PDA

View Full Version : GNS-Simulationism: Gnome VS Ogre



Townopolis
2008-05-05, 03:03 AM
Gnomes (and halflings, and goblins, and kobolds) use polearms, right? I mean, they use ranged weapons and booby-traps and magic by preference, but when it comes to melee, they must use polearms pretty exclusively.

That is the instigating idea for this thread, which is a discussion of size, real-world physics, anatomy, and plausibility.

The idea occurred to me while thinking about my various gnomish fighter types, and how impractical a small-sized longsword seemed against anything taller than a dwarf from the standpoint of realism. There's just not a lot going for you when your targets are limited to being below the waist. Small creatures suffer from a problem of reach, not just horizontal reach, which small arms will reduce, but vertical reach as well. The logical answer is, of course, to put your longsword on a really long pole and use that to increase your reach, allowing you to reach your opponent's torso and face with the sharp 'n' pointy end.

But is this the only answer?

From a simulationist point of view, how would small creatures best go about engaging larger enemies such as humans, ogres, and purple worms in melee combat?

Rutee
2008-05-05, 03:43 AM
...Why /wouldn't/ you ankle-bite, as it were? A fighter is just as crippled, realistically speaking, from a strike through one of the tendons in the leg as they are by a stab in the chest; Either way, you go down hard, and without the ability to move your legs, you're likely still crippled combat wise. It's just that other hit locations are going to be more immediately lethal. I would /think/ (But am not sure) that the lowest part of any plate armor, as well, would be less thoroughly well crafted and covered then the neck or whatnot.

Spiryt
2008-05-05, 03:43 AM
From a simulationist point of view, how would small creatures best go about engaging larger enemies such as humans, ogres, and purple worms in melee combat?

Do not fight. Or die quickly.

Seriously, this is one of the things in D&D which no one expect to be realistic.
And feats like Titan fighting (http://realmshelps.dandello.net/cgi-bin/feats.pl?Titan_Fighting,all) seems pretty easy to imagine, and fine for smalll guys.

Ellisthion
2008-05-05, 03:55 AM
Zerg rush!

Er, okay...

In general, ANY size of people would use polearms significantly. Polearms make great weapons when fighting in units. Small vs medium or large is like medium vs cavalry. However, in smaller numbers, the disadvantages of a polearm (a large section that doesn't hurt people) will get the better of you.

Light weapons, like handaxes, would be very effective, Historically, nimble unarmoured archers would use them against dismounted cavalry to great effect. Given sufficient training, small sized creatures would learn to use their size to their advantage. Lots of lightly armoured stuff, especially because adding heavy armour would mean you can't keep up with anything, which is useless.

Koji
2008-05-05, 05:59 AM
It doesn't take much to kill a living creature. Cut the right artery or pierce the right organ, and a kill is a kill.

Just because action movies have taught us to think that a sword must pierce someone's heart or decapitate someone to kill them doesn't mean that this in any way reflects the way things actually work.

Pronounceable
2008-05-05, 06:41 AM
Projectiles. Or zerg rush.

There's no way a gnome armed with anything can reallistically approach and melee an armed ogre without being pulped into paste from twice his height away. You wouldn't ankle bite, cos you'd be stomped long before your short arms can touch it.

How often have we humans meleed creatures bigger and stronger than us? Very rarely. Anyone fighting and killing a bear, croc, lion or something like that is always big news. We're weaklings compared to animals. If we could easily catch and kill other animals, we probably wouldn't have bothered to evolve.

bosssmiley
2008-05-05, 08:16 AM
Zerg rush!

Yes, this. Wholeheartedly this. With some of the goblins setting themselves on fire first.

Also: look to the runtlings' strengths. Gnomes, Halflings and Kobolds are guerilla fighters par excellence (trapsmiths, illusionists, alchemists and sling fighters), Goblins are practically born to be wolf-riding horse-archers. When you are (much) smaller and squishier than the opposition it pays to keep them at range and snipe them to death.

Yakk
2008-05-05, 10:23 AM
Um, humans who are armed are quite good at killing bears, lions and the like.

Heck, even Elephants and Mammoths.

It isn't trivial, and there is a decently high chance of death if you try it one-on-one, but spears/bows/swords and armor are actually pretty good at defeating animals.

Now, Ogres might make it harder. But simulationism wise, Ogres will be shockingly weak for their size, as they have to spend a huge amount of their strength just keeping themselves from collapsing, and their armor would have to be relatively thin to avoid crushing themselves. They would also be forced to move relatively slowly, due to the problems of a large creature putting all of their weight on one limb -- practically, I'd expect Ogres to be forced to use a 3rd limb at the least to prevent themselves from breaking their own legs every time they stumble.

Ie: if an ogre bends his leg when it is supporting his body, I'd expect it to snap like a twig. So if you can weaken the ogre's leg enough that it buckles even slightly, the ogre is down for the count.

Then again, if you say "the ogre is magic and doesn't follow the laws of our physics", then why can't the gnome be magic as well?

Sleet
2008-05-05, 10:38 AM
From a simulationist point of view,

I know that you set up real-world physics as the context for this discussion, but keep in mind that not all simulationist games attempt to simulate real world physics. Genre emulation, for instance, is also a form of simulationism.

