Dwarven weapons are better

[Tasha]

I would think that Elven weapons and Dwarven weapons are just as nice. It's just that Elves tend toward lighter weapons and armor due to their living in the forest where Stealth is best. Dwarves tend toward heavy Weapons (esp Hammers, Picks and Axes) and Heavy armor. They are a slow moving race that lives in fortified mountain strongholds. Elves make superior Long Bows and Dwarves make Superior Crossbows.

[Ninja-Bear]

I have consider letting dwarves have repeating crossbows like the chinese. Any thoughts?

[Old Man]

The Chinese let dwarves have repeating crossbows?

 

Shouldn't be a problem. If it gets unbalanced, you could limit the damage and/or strictly enforce ammunition limits.

[Tasha]

I have consider letting dwarves have repeating crossbows like the chinese. Any thoughts?

Funny I was going to opine that Dwarves have superior mechanisms that allow for faster reloading.

[IndianaJoe3]

Shouldn't be a problem. If it gets unbalanced, you could limit the damage and/or strictly enforce ammunition limits.

 

Real-life repeating crossbows have a lot less power than standard crossbows.

[Ragitsu]

...dwarves are German?

[Lucius]

My players think it should be

 

Dwarven (melee) Weapons Are Better!:  (Total: 16 Active Cost, 6 Real Cost) +2 with HTH Combat (16 Active Points); Incantations (Requires Incantations throughout; "Yes they ARE better!"; -1/2), Limited Power Only with Dwarven Weapons (-1/2), Side Effects (Side Effect always occurs whenever the character does some specific act; -2 OCV, -1 DCV, -1 Damage Class, if using Elven (melee) Weapons; -1/4), Cannot Be Used With [specific combat maneuver] (Disarm ; -1/4) (Real Cost: 6)

 

Elven (ranged) Weapons Are Better!:  (Total: 16 Active Cost, 6 Real Cost) +2 with Ranged Combat (16 Active Points); Incantations (Requires Incantations throughout; "Yes they ARE better!"; -1/2), Limited Power Only with Elven Weapons (-1/2), Side Effects (Side Effect always occurs whenever the character does some specific act; -2 OCV, -1 DCV, -1 Damage Class, if using Dwarven (ranged) Weapons; -1/4), Cannot Be Used With [specific combat maneuver] (Haymaker; -1/4) (Real Cost: 6)

 

Which would actually allow the same character to buy both

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Familiarity with Palindromedary Mounted Weapons

[Ninja-Bear]

Tasha that is why I've been thinking of using those stats.

[Christougher]

Real-life repeating crossbows have a lot less power than standard crossbows.

 

They have to pay for the Autofire advantage somehow...

 

Chris.

[Michael Hopcroft]

I don' think a repeating crossbow would be "autofire" the way the rules describe it. But being able to fire once per phase instead of taking an entire turn or longer to reload your crossbow is still highly advantageous. That is the main drawback of a crossbow -- since yo have to go through a complicated mechanical procedure to reload, an archer using a standard bow or longbow can get three or four shots off in the time it takes you to get off one. Better make your first shot count....

 

I'm not all that certain longbows have all that many advantages over regular composite bows the way PCs use them. They shine in massed formations, firing fearsome volleys at incredible ranges that can spread death and bloody chaos over an entire enemy army before it gets to your battle lines.

[Christougher]

I feel safe commenting that pretty much all weapons are better and more effective when used in massive formations.  Polearms are another well cited/well debated example of.  It would not be entirely unfair to add a +1 bonus of some form for every doubling of number of users to reflect this.

 

Chris.

[mhd]

Well, Spanish school rapier fencing in densely packed formations kinda sucks.

[Markdoc]

Actually Spanish school fencing has its origins in the Rodeleros - sword and buckler soldiers who supported the pikemen ... and who fought in close order. They were a great deal of the reason the Spanish army was so feared in the early 1500's. Their job was to work alongside or even in the pike block and when the pikemen clashed with the enemy pikes, the Rodeleros would dart into the fray. Up close - very close - and personal, their light thrusting swords were far more usable than the pike or the halberds carried by the front-liners of their opponents. The rapier after all, is primarily a thrusting weapon, well suited to use in the press. And the modern rapier evolved out of the older smallsword, at least in part for the need for a greater reach in the press.

 

So ...

 

Cheers, Mark

[mhd]

As far as I know, it's the other way round, the smallsword being the more modern, fencing-only weapon. True, the rapier evolved out of a smaller sword, as you can get away with more in a civilian context (and there actually were quite a few people complaining about rapiers being too long). And you had lots of perpendicular footwork, which isn't really all that well suited to formations or teamwork in general. What the military predecessors did hardly matters, and I think that by the time la Destreza reached the height of its popularity, swordsmen weren't as much in use in the Spanish military in general.

 

Rodoleros (and later tercios) also used lots of mixed formations, so they're in the same category as Doppelsoeldners. You probably wouldn't want a pure two-handed sword formation, either...

 

But yeah, civilian fencing isn't a fair answer to Christougher's claim anyways. More interesting would be the more sparse formations of Romans armed with spathas as opposed to the earlier gladius-equipped troops.

 

And while we're at it, I don't quite understand the assertion that started this line of thought, i.e. how longbows would out-shine composite bows in formations, at least reduced to the weapons themselves (as opposed to the tactics/usage of English longbowmen vs. mounted composite bow users)

[Markdoc]

Ah the joy of weapons minutæ!

 

Smallsword can be confusing. The light fencing weapon that goes by that name today is not the same as the earlier double-edged weapon often called a smallsword (which is why the modern version of it used to be called a "True small sword" or a "Court sword" (also town sword, walking sword, etc, etc). Earlier, the name "smallsword" was often used for lighter piercing/slashing swords carried by infantry, as opposed to the knights' swords or heavier hacking or stabbing infantry blades - and it's that general class of sword that the rapier apparently evolved out of. In English it was also called a "Short sword"  - not to be confused with things like the gladius or spatha, or occasionally a "Backsword" (though this covered a pretty wide range of infantry swords) or if you are a real sword geek, an Oakshott Type XVa

 

Sigh. As moderns, we are used to thinking that things have specific names, but in medieval times, nomenclature was a bit more freeform. Most of us think that a "Flamberge" is a two-handed sword, but the truth is that the word was also used widely to describe ... yes, that's right, an early version of the rapier!

 

All of which is a bit beside the point - in general, I think we agree that having 6 buddies close alongside stabbing things is better than stabbing them on your own.

As to the original comment, I think the point was that the longbow gained its renown due to its use by massed archers rather than any vast technical superiority over other powerful bow types. A point oft overlooked is that the English longbow also typically fired a much heavier arrow than composite or self bows from the same area, trading penetrating power for overall range.

 

regards, Mark

[mhd]

All of which is a bit beside the point - in general, I think we agree that having 6 buddies close alongside stabbing things is better than stabbing them on your own.

Which is why I would like to have them alongside, and not several meters away so that they can use their overlong spikes. Which is why dwarves don't make rapiers

 

As to the original comment, I think the point was that the longbow gained its renown due to its use by massed archers rather than any vast technical superiority over other powerful bow types.

Which military use of bows wouldn't imply massed archers? It's not like the Turks, Mongols or Japanese had lone snipers...

[L. Marcus]

Well, there was the old Bushi of Japan who had archery duels before/in battle.

[Old Man]

As to the original comment, I think the point was that the longbow gained its renown due to its use by massed archers rather than any vast technical superiority over other powerful bow types. A point oft overlooked is that the English longbow also typically fired a much heavier arrow than composite or self bows from the same area, trading penetrating power for overall range.

 

This.  Longbows are easy to make--they're basically sticks that are carefully cut and dried.  Composite bows are made of more exotic materials and can take a year to construct.  So when you're massing the peasantry to take on the French, it's far easier to equip them with longbows.

[L. Marcus]

Also, longbows withstood the wet climate of Europe better than the composite bow.

[mhd]

150 lbs warbows aren't that easy to make, and IIRC most of composite bow construction time is the drying process (which means your bowyers can do something else). Not that this really matters, as the big disadvantage of getting English archers isn't about the material, it's about the men. You can't just round up some random peasants. You need well-fed people who basically trained all their lives with it.

 

And as L.Marcus said, Northern Europe isn't composite bow country, if you can avoid it at all. Animal glue attracts humidity.

 

If you need something quickly, get crossbows. Yes, they take even longer to construct than both types, but it's much easier getting (and "restocking") semi-competent archers.

[L. Marcus]

... I just don't like crossbows. For some strange reason, they're absent from my campaign.

[Markdoc]

Which is why I would like to have them alongside, and not several meters away so that they can use their overlong spikes. Which is why dwarves don't make rapiers

 

Which military use of bows wouldn't imply massed archers? It's not like the Turks, Mongols or Japanese had lone snipers...

 

Oh, true enough - but to be fair, the mongol bow has gained some fame for exactly the same reason, despite the fact that it's essentially identical in both power and use to the bows used by the people they fought. It was mongol discipline, tactics and leadership that was the deciding the factor. But you'll find plenty of rhapsodising about the "mongol bow" if you look online, or in books.

