Subject: A good point
Author:
Posted on: 2013-10-14 20:24:00 UTC

I liken tough skin to something that most of us, I think, are familiar with: chain mail. Chain mail was invented to stop a select group of weapons that were causing no end of trouble for people with inferior armor. Swords and, to some extent, arrows fall under that category. Chain mail is very effective protection against a sword.

The problem with chain mail is that it is not rigid, like plate armor (which was invented to fix this problem). It is flexible, like skin. So, if someone comes along with a big club, the chain mail (tough skin) will be fine and not break. The same cannot be said for the bones beneath the chain mail/tough skin. The best weapon against chain mail is a mace or other blunt instrument.

Now, to get back to the debate at hand. The Rancor and Cave Troll both have tough skin. That means that claws and, to some extent) teeth are much less effective against both of them. It was brought up that the Rancor has claws, and it seems to have sharp teeth. Therefore, the Cave Troll's tough skin is an effective defense. On the other hand, the Cave Troll has blunt nails and a small mouth with blunt teeth (making it possibly herbivorous?). It uses clubs, chains, and spears, at the least, to fight. So, the Rancor's tough skin is a far less effective defense.

Consider this, a blow from the Cave Troll's club to the Rancor's knee (or elbow/back/neck/ankle/wrist for that matter) which is large and at the perfect level for the Troll to smash it, would be devastating to the Rancor's ability to fight. A blow from the Rancor's claws would need to hit a small, vital area (the eyes for example) to have the same hindering effect.

As for blaster bolts...I think it is safe to assume that a sword is less damaging than a blaster.

-Phobos, bringing a Cave Troll to a knife fight

Reply Return to messages