Humans in rpgs

[number4096]

Wow,shields are more hardcore than i tought.

I knew they could block arrows easily and the romans conquered europe almost solely because of their shields and the chinese had pretty much a different type of shield for every situations,but this is going into complete gamebreaker territories.No wonder the spartans paid so much attention to their shields.At this point all i see that coul beat that would be axe and shield since some axes were made to destroy shields,So an scandinavian berserker would have a chance,or dian wei.

Any videos that could show real shield techniques would be appreciated and give me a better idea of real combat.

 

[Zacharine]

Wow,shields are more hardcore than i tought.

This small clip demonstrates some real shield techniques. Notice how the shield is used to hide your arm position at times, making your next strike more unpredictable. The shiled is also as much a weapon as the sword: a sideways hit from the shield is like getting hit with a club, a full shield bash would be like running straight into a wooden wall head-first.

But also notice the clear coreograhped movements like rotational attacks in a real fight they would be analoguous to suicide at any closer range or against an opponent of even close to same level of training. This is a staged combat video, keep that in mind.

 

[number4096]

SakSak,considering sideway attacks and bash attacks,would a combattant be practical with two shields,one in each hands,considering that both shields would have to be small enough to not get in each others way but big enough to block attacks effectively(And be of shapes that would allow that.)?

Also,your opinion on axe and shield combo?

 

[Kukakkau]

There was too much text but I saw some things in there that were bit ranty.

Put simply I don't get why when roleplaying you would play a human - why I never pick human as my first char in any RPG.

And anyway it isn't real they can do what they want - hell they could make elves homosexual hippies if they wanted, it can't be disproven

 

[Bob the Average]

The only useful swords to ever appear were the roman gladius and the japanese katana,and even these had to be paired with a shield or a wakizashi to be useful.

Sorry,that was long,what do you think?

Actually the katana wasn't that useful it's just been mythologized like the sword a knight would use.

 

[Zacharine]

SakSak,considering sideway attacks and bash attacks,would a combattant be practical with two shields,one in each hands,considering that both shields would have to be small enough to not get in each others way but big enough to block attacks effectively(And be of shapes that would allow that.)?

Also,your opinion on axe and shield combo?

Twin shields? No. Because as shields go, they attack patterns are predictable and can be dodged or redirected. Shield is also incapable of penetrating hard armor. The use of twin shields also makes you a big target. Crappling attacks, close combat and plain brute-force attacks designed to batter down enemy defenses almost invariably would defeat anyone foolish enough to wield twin shields. All you need to do is tire up that shield arm and numb it by repeated heavy-handed strikes, something the katana is ill-designed to do btw, that curved design and rigid hard blade (in comparison to a far more flexible broadsword or longsword taht lack the extreme cutting power of the specialized single-edge but make up for it with durability) will quickly chip and blunt, possibly even break.

Or, match shield for shield on the first strike, then thrust with a sword as the opponents second shield is too unwieldy to block your thrust so close to the other shield.

Here is some real shield combat, both close and at range. Notice how some of the moves are intended for use at practically direct armor to armor contact distance.

Unlike popular fiction, real medieval sword combatants were exceedinly good at grappling and close combat. They had to be, otherwise they would have died off far too quickly to the first close-combat slash.


When it comes to shield and axe, that combination works. Naturally the axe can't be a two-handed one, but a one-handed axe works well. As far as the shield is considered, the weapon in your other hand does not effect the shield techniques that much (as long as the reach and weight stay about the same).

Both the sword and the axe as weapons have advantages the other does not, but also similarly have disadvantages. As far as trained combatants go, both combinations are equally as lethal.

EDIT: As an added bonus, here's some of the longsword/broadsword techniques I've learned. Notice the amount of grappling and lack of large, 'projected' (easily read) strikes against the enemy weapon.

 

[Arbitrary Cidin]

It's a comprehension method. Because we ARE human, and would naturally use ourselves as a reference when looking at the other races (or even species in the real world), the human is always the central origin point in terms of stats.

 

[Zacharine]

Snip

In addition to my previous post, I'll abbreviate here why the shield-only style is a bad idea.

When used in attack, the shield is good for a distraction, for opening up defense and for bashing attacks that stun and numb. But only at close range, because then the attack is pretty much unblockable (doesnt matter if it hits your opponents shield, armor or weapon, the objective of that attack is achieved) and can only be dodged by going backwards or significantly sideways.

