No magic VS low magic VS high magic : low tech VS high tec.

[Cryomancer]

Since when is being able to have sparkle effect on your fingers and running faster for 30 seconds a high magic lol ?!

Nope. Mixing the sith lightning with sith alchemy to nuke a planet via force storm and open worm holes, a thing that even Karsus could't do in D&D is high magic. Creating an leviathan is very high magic... Starkiller could destroy an freaking destroyer with telekinesis only. Starkiller is a 5th tier char on vsbattles source and the emperor could reach 4th tier which is STELLAR LEVEL. There are a lot of planetar/stellar force users on Star Wars and a magic capable of destroying an planet is not a "low magic". Show me one Conan sorcerer able to do that.

 

[vazha]

unga bunga caveman rpg when?

I d play the shit out of Primal-based RPG.

 

[Darkzone]

, because newer test have shown that the longbows even with bodkin arrows were not able (mostly) to penetrate the steel breastplates of and helmets of the knights.

Not every single French soldier had high quality breastplate and arms, legs are often less armored. They would't be killed with an arrow on the leg but it would make then far less "combat effective". If an bodkin arrow fired from a 150+ lbf warbow could't pierce an armor, an sword is worthless against that armor. Maces and mallets are far better.

Therefore the french knights were the front rows of the attack (the french nobleman demanded that they are the front row), so that they were the shield of lower armored troops ( for them this was a question of pride and honor to be the ones winning the battle and they did not do it for the sake of protecting the lower ranks despite the effect). The witness describe that in the battle many horses were hit with arrows in the head or neck making the horses shy and turning back and running through the rows of infantry.
The charge (first line) would done by the knights on horses followed by the knights acting as infantry (second line - main force). In the infantry attack (second line) the highest noblemen were in the front row and the lower noblemen were behind followed by the common soldiers. The third line were the horse ridden Man-at-arms that should pursue the fleeing english army. Even the armor on arms and legs can be quite protective as long as the incoming arrow hits at a bad angle and also you don't have to forget that the knights used shields.
Maces and malltes can be better especially in this time, but i don't know if the english used them this much. What i know is that the longbowmen had relative short side sword, but presumably axes were also used. The sword and dagger is sill an very effective weapon against such armored infantry, because it is used in a stabbing manner ( half swording - between the plates, like armpits and into the face if visor is lifted) instead of cutting.

Spoiler

"Modern historians are divided on how effective the longbows would have been against plate armour of the time. Modern test and contemporary accounts conclude that arrows could not penetrate the better quality steel armour, which became available to knights and men-at-arms of fairly modest means by the middle of the 14th century, but could penetrate the poorer quality wrought iron armour.[77][78][79][80] Rogers suggested that the longbow could penetrate a wrought iron breastplate at short range and penetrate the thinner armour on the limbs even at 220 yards (200 m). He considered a knight in the best-quality steel armour invulnerable to an arrow on the breastplate or top of the helmet, but vulnerable to shots hitting the limbs, particularly at close range.[81] In any case, to protect themselves as much as possible from the arrows, the French had to lower their visors and bend their helmeted heads to avoid being shot in the face, as the eye- and air-holes in their helmets were among the weakest points in the armour. This head-lowered position restricted their breathing and their vision. Then they had to walk a few hundred yards (metres) through thick mud and a press of comrades while wearing armour weighing 50–60 pounds (23–27 kg), gathering sticky clay all the way. Increasingly, they had to walk around or over fallen comrades" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt

---------------------------------

That said, what allowed humans to fight far stronger and powerful creatures was .... RANGED weapons. Javelins and Bows mostly. Without ranged weaponry, humans would't be the dominant force on the planet. There are a lot of people who hunt dangerous animals with firearms, bows and even javelin but IDK any guy who used an sword to hunt an Bear and come back to tell the story.

It has been done, in the Venatio by the Bestiarii / Venatores:

Spoiler

And some crazy russians are doing it with a baseball bat:

 

[Maxwell's Demon]

It doesn't matter how high-tech/magic a setting is. What matters is whether the author/game designer tries to consider and account for ramifications of the technology or magic within the setting. "What effect did this spell have on human relations?" "How is it produced?" "What has its use done to the surrounding environment and ecology over time?" "What happens when I cross this spell with this other spell?" et cetera. Even a simple four element magic system can be engaging if the elements interact with one another in a consistent, systemic manner to produce varied and complex phenomena (e.g. combining basic earth, water, and fire spells to create a steam-propelled rocket). Unfortunately most game designers are burnt-out husks who don't even play video games, so when they see "elemental magic" their first instinct is probably to paint same spells in four different colors and then call it a day.

