The amount of gold PCs need to lug around would probably require a wagon.

Gold is a lot easier to get than you think. Two farmers (both 1st level commoner) both have four ranks in Profession (farmer). One takes 10 on the check (getting a 14), and the other aids him on the check, getting an additional +2 bonus. Congratulations, they just made 8 gp worth of profit. Both get 4 gp a week, which is much better than the unskilled laborer (who only gains 1 sp a week :smallfrown:).

Fendalus
2011-05-03, 07:17 PM
their is a problem with your light cavalry tactic. your standard midevil army doesn't have a lot of them particularly not ones that can ride nonstop for 8 hours and that means their advantage of numbers is gone and the fact that tri kreen can use ranged weapons and shields at the same time can fight at night and can deflect your arrows just means you are unlikely to ever see the light cavalry you send after them ever again.

And I doubt that just because they don't need to sleep, that somehow Thri-keen can march forever. They'll need to stop to rest at some point, even if it's not sleep-type rest. They don't have sweat glands or any other efficient way of dispersing heat, I wouldn't expect them to have near as much endurance as you seem to be giving them. As mentioned earlier, they can only deflect one arrow per 6 seconds, while a group of cavalry riders can put out more shots than that. Some of the arrows will get through and hurt them. Keep abusing the superior speed of a horse and you can prevent most return fire at the same time. And your standard medieval army doesn't have Wizards, Rust monsters, Thri-keen, Owlbears, Griffins, etc... to deal with. I'd fully expect to find more light missile cavalry in D&D universe armies. If the light cavalry is stupid enough to engage an enemy that can see in the dark at night, they are probably to stupid to figure out how to mount their horses.

Yukitsu
2011-05-03, 08:51 PM
their is a problem with your light cavalry tactic. your standard midevil army doesn't have a lot of them particularly not ones that can ride nonstop for 8 hours and that means their advantage of numbers is gone and the fact that tri kreen can use ranged weapons and sheilds at the same time can fight at night and can deflect your arrows just means you are unlikely to ever see the light cavalry you send after them ever again.

also when i looked back over the original post it indicated the human population was only 5 times greater than that of the tri kreens the savage nomadic warriors are going to have a far higher percent of their population as warriors then a settled midevil society so its possible the trikreen have the numerical advantage.

Thri kreen can't march for 24 hours. They have to rest, as they aren't immune to fatigue. If they try to move fast enough to catch cavalry, they tire earlier, and eventually just stop, exhausted and far from support. If they make this a habit, I would recommend Parthian tactics against them focusing fire on lead members (which overwhelms arrow catching) and running off into ambushes that can demolish them when tired.

Thri Kreen also aren't strong enough to simply bash through any kind of human army that organizes against them. With the need to stop at every village and chase down villagers to consume, human armies can surround and annihilate him by concentrating their mass at that location. A pair of warriors can match a thri Kreen, so they can't afford to get outmassed.

They're also very vulnerable to expensive knights. A tough, well armoured individual that can simply charge through them, who is on a horse that can trample them under hoof can simply meet them on an open field, crash through their lines killing many of them, then using their speed to rapidly disengage.

If they don't go about keeping open lines of communication, they run the severe risk of being forced into a set piece battle. If they travel on one massive pack, it's very possible to pull back the citizens, burn the crops, shove spears into their hands and force them into an engagement that they will be overwhelmed in, since they aren't sending off forage parties. If they break into forage parties, cutting the lines between the forage and the main body will destroy them over time, especially as you start cutting down the individual parties.

awa
2011-05-03, 10:27 PM
tir kreen can use any weapon a human can and deflect arrows you don't have enough light cavalry to stop them. unless a fifth of your fighting force is light cavalry they out number you.

a level 1 warrior on a horse cant out shoot a tri kreen. tri kreen can attack you at night they are almost as smart as humans and more clever, they don't sleep so they have more control over when battles are fought and are much harder to ambush.

armored knights aren't mobile enough it takes a long time to put on armor and requires an supply train with all the things needed to support them.

trie kreen have 5 attacks around that are more accurate and hit sufficiently hard to reliably put down a commoner they also have better armor and more life in a 2 on one fight odds are very much in their favor. particularly since every trikreen can do that bare minimum while the bulk of your army are level 1 commoners.

