PDA

View Full Version : Weapons and the coevolution with monsters?



HurinSmite
2017-03-06, 06:40 PM
Has any of you ever thought of and does there exist somekind of books/webpages where weapons are developed to deal with different of monsters? Confused? Let me explain.

This question has been running around my head since I got my hands on Witcher 3. Geralt, the protagonist, is a warrior monk trained to deal with monsters. The Witchers choose these two handed swords to fight the monsters. In Witcher 3 you will fight humans who use shields but Geralt never bothers with that. Is it because he's too mobile and an expert that a shield and sword style would lower his effectiveness in combat?

The "Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question?"-threads deal with the real world so I can't really ask there. But what little I've seen from National Geographics/Discovery Channel seems to tell me one thing: new weapons develop to deal with current strong weapon and armor. A sort of coevolution between different kinds of weapons and armors. So with that in mind. Wouldn't it make sense that in a fantasy world there would be weapons specifically designed to deal with certain monsters?

It depends on the setting ofcourse. If there's only a few kinds of magical monsters then it would be a lot easier to carry around specificly designed weapons for those monsters. A standard dnd world there would be too many monsters for you to (without magic) carry weapons for all situations.

Here's some thoughts:

Shields usefulness drops when the monster is large enough to take a hold and give the wielder a good shake through the shield
Axes are good against armored creatures (Like axes are good to... break shields? Small impact area I assume?)
Swords are good against lightly armored and faster creatures
Spears are good against etc etc.


I suppose this coevolution already exist a bit in the form of blunt weapons preffered by clerics to bash in skeletons (5/bludgeoning).
But what about Specifically designed and shaped weapons for monsters?

GorinichSerpant
2017-03-06, 07:16 PM
The first place I would look is at weapons designed to kill animals in real life as a starting point and extrapolate from there.

The boar spear (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boar_spear) is one starting point, the bear spear (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_spear) can also be looked at, due to the variety of monsters that happen to be large animals.

Harpoons of some variety would most likely be what's used against aquatic beasts.

Torches on the ends of polearms would be good against trolls, many undead and other flammable monsters.

All I'm saying is that if I were to make a monster fighting weapon, I'd want to keep as much distance between myself and them as possible.

Armour or a shield would be a requirement if going up against a manticore.

Doorhandle
2017-03-06, 07:52 PM
Don't forget enchantments! Bane is a key example, but so are flaming weapons for trolls and hydras. Alchemist's fire could also be another example of coevolution: the pseudo moltov-cocktail would be great for handling trolls.

I imagine wooden weapons, made of enchanted hardwood by elves, would have a key purpose: it'll help against rust monsters, and anything else that gets funny ideas about eating equipment.

Spiked armour could have a purpose in deterring the larger monsters that love useing swallow whole. Perhaps using a certain alloy that has a bitter taste.

Weapons to fight iron golems would be similar to weapons to fight people in iron armour, I would imagine

Some sort of woollen cloak for use against dragons and other firebreathers, not to mention commonly available alchemist's fire. Complete with a quick-release to remove it if it's set on fire. Not as good as modern fire-retarding materials, but better than nothing.

Speaking of: Some sort of way to lance a dragon's fire-breath gland and make it explode like a pinto. That would be cool.

Mr Beer
2017-03-06, 08:06 PM
Yes, you would definitely want different weapons for different fantastical monsters.

Large, dangerous animals are hunted with missile weapons and spears. Missile weapons because obviously killing them while they are a long way away is safer than fighting them. Spears because they keep the animal back and because puncturing something right the way through with a steel blade is effective against all real-world animals.

In fantasy world, you might want two handed spiked weapons against creatures with heavy natural armour, much like such weapons were developed to counter plate.

veti
2017-03-06, 08:55 PM
I would think that, for any reasonably-fast-moving large target, a spear of some kind would be the go-to weapon of choice. There's a reason why, historically, spears were used both to hunt boars and fight cavalry. By making the haft good and stout, and bracing the spear on the ground (always handy), you get something capable of resisting a very strong charge with a lot of mass behind it, and concentrating enormous force at the point.

Should work against most any large opponent that relies on its mass and has some kind of charge or leap attack.

For everything else - you can see why the sword is the most popular weapon of choice for adventurers. It's light enough to be manoeuvred quickly, strong enough to deflect many attacks, and sharp enough to hurt even without a great deal of force applied - all of which make it a solid choice for fighting anything from a giant bat to a troll. Where it falls down is against heavily armoured enemies (Beowulf broke his sword, trying to batter it through a dragon's hide). And the spear isn't so great against a dragon, either, because it doesn't have to rush into contact to kill you. But in a traditional setting, at least, dragons are so rare that - even if you do survive your first encounter with one, it's vanishingly unlikely that you'll ever have a second, so the idea of developing a specialist weapon more suited to the task never comes up.

Martin Greywolf
2017-03-07, 05:30 AM
There are couple of things you need to watch out for when it comes to issues like these.

1) Weapons are still used by humans

This is a really important one. No matter how big a monster you're hunting, a one handed sword can't exceed about 1.5 kg/3 pounds and still be useful to a human. Bows like wise can't go above about 200 lbs at most (make it 160 for sustained military fire), two-handed swords stop at about 3 kilos (there are heavier ones around, but they're likely ceremonial) and so on and so forth.

Armor has similar limitations, with top weight of all equipment being about 35 kg - modern soldiers carry as much as 45, and recent studies done by military show that it's starting to affect their combat effectiveness.

2) Weapons need to be universal

If you have an awesome weapon of +lots against manticore that is useless against everything else, it's not a good weapon. Almost all real weapons that were ever popular got that popular because they were universal. Best example of this are spear and sword - useful on foot or horseback, in armor or without, can be used with shield or alone.

Specialized weapons will have to be relatively cheap, and they'll probably not be super specialized, you can't afford to cart three wagons of equipment with you wherever you go.

3) Weapons need to last a while

Medieval steel quality wasn't great, but you could still expect your sword to usually last through at least one pitched fight. If you make your swords out of silver, well...

4) Weapons need to be easy to wear

Okay, not all of them, but weapons that travellers use as sidearms need to be, this is why swords were so popular - while they loose hard against any and all polearms, you can't strap a polearm to your belt and go shopping.

Obviously, once you go to hunt a beastie, being loaded for bear, this no longer applies.

5) Even Geralt says humans are the real monsters

Having to buy two sets of weapons, one for war against humans and one for monsters isn't fun or cheap, and in case of sidearms, carrying two at one time is just impractical. Witcher has the sword on the back thing - which wasn't used in real life for a reason. You'd have to strap two swords to your side and remember which is which.

