Allow Siege Weaponry In Raids (With Restriction)

[monkeypoacher 6993]

There have been some one hundred raids in the Fringe, yet, oddly, not one of them has left any substantial effect in RP. At best, a raid is a PvP battle, at worst it is a shouting fest through a gate, or some attempt to abuse MC mechanics to bypass a wall. The current methods of breaching walls, and building walls, makes no sense in RP.

 

What I suggest is that we add siege weaponry back to the possible RP options by allowing siege weaponry outside of Warclaims. Of course, we shouldn't do this without adding some restrictions, which I will propose here:

 

• Siege weaponry used in raids must be dismantled after a surrender has been reached or all defenders or attackers in the raid have been defeated. If they are not, they are fair game to be destroyed. LWC locks and other such means of protecting siege weaponry from being destroyed are strictly not allowed.
• Destructive weapons may only be used for breaching a wall or gate. To prevent someone from simply rolling in a trebuchet and attempting to blow up an entire city.
• Each raiding party is only allowed a maximum of 4 attempts to use any siege engine to breach a city. This gives a very slim chance of entering a city by these means, as the minimum roll for a successful hit with a trebuchet, catapult, or ballista is 17/20.
• When using Siege Ladder/Tower/Platform, one must roll 15/20 or above to jump onto a wall, each attempt counting as one of the three daily breaking and entering rolls.
•  
•  

[Treshure 5581]

With how frequent raids are, this would be a never ending nightmare and would make large defenses absolutely worthless if anyone could stroll up and blow down the gate/wall.

[Aedan The Bard 350]

No, thanks.

[SodaiKamikaze 651]

I would like to see this in place, though only if raids were limited to twice a week, or something similar. Makes it sorta special to go up and blast down your enemy's gate, instead of doing the same thing every day.

[Kaun 99]

Absolute no, the consequences far outweigh what makes it good.

[Aengoth 2883]

Sure, if folks can't defend themselves then they'd ought to invest in some military training or mercenaries. 

[Temp 2006]

Nah. Defeats the purpose of a warclaim.

[Praetor 1548]

Nah. Defeats the purpose of a warclaim.

 

Agreed. Siege engines are cool but I like them better when they're special things you don't often see.

[Helbolt 129]

Considering the rules will just change again when 4.0 comes, there seems to be no point to change it.

[WuHanXianShi14 0]

Ahahahaha no, this makes building walls completely pointless and gm bias when running the siege weapons would be too much

[Birdwhisperer 1173]

Why not simply make a warclaim?

[Cyndikate 2302]

Nah. Defeats the purpose of a warclaim.

That can be prone to OOC denial.

And I don't support. Raids already piss people off as it is.

[Aelu / Rel (Combustionary) 1535]

It's already been said, but I also have to say no.

 

Raids are tedious and annoying as-is. Let's not make them more-so.

[Samoblivion 531]

I would for the most part be against this, but I could see the logic in allowing something like a battering ram that worked on a roll based system - after all, felling a tree and using it to ram at a gate is something that a raiding party in the medieval ages or ancient history could have used. This could be used on wooden or wood fence gates, but could not/would be much much harder to use on metal bar gates.

[Lark 2226]