I'd say that small creatures fighting bigger ones would go for ranged weapons, snares, and reach weapons, but their best weapon is cooperation. (I'm thinking "How would a band of ice-age hunters take down a mastadon?") Not too many human hunters use swords against a deer, after all.

When fighting among themselves, anything goes, of course.

UglyPanda
2008-05-05, 04:53 PM
I personally think it's silly to think that they would try to engage them in melee. It's bad strategy. There's a scene in the comic Fables where a platoon of sentient rabbits are given the responsibility of killing a single Goblin during a war. All but one dies in the process. You're not going to win a war by being stupid and throwing infantry at an opponent, melee is just playing into an Ogre's advantage. By the way, Ogres with glaives have more reach than gnomes with glaives.

Another thing, Gnomes would take advantage of the fact that Ogres are ECL 6 and take six levels in spellcasting classes since they sure as hell aren't going to be fighting toe-to-toe with things ten times their weight. The Gnomes don't stand a chance if the Ogres are born with all of their racial HD and abilities. There has to be an even playing field.

If they absolutely had to use medieval warfare, then projectiles would work, lots and lots of projectiles. There is no penalty to range by being small, and if they take advantage of high hide checks, they can pincushion their enemies before they even get close.

Rutee
2008-05-05, 05:03 PM
So are we looking for simulationism, or realism? Because simulation-wise, what I mentioned about Ankle biting must be correct; Ogres only have an AB, on average, of 4. A gnome in a chain shirt has an AC of 16.

I mean your first problem, simulation-wise, is how the outsiders or bigger material plane creatures haven't taken over the world already. Or conversely, how those creatures are still alive (Either they mature fast and ownzorz everything, or mature slowly and are generally killed in childhood)

Townopolis
2008-05-05, 06:16 PM
Realism mostly, but just dealing with the combat situation, hand-waving issues of economy or the fact that, realistically, the world would probably have been turned into the 10th plane of hell long ago. A simulation of realistic melee combat, then?

Taking the general accepted characteristics of various fantasy creatures forcing them to play by real-life rules.

So far, we know already that the smaller creatures are going to prefer ranged combat and artifice (traps and such).

By Yakk's point regarding relative size, mass, and bone strength "anklebiting" seems like it could work assuming you got into anklebiting range in the first place. Ideally, a severing blow to the hamstring would be applied and bring the behemoth down, negating a lot of the size advantage. However, it is reliant on the smaller creature having a way of avoiding hits while maneuvering, one which doesn't involve simply staying out of range.

Oslecamo
2008-05-05, 06:18 PM
It doesn't take much to kill a living creature. Cut the right artery or pierce the right organ, and a kill is a kill.

Just because action movies have taught us to think that a sword must pierce someone's heart or decapitate someone to kill them doesn't mean that this in any way reflects the way things actually work.

However, there is a diference between instant kill and leave someone mortally wounded.

Because a mortally wounded enemy may still have the strenght to deliver one last strike

Anyway, in real life size is hardly everything.

Look at wolfes. They hunt other animals who are bigger than them using effecient pack tactics

Wild rats are known to be able to take down cats if cornered.

The mongoose kills snacks much bigger than him with speed and agility.

Blue whales, the biggest animal in history, are hunted and killed by orcas, who are quite smaller(and humans, even before gunpowder weapons were created).

The romans were smaller in size than the gauls and other nordic tribes, but that didn't stop Caesar from making his troops kick their asses.

Rutee
2008-05-05, 06:22 PM
Realism mostly

Have fun with that. No, seriously; It's not my cup of tea, but I hope it tastes good for ya just the same.

Collin152
2008-05-05, 06:23 PM
Blue whales, the biggest animal in history,

Gunna have to stop you right there.
They are the largest non-extinct animal, but in all of history?

Sorry, but today's animals suck. All the good ones died.

Oslecamo
2008-05-05, 06:28 PM
Gunna have to stop you right there.
They are the largest non-extinct animal, but in all of history?

Sorry, but today's animals suck. All the good ones died.

Go study biology again. As far as we know, even the biggest dinossaurs were little compared to the blue whale.

It's impossible to a land animal to have such a big body whitout some revolutionary internal structure, and as far as sea fossils go, they're all quite smaller than the average blue whale.

Collin152
2008-05-05, 06:36 PM
Go study biology again.

Make me.


But you said the key words yourself, as far as we know.

Oslecamo
2008-05-05, 06:49 PM
Make me.


But you said the key words yourself, as far as we know.

As far as we know there can be asteroids made out of Jelly bean in our solar system wich speack french and discuss War and Peace every thursday night. You cannot prove me wrong unless you go out there and examine every asteroid out there one by one, but I don't think I'll manage to persuade anyone that this is correct.

Now go study biology!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Whale

The weight of a 30 m (98 ft) individual is believed by the American National Marine Mammal Laboratory (NMML) to be in excess of 180 tonnes (200 short tons). The largest Blue Whale accurately weighed by NMML scientists to date was a female that weighed 177 tonnes (196 short tons).[7]


The Blue Whale is believed to be the largest animal ever to have lived.