What modifications would they make?

Not that many. One possibility is sturdier shields - historical shields are surprisingly light and thin, most modern replicas are somewhat sturdier since we don't really want to shell out 200 euros after every event we go to for a new one. While this isn't much of a problem in the fight itself, it would be more of a pain in the neck if we had to march with them, but that's not insurmountable. Still, all-steel shields are straight out, they're just too heavy one they get above the size of a buckler.

Spears, swords and bows are fine, if the monsters have thick hides, they could start making tapered point blades sooner, but that's about it.

A big area of change would be ballistae and crossbows - there would be a lot more incentive to develop these kinds of things, so you could well end up with windlass crossbows way before we had them in real life (they were incentivized by quality plate armor). You could also have them have modern stroke-length (length during which a bowstring applies force to the projectile), medieval ones had really short ones, probably because they wanted to play it safe, and that may not be an option here.

Oh, and as for Geralt going longsword vs sword and shield, that's not a bad matchup, really, especially not since Geralt does wear armor - albeit least practical and realistic armor in the games. Most of his opponents use heather shields, and those are meant for formation fighting more than for one on one duels or skirmishes.

Berenger
2017-03-07, 06:17 AM
A pig's carcass stuffed with poisonberries.

A sufficiently deep pitfall.

Nets, thrown and / or stretched out between trees.

All of the above combined with long boar spears and heavy crossbows. Yes, plural, I'm not attempting this one-on-one.

Basically, everything that prevents a fair fight from happening.

Joe the Rat
2017-03-07, 09:22 AM
There's a rather nice discussion on these lines in The Dragon and the George relating why knights are dangerous to dragons. You have a knight, in full kit, mounted and charging with lance. That's about a half a ton of meat and metal, coming at you at 15mph, with all that force concentrated into a single point. Your scaly hide isn't going to stop that.

With properly trained mounts, lance charges can be quite effective against larger beasts. I'd still start by shooting.

Nightcanon
2017-03-07, 11:48 AM
Also consider co-evolution with adventuring environment. Lances tend to be unpopular and swapping out one's Paladin mount for ACFs tend to be popular because of the limited opportunities to ride a horse in a dungeon, but similar thought is seldom given to weapons. Swinging even a 3' sword in a 10' passageway is likely to be tricky for a 6' tall man, even without taking into account a team-mate in the 'other 5' square' doing similarly. Any party doing much in the way of dungeoneering down 10' passageways is going to gravitate to trusting reach weapons, shields, and short weapons (maces, clubs, short swords and daggers) rather than two-hands and power attack. I suspect that going through a doorway with a loaded crossbow is easier than getting though with a drawn longbow, too.
Going back to the original question, diagrams in the original Dragonlance books indicated that dragonlances had integral shields that could deflect dragon breath; mirror-attachments for polearms might be used for hunting creatures with gaze attacks.

Knaight
2017-03-07, 06:38 PM
Also consider co-evolution with adventuring environment. Lances tend to be unpopular and swapping out one's Paladin mount for ACFs tend to be popular because of the limited opportunities to ride a horse in a dungeon, but similar thought is seldom given to weapons. Swinging even a 3' sword in a 10' passageway is likely to be tricky for a 6' tall man, even without taking into account a team-mate in the 'other 5' square' doing similarly. Any party doing much in the way of dungeoneering down 10' passageways is going to gravitate to trusting reach weapons, shields, and short weapons (maces, clubs, short swords and daggers) rather than two-hands and power attack. I suspect that going through a doorway with a loaded crossbow is easier than getting though with a drawn longbow, too.

With that said, most weapon design is going to be for more conventional forces than adventurers, who are more likely to deal with monsters in and near towns than in underground environments. Cramped quarters are much less of an issue here.

GungHo
2017-03-08, 10:16 AM
Has any of you ever thought of and does there exist somekind of books/webpages where weapons are developed to deal with different of monsters? Confused? Let me explain.

This question has been running around my head since I got my hands on Witcher 3. Geralt, the protagonist, is a warrior monk trained to deal with monsters. The Witchers choose these two handed swords to fight the monsters. In Witcher 3 you will fight humans who use shields but Geralt never bothers with that. Is it because he's too mobile and an expert that a shield and sword style would lower his effectiveness in combat?


He has two swords because that's how he's written and in his universe, silver hurts monsters real bad, so one of his swords is silver. However, the real benefit he has against monsters is that he over-prepares like Batman.

Personally, if I wanted to go hunt monsters, I'd hire other people to do the dying part.

Bohandas
2017-03-08, 12:07 PM
Has any of you ever thought of and does there exist somekind of books/webpages where weapons are developed to deal with different of monsters? Confused? Let me explain.
...
But what about Specifically designed and shaped weapons for monsters?

There's the eponymous dragonlances from the Dragonlance Campaign Setting


1) Weapons are still used by humans

Doesn't necessarily apply in this kind of setting

theasl
2017-03-08, 03:04 PM
Hmm, we're only considering one side of this. What about monsters and the coevolution with weapons? Or does the fact that monsters usually have concrete statblocks and abilities preclude that in such an environment?

oudeis
2017-03-08, 03:43 PM
There's a rather nice discussion on these lines in The Dragon and the George relating why knights are dangerous to dragons. You have a knight, in full kit, mounted and charging with lance. That's about a half a ton of meat and metal, coming at you at 15mph, with all that force concentrated into a single point. Your scaly hide isn't going to stop that.

With properly trained mounts, lance charges can be quite effective against larger beasts. I'd still start by shooting.
I think your weight and speed figures are off by at least 50%.

Doorhandle
2017-03-08, 04:39 PM
I think your weight and speed figures are off by at least 50%.

Under or over? Approx. three quarters of a ton of at approx. 21mph is even better.

oudeis
2017-03-08, 04:49 PM
Under or over? Approx. three quarters of a ton of at approx. 21mph is even better.Yeah, those are more in line with what I was thinking.

Cluedrew
2017-03-08, 09:17 PM
5) Even Geralt says humans are the real monsters"I hear you carry two swords, one for men and one for monsters."

"No, I carry two for monsters."

Anyways, the only weapon I think is missing right now is nets for the flying creatures. The ones big enough that you can't reliably take them down in one shot but small enough that you can throw a net that can weigh them down. Even with a catapult it might be worth while on a big hunt.

red_kangaroo
2017-03-09, 03:56 AM
Armour or a shield would be a requirement if going up against a manticore.