 

[Cryomancer]

Even the armor on arms and legs can be quite protective as long as the incoming arrow hits at a bad angle and also you don't have to forget that the knights used shields.

Then I ask you. Why people used arrow volleys if it is not effective?

Say that the British won due swords and daggers makes no sense.

Is like saying that the Russians stooped using PTRD/PTRD-1941 anti tank rifle to deal with a tank invasion cuz they could't pierce the enemy armor and then, decided to use 9mm SMG's instead of the 14.5x114mm rifle. Makes zero sense. If bodkin + heavy warbo whas about 20~30% of chance of piercing an armor, an sword has ZERO. Unless you knocked him down and aimed with the dagger/sword on the visor. Half swording essentially makes the sword into an mace.

It has been done, in the Venatio by the Bestiarii / Venatores:

In the image that you posted, their are using SPEARS.

Weapons with much bigger range. I believe that there are a athlete who hunts Bears nad Boars in modern times with Javelins. But IDK anyone who use swords/axes to hunt wild animals.

 

[laclongquan]

Where's my kingcomrade option, OP?

Because I dont really care that much if the setting is done right. with good writings.

On a separate note, DnD setting is more like high tech/high magic than you would think.

Do they have giant robot or interstellar vehicle? Yes, see Coaxmetal on Sigil, Planescape Torment. And the many githyankee fortresses in Astral Plane.
Do they have mind unification or mind internet? yes, see both Beholder empire and Illithid empire.
Do they have robot civilization? Yes, see modrons on Mechanus.
Do they have power even higher than nukes? Yes, see Mythallars

 

[Erebus]

In some cases, magic is pretty much technology, the main difference being that it involves principles and elements that don't exist in the real world.

There's not a clear line between the two, but I'd say that magic gets fairly technological when :
- it follows logical rules, that can be learned or discovered using a scientific approach,
- it can be used by pretty much anybody with the right knowledge and/or tools,
- many people and organizations see it as useful and reliable, and will use it as much as they can in order to make their existence easier,
- it's subject to scientific progress and it applications will grow more useful over time.

D&D magic, for instance, follows fairly logical rules. Part of it can be used by anyone with the right knowledge (wizards, as opposed to sorcerers, priests, warlocks...). But, in most settings, it doesn't really play a role in everyday life. And it doesn't grow stronger over time (on the contrary, ancient magic is almost always viewed as much stronger).

It's fairly common for magic to be usable only by certain people, usually because they have the right genetic heritage. (It also applies to magic that's not openly magical, such as the Force in Star Wars or bending in Avatar.) Though that doesn't make magic non-scientific in itself (genetics does matter in the real world), it tends to give it a more mystical aspect.

One of the best example of technological magic would be animancy in PoE (and especially in Deadfire). It follows logical rules. It can be used by anyone with the right knowledge, usually with the help of machines. Though many people still don't have access to it or are afraid of it, it has a growing impact on the world. And though it used to be even more powerful in the past (as illustrated by the machines of the gods), understanding of its principles is growing again and may, in time, equal or even surpass past accomplishments.

 

[Darkzone]

Even the armor on arms and legs can be quite protective as long as the incoming arrow hits at a bad angle and also you don't have to forget that the knights used shields.

Then I ask you. Why people used arrow volleys if it is not effective?

There is always a race contest between weapon's piercing ability and armor. Bodkin arrowhead were developed to penetrate armor and so armor has been made thicker (at certain parts), steel hardend and sloped or rippled to stop the penetration of arrows. The reason why shields were used is against arrows. And the reason why shields were abandoned was because armor has become quite effective against arrows so that two handed weapons could have been used (and 'normal' swords became the secondary weapon, hence sidesword). And as gunpowder weapons have been developed personal armor for foot soldiers has become useless. The race contest between armor and weapon penetration is also viewable in the tank development especially in WW2. Longbows were quite effective in Agincourt, because the horse armor was not that good at this time and horse plate armor was developed a bit later.
There are other things to take into consideration for the use of longbows like how a 'normal' medieval battle was fought, but this are so many things that i will not go here into because this is really too long.

Say that the British won due swords and daggers makes no sense.
If bodkin + heavy warbo whas about 20~30% of chance of piercing an armor, an sword has ZERO. Unless you knocked him down and aimed with the dagger/sword on the visor. Half swording essentially makes the sword into an mace.

Half swording is the practice to grab the sword in the middle of the sword and this are the two ways to use of the sword first for piercing and second as a mace. The technique was called 'Halbschwert' (half sword) and 'mit dem kurzen Schwert' (with the short sword). It was used only with with swords that were long enough to make sense, like with the longsword (120-140 cm).
Half-swording:

Spoiler

But the longbow archers had often shorter sidesword or daggers (could be also welsh knifes) than the normal knight swords, often the sidesword is called the archer sword (to destinguish between this two, but at the times this things were called just swords) with a length of up to 38 inch (96 cm). What here is important is that we know that in this battle both armies were engaged in a melee and only there the french army broke after few hours of combat and that the longbowmen (5/6 of the army) had to throw their bows away and fight side by side with the man-at-arms (1/6 of the army). Maces were not a equipment of the longbowman or man-at-arms. Here is some interesting reading for the interested in the equipment (i have checked if the first two are correct and i have not seen many problems). But we can add axes to the equipment since every army would have such useful tools.

It has been done, in the Venatio by the Bestiarii / Venatores:

In the image that you posted, their are using SPEARS. Weapons with much bigger range. I believe that there are a athlete who hunts Bears nad Boars in modern times with Javelins. But IDK anyone who use swords/axes to hunt wild animals.

The Venatores / Bestiarius were fighting this animals in melee and not throwing the spears and if you are looking up the pictures for it than you see that the enimals are quite near the Gladiator.

Spoiler

The roman gladiators and the games were quite organised and this group were free people that have done it for fun and honor. Due to the rules the gladiators were restricted to certain weapon and armor and therefore you had the gladiator types like Secutor an Retiarius. So i don't know if the Bestiarii could use only spears or also sword. There are depictions of Gladiators with shields and sword together with spear armed fighting animals but i don't know how uses this was. The gladius was not the best piercing sword and spears were better in this regard. Roman history is not really my thing therefore there are things that i cannot say for sure. But what i have demonstrated is that hand to hand combat against animals like bears or lions have been done, like in the spanish tradition of the matador fighting the bull. And normally you want to keep such an animal away from you since it can kill you easely therefore in the mediaval bear and boar hunting a bar was added to the spear to keep the animals from sliding along the shaft and to kill the hunter. Bear spear and Boar spear. The length of the spear varied (180-240 or 6-8 feet) but you have to use it with two hands and therefore it has not much more reach than a long sword.

Btw: Only Retards award 'stop posting' if an interesting and true topic is in discussion.

 

[Thonius]

Magic : NO magic as the name suggests, is zero magic, like mount & blade, low magic is like Conan where magic is mostly ritualistic, dangerous and depends on the bargain with outsiders for knowledge. High magic is like D&D in certain campaings, with magical spaceships, floating cities and so on. On Netherese empire, everyone could use at least a cantrip.

Examples :

• No magic = Kingdom come Deliverance and Mount & Blade warband
• Low magic = Conan(games included) and GoT
• Mid = Gothic
• High magic = Pathfinder/D&D, mostly on Netherese and spelljammer campaign settings

Tech : Low tech is like middle ages and lower. Firearms are very limited and rarely used. Mid tech is anything between industrial revolution technology to modern technology with little SCI-FI elements on it. High tech is like Star Trek, where you can travel light years in fractions of seconds, teleport, terraform planets and so on.

Examples :

• Low tech = Age of decadence, mount & blade
• Mid tech = Arcanum, Fallout 1/2/new vegas
• High tech = Kotor 1/2

An game can be both, high tech and high tech like kotor 1/2 or low tech/low magic like mount & blade warband. Both are amazing RPG's. It is just a poll to ask about personal preferences.

---------------

Of course, some times the distinction between magic and tech is hard. For eg, what is the difference between SCI FI zombies to fantasy zombies? One is caused by a virus, the other, by dark magic. What is the difference between a implant which gives the power to create "thermospheres" to a scroll that teaches how to evoke fireball?

Low tech? AOD? There are like flying nuclear pyramides man... wtf.
Hmm scratch that the more I think about the more AOD seems to me Low/Low settings.
Actualy, I prefer exactly this. Lost tech ( hard to find, hard to learn) that looks like magic to everyone else and on top of this actual fucking magic.

 

[DalekFlay]

Hey I'm the first to vote for Elex tier, I feel so special.

I like my standard Tolkien just fine, but I do love the unique feel of high tech with some magic. Shadowrun is a good example, though that might be a bit too much magic and fatasy tropes, which is why I went one notch down with Elex. Blade Runner has always been my favorite movie and I have a weakness for cybperpunk in general, so mixing that with a bit of fantasy is a really cool combo. Though I guess if every game was like that it would get boring, so my answer is more "which do I want to see more of."

 

[JarlFrank]

Then I ask you. Why people used arrow volleys if it is not effective?

Cavalry denial.

Most knights and even men at arms in the late middle ages were protected with top notch full plate armor from head to toe, or at least had their vitals (chest, head) protected with quality armor. You couldn't kill well-armored infantry with bows or crossbows.
You could, however, deny cavalry charges because horse armor wasn't as commonplace as personal armor, and even fully armored horses had more weak points than a fully armored man (like the legs).
Massed volleys of arrows were a great tool to deny cavalry because if you shoot 1000 arrows into a densely packed cavalry formation, you're bound to hit at least a couple of weak spots of the horses.
And since knights brought their own animals to battle, they obviously didn't want them to get wounded.
When faced with massed archers, they'd often dismount. Now an arrow volley would barely do anything, since their armor was good enough to resist any bow...
But the archers still filled an important role by denying cavalry maneuvers within arrow range.

Sometimes, doing damage isn't even the point, merely denying the enemy to use his toys effectively is.
Pikemen in pike and shot warfare got relatively few kills compared to shooters, artillery, and even cavalry, but they were great at denying cavalry charges against the shooters protected by the pike formation.
In battle, your job is not necessarily to do a lot of damage, but to take and hold ground and deny the enemy from taking it back.

Machine guns in modern warfare have a similar area denial role. They expend a lot of rounds without getting many kills, but their purpose isn't getting kills but suppression, so the enemy can't take a position due to the risk of machine gun fire.

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[Jason Liang]

Arcanum is probably mid tech high magic.

 

[Cryomancer]

. You couldn't kill well-armored infantry with bows or crossbows.

That depends a lot on the weapon and arrow/bolt.

Pick the heaviest windlass arbalest with 22 kN force + bodkin arrowhead at 20m with a clear angle and lets see if even the best plate armor could stop it.

The problem of this armor X arrow debate is that people tend to think "can an arrow pierce an armor" as if every arrow, every bow and every armor is the same. Is like bullets in modern times. If armor protects against arrows or body armor against bullets, is something that we need far more parameters to answer.. An body armor can be made to sustain up to 9mm or can be made to sustain even .30-06 Springfield, and a "rifle" can be chambered in anything, from .22 LR to 14.5x114mm and even canon sized cartridges like 20x110mm, can have different barrel lenghts, can use FMJ or AP ammo, can be fired at 50m or 1.5km, can hit at any angle, everything affects the chances of penetration.

What here is important is that we know that in this battle both armies were engaged in a melee

The French lost a lot of unities before they reached on melee range. And those who reached on melee was exhausted and wounded.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

But my point is simple. An spear is a good weapon? Yes. Now imagine the power to magically materialize raw energy spears and throw at the enemies. Even cooler. What I hate on most JRPG's is that they don't even try to appeal to chose who don't like martial melee fighting. An honest question to the meleefags here. If BG2 forced you to play as a human fighter, specialized on "ridiculous unpractical sword" , it would make the game better?

Hell, Xenoblade would be a decent game, if you could play as a Technomancer, as a mechanic, assassin with futuristic sniper rifle instead of "shulk"

but I do love the unique feel of high tech with some magic

Someone needs to do a technomancy mod for new vegas.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

Someone needs to do a technomancy mod for new vegas.

Just play the Technomancer or summat.

 

[Cryomancer]

Just play the Technomancer or summat.

The Technomancer is awful in technomancy. You only use technomancy on cutscenes. On gameplay, you play as a melee lightning wizard.

 

[EldarEldrad]

I like old-school Shadowrun, not wi-fi post-Crash2.0 clusterfuck - high magic, high tech, low life

 

[Duraframe300]

What about Arcanum? Or VtMB? The point of arcanum is the conflict between magic VS technology. And vampires are probably the hardest fantastical creature to "sci-fi it"

Random interjection, but that's been done millions of times. Both with organic and sci-fi tech explanations. The Vampires: The Masquerade variety is also pretty hi-magic compared to most vampires.

So, no.

 

[laclongquan]

Fallout1/2/tactic world, based on behaviours, dont seem to have magic.

Any magic activity there can be described as a form of mental power. Hakunin's dream sendings are one application. Anna's Ghost quest sound magical until you consider that maaaaaaybe it's the ghoul next door dream of her based on the magician telling story about Anna. Because if you think about it, the F2 world is pretty large and we go everywhere but why is it that only The Den's Annah house has a ghost in it? The rarity make no sense if magic exist.

 

[Reinhardt]

Imagine a high level barbarian shouting and making enemies who fail in a save flee in terror

Nigga, average gopnikthug can do it to any nerdmage already. Don't need magical mumbo-jumbo, just ask him for his phone. Best part - there is no save.