-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E "Monster density" and wilderness settlements in D&D campaign worlds
- Thread starter Mercurius
- Start date
GreenTengu
Adventurer
Orc reproduce faster than humans do. They have more children and they mature about 20% or so faster.
They would be winning if they killed only 8 humans to every 10 deaths. But if they are killing 6-8x as many humans as they lose numbers? That's a pretty guaranteed win. Humans don't pop into existence out of no where. Each human killed is 15-20 years worth of investment. Each Orc killed is about 12-16. The humans are not going to be replacing their numbers fast enough.
How many mastiffs are going to be on a typical farm? Not very many. Maybe 1 or 2. Even if they cause some issues, they are not enough to stave off the Orcs. Again, mastiff stats do not remotely equate to those of Orcs.
The bottom line is still the same... even if we are dealing with only Orcs, the only places that are going to be safe are the super defended walled compounds. But humans need more space than being all cooped up into a tiny walled compound to be able to survive. The humans are not going to be able to defend the vast tracks of land needed to produce the food they need. Not unless the Orcs warn them that they are coming and the humans are suicidal and are universally willing to gather up their numbers and meet the Orcs in assembled numbers on the field of battle knowing that they are likely all to be slaughtered and kill, at best, 1/3rd their numbers of enemies.
And this is just talking about Orcs. Nevermind the Goblins. At least if you show up in numbers, the Orcs will attack you straight on if you show up to fight and aren't very good at hiding. Goblins are even worse. They won't attack you straight on. They will ambush lone travelers and steal your food in the middle of the night every night and run away with everything they have plundered the moment anyone comes up to deal with them. They reproduce even faster than Orcs and each goblin requires about half the investment a human does. Every human would need to be able to take down 2 goblins for every dead human just to keep the numbers even. And they just aren't going to be able to do that. Instead, they are going to have all their goods plundered and anyone who wanders out alone is likely to be killed before they even know they are in danger.
Yes, not every Orc is going to be a trained raider just like not every human is a trained soldier and guard, but a higher percentage of them are going to be that and they spend a lot less investing in each one because not as many Orcs train themselves to be craftsmen, farmers or other laborers. The biggest issue that the Orcs have is that the more successful they are, the less they are going to be able to get away with living off of raiding and plundering soft targets and the more they are going to have to invest in producing their own food or starving to death.
And then you have to deal with the random wandering Ogre. No one is going to be able to do anything about them and even thinking about trying is pointless. You are going to need a squad of well-trained soldiers to be able to handle one Ogre. And if they wander around in packs of 2 or 3? No buildings is going to keep you safe from them.
Oh, and if you have Hobgoblins to deal with? Well.. damn. Reproduce at the same rate as humans, have practically identical intelligence and skill as humans, physically all around superior, more disciplined and orderly than humans which means less likely to run from a fight and their typical trained soldiers are basically Level 1 Fighter/Level 1 Rogues. If they exist out there on your frontier, you either make friends with them or they will wipe out your cities and send your frontiersmen scattering.
I don't know where you get the idea that historically anyone has needed 3x as many people as exist in a town to plunder it. That is simply outright madness. There have been plenty of bandit tribes throughout history who have lived off of raiding and plundering towns and have never needed that many people. In fact, it literally would have been impossible for such a group to survive if they needed that many.
You really don't need very many people to attack a surprised populace and take what you want. Frankly, most people are just going to run scattering for cover the second violence breaks out.
In fact... you know what...
Mod note: You know what, you really shouldn't go here. However much you feel it supports your point, using such a tragedy to support your discussion about how to pretend to be elves is disrespectful and inflammatory. If your point *needs* this example in order to get across, then it isn't nearly as good as you think it is. And if it doesn't need it, you should use some example that doesn't engage the emotions nearly so strongly.
~Umbran
Ever hear of an event that happened in America in September about 13 years ago? Well, in this event people seized control of an airplane using knives. Pocket knives.
Not battle axes. And they didn't have armor. And these people were not wearing armor. And they were not part of a race that is twice as big as anyone else-- in fact, there were almost certainly other people on this plane that were bigger and stronger than them.
They did NOT need 3x as many people as were on the plane to seize control of it. In fact, you know what? They needed about 5 people to seize control of the plane, keep them under control and then actually intentionally crash the plane.