That's where Geralt would disagree with you - it's stated in the books that witchers don't use shields because they are nearly useless against most monsters. If you were to try and block a blow from manticore, you'd end up with a broken, or at least heavily bruised arm and wouldn't be able to block again. That's why witcher's were trained in evasion, not heavy armor and shields.

Bohandas
2017-03-10, 12:34 AM
How about some kind of war spoon or something for dealing with oozes

Pauly
2017-03-10, 01:51 AM
It kind of depends on what you mean by monster.

If you includes orcs, goblins and the like there would be co-evolution of arms and armor.

If you're talking classical mythology monsters - big beasts without weaponry then it depends a lot of their intelligence. For animal level intelligence critters then history gives us a good guide - spears, bows as being the main weapons.

For intelligent creatures it probably would be a mix of missile weapons at range then spear/shield or sword/shield at close rangle.

HurinSmite
2017-03-10, 05:57 AM
When I made the post I was thinking of monsters who aren't too humanoid. If that was the case then it would be close to real world co-evolution of weapons. Boring!

No. What I'm interested in seeing is things as on page 57 in Draconomicon (dnd book) where at the beginning of the chapter we see a character block a dragon's breath by using some sort of folded out shield. The character is holding the shield with both hands and seems to avoid any major damage even though he doesn't look like a rogue with evasion.

Bohandas, War spoon for oozes? I like it. Need some work but I'm sure there's a polished product behind those words.

Like some people have mentioned there probably is an upper limit on how many different kinds of monsters there can be in a world before the hero character says "screw it". At some point the monster hunter will just stick with the tried and true longsword instead of a wagonfull of "anti-gaze shield", "anti-troll spear with acid capsule at the tip" & "sticky net for pixies" kinds of weapons.

There probably isn't a design for a monster killing weapon that doesn't have a real world name already. The thought was just interesting.

I'd also gladly hear if some have any interesting ideas of traps to deal with certain monsters/enemies. Just... don't be too effective. I get no joy from hearing how you kill a herd of mammoth by chasing them off a cliff. That's just extinction, unfunny and sad.

Floret
2017-03-10, 06:21 AM
Relevant video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CfyU1mOZ1E&index=6&list=PLzzh7AuEBkEnAr1Ic5LKbJbvBq2BzVTGr)
Despite the (I find) questionable DMing he brags about, the general concept seems to hit right on the mark.

I imagine that while more "generalist" weapons, such as spears, polearms, bows etc. are probably more useful for adventurers that encounter different stuff on a regular basis, such weapons as you describe would work very well for areas that regularly deal with similar threats - a land where there is a large wild troll population might have the local garrisons armed with specific "troll-killers" that are especially effective against them, and not much else. (Same for Dragons, Mammoths, or giant turtle-thingies.)
So... more something for NPCs, or to be acquired for a special job, rather than something adventurers carry around regularly. In that capacity, though? I'd be all for the idea.
(One example I remember of this being done is from the Dark Eye: The dwarves have a special kind of weapon you need 4 people to wield - some giant, heavy, I think three-pronged spear. You need (in 4th edition) a special skill to know how to be one of the four. But it is rather good at killing dragons, at least in lore. Thinking about it, those things seem to boil down to "very special spear" rather often.)

Now, I don't know much in the way of DnD monsters, so am somewhat without ideas myself. But I want to note that this (Monster hunting, with gearing up with special weapons and tactics) sounds like a really nice concept for at least a oneshot.

Zombimode
2017-03-10, 07:08 AM
That's where Geralt would disagree with you - it's stated in the books that witchers don't use shields because they are nearly useless against most monsters. If you were to try and block a blow from manticore, you'd end up with a broken, or at least heavily bruised arm and wouldn't be able to block again. That's why witcher's were trained in evasion, not heavy armor and shields.

I think a Manticore was specifically mentioned here because of it's ability to shoot Spikes. Since those Spikes are not the size of ballista bolts, a shield would be quite usefull. And considering that Manticore are sometimes shown to fire a whole spray of Spikes, dodging would be quite difficult.
So no, I don't think that Geralt would disagree that a good shield would come in handy in a fight against a Manticore. Not necessary for him specifically, but useful nonetheless.

Besides, the Witcher Universe runs on a different set of genre conventions and assumptions then, say, Eberron, or RealLife (tm).


Relevant video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CfyU1mOZ1E&index=6&list=PLzzh7AuEBkEnAr1Ic5LKbJbvBq2BzVTGr)
Despite the (I find) questionable DMing he brags about, the general concept seems to hit right on the mark.

Ugh, this video...:smallyuk:

I think I like this guy in general, but I good GM he is not. It is actually one the first things that come into my mind when I think of "worst instances of GMing ever".
He had an agenda and used the game to force his Agenda down the Players throat, violating the trust between them and ignoring the expectations they obviously had.
The genre conventions the Players believed to hold true were quite obvious: pretty much usual Fantasy fare were someone of the PCs calibre does have the ability to effectively fight a Dragon Turtle (or whatever this creature was) with a sword.

Also, I don't think he mentioned what System was in use, but somehow I got the suspicion that the ineffectiveness of the Players Action was not actually justified by the system's mechanics. Instead he strikes me like a GM that, when invited to a game of D&D and a Player tries something like attacking a Titan with a longsword, would just ignore the Abstract System of attack Bonus, Amor class, Hit Points and damage, and say something like "Ok, you stab the Titan in the great toe which has no effect whatsoever."


Now, I don't know much in the way of DnD monsters, so am somewhat without ideas myself. But I want to note that this (Monster hunting, with gearing up with special weapons and tactics) sounds like a really nice concept for at least a oneshot.

Yes, I agree. Not for every kind of game/System, though. To try this with D&D would be missing the Point.

If I ever manage to get a game for GURPS Fantasy together, I will create the Monsters in a way to emphasize this style of game. My recent Inspiration for that is the Kayran fight in Witcher 2 (in which, to spite the above video, a sword was one of the main instruments).

Stealth Marmot
2017-03-10, 08:50 AM
But what about Specifically designed and shaped weapons for monsters?

Let me put it this way: First Edition did something extremely similar and it was the most universally ignored section of the game. In fact it was one of only 2 sections of first edition that Gary Gygax went on record of saying that he regretted putting in there entirely. (The other being the horrific First Edition version of psionics)

The idea is complex, will almost certainly be clunky, will require an excessive level of chart work, and only apply for a fairly small section of characters. Keep in mind that having a swiss army style number of weapons would also render several feats unusable, and would require that a larger section of weapons be considered martial lest we end up with fighters spending all their feats on exotic weapons.

