Welcome to the new CRITICAL age!!!

[Death Knight]

So yeah the title says it all. Ive come to the realization that any of the characters in the 2 new games-Avernum and Avadon can be competent at dealing massive strikes be it bow or sword from the excellent critical hit system. The thing is you can look at Avadon and see that even the sorceress can snipe with a bow with the right equipment giving her chance to critically hit. Its not plausible but it comes to show a few things-weapon skill damage rolls are good but dexterity stat modifier is much better as you can evade as well as damage.

 

Avernum has it even moreso for archers especially. Why waste more than 10 points in bow weapons or melee weapons when you can just place 3 or 4 points in lethal blow, then train 2 times and you have a reasonable chance to critical.

 

My first characters were terrible because of staying away from lethal blow and then again that is why they are my first characters. Now as soon as I get weapon skill to 10, I focus on other stuff that helps said character. It just makes so much more sense.

 

The thing to make it even better is if jeff adds just 1 trait in the 2nd avernum remake that gives a bonus to it. Once that happens, we'll know what will happen in next game.

 

I think that critical hits owning the house is only plausible even though they don't own ALL the time. Still most of the time is better than sometimes. Its like in d and d when everyone went after scimitars and rapiers not for damage but for critical hit chance.

[Alorael at Large]

You know, there's even a bit of realism there. Relatively few fights have been won by nibbling the enemy down with a death by a thousand cuts. Most fights go until someone suffers a big, decisive, incapacitating wound. A critical strike, if you will.

 

—Alorael, who realizes this has little to do with the extra-damage critical of gaming. Funny how so few have extra effects on critical hits. Probably to keep complexity down.

[Death Knight]

And there's varying degrees of how it works. A critical hit slash from a two-handed sword will naturally deal more damage than an arrow. However, a bow and arrow is easier to shoot off. The thing is that most d and d rpg games always make melee more useful than ranged with a few exceptions. I would say its more realistic that ranged weapons are easier to pull off with that, but melee still deals more damage in the long run.

 

The thing is no fight is the same as previous ones unless you are literally forcing it that way. Sometimes someone is on the ground in a grapple and will it be easier to pull off a critical from melee there? Heck no. One of the things that I found made no sense in toee and knights of the chalice was that there are all these feats that you have to get to even attempt ranged combat. When in all common sense does it make sense to have to take a feat where you can shoot at a enemy next to an ally.

 

I know you can miss but its not like everyone is like cheney in that aspect. We took archery in high school and if you honestly were that bad to hit another target I don't know. With guns its even more simplified, point and shoot. Its only complicated with rifles.

 

I think that d and d turn based games are poor in that aspect. Ranged should be stronger in some areas and they really think one beastly guy is going to run through a line of 5 archers without at least getting hit once. Its completely unrealistic.

[Alorael at Large]

I disagree. Bows are much harder to learn than swords. Swords are obvious: pointy end goes in other guy. Bows are hard to use at all. On the other hand, I think that swords might give greater reward for more skill simply because a swordfight is interactive in a way that shooting isn't. Improving your range and aim is good, but you don't really have to deal with targets doing anything other than moving.

 

As for damage, I'm unconvinced. Yes, you can chop someone in half with a greatsword, but you can also put an arrow through an eye or a heart with a bow. Both can do lethal damage. A hit by an arrow is likely to be incapacitating; if it's stuck in you, you're not going to be fighting well even if you aren't dead. A greatsword has enough mass and force behind it that even used as a bludgeon through armor it's likely to be pretty rough on the target. You survive fights by not getting hit and by having lots of armor... in the interests of not getting hit.

 

Which is better in the "long run"? That's a kind of odd question. A sword can hit an immobile target faster than an archer can launch arrows. An archer against a swordsmen at thirty paces probably has a huge advantage. D&D doesn't work on real-world balance, though; it works on game balance, and the game is balanced when you can't do more damage, just as quickly, while subjecting yourself to less risk. Games with guns generally up the power of ranged because it's what we expect from modern weapons; medieval games don't because we like swords and close combat even when archers have historically dealt knights decisive defeats. (All under the right circumstances and given tactics; complexities left out of many RPGs.)

 

 

I think you're also vastly overestimating accuracy. Close combat is not stationary targets and arrows have non-negligible flight times. If you really don't want to hit your friend you can't shoot right where he might be in the next second. Pistols are notoriously inaccurate at even fairly short ranges under combat conditions; you don't fight on a firing range. Even rifles are not so easy to aim when you're actually fighting. If anything, I'd say firing into a melee with a bow is made too easy by many RPGs.

 

—Alorael, whose RPG of choice, Burning Wheel, makes the role of archery in combat quite different from D&D, in a way he likes. If you try to close on an archer you almost certainly will be shot. (If you try not to close you are also quite likely to be shot.) But once an archer has fired he's going to have a very rough time trying to keep his distance long enough to knock and loose another arrow before you charge into his face and start hacking him to pieces. That assumes he doesn't hit you, though; one arrow is quite often enough to decisively take you out of the fight even if you're armored.

[Death Knight]

I agree with everything you said, to a degree. I still don't agree with both being about equal. Swords and melee weapons are historically more deadly in medieval times because the speed that comes with the thrust and slash. If you just stab someone with a short sword in the side, as soon as you pull it out the pain is still magnified. Whereas with an arrow, the wound is much smaller and they can usually pull it out. Of course if you hit someone in a critical area, they are still destroyed regardless of weapon but hits to a arm, shoulder, side or leg are magnified depending weapon. Also blades go through full platemail much better than arrows in my opinion.

 

I guess there's really know way of being wrong or right as both have their own pluses and minuses. I will say this-I read that a strong hit from a mace against plate armor can cause vibrations that shatter bones so maybe maces are better with that than both.

 

The reason melee always appeals more to me is that there are always so many different types of it and everyone does it different. You could wield a sword and see someone exactly the same sword and skill that wields/uses tactics completely different. Arrows appeal to me too but to a lesser degree although still a large amount of skilled users. Mages/spellcasters don't appeal to me at all as there really aren't many types of them out there.

 

Like you said melee will win against ranged if you have distance and a good shield/blocking skill, other than that you will get owned unless you can manage to take the hits and shrug them off. Most people cant do that.

[Alorael at Large]

Being able to just yank out the arrow is one of the lies that fiction/Hollywood told us. Pulling out an arrow is a terrible idea that will make things worse, especially if the head isn't firmly attached (and they weren't). Pushing it through would inflict extra grievous injury. Except for very, very superficial arrow wounds, the fighter would most likely be out of the fight. The same is true for a deep sword cut or stab, of course, but a small slash could be fought through.

 

Plate armor was largely impervious to slashing and required weapons to changed. The new armaments either had narrow points to puncture through weak points in armor or used blunt trauma (like maces, polearms, and sometimes greatswords). Whether arrows could penetrate depends somewhat on the type of bow, the archer's strength, and the distance, but there's significant evidence that good archers were still able to pierce the plate armor of the late middle ages.

 

Of course all of this is from the battlefield. No one relied on one type of weapon exclusively; archers killed from a distance, cavalry tried to charge archers, infantry protected the archers, cavalry might counter-charge, and so on. All weapons that have been used were used because they were effective; changes in tactics and armor changed the weapons used. Trying to argue that vastly different kinds of weapons are better or worse isn't just impossible, it's meaningless. Melee weapons were "historically more deadly" somehow? Does that mean they dealt more killing blows than arrows? I'd imagine so; I think they were used more often than bows, and training a man to swing a sharp thing is easier than training him to be a bowman. Were sword blows more likely to kill or incapacitate than arrows per hit? I'm dubious; I think shields and armor were more effective against swords for a long time, and slashing blows could deal superficial and insignificant injuries. Arrows were more likely to either miss or inflict deep puncturing wounds. But no one fielded archers vs. knights. Comparison simply can't be done in any real way.

 

But I do think the Hundred Years' War makes the point that archers were murderously effective quite well.

 

—Alorael, who agrees that swords offer more chance to be skillful against versus opponent than archery. But since games rarely incorporate that, it's not so cool. And there aren't enough kinds of mages/spellcaster? You need to go find more fantasy, sir! When there are no real examples or even rules the imagination can and has provided endless variations.

[Sudanna]

I think we all just need to agree that lightsabers are the best weapon.

[Death Knight]

Im all ears good sir!

 

But really the only fantasies I saw that I thought incorporated 'good' magic/spellcasting were Merlin (british fantasy series), Legend of the Seeker and that's it really. Im looking for a good party based fantasy series where this kind of stuff happens a lot more. The problem is its either really really old and still ok, or just not done well. I thought Spartacus did warriors well but it was wWAYYY!!! too violent for my taste. I don't mind gore but some of the stuff happening in there I may never forget. You cant pay me to watch a women get taken advantage of, its just too sick. And they even show everything too.

 

If you or anyone else know of any good tv series or shows with fantasy in it (other than lotr), I'm all ears.

 

Edit-

I think we all just need to agree that lightsabers are the best weapon.

 

Yeah I agree to that

[Questionably Legal]

I prefer magic to be an intuitive energy that some (or all) people can naturally use, rather than a fantasy science that only scholars who study for 20 years can use.

 

Some Japanese swordmasters can cut an arrow in half in flight. Granted, this is a single arrow, with plenty of time to prepare, but if people are capable of that then dodging an arrow should be very doable, as long as the swordsman isn't weighed down by heavy armor.

[Student of Trinity]

Some Japanese swordmasters can cut an arrow in half in flight.

Really? I'm pretty skeptical. I mean, anyone can cut an arrow in half in flight, if they're really lucky. And anyone who practiced enough could probably learn to catch an arrow with a sword consistently, if the arrow were launched consistently every time, with one-two-three-go. But when the archer is really trying to hit you?

[JamesMighty]

 

Really? I'm pretty skeptical. I mean, anyone can cut an arrow in half in flight, if they're really lucky. And anyone who practiced enough could probably learn to catch an arrow with a sword consistently, if the arrow were launched consistently every time, with one-two-three-go. But when the archer is really trying to hit you?

Its basically either about knowing where the arrow is going to go and slicing it before it hits you,or sidestepping and taking your best swing at it.

[Student of Trinity]

Well, sure — if you're too much of a wimp to stab the tip of the arrow with the point of your sword, like a real man.

[Mosquito---Slayer]

Some Japanese swordmasters can cut an arrow in half in flight. Granted, this is a single arrow, with plenty of time to prepare, but if people are capable of that then dodging an arrow should be very doable, as long as the swordsman isn't weighed down by heavy armor.

Why don't these guys just go to the Olympics and win every single gold medal that's available in fencing? Seriously, the worth of a lot of eastern fighting arts has been exaggerated like hell by movies and such, I'm not saying they aren't good, they certainly are and a trained person will probably beat down 2-3 untrained guys all by himself, but they don't make you super human.

 

Just for a crude comparison, a real powerful badminton smash travels at 250 Kmph, and you have a decent sized racket head to hit it, plus you aren't going to die if the shuttle hits you, still at such speeds even top players often miss the shuttle totally even when it's aimed at there body , Modern arrows travel at much the same speed, possibly a bit higher, while medieval arrows traveled at much higher speeds, granted it's not a great comparison because the shuttle isn't surely aimed at you and the arrow is longer(albeit thinner), but still at least it makes the arrow cutting prospect seem rather dubious to me.

[Alorael at Large]

There are enough videos of guys with katanas cutting arrows in flight that I believe it. But it's a test of sharpness and reaction to the beginning of an event you know is coming. Can people cut arrows aimed directly at them? I'm dubious; the angles are awkward and you don't have time to move yourself once the arrows's been loosed. When the shot isn't telegraphed? That's harder. Can they dodge? Well, people can dodge bullets, or rather manage not to be in the line of fire when the trigger is squeezed, but dodging and dropping are only helpful if you're trying to not get hit, not if you're trying to fight back.

 

Can a guy with a sword survive an archer and kill him? Of course. But consistently? I'm very doubtful.

 

—Alorael, who notes that this thread made him rewatch a bunch of Dear Boromir videos. The quality's really mixed, but at least LotR takes its arrows seriously enough that even a larger than life hero gets stopped by them. Granted, by a lot of them, but he still looks pretty bad after just one arrow.

[Death Knight]

If somehow guns became obsolete, I'd join the army/military and brandish my sword for many battles. It would be awesome. I'd even do it for no pay, and would pay 1 dollar to the American Military for every slain warrior. Plus I could keep in shape.

[Cairo Jim]

 

Can a guy with a sword survive an archer and kill him? Of course. But consistently? I'm very doubtful.

 

 

Depends on how close together they are. An archer loses time everytime they load, aim and then fire an arrow. All the guy with the sword has to do is swing a sword. That being said, I remember something about Roman troops taking cover from oncoming missile attacks by covering their heads with a wall of shields

[Dikiyoba]

Why don't these guys just go to the Olympics and win every single gold medal that's available in fencing?

Because fencing is an entirely different style of swordfighting with an entirely different weapon?

 

Dikiyoba.

[Alorael at Large]

If somehow guns became obsolete, I'd join the army/military and brandish my sword for many battles. It would be awesome. I'd even do it for no pay, and would pay 1 dollar to the American Military for every slain warrior. Plus I could keep in shape.

You'd risk your life for no pay? That's a little extreme.

 

—Alorael, who acknowledges that having a good shield takes a lot of the danger out of the archer, especially if it's a huge shield. Relatively few people fought with enormous shields in individual combat, though. Probably because they weren't fighting archers and a smaller, more maneuverable shield has an advantage against another swordsman.

[Questionably Legal]

If somehow guns became obsolete, I'd join the army/military and brandish my sword for many battles. It would be awesome. I'd even do it for no pay, and would pay 1 dollar to the American Military for every slain warrior. Plus I could keep in shape.

I'd be right behind you, albeit without paying the military. I need my money more than they do.

[Death Knight]

You'd risk your life for no pay? That's a little extreme.

 

—Alorael, who acknowledges that having a good shield takes a lot of the danger out of the archer, especially if it's a huge shield. Relatively few people fought with enormous shields in individual combat, though. Probably because they weren't fighting archers and a smaller, more maneuverable shield has an advantage against another swordsman.

 

My friends always used to say to me that I was born in the wrong time. Subtract 500 years and you'd be right, they said. I would have joined the military but I dislike guns as they make it too easy and just never had an interest in them. 500 years back guns were still not so powerful. Reload time was terrible and if you didn't get em in the head, heart or stomach-you were cooked if they had a melee weapon. Warfare now is about who shoots first, who evades the shot and what not.

 

There was a time when crossbows were so powerful, kings outlawed them. Imagine if they tried that with what we got now. We have nuclear bombs and drones, guns and what not. If the entire planet isn't cinder in 50 years, I'd really be surprised.

 

I'm a fan of technology and power but it worries me when we have to worry about nut jobs that can blow up a country with a bomb from miles away. Swords may have been primitive but tell the last time a swordsman went on a rampage and killed 40 innocent people. The guy got 5 people before someone flanked him. In today's world, a lunatic with no military experience can gun down 30-40 people without a problem with a pistol or machine gun.

 

Oh well, if I can't have swords I guess I still got my fists.

[Cairo Jim]

 

—Alorael, who acknowledges that having a good shield takes a lot of the danger out of the archer, especially if it's a huge shield. Relatively few people fought with enormous shields in individual combat, though. Probably because they weren't fighting archers and a smaller, more maneuverable shield has an advantage against another swordsman.

 

Darth Vader.

[Alorael at Large]

My friends always used to say to me that I was born in the wrong time. Subtract 500 years and you'd be right, they said. I would have joined the military but I dislike guns as they make it too easy and just never had an interest in them. 500 years back guns were still not so powerful. Reload time was terrible and if you didn't get em in the head, heart or stomach-you were cooked if they had a melee weapon. Warfare now is about who shoots first, who evades the shot and what not.

My real question is why you want to fight (and maybe die) so much you'd do it for free. That's a pretty extreme position. There are non-combat ways of demonstrating skill, and modern sports have really become something of a replacement. Directly, even; they had the circus with gladiators, we have the stadium with team sports.

 

I also think you're discounting the value of skill and discipline in modern combat. Yes, discipline is a big part of it and isn't directly skill, but skilled troops still count for a great deal. But it's different, I'll grant you that.

 

—Alorael, who finally needs to point out that you probably want to go back more than 500 years. That puts you in the era of the pike formation, artillery, cavalry, and crossbows (soon to be replaced by musketeers in the era of pike and shot). Less individual engagement, more formation tactics. Pike blocks were deadly, but they were deadly en masse. You didn't really use pikes in single combat, you all pointed them together. Cavalry didn't duel either, they mostly cut down infantry and tried to avoid the pikemen.

[Questionably Legal]

Darth Vader.

What? Last time I checked, Vader didn't use a shield.

[MMXPERT-seraph of thermodynamics]

What I want to see is more mages and more religions.

Currently we either have a non-religious conflict and one unrelated main religion. Or all religions teach you the same spells.

 

PS:Are shapers atheists?

 

Other than worshipping their ancestors I don't think they believe in any real gods...

[Cairo Jim]

Darth Vader does not need a shield to use with his fancy arse techno sword.