Humans in rpgs

[Zacharine]

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.)

You sure seem to have some serious misconceptions. Okay, where to begin...

Who on earth ever gave you the idea that armor replaced shields or shields replaced armour?

A simple shield is easy to make, even for a peasant. All you need is some wood and a few leather straps to make a primitive one. Even when comparing a full-metal kite-shield to a simple cuirass breastplate armour (almost full-plate torso-piece, rest chainmail/cured leather), the shield is significantly cheaper and easier to manufacture and affords some serious protection.

But a shield is useful only if you know an attack is coming. Armor protects you no matter what.

And there is a reason why there has been some serious preferance for both all troughout the history.

An armor and a shield fulfill the same basic need for protection, but they do it in a different manner, at different costs and have different weaknesses.

Second, Roman armor....

It was good for it's time, but hardly the best. A leather armor that is then plated with metal plates (large or small) that are woven together with string is an age-old concept. It's called Scale Mail. The Romans called it Lorica Squamata. Don't know what the ancient Chinese called it.

It should be noted that some of the 'barbarian' hide and leather armours, when made thick enough and properly treated afforded practically the same level of protection.

third: halbergs and shields: Sure, if the shield user was stupid enough to take the large, unwiedly and easily predicted attack against his shield straight on. And if he did that, then he'd deserve to die for stupidity.

Understand this: If you are armed with a pole-arm and I'm armed with a shield and a sword/axe, all your non-thrusting attacks can be negated by a single step inwards and a block any child would know how to do after five minutes of training. Your only hope would be to use the versatility and reach of the pole-arm against me. But if you are using a halberg, you can't do it because it's too heavy to use swiftly enough.

Also understand that the wooden pole is vulnerable to a full-on sword block. I could disarm you by simply executing a full-strenght attack against the pole of your weapon if you are adamant on using heavy-hitting predictable attacks. 'Oh going for my shield are you? With a two-handed slow but powerful swing? Let me just take a step towards you and slash full-strenght at your weapon. Even if I lose my shield, you are now disarmed and at my mercy.'

When thinking of pole-arm attacks, always assume the enemy steps towards you and closes the distance. The critical phase is can you block the counter-attack? Can you keep the distance from closing? Can you recover from your attack? To fully take advantage of the pole-arm reach, you need to wild it like an oversized sword: both hands on one end. But this leaves you vulnerable to a close-in attack. Reduce your reach by holding the pole-arm from closer to the middle: this decreases the strenght and reach behind your attacks, but you can recover almost instantly with a simple change of grip and launch multiple attacks from various directions.

Combat with a staff is about blocking with one end of it and launching an instant counter-attack with the other end. It is about instantly reversing the direction of your staff and switching and moving your grip along it to gain the maximum leverage and reach for each individual attack while preparing to defend at any single moment. It is about harrassing your opponent that closes range so that you can retreat to a longer range where you hold the advantage.

Combat with a spear is a lot like it, but with far more emphasis on thrusting attacks with the pointy end.

Combat with a naginata is about slashing and thrusting from long reach, while using the long wooden pole-arm part for defense and extremely close-ranged attacks.

But in principle, if you are armed with a pole-arm and the fight happens well within a swords reach of you, then you are at a serious disadvantage. And a man with a shield is almost guaranteed the ability to close distance against a pole-arm.

 

[moose_man]

This is not so bad until other ethnicities are shown as different species altogether(Redguards,anyone?).

Ya, I thought that was weird too.
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?

Because some ppl are boring and unoriginal. Friggin human D&Ders...

 

[number4096]

Wow,i'm learning more and more everytime,mostly that what i had been told in the past is only good for hollywood or larping(My brother does larping,so what my brother did may very well not apply in real battles at all.).

Do you think that helmets with visors or those that cover partially the face are phenominally impractical?I once talked to someone who studied history and he told me that covering your face with a visor was the best way to die.

Your toughts?

 

[Zacharine]

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.

Arrows. Volleys and volleys of arrows. Preferably as an ambush.

Crossbow.

Horseback knights in heavy armour both for the horse and the man, armed with lances, executing a straight charge.

Another shield and sword/axe combo, fighting man to man in a tight formation. Preferably a Pilum thrown at the enemy before closing. That ingenious throwing spear was made for a single purpose: make the enemy shield useless.

A broadsword or a Zweihänder.

A ridiculously large axe, if I didn't mind a high chance of dying myself.

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?

