I can understand you feeling that since the barbarian profession discussion has degenerated to the point of silliness :(I'll tell you what let us know how we should phrase topic discussion titles before we post them - I really didn't mean to offend you...No worries! I wasn't offended at all. Just a little defensive. One can be defensive without being offended, after all. I do it all the time! :-)
Silliness is under-rated. :P
|
Trebuchets and other catapults largely didn't damage the stone structure of the castle. Oh, they chipped a few fragments off the walls.Untrue.
Stone walls hit repeatedly with solid objects are subject to stress fractures. The goal was not to break them apart by direct impact, but to cause stress-fractures that eventually cause them to crumble under their own weight.
IIRC, it was Attila who captured Orleans in a day by ordering all his trebuchet to aim at a single point. The Mongols also put them to good use in the Battle of Xiangyang against the Song Dynasty.
Sure, they might have occasionally launched over the walls and hit buildings inside or killed defenders, but the primary purpose was to break walls.
R.
Couldn't have put it better myself Rez. Somebody above needs to do his/her homework. ;)
|
A blinded, deafened person would likely be unable to tell the difference between himself getting hit by a catapult or a trebuchet, so the stats can work identically.Just make sure you have the rogue operating it move really close so he can add his sneak attack dice.
"You're going to backstab him with a ballista?"
"Uh-huh."
"With a @#$%ing siege weapon?!"
"Uh-huh."
Couldn't have put it better myself Rez. Somebody above needs to do his/her homework. ;)
Trebuchets and other catapults largely didn't damage the stone structure of the castle. Oh, they chipped a few fragments off the walls.Untrue.
Stone walls hit repeatedly with solid objects are subject to stress fractures. The goal was not to break them apart by direct impact, but to cause stress-fractures that eventually cause them to crumble under their own weight.
IIRC, it was Attila who captured Orleans in a day by ordering all his trebuchet to aim at a single point. The Mongols also put them to good use in the Battle of Xiangyang against the Song Dynasty.
Sure, they might have occasionally launched over the walls and hit buildings inside or killed defenders, but the primary purpose was to break walls.
R.
OK, I stand corrected! Still, taking out a wall with a tebuchet either takes a lot of trebuchet or a long time ... in D&D having somebody there with a wand of a 'repair' spell on the inside can make it last a lot, lot longer ...
|
|
OK, I stand corrected! Still, taking out a wall with a tebuchet either takes a lot of trebuchet or a long time ... in D&D having somebody there with a wand of a 'repair' spell on the inside can make it last a lot, lot longer ...
We weren't trying to be nasty or anything, but what Rez and myself pointed out is to do with ballistics. You have to bear in mind that the average projectile weighed around 200-300lbs and some modern reconstructions of the trebuchet have thrown missiles much heavier (Did you read my post where I mentioned a group of trebuchet enthusiasts tossing a Mini Cooper (automobile) over a stand of trees 500ft away. Mini Coopers weigh more than 300lbs.
What you failed to factor into your original post was the transfer of energy from the heavy (mass) projectile hitting an immobile structure at high velocity. Such energy involved is so great that even the act of hurling the mass from the frame put stress on the frame of the weapon itself and this was why later trebuchets were fitted with wheels allowing them forward backward movement on firing to mitigate this. The siege engineers knew what type of materials (i.e. woods) that were strong enough and elastic enough to pull off the shot. So the thickness of the frame supports and the part that housed the fulcrum of the boom needed to be incredibly strong, as did the fulcrum supporting the ballast box. I actually have a few books on the mechanics of siege weapons and the insights by siege engineers of the time (just because they lived in the middle ages didn't mean they weren't bright). The math for all this is complicated and so I will not go into it here, but you can look it up on the web if you feel inclined.
Anyway to put it simply as Rez did, a projectile of significant mass traveling at high velocity possesses a lot of kinetic energy. When the projectile strikes a hard static barrier it transfers that kinetic energy to the barrier (i.e. the castle wall). That energy sets up shock waves that cause weaknesses in the barrier to occur (cracks/fractures). If the barrier is thin it might take only one shot, if thick numerous. Remember that castle/city walls made of stone have very little elasticity to absorb much of this energy. A square on hit against a flat wall transfers most of the energy to the flat wall, and as I have also mentioned this was one of the reasons why castles began to develop round towers because projectiles were more likely to hit tangentially and mitigate some of the transferred energy. Also if the walls were made to a slight angle a similar effect would occur, just not as good.
Sometimes just the appearance of trebuchets at a siege was enough to make defenders give in. They were that good.
They did not take that long to break a wall; a few hours if the walls were incredibly thick or the siege crew were not particularly good at aiming them, and that was rare because trebuchets were a lot more accurate than catapults (Some historians have remarked that "the trebuchet was the nuclear weapon of the Middle Ages". Remember an attacking force only needed one or two entry points. Usually, however, the trebuchets would be ordered to destroy defending towers (often armed with ballistae) and facing walls holding companies of archers to minimize casualties on their own side upon storming the building. That was just good sense and tactics.
If you don't believe me, there are countless articles on the web about the destructive power of these monsters. Sorry this post is so long, I love to wax lyrical on this subject.
I believe you, and I didn't take it the wrong way! Yes, I see how the shock waves can gradually shatter the stone at the base of a wall, causing the wall itself to collapse.
|
A blinded, deafened person would likely be unable to tell the difference between himself getting hit by a catapult or a trebuchet, so the stats can work identically.Just make sure you have the rogue operating it move really close so he can add his sneak attack dice."You're going to backstab him with a ballista?"
"Uh-huh."
"With a @#$%ing siege weapon?!"
"Uh-huh."
At least he stole your pants after buying you dinner.
|
|
Then the castle wizards soften stone to remove any stress cracks then return it to its normal hardness. The fantasy element will make some of the real world stuff not as much an issue
This is true, but it would apply to all the other non-magical weapons and siege weapons which we already see in the Core Rulebook, so though your point is correct on one level it is flawed in the other (i.e. if you have catapults, ballistae etc., why not trebuchets? especially as they are, as we have discussed, a different type of siege weapon). But this is no slight on the Pathfinder Rules (suppresses Extraordinary ability (see profile)) ;)
It also, I guess depends on the type of fantasy setting you have. In low fantasy these weapons are more effective, in high fantasy they are less effective. But as Rez noted, the potential for using magical enhancements to siege weapons and their ammunition would be more common too.
It's also economics, even in fantasy settings. Casting enhancements to anything is costly, and Permanency spells don't come cheap if,say, you wanted to protect a certain length of wall or say employ a posse of highish level battle mages to repair the damage each time a projectile hits. Think about it; siege weapons are cheap in comparison. Spellcasters exhaust high level spells quicker than siege weapons exhaust ammunition. So, for example I'd price the average 200lb shot trebuchet at say around 2000gp tops (the heavy catapult is 800gp, but let's err on the side of high for trebs), to take into account building costs and the fact that you would need highly skilled professional siege engineers employed. So I could get 5 trebs for 10000gp might get a deal on buying five, 10% discount 9000gp. Nevertheless if you compare the prices for using siege weapons over the prices of hiring spell casters or casting permanency spells to enforce a bit of wall, siege weapons, damage wise, and gp for gp work out cheap by comparison.
Siege weapons are far from redundant in a fantasy setting, and they could be magically enhanced and defended too. It would just be an arms race of a different kind.
So if you think about it they are still as useful as any other mundane device; be it catapult, composite longbow, suit of full plate mail etc.
I was disappointed to note the lack of the trebuchet in the siege engines section in the core PF rulebook. Trebuchets were the most powerful siege engines prior to the invention of the cannon. Why the omission?
I included it in Warpath (along with rules for sieges).
|
|
I was disappointed to note the lack of the trebuchet in the siege engines section in the core PF rulebook. Trebuchets were the most powerful siege engines prior to the invention of the cannon. Why the omission?I included it in Warpath (along with rules for sieges).
Now aint you just my kind of dude! I'll certainly check that out. ;)
Now aint you just my kind of dude! I'll certainly check that out. ;)
Hey, anything for one of the Five Good Emperors! ;)
Your nameForgive me for being thick, but I don't understand the reference. :)Hey, anything for one of the Five Good Emperors! ;)
Now aint you just my kind of dude! I'll certainly check that out. ;)
Indeed. =)
Indeed. =)Your nameForgive me for being thick, but I don't understand the reference. :)Hey, anything for one of the Five Good Emperors! ;)
Now aint you just my kind of dude! I'll certainly check that out. ;)
This is funny the Top 10 Roman Emperors - number 10 I fell off my chair laughing.
|
|
Your nameForgive me for being thick, but I don't understand the reference. :)Hey, anything for one of the Five Good Emperors! ;)
Now aint you just my kind of dude! I'll certainly check that out. ;)
I never considered myself good. "How will people remember me, the warrior, the philosopher, the tyrant?..." (From Ridley Scott's Gladiator). Thanks I wondered if that was what you were meaning. ;)
|
|
Indeed. =)Your nameForgive me for being thick, but I don't understand the reference. :)Hey, anything for one of the Five Good Emperors! ;)
Now aint you just my kind of dude! I'll certainly check that out. ;)This is funny the Top 10 Roman Emperors - number 10 I fell off my chair laughing.
She was an excellent emperor!! LOL!