Upload
Login or register
x

Fuck safety

Tags: DnD
I Anonymous (/ 12( Wed) 20: 40
File: "-( KB, 600x600, wizardo, jpg)
My personal solution to the elf/ human mage dilemma is that humans give fewer ***** .
Elves can potentially live avery long time, and reproduce rarely. As a result, they lives precious. An elven wizard
spends decades apprenticed to a master, carefully, slowly learning the history, the thousand righteous lessens, the path of
harmonious channeling. To prevent the madness that can come hem power, the actual lessens in magetroll are rare; most days will
be spent on simple tasks, teaching humility and patience. Accidents are very rare.
Meanwhile, at the human wizard college, half the freshman evocation class just exploded, but the survivors can now cast fireballs PROGRESS!
...
+1025
Views: 38143
Favorited: 116
Submitted: 08/31/2015
Share On Facebook
submit to reddit +Favorite Subscribe to entertainthemob Subscribe to dungeons-n-drags

Comments(154):

Leave a comment Refresh Comments Show GIFs
Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest
Anonymous comments allowed.
154 comments displayed.
Reply
+77
User avatar #5 - peliaosfiendline (09/01/2015) [-]
This is actually something noted in the Drizzt books. I don't remember the specific one, but it's one of the earlier "Legend of Drizzt saga" books, where he notes that humans, with their shorter lifespan, push themselves harder faster to learn/gain as much as they possibly can.
Reply
+1
User avatar #49 to #5 - lolpwn ONLINE (09/01/2015) [-]
It was one of the First 3 (I have them in audio book if anyone knows a good site to share and wants them (~30 hours total))
Reply
+2
User avatar #78 to #49 - zaywoot (09/01/2015) [-]
depends on who reads them, I found an audio book with a woman reading, I can't remember her name, but I didn't like her voice Honestly I havent heard a single female book reader I liked the voice of... Personally I prefer it when an older man reads aloud... The sorta grampa esque voice

Also she pronounced lich Im pretty sure it was supposed to be lich as lick
Reply
+2
#47 to #5 - quadrillax ONLINE (09/01/2015) [-]
It's touched on in the Dragonlance books as well. In there they say that while most elven mages are extremely proficient, the so-called "greatest mages of all time" are usually human, and in those books usually Black Robes.
Reply
+8
#36 to #5 - anon (09/01/2015) [-]
Sojourn, maybe? Isn't that the one where he talks about how humans, as mostly overall neutral beings (as opposed to, say, evil, like his own race) were therefore the most capable of acts both valiant and heinous?
Reply
+1
User avatar #50 to #36 - frenzyhero (09/01/2015) [-]
sojourn was the best of the prequels
I feel Exile was the worst.
Reply
+104
User avatar #1 - gunmandude (08/31/2015) [-]
Very true indeed. Just imagine what happens when the Abjuration portion of the class learns the Explosive Runes spell. Because with the right imagination that can be used on a door as a very effective deterrent to invaders or a block of C4.
Reply
+61
#53 - sirquidam (09/01/2015) [-]
Simply put... Humans are superior.
Reply
+3
#69 to #53 - tailedcrusader (09/01/2015) [-]
I love you for the Farscape reference.
Reply
+7
#99 to #53 - tarabostes ONLINE (09/01/2015) [-]
I ******* LOVED that show!
Reply
+15
User avatar #81 - supahsayin (09/01/2015) [-]
I'm a sucker for these human comparisons with fantasy and Sci-fi universes. If someone posts more, mention me.
Reply
+10
#98 to #81 - innocentbabies (09/01/2015) [-]
You mean, like HFY **** ?
Reply
+1
#152 to #98 - zerocousland (09/23/2015) [-]
I know it's like, 22 days later, but that was beautiful.
Reply
+8
User avatar #3 - rundas (09/01/2015) [-]
It doesn't make any sense how a human could beat a mature elf at anything, particularly combat. Even if elves have no inherent advantages, just the sheer fact that they can train and hone their combat skills for centuries--and then, inevitably use those skills against others who have practiced for centuries--means logically they should dominate militarily. The only ways I can think that they could lose against humans militarily or Orcs is if they're physically weaker, or if they're vastly fewer in number obviously they have smaller populations, but unless they are naturally militaristic, it'd be hard to convince someone who could live a thousand years to risk his life at all, so their armies would be even smaller or if closeness to death gives mortals a physical advantage (say, adrenaline) and elves a tactical disadvantage (unwilling to be bold in tactics and pursue when necessary for fear of any casualties).
Reply
0
#154 to #3 - gollee (10/06/2015) [-]
You're looking for a universe where Elves mature as fast as humans, the Warcraft one comes to mind, given that the Elves there reach adulthood at about the same time as humans, various bits of info on them mention rapid reproduction, and that they apparently have the highest population of any race, baring maybe the Forsaken; given that millions escaped the Sundering, and they never really had major calamities in their lands after that, baring the War of the Shifting Sands, which was restricted to Silithis and Un'Goro.
Reply
0
User avatar #84 to #3 - daniboyi (09/01/2015) [-]
All this conversation and debate.
The answer is simple.
1 elf vs 100 humans. Who will win?
10,000 elves vs 1.000.000 humans? Who will win?