This happened 4 times on the same day. Only the last of those 4 attempts went wrong for them. And that was only because those people talked to others on cell phones and found out about the previous 3 attempts and knew they were going to die regardless.
In 2007, in Japan a guy with a knife... not a battle axe, but a KNIFE, with no armor went crazy and started killing people in the middle of a busy shopping district. He managed to kill 7 people before the police took him down.
This isn't even looking at the almost uncountable scenarios America has given in the last several years about how many people 1 person with guns can kill or control for a length of time. The above scenarios only have to do with using knives.
The truth is, the truth has always been, that if a few people pop out of virtually no where upon people who are not expecting it and are not prepared for it and have no leadership, then there don't need to be very many of them to take out the few people who would actually bother to try to stop them. Particularly if they have weapons and armor and the surprised people do not.
Everyone else is going to either obey the people threatening violence or flee to cover. And if the people attacking are considerably larger, stronger and better trained than the defenders? The defenders don't have a chance. They just don't.
Orcs and Goblins would have no issue rampaging and robbing all the farmsteads in the area blind preventing there from ever being a functional town they need to lay siege to in the first place. Maybe you need considerably more people for an army to lay siege on a defending army in a city. Maybe that's where you have gotten mixed up and confused. But even then, you do not need 3x as many soldiers as there are citizens in the walled city you are trying to attack-- you need 3x as many soldiers as they have soldiers.
But we aren't talking about an army laying siege to a defending army. We are talking about armed and violent marauders attacking unarmed, unsuspecting farmers and villagers. How do you even imagine the town is going to survive long enough to build that wall? Where is their food coming from? Where are their supplies coming from? Where did the wood to construct that building come from?
In all cases, the only possible answer is that the villagers didn't have to worry about any Orcs or Goblins for months and months on end but knew that after this time they were going to have to deal with them. Because if they have to put up with the raids while they are building this great defensive fortress.. then they are never going to get it built in the first place.
Last edited by a moderator:
Andor
First Post
1. Calm down. No one is slapping your children.
2. Read my post. Then look up any terms you don't understand which apparently includes the word "yeoman."
In fact I'll help you:
Oxford Dictionary said:
Huh. That last one is interesting. What's a yeomanry force? *click*
Oxford Dictionary said:
Interesting, that one. I didn't know about the cavalry force, but that's pretty late historically. Earlier they were more noted as archers. In fact the tiniest bit of effort with google will allow you to learn about the fact that in England freemen (including the farmers you apparently despise as 0-level commoners with clubs) were required by law to own bows and arrows and to practice with them every sunday.
So no, they are not unskilled, or unarmed. Or they would be dead, because if you'll read the OP again we are explicitly talking about a border region with hostile monsters.
In fact let's examine the 5e NPC. I don't have the MM yet, so I'll turn to the free PDF.
The listed NPCs are:
Acolyte (2 HD, spells)
Bandit (2 HD, armour and weapons)
Berserker (9 HD, armour and weapons)
Commoner (1 HD, club)
Cultist (2 HD, armour and weapons)
Guard (2 HD, armour and weapons)
Knight (8 HD, armour, weapons and special abilities)
Mage (9 HD, spells)
Priest (5 HD, spells)
Thug (5 HD, armour and weapons)
Orcs are also 2 HD creatures with armour and weapons. So the only NPCs they are flatly superior to are the commoners who, I claim, are not the correct model for farmers in a hostile area. Using guards or bandits as the NPC stats evens things out a bit don't you think?
Look you have to stop thinking in a vacuum. If there is a community in a hostile area it had to get there somehow. Did the farmers sprout up out of the earth like mushrooms and start growing wheat by instinct? Probably not. More likely they were started as a colony by some established polity, or were a group that fled thay polity for some reason. In the first case there was probably a large expedition which established a stronghold and then withdrew after a few years leaving behind the colony to pay tribute to recoup the investment/hold territory, you might want to look up some Edwardian castles to see exactly what kind of stronghold can be built in 5 years when people know what they are doing, and are in hostile territory. In the latter case they will probably be more scattered and disorganized but they will, rapidly, organize themselves. A wooden pallisade with Motte and bailey can be thrown up in a couple of months, it will be built on whatever hill commands the most terrain. With a view of miles around a staff of only a few men is needed to keep watch and raise the alarm when trouble comes.