Opponent jumping back creates you room to breathe and to reasses the situation. Jumping sideways is likely to create an opening, put your opponent off balance due to bad footing or at worst lead to a counterattack with your own weapon ready to block as your own guard is up. In other words, the worst case is pretty much equal footing. Of course, against a skilled opponent that equal footing might be deadly. But so would be simply hunkering down behind your shield.

But the effectivness of the shield attacks is it it's ability to open defenses. Opening that can then be used to cut the opponent with your blade. That opening, the greatest advantage given to you by your shield attack, is useless without an accompanying weapon that you can then plunge into the weak spots of his armor at your leisure and end the battle.

 

[number4096]

Snip

In addition to my previous post, I'll abbreviate here why the shield-only style is a bad idea.

When used in attack, the shield is good for a distraction, for opening up defense and for bashing attacks that stun and numb. But only at close range, because then the attack is pretty much unblockable (doesnt matter if it hits your opponents shield, armor or weapon, the objective of that attack is achieved) and can only be dodged by going backwards or significantly sideways.

Opponent jumping back creates you room to breathe and to reasses the situation. Jumping sideways is likely to create an opening, put your opponent off balance due to bad footing or at worst lead to a counterattack with your own weapon ready to block as your own guard is up. In other words, the worst case is pretty much equal footing. Of course, against a skilled opponent that equal footing might be deadly. But so would be simply hunkering down behind your shield.

But the effectivness of the shield attacks is it it's ability to open defenses. Opening that can then be used to cut the opponent with your blade. That opening, the greatest advantage given to you by your shield attack, is useless without an accompanying weapon that you can then plunge into the weak spots of his armor at your leisure and end the battle.

Wow,videos like that is one of the main reasons i like this thread(Though some of the sword moves in the second video could have been done by a katana,also,samurais knew ju jutsu and ju ju jutsu is mostly grappling moves and submission holds as well as pressure points strikes.A battle between a knight and a samurai would be cool beyond reason,seeing as they are a match for each other on so many levels.).

I wondered about battle moves(Seeing you actually practice armed combat.)and wondered about a shield vs polearm scenario:

The shield user would charge the polearm user with the shield,preparing to do a thrust after contact.The polearm user would push against the shield horizontally,handle first.The shield user would try a thrusting attack,but the polearm user would push the shield aside by pushing the shield's hedge with one end of the polearm(In a circular motion:the left hand pulls the polearm while the right hand pushes it against the shield's hedge rather than the flat side of the shield.),turning the shield user around,distabilising the guy,and exposing the shield user's back.

Is it a credible scenario?Or do i need to learn more?

 

[Tiny116]

Really?

I've noticed most humans are the asshole race in RPGs and the most unbalanced of all.

I'm agreeing with this
Also you're forgetting that the human race has proven itself over history to be one of the most adaptable creatures in the history of the world...ergo the Diversity. Can all animals adapt to a drastic change in climate, no can we, yes.
In an RPG setting to get traditional on you, Elves and dwarves are usually portrayed as fixed in their ways, not willing to expand and try new things.

 

[number4096]

Is anyone sure that the shield got replaced with the armor over time?The shield just seems better against arrows and allows for a much better control over the opponent in battle.

The romans had some of the best armors ever and even them insisted on using shields

The armor will just wear down the carrier,limit vision due to the visor and be overall less efficient at receiving attacks(People died of sling attacks to the helmet,while shields could receive arrow attacks without problem.).

Also,if an axe can break a shield,can a halberd do the same?(My brother once used a halberd and didn't tought of it as heavy but efficient.)

 

[Axolotl]

The romans had some of the best armors ever and even them insisted on using shields

Wait what?

 

[number4096]

Axe vs shield scenario:

Can an axe's head get behind a shield and pull it down,distabilising the opponent?

I was just wondering.

 

[Cheesus333]

Spoiler: Opening post

a few things bug me with the way humans are shown in rpgs:

-first,humans are shown as a balanced species,when in reality they are probably the most heavily specialised of all animals.

-Humans are shown as more diversified than everyone else,when in reality,animals are just as diversified as humans are from an individual to the other.Any species that reproduce sexually will have this sort of diversity.And as can be seen outside,people tend to copy each other and do the same things,with those behaving differently from the mass being called exceptions,for a reason.

-Humans are oftenly shown as magic users,which kind of breaks any forms of resemblance with real humans.They should be called something else at least.

-Humans are too oftenly shown as english europeans rather than other ethnicities or at least other europeans than english europeans.This is not so bad until other ethnicities are shown as different species altogether(Redguards,anyone?).Or when the very first humans to born are shown as caucasians rather than africans.It is not racist,but it is inaccurate in relation to reality.They should at least be called something else.

-Humans are oftenly shown as the good guys.Look at human history for three seconds.You will see on how many levels this is wrong(Humans should be shown as worthy,powerful villains who make other species tremble in fear if anything.With demons and other evil species being hunted down for sport.).

-The fixation on swords is impractical and inaccurate.The only useful swords to ever appear were the roman gladius and the japanese katana,and even these had to be paired with a shield or a wakizashi to be useful.Spears and polearms in general were always better than any other melee weapons(Case in point:Honda Tadakatsu and Tomoe Gozen.).Why the fixation on swords?Or England?Or goody-two-shoes?Villainous and powerful humans would be both more authentic and more interesting to play than goody-two-shoes.

Sorry,that was long,what do you think?

I think you're probably not understanding the idea of an RPG, or more generally, the idea of the fantasy genre. People don't want realism, or technical accuracy. They want fantasy, adventure, magic, excitement - fairy tale crap soaked in blood, sex and violence. Let me do this point by point - beats the shit out of Maths revision at any rate ;P

1. Humans are the 'reliable, jack-of-all-trades' characters simply because they're the most relatable. We know ourselves a lot better than we know elves, dwarves, or asari if you're feeling adventurous, so it makes sense that the class for the inexperienced player should be a familiar one.

2. I don't actually know what you mean here, so... moving on.

3. You mention 'breaking away from reality' as a bad thing, but that is literally the point. Humans are able to use magic because the audience enjoys visualising themselves wielding these arcane powers - playing it through their personal in-game avatar is the closest they'll get to being bad-ass warlocks, so of course they'll want to play human for that. Relatibility and all that stuff.

4. I wouldn't go so far as to say racist, it's entirely fictional and other races aren't portrayed offensively at all. Anyway, the main humans are caucasian because the demographic is caucasian. Gaming companies - generally speaking - make their games for Americans and then the English. An American accent would be far out of place in a Medieval environment like Cyrodiil (among the Redguards, I'm using an example you've shown yourself to understand), so the English are the most obvious candidates.

5. Humans can be dicks. I agree with that sentiment completely (not that I'm a misanthrope). And in Dragon Age this tends to hold true (look at the treatment of City Elves, for instance). But to be fair a lot of us do have a strong sense of justice, nobility, honour, etc. And when a hero comes along, these will be the human characteristics that define him/her. I don't know the people you do, but the people I know can mess around, but have a fairly well-aligned moral compass when it gets right down to it.

6. Swords are frickin' cool and no-one wants to weild a spear. Also, I much prefer to play the 'good' characters cause I suffer pangs of guilt making innocent characters suffer. Call it oversensitivity, I'd like to think of it as a reflection of my attitude towards other people in general. My point being that a medieval RPG where you play as a polearm-wielding, misanthropic, magic-free, demon-hunting arsehole who presumably eats babies for the fun of the kill would cater to a very specialised market. Probably you.

There's nothing wrong with RPGs as they are. Role-playing games are a very popular genre among gamers, and if it works for the masses, why change it? The opinions of one or a few are rarely considered when the crowds are saying no. Sorry but that's how it is, democracy seems to be a lot more potent in the places we and I live.

Hope I helped clarify, or just helped in general would be good.


PS. No-one gives a damn about 'combat efficiency' when they can press RT to eviscerate, flay or eradicate an enemy from 2 inches away. Just for the record.

 

[Zacharine]

The shield user would charge the polearm user with the shield,preparing to do a thrust after contact.The polearm user would push against the shield horizontally,handle first.The shield user would try a thrusting attack,but the polearm user would push the shield aside by pushing the shield's hedge with one end of the polearm(In a circular motion:the left hand pulls the polearm while the right hand pushes it against the shield's hedge rather than the flat side of the shield.),turning the shield user around,distabilising the guy,and exposing the shield user's back.

Is it a credible scenario?Or do i need to learn more?

I'm sorry but I can't see how that would work. A shield, fully facing the pole-arm user... How would you horizontally push the shield away (to your left or right) without simultaneously opening yourself up for the lighting-quick thrust a straight sword is capable of, or taking an elbow to the face?

Certainly, you could use the reach of the weapon to hit the outer side of the shield and begin to force a turn-around, but he would be able to redirect the strike with a simple twist of the elbow. Imagine a roman-style towershield. Four corners, flat sides, concave profile. Now imagine that poler-arm hitting the upper side of the shield form the outside, attempting to force the shield-user to expose his back.

The shield user simply twists his elbow and turns the shield counter-clockwise (from your perspective), absorbing some of that energy, while simply raising his shield up above his head, creating a kind of roof between the two of you. Your pole-arm is sitting on top of his shield. Sure, his guard is down and you could retract the polearm or continue the rolling motion to the side and prep a counterattack, but before you can do that his quick thrust would hit your defensless torso. His strike would land before your pole-arm presents a threat again.

Now imagine the same scenario, but hitting the exact middle of the shield, where his arm is supporting it. No way to deflect your attack by simple rotation. However, he performs an opening motion, like back-handing, and throwing his shield fully against your pole-arm. Suddenly your poler-arm hast lost the momentum (Momentum = force x distance from leverage point) as your leverage point (your body) is a lot closer to the closest point of contact with the shield. He can also the lock his elbow to his side (upper arm going straight down from his shoulder, 90 degree angle at elbow that is digging into right below his ribs, fist pointed toward you), ensuring you are now trying to push his entire body instead of just the shield. Again, he is open but you have no way of attack him with your weapon before his thrust arrives. Again he holds the advantage.

Now imagine going for the lower part of the shield. This time he digs it into the ground, absorbs the blow, takes a step forward while rotating his hips and coming for you with a straightforward sideways stab from the side your weapon is not on.

Imagine going for the upper inside of the shield. He might redirect it above his head with his sword and close in for a shield bash or a slash from above his head.

Inside, middle shield. He moves the shield outwards to his right, pushing the pole-arm away form his body. Takes a step closer. Returns the shield to position on his left and allowes the wooden portion of the pole-arm rest against his sword-arm. It is harmless now, after all; the tip is behind him and the momentum of your strike is gone. He raises his sword arm out and away, redirecting the wooden shaft away from his body with his forearm and executes a downwards slash from within your defense.

Inside, lower shield. Block with the sword and shield by kneeling towards the strike. A step in, shield bash.

No imagine the shield is a viking roundshield. A simple twist of the arm negates whatever sideways momentum you have on the shield, as the outside of the shield becomes a rotating wheel. Cue in similar counterattacks. Only difference is outside, and lower shield. Here he simply executes a downwards shield bash on your pole-arm, redirecting it towards the ground.

In all cases, your opponent ends up with a serious advantage if you attack with the objective of pushing his shield away or attempting to force him to make an involuntary turn that exposes his back. It simply won't work against an opponent with any real training in shield use.

 

[Plurralbles]

... I started my Oblivion game as an imperial. I got my ass summarily handed to me. Then I switched to Dark Elf and am ear-raping everything(though I, admittadly, changed my class and started using conjuration which makes everything easier)

Humans suck balls.

 

[number4096]

To Cheesus333:

You say the audience want a"Fairy tale crap soaked in blood and violence."

The only way to credibly roleplay something like that would be to play a"misanthropic,demon-hunting arshole who presumably eats babies for the fun of the kill.".

All you do in these games is intrude someone's lair,smash property,loot it's possessions,kill it's friends,then kill it too and then do the same to everyone else until you reach level 99 or get bored.

A"misanthropic,demon-hunting arshole who presumably eats babies for the fun of the kill."sounds accurate for such a game.It would arguably make the game better.

(Here i am discussing of video game goals,not human morality.)

 

[number4096]

SakSak,what do you think would be the best weapons to use against a sword and shield combo?It honestly seems flawless in all respects.

Also,my brother once knew someone who could deviate shields by getting an axe's head behind the shield and pulling it so as to expose the opponent.Do you think it could work against a well trained opponent?

 

[number4096]

SakSak,If you had a quarterstaff and your opponent had both hands on it as well,how would you fight back?

Furthermore,if you had a polearm and had to face a shield and sword user,how would you defeat it(Let's say your life is in danger and that is all you have at the moment.)?