The largest known dinosaur of the Mesozoic era was the Argentinosaurus,[17] which is estimated to have weighed up to 90 tonnes (100 short tons)

Collin152
2008-05-05, 06:53 PM
As far as we know there can be asteroids made out of Jelly bean in our solar system wich speack french and discuss War and Peace every thursday night. You cannot prove me wrong unless you go out there and examine every asteroid out there one by one, but I don't think I'll manage to persuade anyone that this is correct.

Now go study biology!



I believe you.

Checkmate.

And no, I don't think so, too much Chemistry to learn.

FinalJustice
2008-05-05, 07:39 PM
Well, how about this with a bastard sword instead? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVhkIBW9_PE&feature=related)

To hell with realism, that's how a small-size swordsman of mine would fight. =D

Cuddly
2008-05-05, 07:43 PM
Um, humans who are armed are quite good at killing bears, lions and the like.

Heck, even Elephants and Mammoths.

It isn't trivial, and there is a decently high chance of death if you try it one-on-one, but spears/bows/swords and armor are actually pretty good at defeating animals.

Now, Ogres might make it harder. But simulationism wise, Ogres will be shockingly weak for their size, as they have to spend a huge amount of their strength just keeping themselves from collapsing, and their armor would have to be relatively thin to avoid crushing themselves. They would also be forced to move relatively slowly, due to the problems of a large creature putting all of their weight on one limb -- practically, I'd expect Ogres to be forced to use a 3rd limb at the least to prevent themselves from breaking their own legs every time they stumble.

Ie: if an ogre bends his leg when it is supporting his body, I'd expect it to snap like a twig. So if you can weaken the ogre's leg enough that it buckles even slightly, the ogre is down for the count.

Then again, if you say "the ogre is magic and doesn't follow the laws of our physics", then why can't the gnome be magic as well?

That doesn't make much sense. An ogre is smaller than a horse, weighing 600 to 650 pounds, and standing nine or ten feet tall. Draft horses, for instance, weigh upwards of 1000 lbs. There were lots of large, bipedal dinosaurs, as well. Just because something is big doesn't mean it's going to fall apart. A bear would chew your face off, no problem. You could stab its legs all you wanted, and it would have no problem mauling you. A large black bear is about ogre sized, in weight.

Of course, this is assuming that ogres are disproportionately larger than humans, since volume increases cubically and cross sectional area goes up by a square. This means that if you want to make something 50% taller than a person, you have to make it disproportionately thicker. For instance, elephants require hugely thick legs to support their bulk, while insects can get by on little stick legs. Judging by pictures of ogres, they are indeed thicker and meatier than the average human, making them much stronger and not frail or brittle.

This also is assuming that all the races are composed of the same materials. If fantasy creatures are made of some sort of denser bone or stronger muscles and the like, then you can have things that are proportionate in dimension to a human, but 25 feet tall, like a titan.

Yakk
2008-05-06, 12:56 AM
That doesn't make much sense. An ogre is smaller than a horse, weighing 600 to 650 pounds, and standing nine or ten feet tall. Draft horses, for instance, weigh upwards of 1000 lbs.

Horses have 4 legs. And they break their legs quite often.


There were lots of large, bipedal dinosaurs, as well.

Which required hugely powerful legs and probably a unique gait to move at speed, quite un-human-esque.


Just because something is big doesn't mean it's going to fall apart. A bear would chew your face off, no problem. You could stab its legs all you wanted, and it would have no problem mauling you. A large black bear is about ogre sized, in weight.

And, has 4 legs. :) With 2 legs, you have a much larger problem with leg load.


Of course, this is assuming that ogres are disproportionately larger than humans, since volume increases cubically and cross sectional area goes up by a square. This means that if you want to make something 50% taller than a person, you have to make it disproportionately thicker. For instance, elephants require hugely thick legs to support their bulk, while insects can get by on little stick legs. Judging by pictures of ogres, they are indeed thicker and meatier than the average human, making them much stronger and not frail or brittle.

Elephants, due to their size, only rest weight on their limbs when they are strait, and cannot gallop like a horse -- their gait is very different.

I suppose there is the fact that all animals tend to have about the same max strain (factor of 3 or 4 away from breaking) during normal operation. Which means that the Ogre probably has to walk differently than a human...

(Ie, small creatures have lots of strange, splayed leg positions -- larger creatures move it more and more directly under the center of body mass).


This also is assuming that all the races are composed of the same materials. If fantasy creatures are made of some sort of denser bone or stronger muscles and the like, then you can have things that are proportionate in dimension to a human, but 25 feet tall, like a titan.

*nod* -- and as noted, if you have fantasy Ogre physics, then you can have fantasy Gnome physics. The gnome, despite being 1/8th the mass of a human, has 80% of the strength on average, as an example. :)

Koji
2008-05-06, 11:54 AM
The romans were smaller in size than the gauls and other nordic tribes, but that didn't stop Caesar from making his troops kick their asses.

Apparently something did because we have a period called the dark ages.

What if D&D humans were actually only a foot tall, and their whole world was scaled to that?