I think the answer is quite obvious.
Reply
+1
User avatar #91 to #3 - thefirespike (09/01/2015) [-]
humans can develop techniques and knowledge faster than elves. yet again due to higher numbers, because 100 minds working for 1 year is far greater than 1 mind for 100 years. the elf may master what has already been established but the humans are proficient in that plus whatever they managed to create on their own.
Reply
+1
#94 to #3 - spoperman (09/01/2015) [-]
Yeah but Elves get all Hoity Toity and all up in this grill. Humans don't give a **** . We jack their **** up because we do **** Elves wouldn't expect. Sacrifice a whole army of gnomes to kill one Elf mage? Eat the Poison Apple because why the **** not? Stab a ****** for looking at you funny? All those things. Elves can go eat ****
Reply
0
#122 to #94 - anon (09/02/2015) [-]
"What did you say about me you little bitch..."
Reply
+4
#45 to #3 - anon (09/01/2015) [-]
Since this seems to be a discussion regarding the D&D world, I'll point out that D&D elves are said to be total individualists. They do not specialize to specific tasks, but rather perfer to do everything relating to them on their own. To build a house, an elf will study architecture, engineering, carpentry, and construction, design the home, chop down the trees, plant new trees, carve all components, and construct the house by themselves. Likewise, to become a swordsman, an elf will go out and mine the iron ore and forge their own sword before they begin training. This way of doing things naturally takes a long time. Meanwhile, humans just start training with the sword immediately.
Reply
+4
#68 to #3 - justtocomment (09/01/2015) [-]
See you're missing the point of the article. Elves will spend 20 years so two of them can safely and effectively learn to cast fireball. Humans will spend 3 weeks and 10 deaths to figure out the same thing. It's like grinding goblins for a thousand gold compared to getting half your party killed fighting a dragon: in the end you have the same amount of gold.
Reply
-2
User avatar #70 to #68 - rundas (09/01/2015) [-]
OK, but even if elves learn at a disadvantage, they can live many times the full length of human life. That kind of deficit really can't be overcome simply by recklessness. 3 weeks is more to a human than 20 years is for an elf. Also it doesn't help that you can die before you reach your full potential. The best human magic teachers would die, if they were lucky, at 100, and it would be damn near impossible to replace that talent easily. While elves could learn from people who've mastered the universe and saved the world 20 times over.
Reply
+10
#71 to #70 - justtocomment (09/01/2015) [-]
I think it's more about practical knowledge though. An elf will take their sword out to the forest and swing it at a waterfall for 100 years, while a human fights for his life in the arena for 10. Humans learn spells hands on and with intent on direct and immediate results they can build on. And elf will spend half a millenia figuring out how to cast the perfect beginners fireball - something the human mage found out after two weeks in the infirmary with burnt fingers.
Sometimes practical application is more important than theoretical understanding.
And truly, the length of a year means more to an elf. Despite immortality or even long lifespans, the elf has to be fearful of each day. Because if they die, they lost eternity. If an adult human dies, he's lost maybe 50 years? If he's lucky? So an elf finds a spell that has 65% chance of blowing their hand off - they won't take that risk because that means eternity without a hand. Humans though? **** it, what's a couple decades without a hand if it means I get this kickass spell?
Reply
-3
#79 to #71 - anon (09/01/2015) [-]
do they regenerate after a decade? what
Reply
+1
#82 to #79 - justtocomment (09/01/2015) [-]
What? No. They just don't have to be a one-handed cripple for more than a few decades because they die after a few decades. For humans it's all temporary - because our lives are temporary. Elves have to live with that **** potentially forever.
Reply
0
#123 to #70 - anon (09/02/2015) [-]
YFW
Reply
0
User avatar #86 to #70 - heartlessrobot (09/01/2015) [-]
Liches.
Reply
0
#118 to #86 - anon (09/02/2015) [-]
Does that rhyme with bitches?
Reply
0
#131 to #130 - anon (09/03/2015) [-]
I always thought so...
Reply
+19
#44 to #3 - xexion ONLINE (09/01/2015) [-]
You gotta tip the scales in your favor.
>Prey on arrogance
"There's no way they'd even consider trying to attack...oh **** that's a lot of humans."
>Beating elves in Magic/Studies
"You experimented on yourself!? Are you mad!??!?! **** results, you could've died!"
>How to beat a population of extremely skilled warriors
"Did they recruit every able-bodied person that exists!? Even if we take 5 for every one of our own it won't matter!"
>Get others to do it for you
"Orcs!? But why?"
>Genetics
"But how? There's no way a puny human can match someone like me who's been fighting for over a century! Only one in a million humans have the talent to even consider being on even footing! You're one in a billion? **** ."
>Spite
"They lured our forces onto the island just to blow themselves and us up."
>Stupidity/Ingenius ideas
"There's only one on the castle walls, and the gate is open sir."
"What's the problem then?"
"He's singing and inviting us in"
>Lack of morals/ethics
"They're burning down the forest to smoke us out!"
"So they started a fire or two to try and make us panic. Just put the fires out"
"No you don't understand"
>Diplomacy
"It's the humans sir...and the orcs... and goblins, and dwarves, and that renegade elf faction, and some necromancers..."
>We will not be cowed
"We slaughtered the entire village, hung the entrails for all to view as the village burned behind - they should scared or demoralized or both!"
"Actually it just made them angrier"
>That whole berserker thing
"He's got six arrows in him, why is he not dead?!? Oh god he's looking at me!"
>"Modern" persistence hunting
"We've been under siege for five years. Can we give up yet?"

Where intelligence, deceit, and cunning fail, you have to think like a goblin - throw numbers at the problem until it goes away. If that fails attempt to blow them everything up or and die trying.
Reply
+3
#46 to #44 - Persistence (09/01/2015) [-]
I was notified by comment because you mentioned the word "persistence". However, your post is too long. Although I am here to tell you I exist.

That is all.
Reply
+1
#48 to #46 - xexion ONLINE (09/01/2015) [-]
Thank you.
Reply
0
#132 to #46 - anon (09/03/2015) [-]
Must you persist
Reply
-1
User avatar #67 to #44 - rundas (09/01/2015) [-]
Numbers and willingness to die are certainly an advantage. But for the other stuff, elves can prepare for. Yes, I get that humans are unpredictable. But they are understandable, even somewhat rational, if you understand their behavior. If humans were known to be a threat, elves could send people over to study humans (elves always put all consideration into a problem before acting). Hell, an elf would have more time to study human tactics and behavior than an elf would. After centuries of study, they would be able to prepare against whatever humans could throw at them.

Also,
>eminent empire of immortals would always have diplomatic advantage
>immortals are WAY more patient. Humans have been known to desert during sieges, or open the gates just to end it all. Five years for an elf is nothing. They would definitely have the advantage. They could besiege for 50 years, and just wait for them to die of old age if nothing else.
Reply
0
#129 to #67 - xexion ONLINE (09/02/2015) [-]
An elf's longevity helps them very little in the course of human study - take real life for example - societies, governments, culture, etc. change on a whim - an elf who's studied North America for the last 500 years knows that he's got about 450 years of outdated information.
Humans tend to come up with new solutions when their old ones don't work. Through history you'll find these new solutions tend to be very close to some much older ones, but considering we usually don't know of them (they came "before my time"), having knowledge of them isn't very useful. The minute details are the important ones.
>eminent empire of immortals would always have diplomatic advantage
This actually works very much to it's own disadvantage. If you're a longstanding nation you tend to represent many positive and negative "stereotypes" Think of the US and it's 'murika **** yea' nationalism . It's incredibly difficult to get rid of these preconceptions without drastic upheaval. Elves don't tend to have civil wars or start up drastically different governments so without any major change it's easy to prey on these things. Basically put, elvenkind will **** up every so often, but because they very very rarely actually change governments, they will always be known for those ******* . We prey on that diplomatically.
>immortals are WAY more patient.
Ignoring the point of a literal siege lasting years, elves can be patient, but humans simply need to teach their children to know of the siege. If humans are motivated enough they'll hold grudges over generations.
Reply
0
#126 to #67 - anon (09/02/2015) [-]
Elves need to eat and drink just as much as any other humanoid race. They're immortal (or live to be thousands of years old), not invincible.
Reply
0
#88 to #67 - anon (09/01/2015) [-]
Elves can't really sit around in a besieged castle for 50 years cause food is an important resource, and even if they can live without eating the hunger will either drive them to surrender or to madness.
Reply
+5
User avatar #6 to #3 - Zedotelhado (09/01/2015) [-]
Because eventually an elf has a lot more to lose than a human. A human gets to be reckless, careless and take risks.

Audaces fortuna iuvat.
Reply
0
User avatar #10 to #6 - rundas (09/01/2015) [-]
I feel like that could also be a disadvantage. An elf wants to be careful in any battle, but a human has to be reckless and unpredictable, because otherwise they'd be destroyed by the elves' combat superiority. So most likely they'd be more gullible against complex formations, ambushes, traps, etc.

Also since an elf would be vastly superior to a single human, the human forces would have to outnumber the elves' greatly. Again, this would be a disadvantage, as the elves would have more mobility, and could exploit the human need for greater supplies. With some well-planned raids, they could devastate the enemies' supplies. So even before they entered battle, they'd be fighting a mass of low-morale, underfed soldiers who'd tire easily (and thus be more susceptible to traps).
Reply
+5
User avatar #11 to #10 - Zedotelhado (09/01/2015) [-]
Your first paragraph makes it sound as if the humans were brainless apes to an extent. There'd still be great generals, politicians and leaders to guide mankind. Wisdom does not equal cunning. As for the second paragraph: Romans in Germania.

I always really like humans in fantasy settings because even though they're usually the underdogs, they're also never in full jeopardy. Recklessness, selflessness and sheer lunacy and hatred tend to get **** done in so many ways.

Plus, given most fantasy cycles tend to make elves have very slow reproductive metabolisms, the numbers advantage tends to always be on the human side, even if not on short term. Think Russia vs Germany.
Reply
+4
User avatar #12 to #11 - arreatface (09/01/2015) [-]
this
slower reproduction = less elfs
faster reproduction/ shorter lifespan = more humans on a given moment
Reply
0
User avatar #19 to #12 - rundas (09/01/2015) [-]
Of course, but I already mentioned how numbers are really the only advantage. And the fact that any one elf could reasonably outmatch several humans (experience) means the humans would have to mobilize a large horde to even be able to match them in strength. But since elves have more military experience, they would know how and when to strike their supplies, etc. to erode their morale. It doesn't matter how big a horde you have if they're starving and tired and just want to go home.
Reply
+2
#43 to #19 - anon (09/01/2015) [-]
One elf matches multiple humans. Unless of course one human carves exploding rune into his body and blows **** up in away that would be completely unthinkable for elves to do.
Reply
+1
User avatar #20 to #19 - arreatface (09/01/2015) [-]
ye got a point
Reply
0
User avatar #102 to #19 - Daemmerung (09/01/2015) [-]
Numbers are not the only advantage. Elves are less prone to risks, humans are more likely to be completely unpredictable. In terms of combat-type specifics..

Elves tend to form off into small societies, where they all prefer privacy over communal learning, whereas humans form metropolitan areas and academies, and share all acquired knowledge to date. Any tactic an elf uses likely has been used a thousand times before, and at least once against a human that survived it, which means any soldier worth his salt will know it now, too. However, the same can not be said in the inverse. On top of that, elves tend to be a bit more frail than the standard human, and a bit shorter. While they certainly have dexterity on their side, if their tactics are out in the open, that does no good. Especially when a good strike from a human footsoldier could leave them disarmed.

Looking at it from magic, instead, consider this. Elves take a very slow, step-by-step approach to learning spells. They sit there, they learn how every single bit of it functions, they take centuries to perfect a spell. This is done either alone, or with a single mentor, as a lone apprentice. Humans, on the other hand, attend schools. They train in droves, and aim for the final spell right away. Sure, they might not understand the "why," but they'll certainly understand the "how," so even though they may incur casualties (which get less and less with each re-teaching, as each generation gets closer to perfecting every spell), the end result is generally the same with a much shorter timespan. Yes, a lone, self-taught mage would shadow in comparison to a lone, self-taught elf, but you're forgetting that most human mages come from an academic, studious background that constantly improves upon itself.

Honestly, the only combat advantages elves have completely over humans would be archery and stealth (Do not pit them in a stealth competition with a sylph though. You can build a sylph to have 70+ stealth, with wingless flight, no penalty for hiding in plain sight, even under a spotlight, and no need for breathing, although that's irrelevant. Just a fun tidbit). However, in archery, their lower strength means they must use less draw-weight. This lends to more accurate yet less powerful shots. Still, 5 well placed arrows generally trumps 1 hard-hitting one. It also helps that, when training archery compared to swordplay, the end result is less along the lines of variation and tactics, and more along the lines of "I can reliably shoot you in a vital location from farther away than you can shoot me." An elf training for hundreds of years with a bow and arrow will indefinitely be better than a human training for 5-10.
-------
tl;dr - Humans excel in physical combat, even 1v1, due to higher strength/constitution/versatility/tactical advantage. Humans and elves are approximately equal in magic, although humans gain a small lead with every new generation due to successive teaching. Elves generally excel, compared to humans, in archery and stealth due to their litheness and dexterity.
Reply
0
User avatar #105 to #102 - rundas (09/01/2015) [-]
I think you're overestimating the speed with which tactical scholarship evolves. When in fact, generally, it doesn't. In the Middle Ages, generals still relied on Vegetius. Hell, people today still look to Sun Tzu for general military wisdom. Military tactics is not like science: it can't really advance over time, unless there is a change in weaponry/equipment, or there are more recorded experiments. The wisest military scholars we know about simply wrote down the things they learned in their brief time in the world. Imagine what a military genius could come up with if he had centuries of experience. And the works of these geniuses would be the standard literature for all generals, assuming the elves continue to be enlightened and literate. And don't take it for granted that humans could just copy the elves. Sometimes particularly complex techniques were well-guarded (even state) secrets. And assuming humans have lower literacy rates and scholarship, most of their generals couldn't read these great works even if they had them in possession.

And don't assume that just because elves live longer that they can't learn from their mistakes. An elephant will adapt to new circumstances just as well as an ant will. If humans started devastating their armies just by being unpredictable, they would adapt or be destroyed. And if they've survived for so long, we have to assume they have adapted to new, alien circumstances in the past.

And I don't think humans would have any 1v1 combat advantages. Yes, they are naturally stronger, but not too much stronger. And besides, while strength certainly helps, it's nowhere near as important as skill. Which, of course, can only be acquired through experience. Imagine giving a pro wrestler a sword and putting him up against someone who's practiced HEMA his whole life. Obviously he would get skewered. That's pretty much what it would be like for the average human against the average elf in battle.
Reply
0
#106 to #105 - anon (09/01/2015) [-]
You're assuming this all takes place in our own world/reality. Thing is, it doesn't. The logic you are attempting to string together does not apply in these scenarios. This is the established general background info in most tabletop settings.
Reply
0
User avatar #108 to #106 - rundas (09/01/2015) [-]
And what's wrong with calling into question the things fantasy universes take for granted?
Reply
0
User avatar #13 to #11 - rundas (09/01/2015) [-]
That's not the point though. Of course there'd be great humans. But even if we assume that elves aren't more intelligent than humans at all, they would still ALWAYS have the advantage. Experience matters. Where do you think all the great military tacticians learned it all from? Imagine what a Sun Tzu or Vegetius could learn in 500 years.

Also, yes, emotions and rage can do a lot, but history tells us that (other things being equal) discipline always triumphs over bravery. 500 years of drilling makes you ******* iron. Even if you are ******** your pants in the middle of battle, you know exactly how to respond, because you've done it for so long.

Russia vs Germany doesn't really help your point much. Russia got devastated in WWI despite the fact that Germany was preoccupied on many fronts. Russia only won in WWII for the same reason they lost the invasion against Finland: adverse conditions. Which, by the way, is something that generals would learn to adapt to over time. Let's say there's a winter campaign. The elves would have a huge advantage over the humans, because their officers and soldiers have been through dozens or hundreds of winters in the field. They know how to deal with the cold, find food and fire, they know how to survive in a winter campaign. The humans may have experience, but it would always be less than the elves.'
Reply
+1
User avatar #15 to #13 - Zedotelhado (09/01/2015) [-]
What I meant regarding Russia & Germany was still the numbers game. It'd hurt the elven faction a lot more losing fifty soldiers on patrol than it would the human faction a thousand on a battlefield.

I'd take dozens of years to drill new elven recruits into army standards so with further losses, the elven military would decline to a point of human similarity, minus numbers. It'd really depend on how each faction is at the start.

See Warhammer Fantasy, the elves didn't think much of the humans when they were just loose tribesmen and then, just twenty years past, they can't hold a candle to the Human Empire's unified might.
Reply
0
User avatar #24 to #15 - rundas (09/01/2015) [-]
Yes, but where are all these alleged casualties come from? Experienced generals don't tend to lose too many soldiers. Elves already have the initial advantage, and unless the humans are invading elven lands and genociding all elves, I don't see where they would suddenly get this deficit. Since elves are more experienced, better fighters, better leaders, and would have a sort of combat instinct from all their years, logically they should win most battles. For them to lose their numbers so greatly that their combat and tactical superiority is irrelevant would require a MAJOR coup on the humans' part. As in, miraculous
Reply
+3
User avatar #26 to #24 - Zedotelhado (09/01/2015) [-]
Tactics can't deflect arrows m8

We're back to WH40K (and general evolution of warfare as history has shown us) that more hands = more dakka = MORE DAKKA
Reply
-3
User avatar #28 to #26 - rundas (09/01/2015) [-]
>implying the elves wouldn't have armor
>implying an army of archers can devastate a superior army
You've been playing too much Total War. Generally arrows are used to control enemy movements, not massacre them. Arrows generally don't kill people wearing armor.
And sorry, I don't really care about Memehammer 40KMEMES
Reply
+1
User avatar #33 to #28 - peliaosfiendline (09/01/2015) [-]
>implying armor means jack all
dude, we have evidence from OUR REAL WORLD that an arrow shot from a long bow could pierce an armor'd, mounted soldier and pin his leg to the horse beneath him. Even plate mail didn't stop arrows from a longbow. Armor was mainly meant for melee combat, because it stopped bigger weapons.
Eventually, as armor got bigger and denser, the only melee weapons that got through it were stiletto daggers that could pierce it's seems.
Reply
+1
User avatar #34 to #33 - rundas (09/01/2015) [-]
We know that SOMETIMES a longbow arrow could pierce plate armor. Most of the time, it was pretty effective at deflecting them. (And just because you've pierced the armor doesn't mean it's a kill: there's many layers of clothing and protection before you reach skin, and even an arrow that goes entirely through you doesn't guarantee a kill.)
The rest of that story sounds like anecdotal ******** . Imma need to see sauce.

>armor was mainly meant for melee combat
What the **** ? Do you think this is how conversations with smiths went:
"Here ya go. This should protect you from any melee weapons."
"What if someone shoots an arrow at me?"
"Well you're obviously ****** . Nothing in centuries of military technology has produced a solution to the invincible arrow."

************ . Arrows are one of the primary considerations when producing armor. Ever wonder why a lot of armor bulges out? It's to deflect arrows. Even chainmail could reliably protect against arrows. Hell, gambesons or just a thick shirt did the job pretty well.
Reply
0
User avatar #128 to #34 - peliaosfiendline (09/02/2015) [-]
Actually, armor mainly being for melee was something i learned from a guy who makes armor for a living, primarily chain and scale mail as they're was sells the most in the modern era
Reply
0
#103 to #34 - anon (09/01/2015) [-]
If we're talking from a tabletop perspective, which is where the conversation started, heavier armor does not mean **** against a well-placed arrow. Unless your armor is adamantine, you're wearing padded quilt instead of plate, or magically enhanced to give DR, you're taking full damage for an arrow that hits you.

You also seem to be thinking that elves would form large, marching armies. They tended to live in small, isolated villages, or less frequently, in larger cities with predominately human populations, forming small sub-communities. An elven militia would generally consist of a few hundred soldiers wearing middle-weight armor at best, as most of them don't have the capacity to wear heavy armor (too much weight, no proficieny from standard elven classes, etc.). Nothing that would stop thousands of raining arrows.

You're also assuming elves are the dominant race, except if you were to look through any dnd/pathfinder lore, humans have begun to occupy that niche.
Reply
0
#116 to #28 - anon (09/02/2015) [-]
Look up Battle of Crecy
Reply
0
User avatar #61 to #28 - Zedotelhado (09/01/2015) [-]
From the ancient times, we have records of slings breaking and shattering roman segmentatas and scutii, of breaking the hafts of macedonian sarissas and greek hoplons. Are you really meaning to say that a large enough number isn't enough to cause major casualties?


Evolve that to a few centuries later, with armour and bodkins. There was a reason why english/cantabrian bowmen and italian crossbowmen were paid at their-weight-in-gold standard, even higher than the germanic landsknecht shock infantry and only surpassed by the spanish terço later in the history.


Historically, projectiles were always a major cause of casualties and determinant of victory. And no tactics, skill, experience and wisdom can, in a battle, automagically make a projectile change its trajectory from deadcenter-your-skull to magical-getaway-land.
Reply
0
#134 to #61 - anon (09/03/2015) [-]
Fortune favors my butthole
Reply
0
#117 to #61 - anon (09/02/2015) [-]
My thong doubles as a sling
Reply
0
User avatar #72 to #61 - rundas (09/01/2015) [-]
Of course, but assuming elves are the dominant race in this universe, they would have the best armor. Just because projectiles CAN break armor doesn't mean they always WILL. There's a reason that the Romans didn't, in fact, get conquered by a bunch of Dacian mountain peasants.

And you have to remember that elves would almost always be numerically outmatched by any enemy they're facing. If all it took was greater numbers and projectiles, then elves wouldn't have lasted a year. I've always kinda though of the elven military as resembling Rome, so I would assume they'd carry large shields and could make formation to defend against arrow barrages. And assuming humans are new in the world, their army would probably look more like a peasant horde than medieval longbowmen or knights.
Reply
0
#104 to #72 - anon (09/01/2015) [-]
The only really notable game universe where elves are the dominant race would be the Elder Scrolls one. In most tabletops, most races are thinning out, and humans are establishing themselves as the dominant race. On top of that, elves have never had the best armor. That honor usually belonged to dwarves (who often became or started as personal smiths to the gods.), or humans who would buy from them (dwarven bias against elves usually assured that such armor rarely fell into elven hands). Where the **** are you getting your lore from, because it's certainly not the established lore for most tabletop rpg's, or mythical settings in general.
Should I just assume you're pulling facts out of your ass to support your raging hard-on for elves? 'Cause that's what it looks like.
Reply
0
User avatar #107 to #104 - rundas (09/01/2015) [-]
Not really. In almost all game universes, at one point (high) elves were the dominant race. Whether that's the case at the "current" moment in the universe is irrelevant, because we can assume certain things about their rise and fall.

And ever heard of Lord of the Rings? As in, what almost all fantasy is based off of? Mithril armor is vastly superior to dwarven armor, even Thorin admits that.
Reply
0
#112 to #107 - anon (09/01/2015) [-]
Mithril armor, in most tabletops, which is where most elven lore in modern stuff comes from (although it WAS inspired by tolkien) is worse than adamantine armor. Which is traditionally dwarven. You are basing your elves off of one source (which, btw, didn't have high elves as a thing, and had the ancient elves sharing dominion with numenorians instead of being the only dominant race), while ignoring most of them. Traditionally speaking, you are completely incorrect on your assumption of elves. Give up already.
Reply
0
User avatar #114 to #112 - rundas (09/01/2015) [-]
You can't have it both ways. You can't say Tolkien is an insufficient source for mithril, and then try to use him as a source for something else. And Numenoreans were certainly not the dominant race. They were more like a protectorate of the elves, iirc.

And you still haven't answered the fact that in almost all series, there was a time when elves WERE the dominant race, and usually their empire was the longest-lasting. (Yes, sometimes series do the ******** where they give each race temporary dominance, but elven empires are a common thread.)
Reply
0
#120 to #114 - anon (09/02/2015) [-]
In almost all series, elves were servants of the gods, not necessarily a dominant race. I didn't say tolkien is insufficent while using him for another argument, either. At least, no more than you do when stating high elves as an example, and elves as a dominant race, while quoting only tolkien as a specific. All I did was point that out. I never called in to question mithril, in relation to tolkien. Mithril is commonly used in tabletops, and again, is usually outclassed by adamantine. Your argument is cyclical, and lacks substance.
Reply
+5
#37 to #3 - walmartysnextghost (09/01/2015) [-]
age doesn't beat youth all the time, sure there'll be one or two autists that work every day to improve their craft, but time put in vs skill output becomes a more obnoxious tradeoff after 100 years or so. Most elves are more likely to have been good at most things at one point or another and then not done it for the last 50 years because they've picked up other interests. 99% of them are going to be that average joe who was really good at swordfighting compared to their friends at one point, but they're really into sculpture right now and haven't had a sword in their hand since that tournament 55 years back and are going to be real rusty.
Reply
+1
User avatar #38 to #37 - rundas (09/01/2015) [-]
>youth
Dude, that's literally the thing about elves. They have eternal youth (or at leas very long youth). By the time a human's learned enough about war to be considered a master, he'd probably be in his forties or fifties, and starting to lose strength and vitality. An elf would have the same vitality until he died (or started to decay, depending) and could only gain experience.

Also I'm not saying every elf. I'm talking about the soldiers. The majority of humans would never fight in their life. But even a civilian elf would have the time to train in combat for at least a few years, should he choose. And being a soldier isn't really a hobby. And if you're the best at it, you don't really change occupation, because you are so valuable to your society they will pay whatever to keep you in your position.

Also I don't really think there'd be that much of a diminishing returns. In many famous knights throughout history (William Marshal is a great example) we see that they gain wisdom and leadership throughout the years. Marshal was the greatest leader in England at 72, and certainly a much better knight than he was in his youth. Certainly he would have continued being the regent of England had he not died.
Reply
0
#62 to #38 - anon (09/01/2015) [-]
You've missed the entire point, here. He's not saying that being older inherently makes you worse. He's saying that elves' interests change over the course of their lives. Few elves actually have 100+ years of experience at anything, and there are only a handful of things they've probably done in the past 20 years. The point was that if you're not in practice, after a certain amount of time you simply lose muscle memory (as well as knowledge). So sure, an elf can live 200 years and still be spry. But if the last time he swung a sword was 57 years ago, he's no better off than a foot soldier in a human army. Also, the content talked about the slow, careful pace at which elves approach things. This also has an impact, as it means that elves 1. take longer to learn things, and 2. are even more likely to have not trained more than a handful of skills recently enough to be proficient.
Reply
0
User avatar #63 to #62 - rundas (09/01/2015) [-]
1) There are some things you never forget. Since elves live so long, I'd imagine that things like muscle memory decay more slowly. And regular memory. No reason to think they'd simply forget everything. Your body remembers how to react to things.
2) I'd imagine elves approach things differently. 100 years seems a lot shorter to them. Plus I get the feeling they'd appreciate mastery achieved through discipline. So I think they would spend many centuries on their area of interest.
3) Even if elves take longer to learn things (which doesn't really make all that much sense, but whatever) they're still smarter and have way longer to learn, even at a disadvantage, than a human. I see no reason why they would focus on being jacks of all trades if they somehow lose all their proficiency in something in 50 years, a minuscule amount of time for them. If that were the case, it would make more sense that they would spend centuries mastering it so they wouldn't lose their knowledge.
Reply
+5
#55 to #3 - myjunk (09/01/2015) [-]
Just because they had time to train for centuries, doesn't mean they did.
If you or I were immortal we'd still waste our lives on funnyjunk.
When you say "militarily" it implies a whole nation going to war - in which case reproduction rates matter too.
Because of their immportality and possible longevity elven rulers and warlords will be much more careful with their subject's lives. (Maybe that's why they prefer archery instead of beeing cannon fodder).
Elven politicians might therefore be more peaceful and elves would be less likely to go to war. This in turn could mean, that elves put less efforts in the martial arts.
Reply
0
User avatar #64 to #55 - rundas (09/01/2015) [-]
1) Generally, elves are seen as more intelligent, disciplined, and devoted, so most likely they would dedicate themselves to whatever craft they chose.
2) Reproduction rates matter, but don't forget that elves have been on the world way longer than humans. Assuming there's really no limit to how long they can live, that gives them plenty of opportunities to reproduce. Even if you can only have kids every century, if you live to 1000, that's 10 opportunities to have kids. And generally populations that favor a k selection put way more care into their offspring's survival. So it's very likely that most elves would reach maturity. Compared to humans, where you might have 15 kids in your life but half of them die. So while it's true that elves have a slow replacement rate, I'd say they should have a population around the size of humans, if not more. So in order for population to be an issue, their army would have to be devastated in battle, which is unlikely against humans, considering elves' tactical and combat superiority.
3) Having a small population would make you more vulnerable. Which would of course imply you're more obsessive over your race's survival. Which implies a heavy emphasis on defense, which probably means an army of dedicated soldiers and generals.
Reply
+1
User avatar #65 to #64 - vulnerable (09/01/2015) [-]
Hi
Reply
+5
User avatar #80 to #3 - zaywoot (09/01/2015) [-]
I think it's partially cultural reasons, and few numbers
I can't remember a single instance were elves were described as numerous, it's often "Elves were here first, but then humans arrived/became a thing and they spread quickly, bred like rabbits and took over due to sheer numbers"

But also given that elves are often seen as very nature loving and peaceful, mastering craftmanship and magic and stuff... it just seems like martial prowess is in no way a priority for elves... They're like post viking scandinavians, pretty tall blonde socialists with a lacking military
Reply
+2
User avatar #83 to #80 - garaichu (09/01/2015) [-]
What I'm taking from this is "Scandinavians are elves", and I'm alright with that.
Reply
+3
User avatar #87 to #83 - zaywoot (09/01/2015) [-]
Dane here, wasn't meant as an insult
Reply
+11
#4 to #3 - orkamungus ONLINE (09/01/2015) [-]
For da same reas'n dose ponzy Eldar get krumped on a regular baziz wheneva deyz fightin' Orkz an' 'umiez: dey zoggin' suck at everyfing. Simple az dat.
Reply
0
#96 to #4 - warzon (09/01/2015) [-]
The inquisition for once agrees.

NOW GET STABBED VILE XENO!
Reply
+11
#39 to #3 - thechosentroll (09/01/2015) [-]
Good point, but you're forgetting the fact that a human is much stronger than an elf. Strong enough to chuck a dwarf at said it, sit back and laugh as the dwarf rearranges the elfs' face.
Reply
+1
User avatar #40 to #39 - rundas (09/01/2015) [-]
In most fantasy, it's generally agreed that an elf is weaker than a human. But I don't recall the difference ever being so great that elves seem pathetic. And if skill plays no part in battle, then Orcs should when every time, because as far as I'm aware, the strength difference between an Orc and a human is greater than that between a human and an elf.
Reply
+1
User avatar #73 to #40 - thechosentroll (09/01/2015) [-]
I don't think you quite understand the concept of "humor". Then again, that's fairly typical for elf lovers.
Reply
0
User avatar #74 to #73 - rundas (09/01/2015) [-]
But, that wasn't funny
Reply
+2
User avatar #75 to #74 - thechosentroll (09/01/2015) [-]
It was kind of funny.
Reply
0
User avatar #76 to #75 - rundas (09/01/2015) [-]
If it was your potato grammar ruined it.
>chuck a dwarf at said it
Reply
0
User avatar #77 to #76 - thechosentroll (09/01/2015) [-]
I couldn't decide if I should say "it" or "said elf", so my half-asleep brain wend with something in the middle.
Reply
+6
#7 to #3 - bible (09/01/2015) [-]
You can never predict and counter an enemy's plan or battle tactic if they never had one in the first place. They probably would rely too much on their practice, and not account for the sheer unpredictability of humans.

So like, 80% skill, 20% luck I guess. For the human, anyway.
Reply
+2
User avatar #101 to #7 - makeakilling (09/01/2015) [-]
Look at him throw his cute, feeble little paws up in a vain attempt to defend against diabeetus.
Reply
+1
User avatar #8 to #7 - rundas (09/01/2015) [-]
Actually, if elves were smart, then they COULD predict humans. Assuming they had the manpower to specialize military leadership, a single general could spend centuries just studying human patterns and behavior to understand how they would act in battle. If human behavior in a battle is just to rely on instinct, that is actually really easy to predict. Not to mention the elven tacticians would have several centuries' headstart in plotting ambushes and traps that they could lure humans into, if they knew what could draw them out.
Reply
+1
User avatar #18 to #8 - Zedotelhado (09/01/2015) [-]
That'd imply the humans have been around for centuries to study. And even still there's far too many variables, as kingdoms and policies change, so does doctrine
Reply
+1
User avatar #21 to #18 - rundas (09/01/2015) [-]
Yes, but the difference between human kingdoms is still less than the difference between elves and humans, and assuming the races aren't just determinants of ear size, presumably elves could figure out some general patterns. And even if humans are brand ******* new on the planet, elves would still have longer to study them than humans themselves would. Assuming elves and humans aren't in perpetual war, surely any human kingdom would love to have an elf come and advise his military. Meanwhile, the elf would be taking notes.
Reply
0
#110 to #8 - anon (09/01/2015) [-]
intelligence, in tabletop, is knowing information, not applying it. With a high int, but no wis bonus, which is what elves traditionally have, you'd go "oh, yes, I know plenty of common tactics, but I know that humans are unpredictable. Let's see what he's going to do! ...I can't predict it, because he's unpredictable. Right."
Reply
0
User avatar #113 to #110 - rundas (09/01/2015) [-]
OK but you have to apply some common sense to it. How in hell could you live 500+ years, assuming you're not retarded, and not gain a substantial amount of wisdom from experience alone? Ofc they're not all just liberal arts majors
Reply
0
#127 to #113 - anon (09/02/2015) [-]
The common starting age for an elf in tabletops is roughly 200 years. They're considered above-average in stats, etc. They still have to roll for everything, and don't get any bonus to wisdom. After all, if you're a shut-in for 500 years, with your library, you'll gain plenty of intelligence, but won't know anything of application.
Reply
0
#151 to #3 - anon (09/22/2015) [-]
There's a point where all the training you're doing isn't actually increasing your abilities anymore, like, there's only a certain degree of good at something you can be. Presumably both humans and elves can hit a fairly similar level of this, it's just elves can hit it with more things
Reply
0
#119 to #3 - anon (09/02/2015) [-]
Yfw
Reply
+4
User avatar #95 to #3 - secondlawprevails (09/01/2015) [-]
I think a major factor is just how flexible humans are. We need some more archers? Those ***** over there don't look busy, give them some bows, a few weeks, and bam archers. We need more materials? **** it, let's turn these farms into a quarry. We need an army? Crank out a **** ton of babies, enslave a neighboring populace to feed them all, and bam, in what seems like a short stretch of time to an elf, we've raised a massive army. We need a machine to do function x? Give our engineers machines that do y and z, and tell them we need a prototype in two weeks.
Simply put, we can redirect our manpower and resources so fast, that elves wouldn't know what to do
Reply
+30
#9 to #3 - heartlessrobot (09/01/2015) [-]
"Pathetic human, I have trained for centuries! I am the ultimate fighter, you have no chance to defeat me!"
>Human swings greatsword, smashes through elf's short sword raised in defense, cleaving elf in two, ending fight.
Humans are much stronger than elves but not as smart, they're weaker than orcs but smarter.
Middleground has its benefits.
Reply
+3
User avatar #14 to #9 - rundas (09/01/2015) [-]
It does, but I don't recall any lore that says that elves are pathetic. Slightly weaker than humans, sure, but not by a great deal.

Also, unless the short sword is made of paper, it's damn near impossible to break a sword in one blow if it hasn't been beaten to hell throughout the battle, much less cleaving someone in two, armor, bones and all. That seems a much more likely scenario for an orc against a kobold.

Also I think you're underestimating just how important skill and experience is in combat, as opposed to just strength. This guy is an actual scholar, he explains it pretty well: www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELQqRk0r1yM
Reply
+1
User avatar #17 to #14 - heartlessrobot (09/01/2015) [-]
And a human Barbarian would rip an Elven Ranger a new asshole.
Reply
+1
User avatar #16 to #14 - heartlessrobot (09/01/2015) [-]
This is implying the elf isn't strong enough to stop the greatsword with his own sword.
Also, leather armor.
Reply
0
User avatar #22 to #16 - rundas (09/01/2015) [-]
>implying leather armor was actually a thing
www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUPIUHpkK88
Reply
+1
User avatar #23 to #22 - heartlessrobot (09/01/2015) [-]
>Implying Elves were actually a thing
nwn.wikia.com/wiki/Leather_armor
Reply
+1
User avatar #25 to #23 - rundas (09/01/2015) [-]
>implying Wikipedia is reliable
Reply
+2
User avatar #27 to #25 - heartlessrobot (09/01/2015) [-]
It's a fictional subject, at this point, any established game, book, or movie is reliable.
And leather armor was a real thing. Samurai and **** wore it. It wasn't very good, but it was better than a shirt.
Reply
0
User avatar #29 to #27 - rundas (09/01/2015) [-]
Hmm, that is a good point. I was trying to apply historical accuracy when I should have been applying the rules of the system. though history is a good reference to defer to, considering the universes vary so much in this
And yes, technically, leather armor was a thing, but cotton and wool armor were both more common and more effective. Your point?
Reply
0
User avatar #30 to #29 - heartlessrobot (09/01/2015) [-]
As long as we aren't talking Eragon mythology. Great books, but I hate how underpowered humans were.
Reply
0
User avatar #31 to #30 - rundas (09/01/2015) [-]
Haven't actually read those, but I think that's how it should be, assuming it's a world full of elves and dragons and giants. Humans are the new guys on the block, making their way in a hostile world. Like a rat living among dinosaurs. (Unless it's the opposite, where humans have outbred and conquered the nonhumans, a la Witcher and Dragon Age). I always kinda liked the idea of an army of ragtag humans with no real experience or weaponry fighting off hostile hordes of horrors with no hope for victory but just holding them off and maybe taking one or two down and if you're lucky once it's over you can play dead and the scavengers won't hear you breathing.
Reply
+2
User avatar #32 to #31 - heartlessrobot (09/01/2015) [-]
Yeah but a human against an elf was like a legless mouse against a dude with a gun.
They had zero chance. At all. None. Zip. Elves moved faster than humans could see, and could snap a human in half without strain.
Reply
+2
User avatar #35 to #32 - rundas (09/01/2015) [-]
Yeah that's a little much. I don't think fantasy elves should really be too physically overpowered. Most of their superiority, in my opinion, should come from being comfortable in combat after centuries of it, or maybe some magical protection from the gods or some **** (or instinct, and/or protection of nature for wood elves).
Reply
0
#133 to #35 - anon (09/03/2015) [-]
I picture elves possessing grace and form like samurai... Elegant yet deadly... Not brutish and stupid like Chinese, Chinese are like rats
Reply
0
#115 to #32 - anon (09/02/2015) [-]
That sounds like some twilight **** bro
Reply
0
#139 to #22 - alexanderh (09/14/2015) [-]
Even your sourced video says that it did exist, as in boiled leather. Which is exactly how D&D 5e describes leather armour; namely leather bodyarmour that is boiled to make it stiff.
Reply
0
#109 to #14 - anon (09/01/2015) [-]
Let's put things this way: In dnd/pathfinder, stats are on sort of a bellcurve, with a 10 in a stat as average. You know, like a random villager's strength or whatever, or a modern 3rd grader's intelligence. This is compared to a 0, which is complete atrophy, etc, or a 20, which is ridiculous, almost that of a demi-god. An elf takes a -2 to str or con depending on game system. This means they are a VERY good chunk frailer in those stats, relative to a human of the same roll (who often get a +2 to con/str depending on system). Like, this would be carrying 70 pounds on your person, overall, at most, for the average elf, vs. 135 for the average human. A suit of armor and a good sword would be the most they could bring with them, if they did not have exceptionally above-average strength. Elves are downright puny, without a good roll.
Reply
+1
User avatar #111 to #109 - rundas (09/01/2015) [-]
A complete suit of plate armour made from well-tempered steel would weigh around 15–25 kg(33-55 pounds).[2] The wearer remained highly agile and could jump, run and otherwise move freely as the weight of the armor was spread evenly throughout the body.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_armour

German two-handed great sword, that this author had the privilege of exercising outdoors with, had length in excess of five feet and a weight of 7.9 pounds (3490g), but handled easily with superb balance.
www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html

That's the heaviest suit of armor, and the heaviest sword, that were in common use. And that still leaves you with about 32 pounds to carry other stuff, all of which is very light (food rations, bedroll, etc.) So what's the problem?
Reply
0
#124 to #111 - anon (09/02/2015) [-]
70 pounds minus 63 pounds (55+8) does not equal 32. You'd have rougly 7 pounds before being over-encumbered (a basic adventurer's pack is roughly 20 pounds), not to mention, in full plate you would lose most of your dexterity in terms of dodging. If your elves being arrow-proof requires plate armor, they're not going to be very effective soldiers assuming most of them are average. If they're above average, then your army would be maybe 50-70 elves.
Reply
0
#138 to #124 - alexanderh (09/14/2015) [-]
Actually, you lose very little dexterity while in plate armour. Fine manipulation was hard, but dodging incoming attacks weren't much harder in full plate than without it.
And being in full plate made you almost entirely impervious to attacks. The only hand-held weapon that could reliably pierce armour was arbalests, which were very heavy, very powerful crossbows. And even then, you needed a direct hit.

Other weapons relied on hitting the few unprotected spots, like the eye slits.
Reply
0
#135 to #9 - alexanderh (09/13/2015) [-]
A sword cannot cleave through another sword, unless the other sword is crafted incredibly badly...
Reply
0
User avatar #136 to #135 - heartlessrobot (09/14/2015) [-]
It doesn't have to, it just needs enough force behind it that it pushes it down and the sword continues into the person that was holding the sword that got pushed out of the way.
Reply
0
#137 to #136 - alexanderh (09/14/2015) [-]
Okay, let's consider the possible defenses against a cleaving strike:
1: Dodging backwards. This is surprisingly easy, especially against strong swings.
2: Parrying. You don't necessarily need to stop the blade, just slow it enough or deflect it so it doesn't hurt you. Not particularly hard. And if you don't have the strength to do it, just grab your sword with two hands.

On another note, is is impossible to swing a sword with enough force to cleave through a person's torso. The sword transfers too much energy into the body to do that.
Reply
0
User avatar #140 to #137 - heartlessrobot (09/14/2015) [-]
1. Sword's too long, you'd be off-balance and wide open to a follow-up thrust
2. It's not a guarantee you'll be able to pull it off

Enchanted Sword.
Reply
0
#141 to #140 - alexanderh (09/16/2015) [-]
If you're going to bring magic into this equation, let me counter you with an actual item from the 5e DMG:
Armour of invulnerability.
Reply
0
User avatar #142 to #141 - heartlessrobot (09/17/2015) [-]
Armor enchantments are far more rare, and more expensive, than weapon enchantments.
Let me counter that with Vorpal Greatsword.
nwn.wikia.com/wiki/Vorpal
I tried looking up Armor of Invulnerability, but this is all I got.
www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/magicItems/armor.htm
Reply
0
#143 to #142 - alexanderh (09/17/2015) [-]
5E doesn't have an SRD.
But basically it gives you resistance to all damage, and can be activated to give you immunity to all damage for 10 minutes.
And armour enchantments aren't more rare than weapon enchantments in 5e. Not noticeably so, anyway.

And a vorpal greatsword is not going to help you cleave through a man's chest. What it does is decapitate anything it crits. The 5e DMG is very specific about this point. The creature dies if it can't live without the head that was just cut off.
Certain things have immunity to this, though: Anything with immunity to slashing damage (armour of invulnerability does that), doesn't have/need a head, has legendary actions (a lot of high level threats have that), or the DM decides that the creature is too big for it's head to be cut off with this weapon. Instead of dying, they take 6d8 additional slashing damage (still immune to this...)

Basically, that sword is going to do exactly nothing to a person in an active armour of invulnerability.
Reply
0
User avatar #144 to #143 - heartlessrobot (09/17/2015) [-]
I was going by 4th edition and Neverwinter Nights, which was very similar to 4th edition.
Reply
0
#145 to #144 - alexanderh (09/17/2015) [-]
Never played 4E, but from what I heard, it's more that 4E was similar to Neverwinter Nights, than the other way around.

Anyway, if we disregard magic items, a sword is never going to cleave a person in two across the torso. Break the ribcage, sure. Rend practically all of the organs, sure. But there is no way that a sword is going to actually enter through the torso, sever the spine, and exit out the other side. They transfer too much force on first impact, and it's going to be practically impossible to perfectly hit between two ribs and keep that perfect angle going. It's just not going to happen.
Reply
0
User avatar #146 to #145 - heartlessrobot (09/17/2015) [-]
What if they have base 30 str?
Reply
0
#147 to #146 - alexanderh (09/17/2015) [-]
Maybe then. The sword itself absorbs a large amount of the shock as well, by flexing. If you hit something very hard with a sword and view it in slow-motion afterwards, you can see a lot of flexing in the blade.
A japanese sword would be better for this, since they don't flex at all, but bend instead. This is bad for longevity, but might help here. The problem with that is that the sword may just break or bend instead.
But a strength of 30 is what a Tarrasque has. This amount of strength is just ridiculous. And it's only possible to achieve 30 strength in 5E through DM fiat. He'd have to give you epic boons once you reach level 20.

Something you might be able to do, however, would be to cleave really hard into a person, and then do a draw cut, basically sawing through the person. It's going to take a while and be horribly inefficient, though. You could kill at least 5 enemies in the time it takes you to cut through a person's torso with a sword.

Decapitating would be a much better solution, though. If you cut really hard into a human's torso, he might still be able to give you a solid thrust before dying. If you cut off his head, he is instantly dead.
Reply
0
User avatar #148 to #147 - heartlessrobot (09/17/2015) [-]
You're forgetting the skill, Great Cleave.
Essentially, you swing hard enough to cut completely through 2 people, into a third person.
Reply
0
#149 to #148 - alexanderh (09/17/2015) [-]
Perfect example of why I prefer 5e to previous editions. There are no feats like that in 5e. It's a MUCH better simulation of a real world with magic.
Skills and feats in previous editions quickly got out of hand for my tastes. The 5e bounded accuracy is much more to my liking, the strongest you can get is approximately the strength of a bear. It's still incredibly strong, superhuman even, but it's not supernaturally strong.

The skill you're describing just wouldn't be possible with the physics we know of. At least, not without a monofilament sword, which is sharp enough to cut anything effortlessly.
Reply
0
User avatar #150 to #149 - heartlessrobot (09/17/2015) [-]
Eh, I liked 4e because everything gets ridiculous.
Like enchanting a sword to cast Implosion on hit.
Reply
0
#54 to #9 - myjunk (09/01/2015) [-]
You don't have to train for centuries to know that you can't block a two-handed greatsword with a one handed weapon.
Reply
0
User avatar #85 to #54 - heartlessrobot (09/01/2015) [-]
You can. You just need really strong arms.
Reply
0
#58 to #54 - anon (09/01/2015) [-]
Yes, you can. That's what parrying is.
Reply
-1
#59 to #58 - myjunk (09/01/2015) [-]
You can in video games
Reply
0
User avatar #89 - thefirespike (09/01/2015) [-]
What about half-elves?
Reply
0
User avatar #153 to #89 - alboorack (09/24/2015) [-]
a quarter of the class exploded
Reply
+3
User avatar #92 to #89 - heartlessrobot (09/01/2015) [-]
They just steal **** .
Reply
0
User avatar #93 to #92 - heartlessrobot (09/01/2015) [-]
Or is that halflings?
Reply
+5
User avatar #90 to #89 - clavatninenine (09/01/2015) [-]
they're calculatingly reckless.
Reply
+5
#51 - battlebrotherlayn (09/01/2015) [-]
>Magic mentioned
Reply
+3
#100 - tarabostes ONLINE (09/01/2015) [-]
Reply
+1
User avatar #57 - Einsty (09/01/2015) [-]
This long life/short life thing is showing even amongst humans. People with longer lifespan tend to reproduce less.
Reply
0
User avatar #60 to #57 - Lainge (09/01/2015) [-]
Well yeah that's pretty obvious.
Cleetus drinking his beers and eating his bacon and eggs all day while smoking 15 packs a day and ******* his cousin to spew out 1 child a year to die at the ripe old age of 40.
Compared to a family of 3-5 who eats healthy food and exercises and overall takes care of themselves is obviously more likely to live longer.
Reply
+1
User avatar #52 - ferrocordis (09/01/2015) [-]
Survival of the fittest
Reply
+1
User avatar #2 - aizeinstein (08/31/2015) [-]
By that logic, wouldn't sorcery for humans and wizardry for elves be a perfect combination?
Reply
0
User avatar #97 - cognosceteipsum ONLINE (09/01/2015) [-]
Beta nerds
Reply
0
User avatar #42 - krasnogvardiech (09/01/2015) [-]
suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/8348872/

Over here, everybody. Ignore the hecklers.
Reply
0
User avatar #56 to #42 - Einsty (09/01/2015) [-]
>>8349061

>It's not rape if it's an elf

I can see how /tg/ can be fun.
Reply
0
#121 to #56 - anon (09/02/2015) [-]
"It felt like rape to mee!"
Reply
0
User avatar #125 to #121 - Einsty (09/02/2015) [-]
but anon said it's not rape if it's an elf

I wonder if it works both ways
Reply
-2
User avatar #41 - joekerr (09/01/2015) [-]
That smells like tumblr.
 
Leave a comment
<
>
 Friends (0)