So in a head to head battle any thing even close to even numbers will be a slaughter.

the humans may have some elite troops like knights but the trikreen will as well and their basic troop is vastly better. also cavalry the only thing the humans have going for them can only fight in very specific conditions. rocky ground or trees leve3ase you totally at the tri kreens mercy.

humans don't have magic communication lines either and the trikreens ability to travel at night again puts communication in their favor.

maby the trikreen can only block one arrow a round but a level 1 warrior can block 0. you assume that your level 1 warriors can reliably hit the trikreen several times a round forgetting that the trikreen will be shooting back they can use crossbows wich will out range your short bows anyway so you cant just shoot and run away not with out them picking you off.

trikreen can eat human food so unless you use a massive scorched earth policy they wont starve and if you do then you starve before they do and they just move on so i guess you could commit suicide before they could kill you but that's not really winning.

you seem to be assuming that the humans will magically know where the trikreen are at all times despite the fact they are the nomads and you are the ones with settled populations centers they can move in wipe out a farm and move on before anyone has had time to alert anyone and if you evacuate your entire country that's a win for the trikreen. they can scout at night and you cant another boon to the trikreen.

Yukitsu
2011-05-03, 11:41 PM
Given their relative demographics in the books, why would they have anything near similar numbers?

That and they are considerably slower than horses.

Conners
2011-05-04, 04:02 AM
....OK, this has gotten WAY too derailed with Rules Talk. Said at the start, this isn't for game rule statistics. DnD's example of how things would work is irrelevant to reality--because, remember, a housecat is more powerful than a human. If I were going to talk about how to defeat the insect-people, I'd raise tons of cats and go to expense to have them trained for war--they'd then tear the bug-fellows to pieces.


However, we're not talking about rules. Instead, to discuss how it would go against these insectians, we take only the fluff-aspects of DnD. Don't bother with the arrow deflecting, though--since, really, it's on the basis that a mildly experienced human can do that (which they cannot)...

Now, a problem that is presented with four hands--you don't have four eyes (or do they...?). It'll be hard to track multiple targets even if you have more arms. A few humans with spears, depending on the hardness and speed of the Tri-kreen, can stick it with a spear from one side or the other by surrounding it.
Notably, with Knights: Knights are trained from their youth to be fighting men. The Thrikreen, being nomads, will have tough individuals--but it is doubtful they have a class which does nothing but train to fight (everyone needs to pitch in to gather food).
Being nomads, who can't mine, what kind of weapons do they have...? They could steal weapons from people they kill, of course--but I don't see them wearing much armour at that rate.


@Fendalus: Come to think of it... will a dwarf be able to use a pike as long as a human can use...? Not sure if we got to cover that question earlier. I think someone reckoned it'd be more awkward,since they're shorter?
If dwarves can't use pikes as long as humans/whatever can, it would be a point that using pike formations would actually be a bad idea (the other guys can stab at you while you can't stab at them). In tunnels, of course, it's quite possible that dwarves will have the perfect length of spear, to be usable and moveable within the tunnels, while still getting the best reach you can in such places (human pikemen who attack will be taken aback when they can't move their pikes in, too...).

While short-swords are pretty good, axes and hammers and maces would seem equally good choices--except the latter items are better against armour, while the former is better against unarmoured/lightly-armoured foes (not by a lot, of course).
One advantage of a sword, is that their reach is optimal at close and long range, whereas big axes won't be good for people who are hugging you. With dwarves, and single-handed axes, however, there'd be no such problem.

Autolykos
2011-05-04, 06:31 AM
While dwarves can't swing polearms of the same length humans could use (the lower end would hit the floor way too often), I don't see this problem for pikes (since nobody swings them anyway - except for Spartans in 300, perhaps...). I get the impression that dwarves' torsos are roughly the same size as humans', just their legs are shorter (that's why they count as 'medium' in D&D and can share most of their equipment with humans). So they should be able to use pikes of the same length (although they would probably get worse leverage when setting them against a cavalry charge - but they could probably compensate that with slightly higher strength).

awa
2011-05-04, 06:43 AM
they make crystal weapons that are better than normal weapons plus they can steal or trade for human weapons. its true they only have 2 eyes but they also have antenna and the fluff depicts them as using multiple weapons simultaneously.

tri kreen could dodge missile in second edition when no one else could so being able to avoid ranged attacks is a legacy ability not just added on in third.

also im not positive but i was under the impression that horses didn't have all that much stamina and humans could travel faster over a day in a slow and steady kind of way. their fluff as desert wanders indicates they are probably equal to humans in terms of walking endurance.

remember some of the worlds most skilled forces were nomads like the mongols. so while your best guys might be slightly more skilled the fact that the trikreen have far more almost as good guys will make the difference.

although the trikreens biggest advantage is their ability to fight at night humans tend to sleep at night and the trikreen with their stealthy nature could ambush kill men and horses then flee with ease.

Yukitsu
2011-05-04, 07:49 AM
Stamina of large insects would in theory be poor. They completely lack many of the features that let humans run for long distances, mostly that to stay standing, they have to exert considerable effort, and they require a much greater amount of energy to avoid overheating. If they were real and managed to avoid collapsing in on themselves, they would likely have to rest in the shade after every 10 second run. Insectoid lungs are also extremely inefficient at this scale. Conversely, postage horses in the mid west proved their stamina by out running early steam trains from the coast to the plains (albiet rarely). While horses can be quickly worn out if they try to sustain a rapid gallop, they can go at a rapid trot for hours.

Mongol tactics relied heavily on their speed and range abilities. Long marches were more a Roman thing, and a Napoleonic French thing. The mongols defeated armies succesfully where they were, since they were mostly fighting infantry. Against missile troops, they could run them down with their superior speed, while against spears, they could simply fire into them and flee. Despite this, the Mongolians were at their best when besieging the enemy.

The mongol invasion into Poland in the 1200s demonstrated the power of heavy cavalry charges from armoured knights though, and the mongols were beaten. They didn't have a response to this strategy at the time, so they pillaged a little, and were forced to flee from the army.

The fact that they can't easily breach fortifications is the reason they can't attack succesfully at night, sans taking unfortified villages.

Conners
2011-05-04, 08:14 AM
Notably, the rules for dodging/deflecting arrows are, definitely, talking about small DnD encounters. With the scale armies work with, where archers tend to shoot more into the general shape of the formation rather than individual targets... they might panic. Heck, if the insects are as smart as humans, they probably will get scared when fighting in large battles. Unless their minds don't comprehend fear, or their society has functions to ready them for war (humans need a lot of training to survive war, psychologically).

As for crystal weapons... where do they get the crystal? Did they lug it all the way from their homeland? That's interesting... but then, crystal is lousy for weapons. Thing is, even if it is harder than steel, it'll shatter. Weapons need to be flexible in places, otherwise they break easily.

Xuc Xac
2011-05-04, 11:17 AM
Conversely, postage horses in the mid west proved their stamina by out running early steam trains from the coast to the plains (albiet rarely). While horses can be quickly worn out if they try to sustain a rapid gallop, they can go at a rapid trot for hours.


You know those "postage horses" only traveled 10 miles at a time, right? The postage stations were only 10 miles apart and the rider would change to a fresh horse at each station, because the horse got tired after 10 miles. And that was when they were only carrying a maximum weight of 165 pounds (the riders were limited to little 125 pound guys, the mail weighed 20 pounds, and they had 20 pounds of water and other gear). It's a terrible comparison for cavalry. Even light cavalry would be carrying much more weight. A decent cavalryman probably weighs more than 165 pounds while naked.