We already have forms of this through the bane enchantment on weapons anyway, and certain weapons will be somewhat more effective against certain monsters by the nature of what the weapons do.

Haldir
2017-03-10, 09:12 AM
A fusion of easy-to-use weaponry and as much magic as is available, all for the goal of removing yourself further and further from the conflict. If there is any way to gain flight, such as taming beasts or magic, that'll be incorporated very very quickly.

Nets and chains would probably be quite extensively used.

Bohandas
2017-03-10, 11:15 AM
Let me put it this way: First Edition did something extremely similar and it was the most universally ignored section of the game. In fact it was one of only 2 sections of first edition that Gary Gygax went on record of saying that he regretted putting in there entirely. (The other being the horrific First Edition version of psionics)

What was the 1e version of psionics like? I'm only familiar with 2e, 3e, and 3.5

Stealth Marmot
2017-03-10, 11:32 AM
What was the 1e version of psionics like? I'm only familiar with 2e, 3e, and 3.5

I think they later expanded it, but here's the short of psionics as it was first introduced.

There was no psionics class, or any sort of feat etc. that existed for it. Instead, if you had mental stats that were over a certain amount, you gained a random chance to have psionics. I don't remember the number, but it was something like for every Wisdom you had over 15 you had 1.5% chance to be psionic, and you added up all the the chance from the 3 mental stats (Int, Wis, Cha).

It gets worse. Not only is the chance of being psionic low, but the powers you get and how good you are at them were random as well. To top it all off, there was basically little to no defense for anyone against the powers unless you were psionic too, and the powers were vague as hell, nothing about them was spelled out.

So if you were lucky enough to have VERY high random mental stats, you had a very low random chance of getting powers that would either be useless, confusing, or game breaking.

Bohandas
2017-03-10, 11:51 AM
Also, I don't think he mentioned what System was in use, but somehow I got the suspicion that the ineffectiveness of the Players Action was not actually justified by the system's mechanics. Instead he strikes me like a GM that, when invited to a game of D&D and a Player tries something like attacking a Titan with a longsword, would just ignore the Abstract System of attack Bonus, Amor class, Hit Points and damage, and say something like "Ok, you stab the Titan in the great toe which has no effect whatsoever."

I think the most elegant way to handle this if you were worried about the absurdities of attacking a creature ten times taller than you would be to apply size modifiers backwards during critical hit confirmation rolls. So the excess of size that makes a creature easy to hit also makes it difficult to score a critical against (and conversely it's easier to score a crit on a rat or some other creature where your sword is big enough that it can stab all their vital organs at once)

Floret
2017-03-11, 07:49 AM
Ugh, this video...:smallyuk: [...]

Oh, those are the problems I have with the video. The second idea, of the Fantasy weapons, I do like though :smallwink:



Yes, I agree. Not for every kind of game/System, though. To try this with D&D would be missing the Point.

If I ever manage to get a game for GURPS Fantasy together, I will create the Monsters in a way to emphasize this style of game. My recent Inspiration for that is the Kayran fight in Witcher 2 (in which, to spite the above video, a sword was one of the main instruments).

Oh, yeah, not with basic DnD. (Although I think with the right restrictions put in place (No/Low magic, for example) it might even work there. Dunno, Never played DnD and likely never will.)
I am currently contemplating a version of Symbaroum, tweaked a bit to make it work better. Dark Eye might work as well, but I like the Darker tone of Symbaroum for such an idea. Or maybe FATE, but going for the "all-purpose" one seems almost like cheating^^


I think the most elegant way to handle this if you were worried about the absurdities of attacking a creature ten times taller than you would be to apply size modifiers backwards during critical hit confirmation rolls. So the excess of size that makes a creature easy to hit also makes it difficult to score a critical against (and conversely it's easier to score a crit on a rat or some other creature where your sword is big enough that it can stab all their vital organs at once)

Or to just play with a system that does what you want from it :smallwink:
Seriously, there are more games out there than just DnD. Just use those, especially when met with an idea that doesn't fit in too well.

Potato_Priest
2017-03-11, 11:35 AM
If I was to fight giants, double-ended javelins would be my first thought. They're exceedingly easy to make, you can throw them up to the vital regions of a giant, and if you plant one end in the ground it's a devastating caltrops for a giant that a human won't have to worry about.

Beleriphon
2017-03-11, 01:21 PM
If I ever manage to get a game for GURPS Fantasy together, I will create the Monsters in a way to emphasize this style of game. My recent Inspiration for that is the Kayran fight in Witcher 2 (in which, to spite the above video, a sword was one of the main instruments).

In fairness, the kayran fight is more about trying to hack apart the tentacles so Geralt can eventually stab it in the eye.

Kalmageddon
2017-03-11, 01:51 PM
Has any of you ever thought of and does there exist somekind of books/webpages where weapons are developed to deal with different of monsters? Confused? Let me explain.

This question has been running around my head since I got my hands on Witcher 3. Geralt, the protagonist, is a warrior monk trained to deal with monsters. The Witchers choose these two handed swords to fight the monsters. In Witcher 3 you will fight humans who use shields but Geralt never bothers with that. Is it because he's too mobile and an expert that a shield and sword style would lower his effectiveness in combat?

The "Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question?"-threads deal with the real world so I can't really ask there. But what little I've seen from National Geographics/Discovery Channel seems to tell me one thing: new weapons develop to deal with current strong weapon and armor. A sort of coevolution between different kinds of weapons and armors. So with that in mind. Wouldn't it make sense that in a fantasy world there would be weapons specifically designed to deal with certain monsters?

It depends on the setting ofcourse. If there's only a few kinds of magical monsters then it would be a lot easier to carry around specificly designed weapons for those monsters. A standard dnd world there would be too many monsters for you to (without magic) carry weapons for all situations.

Here's some thoughts:

Shields usefulness drops when the monster is large enough to take a hold and give the wielder a good shake through the shield
Axes are good against armored creatures (Like axes are good to... break shields? Small impact area I assume?)
Swords are good against lightly armored and faster creatures
Spears are good against etc etc.


I suppose this coevolution already exist a bit in the form of blunt weapons preffered by clerics to bash in skeletons (5/bludgeoning).
But what about Specifically designed and shaped weapons for monsters?

