Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 66
  1. #41
    Community Member Xaxx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,355

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by krimsonrane View Post
    Did I write the OP too vaguely?
    Every reply so far has went straight to a kill shot as an example.
    The post is about damage. (I feel like a broken record now)
    Quote Originally Posted by krimsonrane View Post
    armor is not a part of this equation. Nor is cover, distance, or any other mitigating factor.
    Ok you wanna dance this dance huh Charlie?

    Let's lay down a few basics here, no weapon in damage factor should ever be thought of as naked opponent.
    Every weapon that ddo (dnd) uses that have a real life counterpart or inspiration (and that's most of them) were designed to work against the armors they faced at that time in history, as armors developed and changed the weaponry changed along to adapt.... the prototypical meaning of arms race.

    Dnd from what I remember partialy based its numbers raitings for a lot of weapons on that system, not what would this do to a naked guy, or else arquebus would be like 2d20 x8 or something like that. This isn't always accurate, or sometimes the way they looked at it was off, but in general to what I've read on the subject over the years that's how it seems to have fallen out back when, with people looking over it and changing things here and there over the years an iterations.

    That being said, dnd weapons represent thousands of years of human military history all slammed together into one setting. Some dnd weapons are plain out and out inferior to other designs used in the same game, yet they have relatively alike weapon ratings. Then you get into the actual real life variants that are represented in each weapon... long sword for example, seems to represent the shorter ME swords, but through the Viking variation in there and maybe a few others, each were slightly different (though they did at least give variation to the hand and a half *bastard* sword). Would you like to figure out which one of those swords did the most damage to some naked guy versus each other..... probably not.

    AS for ranged versus mele, longbowmen were in a very high demand for a very good reason for a long period of time, and as kind of referenced in an earlier post the crossbow was attempted to be outlawed by the pope (though the reasons behind this were massively political and corrupt as a lot of the politically appointed popes of the era were *I'm not trying to start any religious arguments here, just stating what was going on at the time that a lot of papal apointments for a good long while were nothing but political games and political power and virtually jack to do with the religion itself, sorry don't yell at me go look it up*) which is something rather almost unique in history. They were to powerful and to easy to use.... would you like to continue your argument????

    Military history is something that is deep and complex in most aspects (political, religious, strategic, and yes in weaponry) and dnd shoved a lot of it together under one roof, so there will always be things that will always not make sense when looking at it from only one aspect. You seem to wish to look at it from up close an personal, when its designed to be looked at from the futher vantage point, get to close and you loose the big picture.

    If you wanna star getting into weapon numbers and such, well then I'd advise you to look up a few of the people who cross around the forums who are better versed in this stuff than I am (im more a mythology buff than a weaponry guy, though I know enough to spout a few right answers).

    think what you will op, but don't get lost in the shuffle of rl versus the impact of a games rules, magic can change a whole lot of things in stuff like this once that factor starts coming in. Oh yes and also, in the end, as per an old playes handbook, it said upfront that this is ONLY A GUIDE, and in the end the gms word is law.....

  2. #42
    Community Member Havok.cry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Sarcasm Inc., Sarlona Branch
    Posts
    3,121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tscheuss View Post
    And it is reflected in game. Arrows are garbage against skeles and zombies.
    Lol, I wasn't arguing about anything in game, I was only responding to the OP. The game itself is only an abstract representation of things that are real and as such some things will not be the same as reality. So I don't get much into the "It should be this way because of reality" arguments.

    Also, ingame, arrows are only garbage against them if you do not have the AA core secondary imbue called "morphic arrows" that makes your arrows slashing and bludgeoning in addition to piercing. Once you have that, your arrows will do just fine against them, some how... despite the fact that an animated hunk of meat or bones would likely not care what long pointy object was sticking out of it lol.
    Last edited by Havok.cry; 12-20-2013 at 02:14 PM.
    Matt Walsh:
    But Truth is eternal, so it can never be old or new. It never ‘was’ or ‘will be.’ It just ‘is.’ It always ‘is.’