Yukitsu
2011-05-04, 12:18 PM
You know those "postage horses" only traveled 10 miles at a time, right? The postage stations were only 10 miles apart and the rider would change to a fresh horse at each station, because the horse got tired after 10 miles. And that was when they were only carrying a maximum weight of 165 pounds (the riders were limited to little 125 pound guys, the mail weighed 20 pounds, and they had 20 pounds of water and other gear). It's a terrible comparison for cavalry. Even light cavalry would be carrying much more weight. A decent cavalryman probably weighs more than 165 pounds while naked.

Actually, Hussars and other light cavalry were hand picked for being lightweights, and they went into battle with less than 20 pounds gear, mostly since Europe didn't require water stops, and most soldiers supplemented their diets with forage. Given they would often be moving ahead of an infantry column capable of moving 20 miles a day, under a fast marching general, they can easily carry an individual more than 10 miles.

I wasn't really referring to a single one going from coast to coast before a train, but a given day a horse would generally outpace a train from town to town (though I may have forgotten the loading and wait times for the trains). Notably, I'm also not refering to the rather over-ambitious pony express, which had them at a full gallop for some reason. A simple trot after you've gone out of line of sight will outpace pursuing Thri kreen, unless they pursue you unto exhaustion (which would leave them incredibly vulnerable to counterattack).

Incanur
2011-05-04, 04:56 PM
The mongol invasion into Poland in the 1200s demonstrated the power of heavy cavalry charges from armoured knights though, and the mongols were beaten. They didn't have a response to this strategy at the time, so they pillaged a little, and were forced to flee from the army.

:smallconfused: That's the opposite of what actually happened (http://books.google.com/books?id=SLT8Oxcp9uUC&pg=PA134&dq=mongol+invasion+of+europe&hl=en&ei=aMrBTc3OE8PKgQerlNTWBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CEwQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=mongol%20invasion%20of%20europe&f=false) according to the best sources available. The Mongol tactic of feigned retreat against heavy cavalry charges worked well enough.

Yukitsu
2011-05-04, 05:43 PM
Depends on eras. Was looking at the 1250s instead of their biggest invasion into Europe, which had an element of surprise, as well as a greater reliance on siege. Though I am noting that the heavy cavalry in the earlier invasion took heavy casualties from the Hungarian heavy cavalry, even if they beat them.

awa
2011-05-04, 06:11 PM
using real world insects for comparison doesn't work at all because they would all be dead under their own weight. Also insects don't have poor lungs they have no lungs.

night attacks work just fine they kill your army in the field if you sit in your forts you either divide up your force to defend them all and they can crush them one by one or you concentrate your forces and they just dont attack that particular fort.

tri kreen tactics are similar to mongols only in that both forces were highly mobile lived off the land and were formed from nomads tactics that failed against mongols or were successful against mongol would not necessarily have the same effect against giant bugs.

second edition which had rules telling you how brave a species was indicated trikreen had a morale of 17-18 which is fanatic while an average knight only had 14. So i doubt the trikreen are going to be so panicked when they see an arrow coming that they forget they can deflect them (or dodge depending on edition) sure in a pitch battle it is certainly possible they could get killed by arrows but they are much harder to kill with arrows then a human would be (combination of natural armor, superior agility on top of arrow deflection) and they will be shooting arrows back at you and their far better dex and combat ability means a lot more of those arrows will hit.

edit
i have to give props for not using Wikipedia i know im almost always to lazy to find a real book to back me up when wikipedia is so easy

Yukitsu
2011-05-04, 06:53 PM
I don't know how "Can't relate it to real life" becomes "So they have superior stamina when compared to horses" though. In game, it's inferior due to a lower average con score, in real life it's lower due to physiology not being built for immense stamina.

That aside, concentrating a mass of them at a fort requires they be good at sieges. They aren't. That's the point of a fort. It helps save a smaller force so they can contribute against a superior one.

awa
2011-05-04, 07:03 PM
giant insects don't function at all in any respect so can not be used as a basis for trikreen all we have to go on them is the fluff and what we can infer from the crunch. horses exists as real creatures with real limits and i have always been under the impression that they tire and die quickly if you force them to run all day. where as tri kreen are desert nomads

but if were not going be logical theirs no rule reason the tri kreen cant ride horses so their goes the only advantage the humans had.
the fort only helps if they try and attack it if they ignore it and eat your commoners then it does you no good. and who says their bad a sieges? if you have evacuated all your farmers into the keep they just take every thing out side the keep and you starve to death because you are feeding all the civilians. if you don't take the civilians they can eat them two and then you starve because you have no farmers it's lose lose.


if you spread out to much to defend every fortified place (keep in mind you only out number them 5 to 1 so if you try and guard 10 places you are outnumbered 2 to1 against a force superior warriors.) they will get a sufficiently large force of guys with ladders who can both climb and hold a tower shield at the same time or possible just use tower shield to get close enough to the wall to pile enough stuff to jump off of that they can reach the top. Using their superior ranged ability to force you to keep your head down. depending on the edition they can do this all at night where you will really have a hard time stopping them.

I actually found a second edition book on nothing but trikreen today i only glanced at it but it indicated that the crystal was made from their poison which i honestly cant decide if that's interesting or just stupid.

it also indicates tri kreen can walk 20 hours a day and need 1 gallon of water a week. it also says they are more vulnerable to smoke and can't swim

also it looks like tri kreen got reduce penalties in the dark due to antenna but did not have full on dark vision (probably has to do with being monstrous humanoids)
although the swimming does not matter much because they can jump most moats pretty easily.

Yukitsu
2011-05-04, 09:10 PM
Horses can manage a walk at about 1.5 the speed of a human, and can either way keep up to marching columns of humans on forced marches. Some species can amble at a better rate of speed and for longer.

Thri Kreen are bad at those things, because they don't have handle animal, ride, craft, knowledge architecture or any other necessary skills as class skills. Are you assuming thri kreen with a bunch of class levels? :smallconfused: Domesticating horses, building siege weapons and arranging armies is more a humanoid thing. Even commoners get those skills. In the fluff, well, nomads that jump. Pretty much explains why they don't bother learning to build or tame animals.

A default thri kreen, much like a warrior 1 human, (or a human with a human hit die) are only good at a few things, and thri kreen aren't skill versatile. And even if they were, they suddenly need supply trains and logistics to keep their cavalry on the field.

Honestly, unless they were suddenly massed to a swarm of a hundred thousand for a single blitz like push, they can't really overbear an army or nation without immediate retaliation. Their default setting limits their population, and their philosophy of nature worship means they can't really just swarm into more fertile land to gain the resources required to grow to that sort of threat. Assuming numbers close to that of a human nation doesn't seem right to me.

awa
2011-05-04, 09:15 PM
the original post say 1/5 human population that's what were discussing. if we assume humans better then level 1 commoner (the vast majority of a human army) then theirs no reason the tri kreen wont have levels as well.

a horse can eat grass you don't need a supply train for horses. but the tri kreen don't really need horses they have to many other advantages to matter.

I agree tri kreen attacking a human nation does not make much sense tribal nomads or any one living in desert don't tend to have very big populations. but humans trying to fight the trikreen in the desert would be so one sided to not even be worth disusing. so following the original post the parameters were medieval tech on both sides and numbers of 5 to one.

althoug the post didnt specify if the nations population is 5 to 1 or the armies becuase if its the nations then the humans are doomed every adult trikreen can fight male and female the numbers shift to massivly in the tri kreens favor (in second edition where tri kreen had 6 hd as adults even a larva the age category before child was tougher then a level 1 fighter))

and with those parameters I think the fight is heavily in the favor of the trikreen based on the numerous advantages i have already mentioned.

Yukitsu
2011-05-04, 09:24 PM
Eh. Giving something with 2 racial hit dice extra class levels seems odd given a they're already ECL 4. I wouldn't give them extra levels just to accomodate expert, adept and warrior NPC 1s, which are basically the random mooks that have a regular job, unlike peasants.

Edit: Well, I always vote for a try. 5x peasants vs. 1x thri kreen. That's the most extreme in favour for the thri kreen since it's not including any warriors at all.

Edit: Edit: I didn't mention mounted archers, but mounted guys and archers. Seperately.

awa
2011-05-04, 09:27 PM
i suppose that the 2 hit dice would make sense for the level 1 npc classes but light cavalry archers are elites. if the humans get elites so do the tri kreen.

Conners
2011-05-04, 10:14 PM
@Arrow Deflection: What, are these guys Goku... lots of Gokus? I'm not sure if even snakes would have the speed and reactions to deflect an arrow (even then, they don't understand the concept). Even if they could deflect an arrow.... you CAN'T deflect multiple arrows coming at you. The amount of focus it would take to deflect one--they'd be totally confused when fourteen flew straight at them (like sharks with schools of fish--the fish all move exactly the same so the shark is confused, not sure which one to eat).

I said already, even if their arrow-deflection works for small encounters with one or two archers, it won't work with several hundred archers shooting in your general direction.

Of course. IF we assume these bugs have THAT fast a reaction speed... did you know it'd be pretty well impossible to kill them with melee weapons? They would be able to cut you in the weakest point of your armour before you could even lift your arm, because they'd be just so precise and quick.
Therefore, the Thri-Kreen are batman and one of them kills everyone in the world....

So, you need some justification of why they can swipe arrows out of the air yet aren't completely invincible (aside from the hundred arrow problem).


As for saying they can get horses too... I think a horse would bolt faster than anything seen before if a giant insect walked up to it (this could be a problem with using cavalry against them, actually... horses spook easily). How would these guys(things?) domesticate a large number of horses? If they do, then they lose their "travel all day and night" ability, since the horses will need rest and water and food.


The way to fight the Thri-Kreen, tactically, from what I gather, is to bait them with some juicy target. Then, your 5-times force needs to pin them with more arrows than they can count, or use heavy cavalry to just bulldoze them--actually, do both. Sun Tzu said, with five times the numbers, don't worry about strategy--charge! That's how certain victory is (notably, these guys are an amount scarier/stronger militia, so it would be a bit different... but either way, the odds are in human favour in a straight battle).


As for "class levels".... Let's talk about how skill really works with combat. You know what to do more, you are faster/stronger at doing it. The main point of DnD, with skill, is suddenly having more HP, which means taking more hits... this is scarcely existent if we get into reality. If your guts are falling out of your stomach, you'll regret it about as much whether you're level 1 or 10. You'll also die from decapitation exactly the same way, more or less.
Now, as for how you get experience. Killing people all the time is the best way to get good at killing people. However, you won't become a great warrior just by killing running, screaming farmers... that'll just give you familiarity with human anatomy. Even that, however, will trick you, if you use that same knowledge for fighting a proper human killer (usually when you stick a farmer, they fall down in shock--yet this guy is still chopping you up pretty vigorously...).

To give you a not-totally-accurate example of level: New York Citizen Level 2, Policeman level 5, Soldier level 7, Experienced Mugger level 10, Knight level 8 - 14.
Of course, there are problems with this, like, "but a soldier can shoot a knight"... that's why putting things into levels is pretty stupid. Knights, generally, would hack up US soldiers at close range before they got too shot up. At a distance, US soldiers would do what they do best.

Back to the point, it's a question of what these guys do to get skilled--also their ability to learn from training. So they might get Elites--if they can replicate human society, or do something totally original.

Incanur
2011-05-04, 10:53 PM
Deflecting or catching arrows isn't beyond human ability, depending on the distance and velocity. It's just rarely a good idea, though the feat appears in Japanese martial history.