One thing that immediately springs to mind is that all the "unethical" weapons would see good use against monsters. For example, melee weapons with more than 2 edges (so that the cross section is triangular or shaped more or less like a Y) are only useful when you want the wound to never heal properly and be difficult to treat.

Beleriphon
2017-03-11, 02:09 PM
One thing that immediately springs to mind is that all the "unethical" weapons would see good use against monsters. For example, melee weapons with more than 2 edges (so that the cross section is triangular or shaped more or less like a Y) are only useful when you want the wound to never heal properly and be difficult to treat.

Something like this: http://www.ohgizmo.com/2012/04/05/jagdkommando-dagger-has-twisting-blade-for-100-more-killing/

Clistenes
2017-03-11, 04:07 PM
One thing that immediately springs to mind is that all the "unethical" weapons would see good use against monsters. For example, melee weapons with more than 2 edges (so that the cross section is triangular or shaped more or less like a Y) are only useful when you want the wound to never heal properly and be difficult to treat.

I think, that historically, the reason those weapon weren't often used wasn't ethics, but that they were slower and more difficult to craft, and that the greater friction would make them less useful against armoured targets.

And anyways, in battle you want the dude in front of you to die or get disabled before he hurts you, you don't really care about him dying of blood loss or infection after he has killed you.

But yes, against certain big, unarmoured monsters, a spear with 3-4 edges would make sense...

daniel_ream
2017-03-12, 05:53 PM
Ugh, this video...:smallyuk:

I think I like this guy in general, but I good GM he is not. It is actually one the first things that come into my mind when I think of "worst instances of GMing ever".

IIRC, when he plays RPGs at all (he's not a big fan) Lindybeige runs RuneQuest. Which has a very different set of assumptions about what PCs are capable of. Fighting a monster that is practically invulnerable to any man-portable weapon isn't at all out of scope for that game, and the scale of PC power is much smaller than D&D.

Pauly
2017-03-12, 07:57 PM
One thing that immediately springs to mind is that all the "unethical" weapons would see good use against monsters. For example, melee weapons with more than 2 edges (so that the cross section is triangular or shaped more or less like a Y) are only useful when you want the wound to never heal properly and be difficult to treat.

No.

A triangular cross section is used to add stiffness to a thrusting blade.

The sacrifice is that you lose all effective cutting capacity. This design of blade was used extensively on small swords of the 17th and 18th century. They were used almost exclusively by noblemen as duelling weapons.

Blades used in warfare had cutting edges because they needed to be more versatile in a wider range of situations.A good saber can easily cut an arm to the bone, how is that less devastating and easier to heal?
Medical sources at the time considered thrusting more dangerous, but that was because Th. blade penetrated deeper and was more likely to affect vital organs.

Estocs, or panzerstecher swords were developed in the 14th and 15th centuries to deal with plate armor. Iirc, there was also a polearm variant, like a glaive but with an estoc type blade instead of the sword blade.

Honest Tiefling
2017-03-12, 08:11 PM
I would think that in a lot of settings, it might be easier to simply write off any infantry or troops conscripted in bulk as a loss when facing certain beasties. In a lot of cases, these would just be peasants given a pointy stick. Not only are they going to be poorly trained and not able to actually attack a monster, but I bet that most of them will probably decide to run away from the thing instead. So why not just...Avoid those bits of the map for now and write down 'here be dragons'?

So why bother giving horribly under trained troops expensive weapons they barely know how to use? Spears and other common weapons are still going to see heavy use unless most combat is against monsters.

In fact, poisoning them ahead of time and expecting them to get eaten might be a better solution, provided that the poison is cheap enough. Gather some criminals or pay a hefty pension to some poor family, and there you go.

This approach would mean that any place terrorized by a beastie such as a dragon can either try to relocate trade routes, hire a specialist group of mercenaries, or just try to bribe the thing. You know, just like the stories.

Pauly
2017-03-12, 11:50 PM
Another thing to consider would be the capture and use of trainable monsters against wild monsters.

Historically an example would be the use of elephants in tiger hunts.

Potato_Priest
2017-03-13, 06:59 AM
In fact, poisoning them ahead of time and expecting them to get eaten might be a better solution, provided that the poison is cheap enough. Gather some criminals or pay a hefty pension to some poor family, and there you go.


Or you could just poison livestock.

Jay R
2017-03-13, 09:25 AM
We're mostly trying to work backwards.

The boarspear was developed in response to a specific fact about a boar. It continues to fight even after receiving a major wound, and can run right up a spear to get at the fighter.

Therefore a crosspiece was added to keep him from being able to move up the spear.

Similarly, any specialized weapon to fight a specific monster would be developed in response to some specific fact about the monster.

So don't start with a weird weapon idea and try to decide when it would be useful. Start with a single fact that makes a monster hard to kill, and develop the weapon to deal with this issue.

For instance, what kind of weapon would a fighter use if he expected he might meet goblins or skeletons? Well, a sword is usually the best overall weapon, but it is less valuable against a skeleton. So he would have a hilt or handle built for pummeling. [Fun fact: the verb pummel comes from the noun pommel, which is the rounded knob at the end of a sword hilt. It actually originally meant doing bludgeoning damage with an edged weapon.]

So what other specific details about monsters would lead to specific weapon designs?

GungHo
2017-03-13, 02:02 PM
So what other specific details about monsters would lead to specific weapon designs?
So, if I'm looking at a hydra, a drake, or a dragon, I'm going to either want to do something about the head(s) or the body.

With a hydra, I don't need to worry about it flying away. I'm going to guess that it's not going to just leave it's heads out there for me to trap, but if I get a chance, I'm going to want to take it, and try to put that head out of commission. A military fork would be good to keep it down, but that's requiring a lot of fancy timing **** to get it when it's near a ground or wall, and there's more heads to bite on me if I try that stuff. Alternately, something that lets me chop real hard at it without forcing me to cuddle up might be good, so I might like a poleaxe. Or, I might just try to get it right in the body and hope whatever I have can go deep enough to get it in a vital organ, so a long spear or a big, steel barred crossbow with a hardened bolt-head would be fantastic. A good body blow might be better than fooling with its heads, because honestly, it's got seven heads, but as far as I know, it's got one heart.

With a drake, if it's one of those that has wings, it can fly off on me, so I probably want something to either weigh it down like a weighted net before I try to go to work on it. Alternately, being able to pin its wings would be good. If it's one of those that's just a damn tyrannosaurus, then I would rather just go for the body, because trapping the head, again, requires some fancy timing... I don't have to be as careful as I would with a hydra because there aren't more heads, but I still don't want to get bit. I still want something that will penetrate its body. It's not as fat as a hydra, though, so I can't count on it to sit still while I sit there and aim. I'm better off trying to lure it into a trap, which a hydra will see, but a drake might not.