 

The same with the longbow: while it is true that other European countries used bows en masse, none of them could draw on such a huge corp.s of trained archers (and to be fair, the Longbow was also technically superior to the smaller selfbows more generally used). Agincourt is a classic example: despite the fact that the French army was significantly larger than the English, our best estimates are that they fielded significantly fewer archers/crossbowmen. The fact that the English army was predominantly archers, naturally cast the spotlight on them after the battle.

 

cheers, Mark

[mhd]

The numbers of Agincourt seem to change all the time, although it's pretty sure that we can say that the English were proportionally rather focused on archers in general, and especially at Agincourt (slightly less so at Crecy). One of the reasons was that the English had a slight lack of cavalry, and archers do pretty well against them. Other countries didn't focus as much on archers, as they had cavalry and money to pay for crossbow-using mercenaries. (Not that the French didn't field archers as well in general)

 

We certainly had other massive uses of archers over the centuries. Not all with the same tactics, but it's not like the English fielded substantially more than anyone before or after, just that they had a pretty high ratio of them and did quite well with creating a legend about them.

 

Weren't we talking about Dwarven weapons at one time? I think we veered in basically the opposite direction, with huge numbers and a rather cheap weapon. What historical unit would better suit our wee bearded fellows? No cavalry of course, unless we're talking about those weird Elmore dwarves. Traditionally they're often depicted as pretty close to Norse/Germanic warriors, just without spears (mail, axes, swords, round shields).

[Markdoc]

For "classic" fantasy dwarves, I've always thought the heaviest armour available, a big shield, a short, heavy stabbing spear or halberd, backed up with a heavy broad stabbing blade. All pretty well suited to close quarter fighting.In the second rank, a few dwarves with arbalests to shake up enemies out of sword range, by shooting out gaps in the shield wall.

 

When fighting dwarves on their home ground, I'd basically expect to see a wall of shields and armour with spiky things pointing out through the gaps and occasional glimpses of beard .

 

cheer, Mark

[Lawnmower Boy]

Careful analysis has allowed me to determine the systemic error here. Let us start with a careful ranking of weapon effectiveness based on a largescale meta-analysis of online tactical experts:

 

1) OMG Katana!

2) A-10. It's got a gun that's big as a Volkswagen!

3) Panzer VI Tiger. I have a waterproof poster of a Nazi dude in full SS regalia in my shower.

4) Mongol compound bow. Mongols are awesome. 

5) Rifle like Sharpe has. "Norfolk Sharpes?" "No, London Sharpes." He's awesome because he conforms to different antiquated class-based social norms! And the gun is cool. Vive le Empereur!  Bang. 

6) Minigun. It's a personal weapon. Like in that movie. You remember it. You don't? Stupid aging.

7) Model 1911 .45 automatic. It's got "stopping power!" And don't give me lip about the Desert Eagle. That's just trying too hard.

8) Relativistic rock. What the cool aliens use.

.....

And so on down to.... 

1,415,343) 155mm howitzer field artillery battery. Bo-o-oring. You can't even dual-wield 'em.

 

After appropriate regressions were done on the meta-analytic rankings, it becomes clear that lethality is directly proportional to coolness. This is not in doubt. The fit is perfect, with the exception of an one anomalous data group ("actual effectiveness in combat") which departed from the other data sets by more than 1.4 million, and was therefore discarded as noise. (Observations such as, "Actual asteroids break up into dust when you try to accelerate them to that kind of speed, are really hard to aim, and, besides, you can see them coming" show the fundamental unseriousness of researchers working in this area.)

 

Therefore, the key question in dealing with the quality of dwarven weapons is: "Are dwarves cool?" And the answer is: No. No, they are not. Drow are cool. Drow are awesome with the dual wielding and the animal companions and the lone chaotic good renegaded from... Excuse me. I have to go repaper my shower.

 

Anyway, where were we?

 

Oh, right. Dwarves not being cool. However, I notice a key out here. What if Dwarves made a katana? Everyone agrees that being lame and all, dwarves should be balanced in some way so that they will be usable PCs in case someone doesn't decide to play a drow ninja pirate, which ha ha ha ha ha.

 

But, seriously, you should make their katanas totally badass. That's just fair. Unfortunately, dwarven katanas wielded by dwarves are, well, wielded by dwarves. Lame! Clearly, the solution is to have a drow ninja pirate dual-wielding dwarven katanas. Which would be badass to the power of awesome. 

 

Or, in game terms, you should probably give 'em a level or two of AP and a +1 OCV. Probably a couple more for dwarves, since that would balance things up, and it's not like anyone's going to play a dwarf, anyway.