  3. #43
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    147

    Default

    Hi

    Just wanted to stick my nose in here.

    I think part of the problem is that the OP maybe isn't familiar with arrows.

    In previous editions of DnD, you specified what sort of arrow you were loading.
    A flight arrow did 1d6 but had good range. A broadhead arrow did 1d8 but shorter range.
    The difference is the flight arrow was narrower and lighter with a smaller head. The broadhead arrow was heavier shaft and wider head to cause a bigger wound and wound channel inside the body.
    The difference in damage basically represents an arrow made for hunting, and an arrow made for hunting -people-.

    A broadhead arrow would have damage comparable to a longsword because it was made to cause large bleeding wounds and not be removed from the body easily.

    I hope this helps.

  4. #44

    Default

    It's funny how bow users in this game don't just count on shots but also shots in vital areas while running around jumping from any distance. All the way from Korthos, no training needed!
    NESALOMLJIVI, Thelanis

  5. #45
    2016 DDO Players Council Sam1313's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    523

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by PrimalConcreteSledge View Post
    It's funny how bow users in this game don't just count on shots but also shots in vital areas while running around jumping from any distance. All the way from Korthos, no training needed!
    As a real life Archer and a AA ranger in game I would say that if you have spent action points in the AA enhancements then that would be considered training. Also as you level and go to your "trainer" to level isn't that "training"???

  6. #46
    Community Member Havok.cry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Sarcasm Inc., Sarlona Branch
    Posts
    3,121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PrimalConcreteSledge View Post
    It's funny how bow users in this game don't just count on shots but also shots in vital areas while running around jumping from any distance. All the way from Korthos, no training needed!
    A level one character is better trained than the average person. Difference between heroic classes and NPC classes like warrior, adept, and commoner. Having proficiency = training, being heroic class = better than average person.
    Matt Walsh:
    But Truth is eternal, so it can never be old or new. It never ‘was’ or ‘will be.’ It just ‘is.’ It always ‘is.’

  7. #47
    Community Member Hathorian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    711

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sam1313 View Post
    As a real life Archer and a AA ranger in game I would say that if you have spent action points in the AA enhancements then that would be considered training. Also as you level and go to your "trainer" to level isn't that "training"???
    True, but pulling a longbow and hitting the head of a needle on a moving target from 100 yards away while running around and jumping not so much. It is a fantasy game in a magical setting though so hard to get worked about about something like that.

  8. #48
    Community Member FlaviusMaximus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,673

    Default

    I'll have to watch the Blood Wedding again for research purposes.

    *edit: Red Wedding. Well it only took a monk to fix that.
    Last edited by FlaviusMaximus; 01-14-2014 at 04:37 PM.

  9. #49
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    283

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Feithlin View Post
    Bataille d'Azincourt (Battle of Agincourt).

    Real life battle in 1415 where the superior french cavalry lost in part because of english longbows.
    Longbows were a factor in Agincourt to be sure, but hardly the main, or even a primary one. Probably the largest two factors in the battle were terrain and weather closely followed by the arrogance of French nobility (and their **** poor commanders). The battle basically took place in a corridor through a heavily forested area about 1000m or so wide. It had been raining heavily and the ground was very, very muddy. Ever try to walk through heavy mud? Now try doing it in plate and mail armor like the French were. In addition to this, due to the limited room, the French troops were literally tripping over each other in the fights with French troops reporting not being able to even wield their swords properly due to the congestion of their fellow Frenchmen. The English largely did not have this problem (they formed up in a phalanx like formation across the corridor ~4 men deep with the archers on each side of the center). Further due to the limited field the successive waves of Frenchmen got entangled by their own forward troops as they tried to advance and either had to wait for them to with draw or trample over them to get to the English. The French commanders, also so assured of their victory, did not even bother to deploy their own longbow and crossbowmen (which they had a very large number of) because they did not think that they could fail (In a way rightfully so they outnumbered the English 5 to 1, were in good health with good rations whereas the English were in poor health and running low on rations).