With a dragon, like with a drake, it's got wings. It's also got a breath weapon. I really don't want to mess with this thing. Why not just cut off a drake's head and take the money? These moron villagers haven't ever seen either of them, so, it's not like they'll know. But, if I had to... I'd rather find ways to take the thing from a distance. I'd need to keep it from flying or catch it on the ground and do my business as fast as I could, because if you don't kill it quickly, it's going to either kill you or escape... and if it escapes, it will probably find you later.

FWIW, I think if I was faced with dragons, I'd probably use light cannons that fired shot/shells at very high velocity, I'd load them with sabots, and I'd use them in one of those rolling, horse drawn organ guns. I know I'd only have one shot, so I'd make it count.

Cluedrew
2017-03-13, 05:50 PM
In which case:
How about some kind of war spoon or something for dealing with oozesI'm not sure if oozes are common enough to warrant there own weapon, but I would definitely take some sort of bucket on a stick if I new I was going to face something more or less made out of water.

I would also though in some special sort of shield for breath weapons. You can't really dodge that nor would I want to risk killing the dragon (or other) before it can breath fire. Even if it is some massive affair that has to be used by two people to be mobile would worth it if it can shelter 4 or 5. A smaller 1 person version, combined with special armour would also be worth considering.

Clistenes
2017-03-13, 07:00 PM
No.

A triangular cross section is used to add stiffness to a thrusting blade.

The sacrifice is that you lose all effective cutting capacity. This design of blade was used extensively on small swords of the 17th and 18th century. They were used almost exclusively by noblemen as duelling weapons.

Blades used in warfare had cutting edges because they needed to be more versatile in a wider range of situations.A good saber can easily cut an arm to the bone, how is that less devastating and easier to heal?
Medical sources at the time considered thrusting more dangerous, but that was because Th. blade penetrated deeper and was more likely to affect vital organs.

Estocs, or panzerstecher swords were developed in the 14th and 15th centuries to deal with plate armor. Iirc, there was also a polearm variant, like a glaive but with an estoc type blade instead of the sword blade.

@Kalmageddon and you are speaking of different things, I think,

@Kalmageddon is probably speaking of something like this:

http://www.ancientresource.com/images/roman/spears_arrowheads/spear-point-bent-wp2388c.jpg
http://www.ancientresource.com/images/roman/spears_arrowheads/roman-arrowhead-wp2067.jpg

or this:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/1d/64/73/1d64736f01854615f2da4a772e0bf3fb.jpghttp://www.dhresource.com/0x0s/f2-albu-g3-M01-D1-47-rBVaHFbSwheAVKseAAFFdgFzX6w924.jpg/6pcs-lot-broadhead-hunting-arrow-head-3-blades.jpg

Those last two pics are modern hunting arrowheads. They have three or four blades in order to do more damage and cause more bleeding.

You, on the other hand, are speaking of something like this:

http://armsandantiques.com/image/data/2016-01/2016-1_0035.JPG
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=66163&stc=1
https://www.google.es/search?q=awlpike&client=firefox-b&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj7l4va19TSAhUJOxoKHVv1D8wQsAQIKQ&biw=1280&bih=677#imgrc=VG8Baj5CAbpr_M:
http://i.imgur.com/NiH70Lz.png

Completely different stuff.

Pauly
2017-03-13, 11:37 PM
@Kalmageddon and you are speaking of different things, I think,

@Kalmageddon is probably speaking of something like this:

http://www.ancientresource.com/images/roman/spears_arrowheads/spear-point-bent-wp2388c.jpg
http://www.ancientresource.com/images/roman/spears_arrowheads/roman-arrowhead-wp2067.jpg

or this:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/1d/64/73/1d64736f01854615f2da4a772e0bf3fb.jpghttp://www.dhresource.com/0x0s/f2-albu-g3-M01-D1-47-rBVaHFbSwheAVKseAAFFdgFzX6w924.jpg/6pcs-lot-broadhead-hunting-arrow-head-3-blades.jpg

Those last two pics are modern hunting arrowheads. They have three blades in order to do more damage and cause more bleeding.

You, on the other hand, are speaking of something like this:

http://armsandantiques.com/image/data/2016-01/2016-1_0035.JPG
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=66163&stc=1
https://www.google.es/search?q=awlpike&client=firefox-b&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj7l4va19TSAhUJOxoKHVv1D8wQsAQIKQ&biw=1280&bih=677#imgrc=VG8Baj5CAbpr_M:
http://i.imgur.com/NiH70Lz.png

Completely different stuff.

Totally agree that for missile weapons,broad triangular heads were developed to bleed out large game, and could be effective for monster hunting.

But for melee weapons specifically, the triangular cross section is for stiffness in thrusting.

Assuming monsters have thick hides, so they don't get extincted by mating battles or other monsters, then you want the thin stiff thrusting point. Maybe for flying or swimming monsters an especially thick hide won't be a biological necessity so broad heads could be effective against them. But probably not so useful in in combination with a harpoon or pilum arrangement because the broad head creates a large entry wound and might be easier to pull out than a barbedhead.

GungHo
2017-03-14, 10:25 AM
In which case:I'm not sure if oozes are common enough to warrant there own weapon, but I would definitely take some sort of bucket on a stick if I new I was going to face something more or less made out of water.

I would also though in some special sort of shield for breath weapons. You can't really dodge that nor would I want to risk killing the dragon (or other) before it can breath fire. Even if it is some massive affair that has to be used by two people to be mobile would worth it if it can shelter 4 or 5. A smaller 1 person version, combined with special armour would also be worth considering.

Yeah, I was thinking of a pavise. If you can get it to "resize" and insulate magically, that might make it more useful. The dragon will likely knock it aside, but it could get you through one breath. However, you still gotta keep the thing from just flying over it. A dragon's basically the worst of all worlds. It's smart. It's strong. It's deadly at range or up close. And it's mobile. You're really better off surprising the thing, but that's a feat of its own.

CharonsHelper
2017-03-14, 11:06 AM
For instance, what kind of weapon would a fighter use if he expected he might meet goblins

I'd use a smaller sword. A larger blade would be overkill, and if I'm hunting them into their lair, likely goblins (or kobolds) might have tight corridors I'd have to fight in.