As to your 9/11 example, did you notice how it was self-defeating? The first few times the hijackers succeeded because the passengers had no reason to think cooperation meant death, it never had before. Sitting quietly was the rational response. Once it was known that wasn't the case the boxcutter were not an adequate weapon and the hijackers had to destroy the plane short of it's target to prevent the passengers from retaking it. There has not been a single successful hijacking since 9/11. Nor will there be because you cannot bring a weapon onto a plane which is sufficent to keep you from getting swarmed in close quarters by people who know they have nothing to lose. All of your examples were of people in safe. civilized societies who are not actually expected to deal with attackers. In fact you can get into trouble in many places for counter-attacking, we have people for that. Police and military.
Take a look at your examples, you vacillate wildly between squads of Orc ninja paratroopers who are there to carry off chickens, to massive murdering armies. Pick an example. Raids are small and do little damage, armies are slow and not stealthy. An army is responded to by forting up, a raid is responded to by a counter-raid. And if it's harvest season and they can't spare the man power for a counter-raid maybe they'll hire those helpful wanderers who just came into town.
You can complain my world is unrealistic if you like, not that you've ever played at my table, but perhaps your own would make more sense if you didn't assume all NPCs are helpless morons who just stand around waiting to be butchered.
Gilladian
Adventurer
I've been thinking about this whole sort of issue, and I came up with an idea that might be interesting. What if there are NOT vast tracts of wilderness filled with monsters?
Instead, there are vast tracts of wilderness, which may house the occasional tribe of humanoids (whether goblins, orcs, or gnolls, or whatever else) and then there are the ancient ruins left by warring wizards of a fallen empire? In each of these ancient ruins there is a thing - a stone, a well, a throne, whatever - that has a near-artifact level power of transformation. Anyone who approaches and touches said artifact, is transformed into a monster. It could always be the SAME monster for a particular artifact, or a different one each time. The humanoid who is transformed becomes the monster completely, losing all or nearly all sense of previous self, and begins to rampage across the countryside.
So the goal of adventurers would be to a) kill the rampaging monster, b) find the ruins and the artifact c) research how to destroy it (possibly also how to rescue the transformed victim), and d) prevent anyone else from being transformed while they perform whatever ritual is needed to finish the artifact off.
This gives several benefits to a campaign world; you can have humanoid tribes that are not quite as vicious as "the book" says they should be, and they can still be feared and disliked by their human neighbors - after all you never know about orcs and what they'll do if they find one of these artifacts, do you? Evil wizards/clerics/adventurers would love to possess such an artifact because it could make them nigh-undefeatable. In fact, who is to say that the King doesn't have one or two of these things in his power? Perhaps adventurers are supposed to report them TO the king, not destroy them?
Monsters have a built-in explanation for existing; if there isn't an artifact right nearby, well, there could have been one in the past, or the monster moved into the area after being driven away from elsewhere.
The only problems I can see with this scenario are 1) evil or neutral parties are going to want to keep and abuse an item like this, not destroy it - and 2) it might get a little boring if the PCs have to hunt down such an artifact 2-3 times in a given campaign. You'd have to really work to have very different plots/scenarios around them.
Instead, there are vast tracts of wilderness, which may house the occasional tribe of humanoids (whether goblins, orcs, or gnolls, or whatever else) and then there are the ancient ruins left by warring wizards of a fallen empire? In each of these ancient ruins there is a thing - a stone, a well, a throne, whatever - that has a near-artifact level power of transformation. Anyone who approaches and touches said artifact, is transformed into a monster. It could always be the SAME monster for a particular artifact, or a different one each time. The humanoid who is transformed becomes the monster completely, losing all or nearly all sense of previous self, and begins to rampage across the countryside.
So the goal of adventurers would be to a) kill the rampaging monster, b) find the ruins and the artifact c) research how to destroy it (possibly also how to rescue the transformed victim), and d) prevent anyone else from being transformed while they perform whatever ritual is needed to finish the artifact off.
This gives several benefits to a campaign world; you can have humanoid tribes that are not quite as vicious as "the book" says they should be, and they can still be feared and disliked by their human neighbors - after all you never know about orcs and what they'll do if they find one of these artifacts, do you? Evil wizards/clerics/adventurers would love to possess such an artifact because it could make them nigh-undefeatable. In fact, who is to say that the King doesn't have one or two of these things in his power? Perhaps adventurers are supposed to report them TO the king, not destroy them?
