Zhao yun once managed to fend off at least a hundred soldiers using only his spear.Polearms are more powerful than you think.
Humans in rpgs
- Thread starter number4096
- Start date
Recommended Videos
No humans are far from a specialised species.number4096 said:
What games does this apply to? In DnD elves are the ones with dozens of subraces whereas human have just one.
Fantasy bases itself upon myth and legend where humans wield magic.
Given how genetics work to designate early humans using modern racial nomenclature is foolish. The reasons they're mainly using Caucasians is because most fantasy games base themselves in fantastical versions of Europe/North America.
Every fantasy setting or game I've ever seen has had humans as neutral on moral cales with both good and bad examples. Also how is humanity any more evil than any other species in the real world?
Spears aren't very practical for single combat and they certainly suck for dungeon crawling. Swords are both very practical (there's a reason they were invented/used) and very heroic.
You're arguements are weak primarily because they lack examples. Which games are you complaining about?
Knights specific to england? An uncultured, uneducated mercenary?number4096 said:
I beg to disagree.
Straight form wiki:
"A knight was a "gentleman soldier" or member of the warrior class of the Middle Ages in Europe. In other Indo-European languages, cognates of cavalier or rider are more prevalent (eg French chevalier and German Ritter) suggesting a connection to the knight's mode of transport. Since antiquity a position of honour and prestige has been held by mounted warriors such as the Greek hippeus and the Roman eques, and knighthood in the Middle Ages was inextricably linked with horsemanship
Knighthood as known in Europe was characterized by the combination of two elements, feudalism and service as a mounted combatant. Both arose under the reign of the Frankish emperor Charlemagne, from which the knighthood of the Middle Ages can be seen to have had its genesis.
The tradition of the chivalric "knight in shining armor" can be traced back to the Arabs, with notable pre-Islamic figures like the Bedouin knight Antar The Lion (580 AD). He is believed to be the model of this tradition. Charles Reginald Haines noted traits "such as loyalty, courtesy, munificence...are found in eminent degree among the Arabs." Medieval Spain, which he calls the "cradle of chivalry", could bear that pre-modern title, due to the direct impact of Arab civilization in Al-Andalus. "Piety, courtesy, prowess in war, the gift of eloquence, the art of poetry, skill on horseback, dexterity with sword, lance, and bow" was expected of the elite Moorish knight."
Knights have been, from the times of Roman cavalry, been almost excusive to the higher castes: the nobles, the merchants, because no one of lower stature could afford the hideously expensive equipment, armor and upkeep of a horse bred and trained for war. They were also the only ones who had enough money to actually train for years and years for nothing but warfare. This is why the mainstay of European armies was made of spear-wielding peasants: the spear was cheap and easy to make, simple to train over the course of a few weeks and effective in large formations. Swordmanship, to the level where one could reasonably be expected to survive an engagement with another professional, takes years of training. And since these were the sons and cousins of the weathier upper class, a basic level of learning far above what the average man got was given to them. After all, there is only so much training one can do in a day, wars rarely last lifetimes and those businesses and noble families need successors.
Sorry, but you are looking at this entire issue from an extremely narrow point of view.
I'm sorry, WHAT? I have NEVER seen humans thrown out as a "pure magic user!" in an RPG.
They tend to be shown pretty true to our nature.
They tend to be shown pretty true to our nature.
As an answer to the humans as "good guys" in mass effect, humans are not the galactic good guys. In fact, they're pushy expansionists that feel entitled to greater power and get it because of their great success in such a short amount of time. *shrug
Few issues:
One: The swords bit. Swords have been used effectively all over the world, for good reason. Great personal defense (polearms still better for troops and it does bug me that the main character ALWAYS has the sword).
Two: the bit about humans always being good guys. What in the hell is this? Humans are always portrayed as douches. Mass Effect is the only game I can think of that doesnt do this, and I loved it for breaking convention. Also, your bit about human history: utterly useless argument. What are you comparing it to?
However, loved the bit about specialization. They're like Mario in every game he's ever appeared in: aggressively neutral. (quote from somethin else) Its stupid.
Finally, kudos for a good post on the internet. See, 99% of everyone else? Its not impossible!
One: The swords bit. Swords have been used effectively all over the world, for good reason. Great personal defense (polearms still better for troops and it does bug me that the main character ALWAYS has the sword).
Two: the bit about humans always being good guys. What in the hell is this? Humans are always portrayed as douches. Mass Effect is the only game I can think of that doesnt do this, and I loved it for breaking convention. Also, your bit about human history: utterly useless argument. What are you comparing it to?
However, loved the bit about specialization. They're like Mario in every game he's ever appeared in: aggressively neutral. (quote from somethin else) Its stupid.
Finally, kudos for a good post on the internet. See, 99% of everyone else? Its not impossible!
You see, this is where the idea "Willing Suspension of Disbelief" comes into play. Oh, and armor is actually fairly light, if it was made properly; It's possible to run, swim, and in some cases preform cartwheels. The combat gear that soldiers wear today is actually more cumbersome.number4096 said:
I don't see why humans have to be in RPGs at all. I get to play one of those IRL every day, so why the hell would I play one when gaming?
I'm not really happy with them being balanced either. They need more shortcommings.
& yes, the fact that their all caucasian bugs me too. Fortunately RPGs these days often let you make your own facial features & choose a skin color that pertain to any existing race. Really sick of the token "Brunette white guy with short hair & stubble." Why short hair? If it's going with a medivalish look, then short hair should be unfashionable.
I'm not really happy with them being balanced either. They need more shortcommings.
& yes, the fact that their all caucasian bugs me too. Fortunately RPGs these days often let you make your own facial features & choose a skin color that pertain to any existing race. Really sick of the token "Brunette white guy with short hair & stubble." Why short hair? If it's going with a medivalish look, then short hair should be unfashionable.
How? In real life humans are one of the most versatile animals on the planet. With the exception of insects I'd be hard pressed to find a more versatile animal.Grand_Arcana said:
Dual wielding isn't really ineffcient so much as suboptimal. Two one handed swords is better than one. But a two handed sword, or ideally a sword and shield are just better.
He was on the battlefield I assume, which is why he was facing soldiers no? I don't mean to say that a spear would be useless without a formation, but a sword is simply more versatile.number4096 said:
Wow,i have done more mistakes than i tought.
-It is true that pretty much any species one earth is pure evil rather than just humans.
-I must have been phenomenally misinformed about knights,forget what i said about them.
-As for humans and magic,they are never shown as specialised in magic but the very fact that they can use it breaks suspension of disbelieve.
-About human evil,even if there are evil humans in most RPGs,the one who saves the day is almost inevitably human.
-Honda tadakatsu and Zhao yun could defeat entire armies with their spears,alone,without other soldiers to help them.Polearms were always game breakers.
-For examples,i will just say standard fantasy setting.You know what i mean(Anything with dwarves,orcs and elves.).
-It is true that pretty much any species one earth is pure evil rather than just humans.
-I must have been phenomenally misinformed about knights,forget what i said about them.
-As for humans and magic,they are never shown as specialised in magic but the very fact that they can use it breaks suspension of disbelieve.
-About human evil,even if there are evil humans in most RPGs,the one who saves the day is almost inevitably human.
-Honda tadakatsu and Zhao yun could defeat entire armies with their spears,alone,without other soldiers to help them.Polearms were always game breakers.
-For examples,i will just say standard fantasy setting.You know what i mean(Anything with dwarves,orcs and elves.).
We're, pound for pound, one of the weakest species. Even a full grown man who has mastered martial arts would be flattened by an adolescent gorilla. We are natural cross-country runners though; a key component to our hunting strategy was running our prey down to exhaustion.Axolotl said:
Yes, thank you for agreeing with me.
/snark
Ya, I thought that was weird too.number4096 said:
I'm surprised as hell there wasn't a big controversy over that.
OT: Ya, humans are always the boring race in my opinion. They're the jack of all trades master of none, meaning that any race can beat them by simply overpowering them.
Why don't games get rid of them entirely?
Also, the Mongolian raiders who sakced Europe beg to disagree on what is an isn't an effective sword.
The sword that did it:
An excellent weapon when you are riding horseback and striking against an enemy on foot. A curved blade utilizes the momentum of the horse to increase the depth of the cut and the strongly twisted end ensures that the sword slides out of the enemy easier than a flat blade, minimising the change of getting involuntarily disarmed by the weapon jamming within enemy armor/body from said powerful slash.
Every weapon is a compromise between cost to make, difficulty to learn and master, reach of weapon, stabbing power, cutting power and weight. In some cases, reach is a good thing (see Rapier, Zweihander), in others it is not. Two-handed swords are excellent in taking down armored opponents and far more useful against cavalry targats than a short sword. The design philosohpy behind the Japanese blades all the way from the humble Tanto to the mighty O-Dachi
is different from European counterparts. The 'mighty' katana would have been almost useless against a medieval european full-plate which was designed to protect from cutting attacks and stabs by thin swords.
Which explain why Morning Stars of various kinds were so damn effective at killing armored targets: hit somewhere near a weak point and you get a puncture. Hit in a joint and twist and the leather straps holding the armor come off. Hit the side of a shield and you gain excellent leverage to twist it out of the way or break the arm of the wielder.
Each good weapon is made for one primary purpose. The inherent effectivness of the weapon depends on the equipment it is facing as much as it depends on the skill and other equipment used by the wielder.
The sword that did it:
An excellent weapon when you are riding horseback and striking against an enemy on foot. A curved blade utilizes the momentum of the horse to increase the depth of the cut and the strongly twisted end ensures that the sword slides out of the enemy easier than a flat blade, minimising the change of getting involuntarily disarmed by the weapon jamming within enemy armor/body from said powerful slash.
Every weapon is a compromise between cost to make, difficulty to learn and master, reach of weapon, stabbing power, cutting power and weight. In some cases, reach is a good thing (see Rapier, Zweihander), in others it is not. Two-handed swords are excellent in taking down armored opponents and far more useful against cavalry targats than a short sword. The design philosohpy behind the Japanese blades all the way from the humble Tanto to the mighty O-Dachi
Which explain why Morning Stars of various kinds were so damn effective at killing armored targets: hit somewhere near a weak point and you get a puncture. Hit in a joint and twist and the leather straps holding the armor come off. Hit the side of a shield and you gain excellent leverage to twist it out of the way or break the arm of the wielder.
Each good weapon is made for one primary purpose. The inherent effectivness of the weapon depends on the equipment it is facing as much as it depends on the skill and other equipment used by the wielder.
sniff. Internet, I'm so proud. Somebody responded to critiscism, changed their view, and apologized. Thank-you.number4096 said:
OT: Just a question: what should humans specialization be, if not neutral? Aggressive? Defensive? Magic? (just kidding) Intelligence?
I can safely say that this is my most interesting thread thus far since i got here.
You are all awesome.
You are all awesome.
No, it isn't. You're offhand weapon would more than likely just get in the way. It is easier to displace a blow when you have two hands on your weapon for greater control, power, and range of weapon movement. As for "parry with the offhand" that's what shields are for.number4096 said:
offtopic:
I see that you'd like to play an WRPG with Asiatic themes.