I'd also use a center grip shield for blocking and bashing their skulls in - as a punch from a shield hurts and is disorienting to a human - it would probably kill a goblin.

Really though - if you're talking about "realistic combat" then most monsters would have to be redesigned from the ground up. It annoys me to no end when people make you fight 60ft long fire breathing dragons "realistically". :smallfurious:

Ex: Giants would absolutely max out at 12-15 feet tall (really - more than 10ft is pushing it) due to the cubed to square ratio, and built like D&D dwarfs. They would have slow reflexes and wouldn't be able to wear armor any thicker than human armor (at most) so it'd only be worth wearing against human sized targets.

You would never want to melee against them or use ranked infantry - dealing with them by skirmisher and/or horse archer tactics - using thin javelins & bodkin arrows.

Trip lines etc. would be very effective both because they would inherently be rather clumsy & tripping at their size would do substantial damage.

Newtonsolo313
2017-03-14, 02:50 PM
so if fighting a dragon realistically
go light on the armor
you would want to make sure that the wind is blowing in the direction of the dragon(the faster the wind the better) since it will have a harder time flying and the breath weapon won't go as far
use chariots or horseback archers to perforate the dragons wings with holes making it harder and harder(weapons that fire quicker are better) to fly forcing the dragon to land

after it is forced to land you want the horse back archers to keep going preferably continuing to shoot the dragon in more vital parts. but you can get them retreat as the dragon is now likely slower than them(if it is faster that's pretty much BS). you can instead replace them with artillery or mounted combatants to deal the final blows to the dragon.

basically the big IF in this strategy is that dragons need wings to fly and objects are affected by air current

CharonsHelper
2017-03-14, 02:56 PM
basically the big IF in this strategy is that dragons need wings to fly and objects are affected by air current

I'll also add that it depends how thick the dragon scales are (they shouldn't be thick in a semi-realistic world since the dragon can fly - but you want to cover your bases). Also - some sort of shield/armor might be useful against its breath weapon(s), though probably not too much like normal plate or chainmail.

Edit: Of course - if you're going realistic - dragons wouldn't be NEARLY as big as they are in most fantasy stories/games. If they can fly - they couldn't be too much bigger than a pterodactyl.

Newtonsolo313
2017-03-14, 03:13 PM
I'll also add that it depends how thick the dragon scales are (they shouldn't be thick in a semi-realistic world since the dragon can fly - but you want to cover your bases). Also - some sort of shield/armor might be useful against its breath weapon(s), though probably not too much like normal plate or chainmail.

Edit: Of course - if you're going realistic - dragons wouldn't be NEARLY as big as they are in most fantasy stories/games. If they can fly - they couldn't be too much bigger than a pterodactyl.
i of course know about the size thing but that's something you have to ignore
anyway the thickness of the scales really just change the weapons you use at the last stage(im assuming that the wings of dragons are batlike) basically on foot it would go sword-ax-spear-mace/hammer and for ranged weapons it would go arrows-javelins-ballista bolts-catapults with thin on the right and thick on the left. this of course changes a lot from work to work, so in settings where dragon hide is "stronger than steel" you use blunt weapons in settings where dragon hide is "leathery" you would use axes javelins and the like
basically either pick something that can penetrate the hide or hit it with a bludgeoning weapon

Doorhandle
2017-03-17, 02:35 AM
One thing that immediately springs to mind is that all the "unethical" weapons would see good use against monsters. For example, melee weapons with more than 2 edges (so that the cross section is triangular or shaped more or less like a Y) are only useful when you want the wound to never heal properly and be difficult to treat.

So like these arrowheads then, (https://i.ytimg.com/vi/6Os-xozVekw/maxresdefault.jpg) hypodermic arrowheads designed for addtional bloodloss. That'll aids both killing and tracking.

What about anti-ooze techniques?
I imagine things like gelatinous cubes would be a fairly major threat to most villages, despite only being CR 3. Plus, unlike the cube most of them aren't nice enough to leave iron weapons intact.

Martin Greywolf
2017-03-17, 03:21 AM
Important historical fact: before at the very least early modern era, there was no such thing as unethical weapon. Sure, there was griping if someone poisoned wells somewhere, or spread a plague by lobbing dead cows over the castle walls, but that didn't stop anyone from doing it. Unless your fantasy world has some kind of Geneva convention, all weapons are a go.

On thrusts vs cuts, the debate was pretty fierce even during the time swords were used to kill people. The topic is vast, but gist of it is that while thrusts result in more dead people because surgeons can't really heal them, they are rather bad at stopping the other guy from running you through in revenge despite you turning him into a kebab - you need to really know what you're doing in terms of timing and distance. Cuts are better at stopping your opponent right then, but recovering from them is a lot faster. Which one is objectively better, well... I'd say neither, since even leading fighters (not just British armchair generals) of the day disagreed. For more info, see Swordsman of the British Empire (book), or videos on the topic by Matt Easton.

Now, triangular or square cross-section was explained pretty well. As for the three-bladed arrowheads, these weren't used during the middle ages because of any moral problem, but simply because they are a right pain in the ass to manufacture with pre-modern tech. Normal flat broadhead is relatively easy to hammer out of a piece of metal, but three bladed one requires you to attach three separate blades on a central cylinder, all spaced out evenly, and all of it is tiny. Making something like this way back when would take a long time, and would drive price of an individual arrow way up. Since normal arrows were already a major expense, it wasn't really worth the slightly increased bleeding rate.

That said, IF your world has magic that helps with this problem, I can see three bladed arrowheads as being pretty popular for unarmored, gambesoned and mail-wearing (this one needs to have narrower profile) targets.

Kalmageddon
2017-03-17, 05:05 AM
So like these arrowheads then, (https://i.ytimg.com/vi/6Os-xozVekw/maxresdefault.jpg) hypodermic arrowheads designed for addtional bloodloss. That'll aids both killing and tracking.

What about anti-ooze techniques?
I imagine things like gelatinous cubes would be a fairly major threat to most villages, despite only being CR 3. Plus, unlike the cube most of them aren't nice enough to leave iron weapons intact.

I feel like enemies like that would be dealt with by chemical warfare, perhaps salt? Lime powder (that irritant powder used in costructions, the stuff that can actually burn you if you're not careful, I think that's what it's called, in Italian it would be "calce viva") also seems appropriate. Just throw a bunch of that stuff on the ooze until it stops moving. They clearly have a very permeable outer membrane so it should be devastating.

CharonsHelper
2017-03-17, 08:45 AM
I imagine things like gelatinous cubes would be a fairly major threat to most villages, despite only being CR 3. Plus, unlike the cube most of them aren't nice enough to leave iron weapons intact.

Actually - outside of a dungeon they wouldn't be a threat at all. It has a speed of 15ft, AC 4, no DR, and can only see out to 60ft. Once you see it you can just keep backing away and chuck rocks at it. Any peasant could deal with it in a few minutes.

The same is true of nearly any other ooze without DR for that matter.


Important historical fact: before at the very least early modern era, there was no such thing as unethical weapon. Sure, there was griping if someone poisoned wells somewhere, or spread a plague by lobbing dead cows over the castle walls, but that didn't stop anyone from doing it. Unless your fantasy world has some kind of Geneva convention, all weapons are a go.

In Medieval Europe I believe that the church called for a ban of the crossbow in 1096. (At least against other Christians.)

GungHo
2017-03-20, 01:52 PM
In Medieval Europe I believe that the church called for a ban of the crossbow in 1096. (At least against other Christians.)
It was 1139 and they also banned bows and slings in canon 29 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Council_of_the_Lateran). This was a growth from Canon 7 of Urban II's Laterian Synod in 1097 where Urban II derided archery as a sport and being a tool for a peasant to destroy a nobleman. The actual wording is

We forbid under penalty of anathema that that deadly and God-detested art of stingers and archers be in the future exercised against Christians and Catholics.

Canon 14 from the Second Lateran also banned tourneys. It was less of an ethical thing than a "now that we have our house in order and you've beaten up the people who wouldn't obey us, please stop killing each other and focus on the people we are calling Crusades against... THX HAND" thing.

Mr Beer
2017-03-20, 07:18 PM
Dragons would require the most damaging possible missile weapons that are easily man portable. Pre-gunpowder than likely means the high end crossbows of the late middle ages. Add a long spear to stop the giant flying lizard getting too close and shredding you with it's teeth and claws. Add a horse so you can get around quickly. Depending on the exact nature of the breath weapon, you might want protective clothing. You might end up with the elite crossbowmen riding around and then ancillary riders with spears protecting them.

Dr_Dinosaur
2017-03-20, 08:22 PM
Personally, if I wanted to go hunt monsters, I'd hire other people to do the dying part.

This is almost explicitly called out as the reason Witchers exist. Most people want monsters dead, but are more willing to part with their coin than risk their lives.

Grim Portent
2017-03-20, 09:31 PM
Traditional way to kill dragons in a lot of stories is to hide in a hole or ditch, wait for it to crawl over the top then shank it with a spear in it's underbelly.

Or charge it fast on horseback and hit it with a lance.

Trying to get a good bow shot into it's belly or throat might be very hard, ambush tactics like the aforementioned hole and pointy stick would be comparatively easy. It also works on a lot of other monsters that are large and quadrupedal.

chainer1216
2017-03-21, 12:57 AM
Personally i don't think handheld weapons and armor would change much from the real world, only that certain types would be more popular than otherwise, specifically Boar Spears and thrusting focused Longswords(bastard swords by 3.5 dnd standards)

The REAL changes would come from siege weapons, my guess is that harpoon launchers would become very popular, and anything that uses large amounts of alchemists fire.

Dappershire
2017-03-23, 05:07 AM
Edit: Of course - if you're going realistic - dragons wouldn't be NEARLY as big as they are in most fantasy stories/games. If they can fly - they couldn't be too much bigger than a pterodactyl.


Well, those things grew pretty big...Quetzalcoatlus possibly had a wing, a single wing, as long as three man heights. With the right musculature, bone structure, and chemical makeup, a Dragon could get pretty massive without stretching the bounds of sanity.


What are the dissolve attacks with cubes? I don't face them enough. But you think pit traps would be a boon for villages and large cities both. For the purpose of a place to dump their waste. Not sure if they would work in a big city sewer though. Do they drown?

CharonsHelper
2017-03-23, 07:29 AM
Well, those things grew pretty big...Quetzalcoatlus possibly had a wing, a single wing, as long as three man heights. With the right musculature, bone structure, and chemical makeup, a Dragon could get pretty massive without stretching the bounds of sanity.

They could certainly be big - but they couldn't be 60 feet long with the sort of muscular frame commonly portrayed in D&D.

Sort of like how giants could theoretically be big. But by big I mean 10-12 feet tall if built anything like humans. Not 25+ as commonly portrayed in D&D.

Beleriphon
2017-03-23, 09:16 AM
Edit: Of course - if you're going realistic - dragons wouldn't be NEARLY as big as they are in most fantasy stories/games. If they can fly - they couldn't be too much bigger than a pterodactyl.

If we're going with fantasy dragons like Smaug, the best way to deal with that is probably to just leave.

awa
2017-03-23, 11:01 AM
to be fair to d&d most giants are no wheres near 25 feet tall (depending on edition)
frost giants are 15 feet, fire giants and stone are 12, hill are 10.5 of the core giants only the innately magical ones are any where near 25 feet and even the tallest core giant is only 21

Potato_Priest
2017-03-23, 10:55 PM
Well, those things grew pretty big...Quetzalcoatlus possibly had a wing, a single wing, as long as three man heights. With the right musculature, bone structure, and chemical makeup, a Dragon could get pretty massive without stretching the bounds of sanity.


What are the dissolve attacks with cubes? I don't face them enough. But you think pit traps would be a boon for villages and large cities both. For the purpose of a place to dump their waste. Not sure if they would work in a big city sewer though. Do they drown?

I'm pretty sure that they don't need to breathe, but I am too lazy to look at my books right now

Beleriphon
2017-03-24, 09:36 AM
I'm pretty sure that they don't need to breathe, but I am too lazy to look at my books right now

That's actually not clear based on the SRD info I can access right now. The Gelantinous Cube entry doesn't specify. I'd say it seems fair a cube can't drown, but that isn't necessarily part of the rules.

Zombimode
2017-03-24, 09:50 AM
I'm pretty sure that they don't need to breathe, but I am too lazy to look at my books right now

Oozes in general need to breath. Going strictly by RAW, non-aquatic breathing is the Default and thus all non-aquatic non-amphibious creatures that need to breath will drown at some point when underwarter.

CharonsHelper
2017-03-24, 12:14 PM
Oozes in general need to breath. Going strictly by RAW, non-aquatic breathing is the Default and thus all non-aquatic non-amphibious creatures that need to breath will drown at some point when underwarter.

While it might vary by edition -


•Oozes eat and breathe, but do not sleep