Possibly. But remember, if he is targeting my shield, then he was wasted his attack so to speak. Combat isn't about two people exchanging blows, it is about defending and attacking at the same time to the best of your ability with the objective being killing your opponent as fast as possible.

Let us say he goes for my shield with his axze, intent on unshielding me or opening my defense. Let us say that at the same time I go for his lungs with my sword.

If he succeeds, I lose my shield possibly for only a moment. I succeed, he is dead. We both succeed, I've won. He succeeds but I don't, he is still yet to wound me.

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

Trip him,
headbutt him,
kick him in the groin,
knee him to the kidneys
remove one hand form the staff and punch him in the throat,
elbow him to the head,
get leverage on his arm and break it,
let him have the staff and do all the above while his hands are tied and he is off balance from me letting go

Anything and everything is a weapon. All you need is will to see it as such.

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.)?

Some thrusting attacks, always keep distance, quick successive attacks from different vectors, if possible go for the head. If he is intent on closeing distance and does it, maneuver his arms to suitable positions and then spring the trap: close to skin-to-skin distance and begin grappling using the staff as extra leverage. Kick him, bite him, give him fingers to the eyes, break his swordarm with the help of the staff.

If my pole-arm was a halberg, I'd break off the useless heap of metal on the other end and use it as a staff.

My only advantages are the ability to quickly change the direction my attacks are coming from, greater reach and better grappling ability at extremely close range as I am not hindered by a shield. Use these to the best of my ability.

I wouldn't however be too confident in winning. If my opponent is good with his shield and sword, I'd say his chances of winning are greater than mine.

 

[number4096]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CG-SqADgk0M

Do you think this weapon(shown in the video)could beat the shield and sword combo?

 

[deepblue2]

Even though most games fixate on english culture(You oftenly play a knight,which is specific to england.),They almost never get it right.

you carry armor even when drinking at a tavern,you never take care of it or make sure it doesn't rust,knights are shown as well washed and cultured while in reality they were uneducated mercenaries who pooped in their own armors(The squires had to clean it up.),and you carry all that armor on foot,while in reality this much armor was useful only on horseback,since you could barely even move with a full plate armor.

They could at least call the knights something else or use a different culture altogether.

Well, first I'd have to say that Knights were not a strictly English notion. You might make an argument that they are a largely European notion I suppose. Many people understand what a Knight was so that certainly explains why they are popular in games.

Yeah, Knights probably didnt go everywhere fully armored. However, there's plenty of well documented historical and modern research data that proves that a trained Knight had plenty of mobility on foot.

As for the "pooping" issue...well I suppose most RPGs I've ever encountered don't cover that extensively. May be a good feature for some new game!

Humans in RPGs are easy for people to relate to and provide a basis from which to describe the differences of the other races and creatures. Gotta start from some point.

"Oftenly" sounds like a George W. Bush-ism!

What other human culture would you suggest that hasn't been in an RPG?

 

[Zacharine]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CG-SqADgk0M

Do you think this weapon(shown in the video)could beat the shield and sword combo?

Assuming equal levels of training...

quite possibly. All you need is a really good feint and a reversal.

as with every other weapon.

There are no 'hard' counters to anything: axes do not automatically beat shields, a staff does not automatically beat a short sword, a short sword does not automatically defeat an unarmed opponent.

There are simply varying degrees of advantage and disadvantage.

That weapon, resembling the fusion of a scimitar and a naginata might do it. Consider: at long range, it is like a Zweihänder, or a greatsword as they are called. At short range, a half-staff, half-scimitar.

But consider: if a shield can block or redirect a zweihander, it can block or redirect that. If a person having a shield can get close to a person with a staff, he can get close against that.

Personally, I'd still give the advantage to the sword/shield combo. But perhaps that is a personal bias speaking as I never understood the point behind such hybrid weapons; comes from not having used them. And too often do I see way too acrobatic maneuvers done with them to accept them as great tools of killing. Killing tools they are, but I always wonder 'wouldn't it just be simpler to make a broadsword? Wouldn't it be faster to learn how to use a broadsword? What can this weapon do, that a broadsword can not? What does it compromise in order to gain that?'

And usually I see the broadsword as coming ahead. It has reach, it has thrusting power, it has cutting power, it is of manageable weight, it can be used in various ways with a simple change in grip. Sure, this is a bit biased as I'm somewhat trained with a medieval 'bastard' swords, but it is also the simple fact that medieval european swords have endured the test of time: they are simply that good when it comes down to killing up close and personal.