    Now onto the actual role of longbows: longbows were largely ineffective against heavy armor (unless they hit a joint or similar area with weakened coverage it would not penetrate). The French had faced them a number of times before and knew this (French nobility were volunteering for the vanguard because they felt longbows were a low risk and the possibility of a ransom from the English army was high). The longbow played an effect in the outcome in two major ways: one was severely damaging/removing the french calvery from the picture. Not because they killed the knight riding the horse, but because they killed/injured/panicked the HORSE itself (a lot harder to armor those). The other was the harassment they provided to the French troops on their way to the English lines (or waiting to get there cause another one of your units is blocking the way INFRONT of you). These factors add up but the battle was still largely decided by the melee at the front.

    To further prove the case, ranged weapons did not really decide battles up until the proliferation of gunpowder weapons. Even then you could argue that the bayonet charge was still one of the most effective tactics to decide the battle up until about the civil war with the proliferation of rifled guns.

    Tl;dr

    Longbows are/were very useful, but have been largely romanticized (over hyped) in history (largely due to Agincourt) but melee still ruled the day up until the proliferation of gunpowder.

  10. #50
    Community Member goodspeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    I'm just outside that door to your left.
    Posts
    3,660

    Default

    [QUOTE=Sam1313;5204675]
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam1313 View Post

    But even though Rangers are SICK they still can't do the dps that a melee character can do. Theres no way my level 28 AA ranger can do the damage that you guys can do in the amount of time you do it in. We all have our roles and our places, Mine is from a distance, ranged. Scouting ahead relaying info back to the party. The training dummy on my airship I hit it on the bow for anywhere between 85 to 110 pts of dmg. That's not including manyshots or slaying arrow that's just a normal shot. I have seen barbarians hit it for 250 + per hit just a normal swing at it.
    Know what the difference is with that training dummy? It doesn't beat your ass back for 100 to 300 a blow. And that's base dmg, no crits in there.

    Meanwhile for trading off all that extra dmg, you get things like pin, and otto's and the chance to crit with an adrenalin that help to stop that cr65 monster from beating that barbs ass all around that dungeon lol. If you can twist and play right, theirs a whole lot more that bow offers the group then dmg in EE. And of course anything else is easy. Unless you don't have ED's in which case I couldn't see an acceptance anyway.
    Through avarice, evil smiles; through insanity, it sings.

  11. #51
    Community Member Cetus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    4,880

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tscheuss View Post
    D&D mechanics are not perfect, but they try to accommodate some rl physics.
    I lol'ed
    Cetus Heroic Lives: #32/32 | Epic Completionist: #20/24 | Iconic Lives: #6/6
    Cetusz - Pure Sorcerer: Heroic Lives: #24/24 | Epic Lives: #6/12 | Iconic Lives: #1/3
    YouTube Channel HERE
    Argonnessen's DEGENERATE MATTER

  12. #52
    neck deep member Powskier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    1990
    Posts
    2,728

    Default sharpshooters cant do same feats,in heat of battle...it isnt practice range out there

    The chances of an expert marksman,hitting moving targets, for Vital blows is way less than Melee in Reality.Archers should get Fightertype criticals on Immobilized targets,and Reduced chances to crit on moving/active targets. sharpshooters in real life ,cant do same stuff in battle ,that they do in practice! I can usually outdamage archers as a fighter;comparing to some toons may be unfair(dont know how thickly built the toons were that did so much ?...could be 10 lifer w greensteel bow)
    Mercyful Fate/ King Diamond link{ http://www.kingdiamondcoven.com } /''horror and moral terror are your friends'',Col. Kurtz/King Diamond Coven , lvl 80Ghallanda /51 Sarlona

  13. #53
    neck deep member Powskier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    1990
    Posts
    2,728

    Default And

    [QUOTE=bartharok;5204692]The other part is about penetration. An arrow will easily penetrate whatever it hits,


    uh, arrows can penetrate armor,but not always enough to do signifigant damage..ie ,phys resist. Also...all you need is the japanese arrow catcher(silk dressing catches arrows rather efectively)
    Mercyful Fate/ King Diamond link{ http://www.kingdiamondcoven.com } /''horror and moral terror are your friends'',Col. Kurtz/King Diamond Coven , lvl 80Ghallanda /51 Sarlona

  14. #54
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    20

    Default

    We are talking about reality, and yet long time ago people wearing robe/pajama tanks better.