Monsters have a built-in explanation for existing; if there isn't an artifact right nearby, well, there could have been one in the past, or the monster moved into the area after being driven away from elsewhere.
The only problems I can see with this scenario are 1) evil or neutral parties are going to want to keep and abuse an item like this, not destroy it - and 2) it might get a little boring if the PCs have to hunt down such an artifact 2-3 times in a given campaign. You'd have to really work to have very different plots/scenarios around them.
Actually they are still unskilled and have poor equipment. The bow and arrows yeoman had in private had nothing to do with bows used in war. This order was just so that in the case war comes you had people who were strong enough to use war bows. Solitary training 1 day a week doesn't make anyone a soldier.
Commoners are the perfect model for frontier farmers because they, like commoners spend all their time toiling the land, not honing their weapon skills or arcane lore like what guards and acolytes do.
As do you. No "monster" which has its territory settled by humans will wait 5 years before attacking. In such a territory the keep has to be there before the farms in order for the farms to have any chance of survival. And how did it get there? How is it supplied?
And you are vastly overestimating the power of commoners. Even when you do it the roman way and settle war veterans there, someone has to work the fields and can't spend all his free time performing military duties. Yet to have any chance of survival against even low level monsters such full time soldiers are needed. But small farms can't support them and their equipment.
You have a very strange idea of raids, especially ones performed by evil monsters. A successfull raid can also mean total slaughter, sacrifices to dark gods, all buildings destroyed and the earth salted if the raiders wish it.
The ones setting up farms in monster territory are.
Don't forget we have not even touched upon most of the MM. There are a lot worse things out there than just orcs.
Why would there be anyone out there, no matter if human, orc or gnoll who has not walled off all access to this artifact in the area or otherwise controlls access to it? And what about intelligent monsters? Do they also rampage? Do they keep parts of their former personality?
Last edited:
Andor
First Post
... You do realize I actually gave you an example of fortifications which were built in hostile territory during a war of conquest right? if you want to look up the logistics involved I suggest doing some research. Doing some research might lead you to understand that during the middle ages there are no "full time" military forces at all aside from professional mercenaries. The nobility are as close as you get but they are also civillian officials and administrators. The bulk of armed forces in time of war are the very peasants you claim to be feeble helpless targets. And the peasant levies really were pretty dreadful. The armies made up of freemen like English and Welsh archers and swiss pikemen have a somewhat better track record.
Also the bows practiced with were the same ones carried to war. You do realize soldiers had to supply their own kit during times of war, right? Uniform, army supplied gear ended in europe with the Romans and did not really resume until the 17th century.
Your example has one giant flaw. You forget that it also has to be manned. Who is tending the fields while the fort is build and who does so when there is a standing guard in there?
And who supplies the materials for the fort and the weapons?
To supply all that you already need to have an industry in place or need to be certain that you do not get attacked.
And while mucn of the armies were commoners, rulers also had their personal guard which were trained for combat and not farmers who had to take up arms occasionally. There were also other professional or semi professionap forces during that time which were vastly superior in both training and equipment to commoners. Raiders usually belong to this group.
And you are confusing a lot of things in your post. Swiss pikeman were something very different than english yeoman (at least the meaning your use for yeoman as land owners).
2.42
2.42 monsters per cubic septagon.
That's how many monsters there are...everywhere...in all worlds.
Peasant farmers are NPCs, so they count toward an area's monster quota.
There. Now everyone can get back to the business of slaying them.
2.42 monsters per cubic septagon.
That's how many monsters there are...everywhere...in all worlds.
Peasant farmers are NPCs, so they count toward an area's monster quota.
There. Now everyone can get back to the business of slaying them.
Hussar
Legend
Hang on though. Lots of history shows forts being built first and then farmers coming second. By and large, that's how the Americas were settled. Same goes for how the Romans generally worked (and yes, that's very broad brush strokes). You pacify an area sufficiently, at least to the point where you do have a few years of relative peace to get things going, and then you bring in your peasantry to start farming and whatnot.
Is there something wrong with that model?
Is there something wrong with that model?
Andor
First Post
Well, according to Derren it's logistically impossible. And who is history to argue with him?
Similar Threads