 

[number4096]

if a big axe or a zweihander could defeat the shield,would a polearm of similar strenght defeat it as well?(A polearm with an axe head,a beak-like spike or longer blade than the naginata?)

 

[ultrachicken]

I assumed someone would post something like this...
The kind of dragon typically used in RPGs is the European type, is it not?
On topic of skin color and ethnicity: The RPGs I'm thinking of don't even let you talk or express your character's culture and ethnicity in any other way than bashing the nearest goblin in the face. Also, I wouldn't take anything Yahtzee says into account. His job is to rip on games to make you laugh.

In general, yes, the dragons you fight are usually western style dragons. But not always. And you made a pretty jarring generalization that isn't entirely accurate.

As for what Yahtzee said, I was citing the quote I was using for the fact that I've observed in other games. He just put it more eloquently that I could. As for not taking a game reviewer's points on games, well, I think you're on the wrong site then.

The thread is talking about western rpgs, and western rpgs almost always have european dragons. Of course what I said doesn't apply to everything, but I didn't want to write an essay on dragons.
On the topic of Yahtzee: I love ZP, but I don't take into account what yahtzee says very seriously because his reviews are supposed to be funny. If I'm actually curious what a game is like, I watch a more serious review, with gameplay footage. So, I do take reviews and use them to decide what to purchase, but not Yahtzee's reviews, because even though he's really funny, he's not going to influence my purchases.

 

[number4096]

So in theory,anything can beat anything if you are awesome enough with it?

Also,one more thing i wanted to ask you:

Can these tactics beat many opponents at once:

-Spinning your weapon to keep them away and attack at the same time.

-Being continually on the run and attack whoever is nearby without engaging anyone as well as looking for openings in the opponents positions and defenses.

-Shooting arrows on horseback and never stay in one place for too long.

-use stealth and ambush the opponents one by one.

-run away and hit whoever reaches you first one after the other until there is few enough of them to finish the rest without making them run after you.

-Wait for them in a tight corridor or a narrow bridge and fend them off one by one.

-Get your back against a wall and prepare to counterattack whoever gets nearby.

-Use a human shield captured through grappling techniques to receive attacks in your
place,ram with,throw at people(Or push at people.)and to tackle people with and anytime you dispose of one,you grab another and repeat.

Could any of them be practical?

 

[Zacharine]

if a big axe or a zweihander could defeat the shield,would a polearm of similar strenght defeat it as well?(A polearm with an axe head,a beak-like spike or longer blade than the naginata?)

You cannot cut a Zweihänder in half. You cannot block it's middle half with a lightly armored forearm by taking a small bruise and redirect the weapon safely away. It suddenly doesn't become safe to ignore it halfway to your enemy, because he can cut with any part of it. You cannot ignore the blunt end of it when extremely close, because it's isn't relatively soft wood but rather hardened metal that hurts a whole lot more.

The whole point of making weapons from wood is that wood is light (in relation to metal) and accessible. Crafting extra metal bits on the end kinds defeats the purpose of having a wooden weapon. With a spear, the metal bit is small. With a halberg, it is ridiculously heavy and large. Personally, I'd rather use a 8kg (1.25 stones) sledgehammer or a plain staff than a halberg, that's how useless it is in practice.

I really can't put it any clearer. Against a armored, shield-wielding opponent the only part of a pole-arm that is truly dangerous is the metal bit in the end. Making that pointy metal bit large, defeats the purpose of having a pole-arm as it is no longer lightweight, quick and long but heavy, unwiedly and slow. At which point you are better off with removing the extraneous wooden part and wielding the metal bit directly. And lo and behold, you have a sword or a Morning Star.

Getting a pole-arm with a spike on the end? Okay, so the spike get's lodged into the shield. Great going, you're now defensless as like you control his shield with your weapon, he has the same control over your hands (unless you let go). And your hands move a lot easier than a heavy shield.

Or a block, thrust and good jorney to afterlife. Just like against a spear or a staff.

And good luck trying to get that spike trough his defenses without it getting lodged into the shield. Or being blocked and summarily dismissed as a glorified staff. Or being stepped wll inside your range and getting gutted.

The simple solutions are usually the best. Always remember, the objective isn't to open up the defences of the enemy, it is to kill them. And the further away from you the metal bits are, the less effective they are at close range.

It is always a question of 'How can I play into my strenghts the most, while playing into as few of his strenghts as possible? What advantage can I give up? What advantage of his can I ignore or overcome? What advantage of his must I avoid to the last? And what is my such advantage over him, or do I lack one?'

Let's face it, pole-arms have a few good advantages. But they also have glaring disadvantages. A sword has fewer large unique advantages, but almost no glaring disadvantages.

 

[number4096]

Lots of people in history managed to fend off many opponents on their own:

-The berserker at Stamford Bridge.

-Saito Musashibo Benkei

-Dian Wei

-(apparently)Zhao Yun

-Musashi Miyamoto

-And many others.

I just wanted to know if their was some basis to this sort of phenomenon.

 

[regallmighty]

humans are always eather the super good people, or the super jerks

 

[Zacharine]

So in theory,anything can beat anything if you are awesome enough with it?

Also,one more thing i wanted to ask you:

Can these tactics beat many opponents at once:

-Spinning your weapon to keep them away and attack at the same time.

No. After redirecting the first weapon, your momentum with the spinning motion is gone. The next weapon you hit will barely feel it. The third one will gut you.

-Being continually on the run and attack whoever is nearby without engaging anyone as well as looking for openings in the opponents positions and defenses.

Possibly. Depends on how long it takes for anyone to take a swing at you when you are not paying attention to them. That first swing will do you in. Also, you need lots of room for running and the enemy must never gang upon you.

-Shooting arrows on horseback and never stay in one place for too long.

As long as there are no opposing archers, you can keep kiting almost indefinately. But you'd also have to be a master horserider and a master bowman and a single return arrow might do you in.

-use stealth and ambush the opponents one by one.

Only if they lack communications between. Any smart enemy will regroup and begin working at pairs the second someone misses a call-in or a dead body is found. Also assuming that the enemy is not already working in pairs. If they are, you'd have to take down both silently. That is quite hard even with modern weaponry.

-run away and hit whoever reaches you first one after the other until there is few enough of them to finish the rest without making them run after you.

Only if the enemy is stupid enough to not work in pairs AND you can kill them before any backup reaches up to you.

-Wait for them in a tight corridor or a narrow bridge and fend them off one by one.

Only if the corridor is narrow enough for only a single person to come at you a time AND they have zero ranged weaponry. A Bridge? No chance in hell. You might take one or two with you before getting gutted or perforated with arrows/bullets.

-Get your back against a wall and prepare to counterattack whoever gets nearby.

Fails the moment two or three attack you simultaneously, one from the left, one from the front and one from the right. If two attack you and you have a shield/second weapon, you might, with extreme luck and indescripably large skill-gap to your advantage, kill one attacker and block the other one, turning it into a 1v1.

Fails the moment ranged weaponry or more than 2 attackers come into play.

-Use a human shield captured through grappling techniques to receive attacks in your
place,ram with,throw at people(Or push at people.)and to tackle people with and anytime you dispose of one,you grab another and repeat.

Possibly, up until the moment someone gets the unprecedented idea of attacking you from behind. Or decides to draw a dagger and simply stab some part of you with it. Like a hand. Or a leg. Or someone simply swings a sword in your direction and waits for the squeal of agony that escapes you as your desperate flailing makes you hit it and get cut.

Also fails if these are 'evil mooks', as in they do not care if your human shield lives or dies. At that point the first person with a sword will gut you by stabbing through your human shield. In addition, does not work as an escape plan: someone will shoot your back or simply surround you with sharp point objects that you cannot remove from your way without getting cut or stabbed.

 

[Zacharine]

Lots of people in history managed to fend off many opponents on their own:

-The berserker at Stamford Bridge.

This happened almost a tohusand years ago. It is unknown for how long he actually held the line. It might have been just some minutes. Also note, he died as he was overwhelmed and that we have no note of Harold's army firing arrows at him - mighty stupid that, if that is the case.

Of course, if he was just a one man, they might not have seen the need to do so. So they charged at him. After a brief moment of fighting, they overwhelm him. The enemy lines have been organized just in time but still get crushed.

-Saito Musashibo Benkei

His life has been greatly embellished and distorted by kabuki and Noh drama, so that truth cannot be distinguished from legend. All we know for sure is that he was a famous warrior monk that lived in the Heijan era Japan. During that time, battles between true warriors were fought one on one only. The way of the Bushi and all that jazz, you know.

-Dian Wei

Died before we reached third century AD. Any factual knowledge is greatly limited, folklore and retellings of his story (as well as the writing of Romance of the Three Kingdoms) have likely greatly exaggarated his deeds. His famous final stand was also more of a psychological trick than a victory against great odds: the enemy was afraid to attack him in an organized manner and he died of multiple arrow-wounds.

-(apparently)Zhao Yun

Died soon after the turn of the third century AD. The original text describing him is a couple of hundred words long. In literature and folklore he is lauded, Luo Guanzhong's novel Romance of the Three Kingdoms his actual exploits were highly dramatized. His so-called greatest personal battle was with a dozen of highly trained bodyguards, against an enemy vanguard unit that they had manged to ambush.

-Musashi Miyamoto

After his death, various legends began to appear. Most talk about his feats in kenjutsu and other martial arts, some describing how he was able to hurl men over 5 feet backwards, other about his speed and technique. Other legends tell of how Musashi killed giant lizards in Echizen, as well as Nue in various other provinces. He gained the stature of Kensei, or "sword saint" for his mastery in swordsmanship. Some even believed he could run at super-human speed, walk on air, water and fly through the clouds.

While his mastery of the sword cannot be disregarded, it should be noted that most of his reputation comes from duels. Certainly, he served in many armies, but we cannot be sure how many of those battles he fought with a bow or within a unit that was in his command.

Considering what Japan was like in those times, had Musashi Miyamoto defended a bridge with a platoon of soldiers, historically it would have been recorded as his personal victory.

I do not see anything that isn't distorted by folklore and dramatization.

 

[number4096]

I was imagining a dungeons and dragons setting and i wanted you to analyze it:

My elves are fast enough to dodge arrows and usually know the martial arts around them enough to attack before the opponent starts swinging his weapon.In forests,they are lightweight enough to wallkick trees almost infinitely.They are however frail as a result of their lightweightness.My humans usually block an attack from them,grab the weapon wielding hand of the elf and apply submission holds,preventing the elf from benefitting of its lightweightness and speed.

My dwarves have short but large limbs and usually use shields and hammers(Short hammers with big heads,one side is blunt while the other is made for piercing rocks like a pick axe but can also be used for battle.),They usually fight in tunnels they made themselves in which the ceiling's height forces other creatures to crawl but they can stay upright easily.They have many ranged weapons(hand axes,crossbows,huo qiang,huo yao,etc...)and use them oftenly on the surface.Their fighting strategy is to block with the shield and break whatever the opponent used to attack with the hammer(Sword,foot,hand,jaw,polearm,etc...).

My orcs are big(6 feet to 8 feet,though those who are too tall are hunchback and walk with one fist one the ground.),They have powerful bites and can wield human sized boulders as weapons(with two interconnected holes in it,one for the fingers and one for the thumb,creating some sort of handle.).Since they are carnivorous but bad at stealth,their hunting strategy is to find another predator bigger than them,hurt themselves with a sharp object and bait the animal with it,then beat it up the hard way.They succeed mostly because they are monstrously strong and resilient.

I barely scratched the surface about each of them and i have yet to talk about minotaurs,amongst others,but i would like it if you told me what was wrong with them.

Edit:by bait the animal with it,i meant bait the animal with the blood resulting from the wound.

 

[Zacharine]

I was imagining a dungeons and dragons setting and i wanted you to analyze it:

Then nothing I have said matters. It's D&D, where wizards can summon demons, stop time and throw meteors on your opponents head. Where fighters can shrug off buildings collapsing upon them. Where clerics can bring back the dead.

Any and realism has flown out of the window long before you reach the end of the index of the first corebook. Never, ever again attempt to discuss anything happening in D&D in relation to real-world stuff.

Because they have magic. They have gods. D&D worlds are exactly what you degree them to be, the system was designed that way. The setting has no reason to be internally consistent as any inconsistency can be explain away with 'God X decided to intervene', 'GOd Y gave humans the ability to jump 100feet without any assitance', 'God Z has blessed all the knives in this world, in combat the ones wielding a knife automatically win', 'God 010101 has degree that wooden objects are indestructible'.

 

[number4096]

More people who defeated many people at once:

Simo Haya

Masutatsu Oyama

Cyrano de Bergerac

William Marshall

Hans-Ulrich Rudel

Your opinions?

 

[number4096]

Also,Musashi Miyamoto apparently once wrote a book about how to fight many opponents at once.

I think they say it on his wikipedia page.

I heard from someone who studies history that if sending ten guys against one person didn't work,they poisoned his food.It happened so often that kings started to find ways to build their antibodies against such eventualities.

Bruce Lee also was beating people in street fights,one versus many.

Spartans and shaolin monks were also renowned for taking on more people than themselves.

I would want you to analyze if any of this is true.