    Or can you explain to me how crouching in one place suddenly makes you "apparently invisible" to enemy?
    Or how you can carry 10 weapons at once without encumbering yourself? HOW are you suppose to move with all that stuffs?

    We're not even talking about the magic bits.

    Game is game, reality is reality; if you want a reality game, don't play DDO. (It's called, Dungeon & DRAGONS Online)

  15. #55
    Community Member Talon_Moonshadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Seminole, FL
    Posts
    10,637

    Default

    As far as I know... a single arrow in DDO does NOT do as much damage as a blow from most melee weapons.
    Plus melee can swing faster than a person can shoot arrows....

    DPS wise, (in general) melee is still better in DDO.



    Your argument really doesn't mean much at all...



    I think you have totally misunderstood why players have (finally) moved toward preferring ranged combat: they are tired of dying!
    Or getting beat up all the time.

    And yes... in this wonderful world of magic and dragons.... the Devs finally gave some cool powerful stuff to ranged combat.



    Now... one other thing you are missing.
    (and that the DPS loveres in DDO missed for years as well.)

    ..is that ranged gives a lot of power.... simply because it is "ranged."
    You can shoot something a whole bunch of times before it even gets a single swing in at you.

    Add special effects.... nerve venom, those shots that makes things dance.....

    Add five friends who are also shooting at something... (from different directions even.)


    ...and I don't care how big your great axe is... you are going down.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jandric View Post
    ..., but I honestly think the solution is to group with less whiny people.

  16. #56
    Community Member krimsonrane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    719

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cetus View Post
    i lol'ed
    ikr!

  17. #57
    Community Member toaftoaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    628

    Default

    "the"

  18. #58
    The Hatchery zwiebelring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    2,435

    Default

    RL weapons don't deal *damage*. They kill. They are designed for killing. DnD weapons are designed around the hp/damage mechanic. And while hp are abstract, damage is abstract. A punch can kill you in RL. In DnD, if you do not have the appropriate talent, you cannot even get hurt instantly, instead have to suffer non lethal damage till your hp are down and THEN take real damage.

    The comparism is flawed, OP.
    Characters on Orien:
    Wanzer/ Klingtanz/ Incanta Superior/ Mercantus

  19. #59
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    503

    Default

    hey Krimson, I have run with you on more than one occasion and learned a lot from you on how to play rogues. Your pre-u14 accomplishments are pretty much at the top of the game and I still can't replicate most of your R.O.U.G.E. deeds.

    I still play my assassin rogue (well technically - I don't take the T5 assassin enh anymore - I prefer Knife Specialization and don't have the AP for assassinate) - same char I started with.
    I also play an AA monkcher. Both lvl 28, both in Fury, so I have a pretty good idea of the strengths of each.

    The AA is very strong as we all know, and the crit burst damage can reach many times, not just once in awhile, between 4k and 15k (on mine. I have heard of 18k). However, if you stay ranged, you will run out of adrenaline charges. And adrenaline charges, + slayer arrow, is what gives it it's power. Also, I have found AA to be not easy to play consistently, took me awhile to get good at it, with the timing, adrenaline management, movement etc. I actually do a lot of melee now with him too.
    I frequently lead the kill count, and importantly, am very effective on bosses thanks to the high damage crits. Remember, ranged fury does no KD. And Pin is not easy to use. So he really has no CC.

    Also, it's an ARCANE archer. i.e. not just a simple arrow, it's a magic arrow! So it's hard to make the comparison in your OP.

    My rogue, otoh, hits so fast that he gets so many fury recharges, that I can go a long time without needing to shrine to recharge. I would not say as infinite as a blitzer, but I usually have charges to use. (And blitzers have their own problems).
    And I always have the fury epic moment charged, and am limited by the timer only. And on a melee fury is so very potent thanks to the no-save KD. (So much so that on my AA, I prefer to manually use single adrenaline with MS and slayer, and use the fury epic moment in melee mode.) Here too I usually lead the kill count, unless there is a super shiradi caster or I am letting a blitzer get the kills.

    The above is my experience in EEs.

    I guess my point is that you need to adjust your rogue Krim. He should be as strong as any monkcher. And my rogue is not just a dressed up barb, he gets his speed, his insane SA, his high crit rate, saves, etc from being a rogue. So yea, I don't assassinate, but I am still very much a rogue.
    ~~ Adrunil - Rogue. Halfling, big guy you can't miss him. ~~
    ~~ Adrunel - Monkcher. (Moncher?) ~~
    Robodoc - FvS Evoker-Healer. Post 19: Ended up LRing into 13/7 forc
    Orien server.

  20. #60
    Community Member bartharok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Far beyond the ravens gate
    Posts
    6,027

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J-mann View Post
    Longbows were a factor in Agincourt to be sure, but hardly the main, or even a primary one. Probably the largest two factors in the battle were terrain and weather closely followed by the arrogance of French nobility (and their **** poor commanders). The battle basically took place in a corridor through a heavily forested area about 1000m or so wide. It had been raining heavily and the ground was very, very muddy. Ever try to walk through heavy mud? Now try doing it in plate and mail armor like the French were. In addition to this, due to the limited room, the French troops were literally tripping over each other in the fights with French troops reporting not being able to even wield their swords properly due to the congestion of their fellow Frenchmen. The English largely did not have this problem (they formed up in a phalanx like formation across the corridor ~4 men deep with the archers on each side of the center). Further due to the limited field the successive waves of Frenchmen got entangled by their own forward troops as they tried to advance and either had to wait for them to with draw or trample over them to get to the English. The French commanders, also so assured of their victory, did not even bother to deploy their own longbow and crossbowmen (which they had a very large number of) because they did not think that they could fail (In a way rightfully so they outnumbered the English 5 to 1, were in good health with good rations whereas the English were in poor health and running low on rations).

    Now onto the actual role of longbows: longbows were largely ineffective against heavy armor (unless they hit a joint or similar area with weakened coverage it would not penetrate). The French had faced them a number of times before and knew this (French nobility were volunteering for the vanguard because they felt longbows were a low risk and the possibility of a ransom from the English army was high). The longbow played an effect in the outcome in two major ways: one was severely damaging/removing the french calvery from the picture. Not because they killed the knight riding the horse, but because they killed/injured/panicked the HORSE itself (a lot harder to armor those). The other was the harassment they provided to the French troops on their way to the English lines (or waiting to get there cause another one of your units is blocking the way INFRONT of you). These factors add up but the battle was still largely decided by the melee at the front.

    To further prove the case, ranged weapons did not really decide battles up until the proliferation of gunpowder weapons. Even then you could argue that the bayonet charge was still one of the most effective tactics to decide the battle up until about the civil war with the proliferation of rifled guns.

    Tl;dr

    Longbows are/were very useful, but have been largely romanticized (over hyped) in history (largely due to Agincourt) but melee still ruled the day up until the proliferation of gunpowder.
    a couple of corrections. Longbows were far better weapons than the first gunpowder weapons except i 2 ways.

    1. Any idiot can fire a gun and hit something, while using a longbow requires a lot fo practice.

    2. Guns go boom, and are scary.

    Longbows COULD penetrate the armor of knights rather easily. But the greater effect was from hitting the horses because they were a larger target.
    Dystopia = utopia achieved

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload