Tabletop Roleplaying Games (D&D, Pathfinder, CoC, ETC.)

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
For The Internet said:
So I'm a fucking idiot and I'm DMing a pathfinder campaign that I realised too late kind of had to include mounted combat in a large-scale battle. Learning the rules for mounted combat is easy enough but I need to research that shit IRL so my tactics are sound.

Anyone got recommendations for sources that can help me plan out somewhat realistic medieval-style mounted combat? I really don't like using wikipedia as a source for this kind of shit.

I want to ask other more specific questions too but my husbando is a kiwi and I don't want him seeing what I'm planning.
Click to expand...
Here's a rundown of medieval heavy cavalry.
- Medieval knights and heavy cavalry are rare. Resources were more sparse after the fall of Rome, and so those resources were dedicated to knights. This may or may not be true in your fantasy world.
- Knights were the special forces of their age with cutting-edge technology and training. Their horses were equally trained, armored, and would fight ground troops (biting and kicking) as much and as fiercely as the knight himself.
- Cavalry charges often occurred against other cavalry. Jousting was basically training for war.
- Swords were backups to the lances, which could get stuck in the enemy or (very occasionally) break. You have to be quite skilled to dismount an enemy while keeping your lance.
- Infantry could defeat cavalry if they maintained formation. The formation being "point all pikes down field at the charging knights and don't move". This works because horses won't run head-first into a wall of spikes.
- Infantry often didn't have much discipline and as a result were more susceptible to shock tactics (a specific kind of psychological warfare, basically).
- The medieval shock tactic is the cavalry charge. Imagine you have these legendary warriors (and their mounts) clad in shining armor, untouchable on the battlefield, trained from youth to kill. Their mounts were literally bred for war. You've heard stories, one knight taking out 5, 10, 20 men by himself. And there are 3,000 knights and squires, baring down on you and your brother's in arms. They are un-phased by your formation, fearless, unceasing, pressing every closer. And then there's you, a farmer who only just a couple weeks ago learned how to hold a spear. Your boss tells you to stand still while these demons of the battlefield are baring down on you. The pounding of the hooves are drown out by the pounding in your ears. You're feeling hot, and not just from your armor that amounts to a thick quilt. The ground is shaking. Hold the line. Don't break formation. They can't get through the formation. Right? But they aren't slowing down. Do they know something you don't? They would know better, wouldn't they? No, hold the line. Hold the form... Damn the formation. You're getting out of here. And then a horse and his rider slams into you. The horse tramples you as the knight buries his lance into the chest of the man to your left.
- Ranged weapons can counter cavalry if properly deployed. "Properly Deployed" means in a situation that gives a terrain disadvantage to the cavalry which slows/hinders their movement. The famous example is the English longbowman vs the French cavalry in the battle of Agincourt. The superiority of ranged weapons to cavalry became even more apparent with the advent of easier-to-use ranged weapons such as crossbows and primitive firearms. When warfare became less open battle and more siege warfare cavalry was only really useful to get to the siege faster
- The pike formation could, in turn, be defeated by well trained cavalry or better tactics that could flank the formation. This is helped by their mobility advantage, and can be facilitated through surprise attacks, by fielding infantry first and bringing in cavalry after the fact, or a strategic charge that places cavalry against an enemy's flank. Cavalry is devastating if it can reach an un-protected flank, if not just because of the basic physics of all of that weight slamming into someone.
- Knights would dismount to fight on foot. This would often happen during a siege as mentioned above, just using the the horse to get to their location quickly. They would also dismount to deal with infantry that they couldn't defeat on foot, such as well trained infantry that wouldn't break during a charge. These knights would have polearms/lances to use on foot, in addition to swords.

More reading
https://web.archive.org/web/2011080...emilitari.org/resources/articles/bennett1.htm
https://www.britannica.com/topic/tactics/Medieval-tactics-in-the-West

Here's a rundown of light cavalry
- All anti-cavalry tactics apply here as well, but ranged tactics are a bit less effective because they are faster.
- Light cavalry was used to support heavy cavalry, attack fleeing enemies, and deal with lightly-armored opponents.
- Due to their speed they make ideal scouts and are good candidates for hit and run tactics.
 
MAPK phosphatase said:
Here's a rundown of medieval heavy cavalry.
- Medieval knights and heavy cavalry are rare. Resources were more sparse after the fall of Rome, and so those resources were dedicated to knights. This may or may not be true in your fantasy world.
- Knights were the special forces of their age with cutting-edge technology and training. Their horses were equally trained, armored, and would fight ground troops (biting and kicking) as much and as fiercely as the knight himself.
- Cavalry charges often occurred against other cavalry. Jousting was basically training for war.
- Swords were backups to the lances, which could get stuck in the enemy or (very occasionally) break. You have to be quite skilled to dismount an enemy while keeping your lance.
- Infantry could defeat cavalry if they maintained formation. The formation being "point all pikes down field at the charging knights and don't move". This works because horses won't run head-first into a wall of spikes.
- Infantry often didn't have much discipline and as a result were more susceptible to shock tactics (a specific kind of psychological warfare, basically).
- The medieval shock tactic is the cavalry charge. Imagine you have these legendary warriors (and their mounts) clad in shining armor, untouchable on the battlefield, trained from youth to kill. Their mounts were literally bred for war. You've heard stories, one knight taking out 5, 10, 20 men by himself. And there are 3,000 knights and squires, baring down on you and your brother's in arms. They are un-phased by your formation, fearless, unceasing, pressing every closer. And then there's you, a farmer who only just a couple weeks ago learned how to hold a spear. Your boss tells you to stand still while these demons of the battlefield are baring down on you. The pounding of the hooves are drown out by the pounding in your ears. You're feeling hot, and not just from your armor that amounts to a thick quilt. The ground is shaking. Hold the line. Don't break formation. They can't get through the formation. Right? But they aren't slowing down. Do they know something you don't? They would know better, wouldn't they? No, hold the line. Hold the form... Damn the formation. You're getting out of here. And then a horse and his rider slams into you. The horse tramples you as the knight buries his lance into the chest of the man to your left.
- Ranged weapons can counter cavalry if properly deployed. "Properly Deployed" means in a situation that gives a terrain disadvantage to the cavalry which slows/hinders their movement. The famous example is the English longbowman vs the French cavalry in the battle of Agincourt. The superiority of ranged weapons to cavalry became even more apparent with the advent of easier-to-use ranged weapons such as crossbows and primitive firearms. When warfare became less open battle and more siege warfare cavalry was only really useful to get to the siege faster
- The pike formation could, in turn, be defeated by well trained cavalry or better tactics that could flank the formation. This is helped by their mobility advantage, and can be facilitated through surprise attacks, by fielding infantry first and bringing in cavalry after the fact, or a strategic charge that places cavalry against an enemy's flank. Cavalry is devastating if it can reach an un-protected flank, if not just because of the basic physics of all of that weight slamming into someone.
- Knights would dismount to fight on foot. This would often happen during a siege as mentioned above, just using the the horse to get to their location quickly. They would also dismount to deal with infantry that they couldn't defeat on foot, such as well trained infantry that wouldn't break during a charge. These knights would have polearms/lances to use on foot, in addition to swords.

More reading
https://web.archive.org/web/2011080...emilitari.org/resources/articles/bennett1.htm
https://www.britannica.com/topic/tactics/Medieval-tactics-in-the-West

Here's a rundown of light cavalry
- All anti-cavalry tactics apply here as well, but ranged tactics are a bit less effective because they are faster.
- Light cavalry was used to support heavy cavalry, attack fleeing enemies, and deal with lightly-armored opponents.
- Due to their speed they make ideal scouts and are good candidates for hit and run tactics.
Click to expand...

How do you think magic would change such tactics? I would imagine having what is effectively a hyper-mobile artillery piece would greatly hinder formation based fighting and bring about something similar to modern combined arms tactics. Staying in formation might keep a horse from charging your line but it just means more crispy bodies if a fireball is coming down. If you're going for a magic heavy fight you might consider having the mages break the lines then following up with the cavalry charge when the enemy infantry are vulnerable.
 
MAPK phosphatase said:
Here's a rundown of medieval heavy cavalry.
- Medieval knights and heavy cavalry are rare. Resources were more sparse after the fall of Rome, and so those resources were dedicated to knights. This may or may not be true in your fantasy world.
- Knights were the special forces of their age with cutting-edge technology and training. Their horses were equally trained, armored, and would fight ground troops (biting and kicking) as much and as fiercely as the knight himself.
- Cavalry charges often occurred against other cavalry. Jousting was basically training for war.
- Swords were backups to the lances, which could get stuck in the enemy or (very occasionally) break. You have to be quite skilled to dismount an enemy while keeping your lance.
- Infantry could defeat cavalry if they maintained formation. The formation being "point all pikes down field at the charging knights and don't move". This works because horses won't run head-first into a wall of spikes.
- Infantry often didn't have much discipline and as a result were more susceptible to shock tactics (a specific kind of psychological warfare, basically).
- The medieval shock tactic is the cavalry charge. Imagine you have these legendary warriors (and their mounts) clad in shining armor, untouchable on the battlefield, trained from youth to kill. Their mounts were literally bred for war. You've heard stories, one knight taking out 5, 10, 20 men by himself. And there are 3,000 knights and squires, baring down on you and your brother's in arms. They are un-phased by your formation, fearless, unceasing, pressing every closer. And then there's you, a farmer who only just a couple weeks ago learned how to hold a spear. Your boss tells you to stand still while these demons of the battlefield are baring down on you. The pounding of the hooves are drown out by the pounding in your ears. You're feeling hot, and not just from your armor that amounts to a thick quilt. The ground is shaking. Hold the line. Don't break formation. They can't get through the formation. Right? But they aren't slowing down. Do they know something you don't? They would know better, wouldn't they? No, hold the line. Hold the form... Damn the formation. You're getting out of here. And then a horse and his rider slams into you. The horse tramples you as the knight buries his lance into the chest of the man to your left.
- Ranged weapons can counter cavalry if properly deployed. "Properly Deployed" means in a situation that gives a terrain disadvantage to the cavalry which slows/hinders their movement. The famous example is the English longbowman vs the French cavalry in the battle of Agincourt. The superiority of ranged weapons to cavalry became even more apparent with the advent of easier-to-use ranged weapons such as crossbows and primitive firearms. When warfare became less open battle and more siege warfare cavalry was only really useful to get to the siege faster
- The pike formation could, in turn, be defeated by well trained cavalry or better tactics that could flank the formation. This is helped by their mobility advantage, and can be facilitated through surprise attacks, by fielding infantry first and bringing in cavalry after the fact, or a strategic charge that places cavalry against an enemy's flank. Cavalry is devastating if it can reach an un-protected flank, if not just because of the basic physics of all of that weight slamming into someone.
- Knights would dismount to fight on foot. This would often happen during a siege as mentioned above, just using the the horse to get to their location quickly. They would also dismount to deal with infantry that they couldn't defeat on foot, such as well trained infantry that wouldn't break during a charge. These knights would have polearms/lances to use on foot, in addition to swords.

More reading
https://web.archive.org/web/2011080...emilitari.org/resources/articles/bennett1.htm
https://www.britannica.com/topic/tactics/Medieval-tactics-in-the-West

Here's a rundown of light cavalry
- All anti-cavalry tactics apply here as well, but ranged tactics are a bit less effective because they are faster.
- Light cavalry was used to support heavy cavalry, attack fleeing enemies, and deal with lightly-armored opponents.
- Due to their speed they make ideal scouts and are good candidates for hit and run tactics.
Click to expand...

Thank you so much for that, I appreciate it enormously. I really try to research things so the campaign can be reasonable and grounded in something real. I've started following up on the links you provided.

My campaign is set in a custom fantasy world I've worked on since I was a teenager so there aren't really knights. The area of the world that is central to the story is based on medieval Europe but there's also a heavy Greco-Roman influence in certain very important cultures. Centaurs play a pretty important role in the campaign and I'm basically wanting to apply mounted combat tactics to them, so horse behaviour isn't a concern with them. They're going to be fighting people who actually are on horseback, though, so it does matter. I have to admit I've mainly been drawing on Roman military tactics with them (as they're completely non-magical and are more comparable to Greco-Romans than medieval Europeans), but they're going to come up against people using more 'modern' (ie medieval) tactics and armor.

I did a sort of test battle where we had a centaur NPC alongside the party, who went in ahead of the centaurs in a battle as a sort of shock-and-awe team, using magic to surprise and hurt the infantry who were equipped with pikes and shields so the centaurs could ride them down once their ranks had been broken. Shock-and-awe was obviously a much more modern tactic, but I think it was fair because the character who suggested it isn't from the fantasy world, they're from this world and it's contemporary.

There's also the fact that none of the characters in the party are centaurs themselves, and if you're fighting with centaurs in a large battle situation I figure you have to fight on horseback out of necessity if you're human so you don't get trampled or get in their way. My human character who lived and fought alongside them for years is a dex fighter and although I've roleplayed him a lot I've never had to actually draw upon his experience as a solider and commander until I began the campaign. It's a pretty fun challenge and I want to get my information right so I'm not completely making things up.


WinchesterPremium said:
How do you think magic would change such tactics? I would imagine having what is effectively a hyper-mobile artillery piece would greatly hinder formation based fighting and bring about something similar to modern combined arms tactics. Staying in formation might keep a horse from charging your line but it just means more crispy bodies if a fireball is coming down. If you're going for a magic heavy fight you might consider having the mages break the lines then following up with the cavalry charge when the enemy infantry are vulnerable.
Click to expand...

This was something I already came up against, as I mentioned above. It pretty much wrecked the army because they were non-magical, fighting against non-magical opponents. They had no reason to expect there would be magic and were completely unprepared for it. I've really been trying to think about how the decimated army would regroup and adjust their strategy to take magic into account.
 
WinchesterPremium said:
How do you think magic would change such tactics? I would imagine having what is effectively a hyper-mobile artillery piece would greatly hinder formation based fighting and bring about something similar to modern combined arms tactics. Staying in formation might keep a horse from charging your line but it just means more crispy bodies if a fireball is coming down. If you're going for a magic heavy fight you might consider having the mages break the lines then following up with the cavalry charge when the enemy infantry are vulnerable.
Click to expand...
Depends on how common and powerful magic is, but considering the size of medieval armies (about 20,000) even a 100 magic users casting fireballs could have a significant effects on the battle. If wizards are as common as knights (about 5,000 of the 20,000) then the effect is even more apparent. Enemies in the field would be spread further apart, and choke points would make infantry easy pickings for a group of wizards. Wizards on horseback would basically operate like dragoons (get in, dismount, and fight) or horse archers (cast magic while staying on horseback). Regardless, magic users would become the Knights of the society. They would either be nobles or be funded in large part by a noble. They almost universally have a high status.
If they double down on static combat you would see post-firearm siege combat become more common. One army stays in a castle while another digs trenches in closer to it. All the while both sides are shooting at each-other. This only really works of the castle has magical defenses that can protect against magical attacks, or the ability to strike magic users when they come into range. If not, then armies with effective counter-magic tactics and troops would be fielded in advance to intercept any army that threatens a castle.
This could also go the other way, with a heavy emphases on high mobility and long range for as many troops as possible. Basically Mongol tactics. If you can't field magic users, or can't field very many, you try to fight back with volleys of arrows, moving the source of those arrows around as much as possible so they're harder to hit and are less vulnerable to area-denial. This depends heavily on the availability of horses or other mounts.
Another tactic may be the aim to engage with the enemy foot-soldiers as quickly as possible. This makes it so that an enemy fireball that hits one of your men also hit 5 of their men. This could be used to force the enemy magic users into a melee where they are less effective, or to engage infantry in order to field other troops that could more effectively deal with magic users. This works less well if magic users can pick out and target individuals without risk of friendly fire, such as with magic missile.

An important thing to consider would be the weaknesses of magic users. If they are weak in a melee then the ideal counter would be to encircle them and close in to force them into a melee. If they have trouble defending against missile weapons then armies will try to field bows and crossbows (preferably on horseback) that can pepper magic users with arrows. If magic users have no weaknesses outside of other magic users, then they are basically weapons of mass destruction. The primary aim of any military in this scenario would be to raise more magic users than their enemy, and the primary aim of those without very many (or very powerful) magic users would be diplomacy, guerrilla tactics, and/or terrorism. The society has high rewards for magic users learning magic (possibly state funded/subsidized) and even higher rewards for joining the military.

Combined arms tactics were already a thing in medieval times, so you would absolutely see it in play if magic was added. You may see less modern combined arms and more 15th and 16th century combined arms. Canons and firearms were common enough at that time that it offers an analog to magic users, but there weren't any tanks or aircraft. This of course changes if you have dragon riders and if the wizards can cast mobile shields on cavalry.

For The Internet said:
Thank you so much for that, I appreciate it enormously. I really try to research things so the campaign can be reasonable and grounded in something real. I've started following up on the links you provided.

My campaign is set in a custom fantasy world I've worked on since I was a teenager so there aren't really knights. The area of the world that is central to the story is based on medieval Europe but there's also a heavy Greco-Roman influence in certain very important cultures. Centaurs play a pretty important role in the campaign and I'm basically wanting to apply mounted combat tactics to them, so horse behaviour isn't a concern with them. They're going to be fighting people who actually are on horseback, though, so it does matter. I have to admit I've mainly been drawing on Roman military tactics with them (as they're completely non-magical and are more comparable to Greco-Romans than medieval Europeans), but they're going to come up against people using more 'modern' (ie medieval) tactics and armor.

I did a sort of test battle where we had a centaur NPC alongside the party, who went in ahead of the centaurs in a battle as a sort of shock-and-awe team, using magic to surprise and hurt the infantry who were equipped with pikes and shields so the centaurs could ride them down once their ranks had been broken. Shock-and-awe was obviously a much more modern tactic, but I think it was fair because the character who suggested it isn't from the fantasy world, they're from this world and it's contemporary.

There's also the fact that none of the characters in the party are centaurs themselves, and if you're fighting with centaurs in a large battle situation I figure you have to fight on horseback out of necessity if you're human so you don't get trampled or get in their way. My human character who lived and fought alongside them for years is a dex fighter and although I've roleplayed him a lot I've never had to actually draw upon his experience as a solider and commander until I began the campaign. It's a pretty fun challenge and I want to get my information right so I'm not completely making things up.




This was something I already came up against, as I mentioned above. It pretty much wrecked the army because they were non-magical, fighting against non-magical opponents. They had no reason to expect there would be magic and were completely unprepared for it. I've really been trying to think about how the decimated army would regroup and adjust their strategy to take magic into account.
Click to expand...
Having people (er, centaurs) be the cavalry reminds me of the Zulu warriors, who were so quick on foot that the British basically treated them like cavalry. They employed the famous "impondo zenkomo", or "buffalo horns". Flank the enemy on both sides with the "horns" then bring in the "head" after the fact to finish your enemy off. Keep a body of men behind the main group to act as support. This works if basically your entire army is cavalry and they never dismount.
Centaurs fighting other people on horseback means they have the advantage and disadvantage that they can joust without being dismounted. Advantage because they can never fall off their horse (just fall down), disadvantage because they get the full brunt of the collision in a joust, there's no give. You're right about needing horses if there are centaurs on your side, if nothing else just to keep up.

Roman military tactics work if your country has the resources to support that much well trained heavy infantry. Their armies were expensive to raise and field. Roman tactics would probably fair very well against medieval tactics, since the medieval tactics weren't quite as well developed (as talked about in the Britannica link) and they more individualistic. If they're smart they'll also try to get as much of the medieval technology as they can as well to augment and enhance their army.
 
Last edited:
For The Internet said:
This was something I already came up against, as I mentioned above. It pretty much wrecked the army because they were non-magical, fighting against non-magical opponents. They had no reason to expect there would be magic and were completely unprepared for it. I've really been trying to think about how the decimated army would regroup and adjust their strategy to take magic into account.
Click to expand...

How much magic do you have/they think you have? They could deploy ranged skirmishers attempting to hit-and-run to slow you down while they regrouped with the secondary goal of getting the spellcaster to waste spells (or to take them out of they get lucky). Since in this case it sounds like...everyone is cavalry on your side they'd probably look for locations where infantry would have the advantage, and would consider launching an ambush in a location where they can get into melee before you can nuke their formation in the assumption you won't blow up your own dudes. MAPK didn't really stress terrain that much, but it'd be a pretty big deal with your army being effectively entirely composed of cavalry.

MAPK phosphatase said:
An important thing to consider would be the weaknesses of magic users. If they are weak in a melee then the ideal counter would be to encircle them and close in to force them into a melee. If they have trouble defending against missile weapons then armies will try to field bows and crossbows (preferably on horseback) that can pepper magic users with arrows. If magic users have no weaknesses outside of other magic users, then they are basically weapons of mass destruction. The primary aim of any military in this scenario would be to raise more magic users than their enemy, and the primary aim of those without very many (or very powerful) magic users would be diplomacy, guerrilla tactics, and/or terrorism. The society has high rewards for magic users learning magic (possibly state funded/subsidized) and even higher rewards for joining the military.
Click to expand...

Since we're talking pathfinder in this case, the main weakness for most magic users would be their ammunition/limited amount of spells. The fact that they can only cast so many fireballs before relying on hitting things with a stick or lesser magic would be the main factor you'd want to take advantage of, in addition to limiting how much rest the enemy casters get while maximizing your own.
 
WinchesterPremium said:
Since we're talking pathfinder in this case, the main weakness for most magic users would be their ammunition/limited amount of spells. The fact that they can only cast so many fireballs before relying on hitting things with a stick or lesser magic would be the main factor you'd want to take advantage of, in addition to limiting how much rest the enemy casters get while maximizing your own.
Click to expand...
It comes back to the Sun Tzu quote "All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near."
You would want to figure out what gets the enemy to start casting spells, then make them think they are in that situation while you are actually safe. Then when you are vulnerable you try to make the enemy think that now is a very bad time to be casting spells. All the while you're trying to see through the enemy who's trying to deceive you. This could be as straight forward as illusion magic, as brutal as sacrificing an apparently strong but actually weak group of infantry, or as tricky as preparing the battlefield ahead of time with trenches and foxholes that infantry can duck into when the wizards start throwing fire. Dodging won't work against magic missile, though.

The clearest ways I see to limit rest is by forcing your enemy into a forced march. Either by chasing them down, or by retreating and baiting them into chasing you down. Ideally you would chase/lead them into an area with reinforcements, but if you have a way to engage in a forced march while keeping your wizards well rested (like wagons with bunks in them or something) that obviously puts you at a major advantage.
 
Right now they don't really have a whole lot of magic on their side, as their allies are mostly non-magical. The opposing army doesn't know how much magic they have on-side, since it was just the party's magic that fucked things up for them. The party is a wizard, sorcerer, paladin, fighter, rogue and barbarian. It wasn't a huge battle. I'm really going to have to work on what kind of magic my elves possess and how/if it can be used on the battlefield because that would be the largest contingent of magic-users allied to to the centaurs and thus the party. The army that was decimated is honestly going to wind up allied with a race of magic-users, specifically sorcerers. That's a long way in the future though.

In our party we have very little magic, a wizard and a sorcerer. There was a druid but he kind of got incinerated. I could always add NPC magic-users but since it's a six-man 7th level party it's already hard enough to build challenging and fun encounters as it is. They generally keep in a formation to physically protect the mages as much as possible, although the wizard always seems to wind up getting hurt pretty badly (and set on fire... kind of a lot). And of course, as @WinchesterPremium said they have limited spells. We've gotten to the point where the paladin was almost out of lay on hands and out of smite, the mages were reduced to using wands to magic missile and they were almost out of healing items. That was a deliberate gauntlet I set up basically to test out how the party would fare because they'd just reached 7th level and added a sixth party member. I can easily see that happening again in a big battle.

After that gauntlet they were looking at fighting a battle of a group of weak foes 4 stronger ones, but the fighter managed to intimidate the person in charge into leaving, which was cool. Usually the paladin's diplomacy is what works for them but since those people were in service to a god that directly opposes his god it didn't work that time. I love to give opportunities for each character to use their unique set of skills so everyone feels important.

Thank you so so much @MAPK phosphatase, that's so helpful and exactly the type of thing I need to know. It's great to know there's a real-world precident for people being essentially cavalry.
 
Last edited:
How would one mix sword and sorcery with emerging modern firearms, light science fiction (multiple advanced alien races crashing into the planet and having to build up civilization with zero knowledge of what they consider ancient, with nothing that they are used to, along with androids and warforged), along with a heavy dollop of occultism, and non-traditional forms of magic (anything that isn't arcane or divine)?
 
REGENDarySumanai said:
How would one mix sword and sorcery with emerging modern firearms, light science fiction (multiple advanced alien races crashing into the planet and having to build up civilization with zero knowledge of what they consider ancient, with nothing that they are used to, along with androids and warforged), along with a heavy dollop of occultism, and non-traditional forms of magic (anything that isn't arcane or divine)?
Click to expand...

Warhammer 40K?
 
MAPK phosphatase said:
- Ranged weapons can counter cavalry if properly deployed. "Properly Deployed" means in a situation that gives a terrain disadvantage to the cavalry which slows/hinders their movement. The famous example is the English longbowman vs the French cavalry in the battle of Agincourt. The superiority of ranged weapons to cavalry became even more apparent with the advent of easier-to-use ranged weapons such as crossbows and primitive firearms. When warfare became less open battle and more siege warfare cavalry was only really useful to get to the siege faster
Click to expand...
I've seen some more questioning of this thought recently. A youtube channel did some experiments with a Joe Gibbs (a 200 pound longbow shooter), Will Sherman (a period fletcher) and Kevin Legg (a period armourer). The arrow shattered on impact against a breastplate that would have been used in Agincourt. So an actual arrow is unlikely to pierce through the high quality armor.

It is undisputed that longbow archers played a huge role in the battle and the evolution of warfare, but we may been overestimating how much damage they can do to the heavier armors.
 
Last edited:
INVCTS said:
I've seen some more questioning of this thought recently. A youtube channel did some experiments with a Joe Gibbs (a 200 pound longbow shooter), Will Sherman (a period fletcher) and Kevin Legg (a period armourer). The arrow shattered on impact against a breastplate that would have been used in Agincourt. So an actual arrow is unlikely to pierce through the high quality armor.

It is undisputed that longbow archers played a huge role in the battle and the evolution of warfare, but we may been overestimating how much damage they can do to the heavier armors.
Click to expand...

Maybe double check that link? Unless Rekieta is secretly a mideval warfare expert leading those three.

From what I read* they where mostly able to pierce the limbs rather than the breastplate. Which should have done plenty to take out the enemy.

*Unlike the chick up there I have no qualms about just reading wikipiedia and calling it a day.
 
INVCTS said:
I've seen some more questioning of this thought recently. A youtube channel did some experiments with a Joe Gibbs (a 200 pound longbow shooter), Will Sherman (a period fletcher) and Kevin Legg (a period armourer). The arrow shattered on impact against a breastplate that would have been used in Agincourt. So an actual arrow is unlikely to pierce through the high quality armor.

It is undisputed that longbow archers played a huge role in the battle and the evolution of warfare, but we may been overestimating how much damage they can do to the heavier armors.
Click to expand...
A very well made and enjoyable video. I would agree with @WinchesterPremium that it was primarily about those lucky shots hitting the unarmored or more poorly armored parts of the enemy, as well as the more poorly armored people. I think it's also just the fact that there were always arrows in the air harassing the enemy, which can be demoralizing and mentally draining. The guy in the video mentioned that when he was shot with an arrow in armor, even though it didn't go through it still hurt.
 
I offhandedly wish some weapons got more official attention, or some better feat support for working them in. This comes during the tail end of my lunch so consider it more like stream of consciousness.

Mainly what I'm talking about are throwing weapons. I'd kill for boomerang variants that give you a check for catching it on the return in exchange for better overall damage. Or more magic items like that old Glove of Throwing Knives or whatever.

Hell I may just run that by a DM in a future game. Gimme an outback themed, Spores circle druggy Druid with a boomerang using club stats, but it counts for use with Shillelagh.
 
Yaoi Huntress Earth said:
Somehow the word "race" is too offensive for your game. Man, I hate this year we're living in sometimes.
Click to expand...
I still love how to force there being a race issue, these mongoloids keep trying to get rid of the other races because of it. They did this with Nu Wars and Nu Trek, where the remaining aliens are just wacky mascots.

I don't know where this retarded idea came from, but whoever came up with this stupid demand is an idiot.

In other news, here's more Confessions of a Part-Time Sorceress

Sorry for the delay; hurricane delayed the release by about 2 days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom