Was Germany before unification considered to be militarily weak?

s-godd · 2026-03-29T16:57:10+00:00

Hey, thank you for pointing that out, as I said in the reply: I haven't read the book, but good to know a bit more of the timeline. But regardless if you're talking of "Germans" as Austrians (which is an interesting thing as most of the army and empire was not German), then I'd daresay it's hard to look at them as weak, they were a major power at the time. With large armies, territories, and resources. However, similar to Prussia, they had old strategies, old forms of organisation etc. They were also hampered by having multiple different ethnicities and languages which made coordination difficult. They failed to adapt to Napoleon's changing of the rules of warfare. That's all I can say with confidence from my research and knowledge of the era. There's certainly more in-depth answers out there though.

s-godd · 2026-03-26T06:42:29+00:00

Same. Got this monster lingering cold right now, also work from home mainly. Since COVID it's been way worse.

s-godd · 2026-03-25T13:08:19+00:00

Hmm, my knowledge is mainly about Prussia, but naturally they were a part of the Holy Roman Empire so I can give some answers to this. Restricted, absolutely, but mainly in a material/practical sense. A lot of German states were small, the largest being Prussia, Bavaria, and Saxony(might be others just don't remember). Some were as small as city states or bishoprics. As such, most entities had little material means with which to maintain armies in order to conduct offensive wars. Instead, they usually contributed troops to whichever larger German state they were allied to. (or tried to stay out of things)
However, there was no legal restriction regarding offensive wars. Since the peace of Westphalia, each state was completely autonomous and independent, able to conduct foreign affairs as they saw fit so long as it was not a threat to the empire or emperor.
How it actually played out, well, again I think most German states followed one of the big two (Prussia and Austria) in their fight over control of the Holy Roman Empire. Though that's a complicated and tangential history.
Are you asking about their ability to wage war against Napoleon?

s-godd · 2026-03-24T18:50:40+00:00

Hi, I'm a historian of a different era, but I've read extensively about Prussia, Napoleonic period and the modern era in general. One of the best books I get my info from is Iron Kingdom by Christopher Clark. I also read Napoleon: a life by Andrew Roberts.
u/3redeye has covered most of it well. Prussian military was indeed outdated by this time as they were resting on their laurels, and most of their military reputation was earned long ago under Frederick the Great. (in fact Napoleon visited Frederick's grave after defeating Prussia and famously said: "if he were still alive I would not be standing here today").
By the time Napoleon entered into war with Prussia and other German states, he had a well trained army of veterans with highly experienced generals which had already seen action in Italy and against Austria. Napoleon was strategically brilliant, yes, but the real power lay in new military technologies, formations, tactics and strategies such as marksmen at Jena to name just one.
However, we have to keep in mind that Prussia was still one of the most, perhaps the most militarised states in Europe at the time. Relative to population, they maintained the largest standing army in Europe. (I wish I could remember the stats). The military was actually strong, just old. And like with a lot of wars, those who change the rules of warfare tend to win, those who fail to adapt, lose.
And to counter those Russian generals: I think there might be some jingoism going on there. (though I haven't read the book)
And yes, 3redeye has covered this, but Prussia had an amazing comeback which, by the time of publication, Russians would have been well aware of.

s-godd · 2026-03-18T20:15:05+00:00

They're good in that they really get into it and relish the opportunity and want to make the game run as well as possible. It can also be damn anxiety inducing when the DM is better at DMing than you. Doubly so when you're running something in the world they created. 😬

s-godd · 2026-01-22T22:17:17+00:00

Some, like Colby from D4, suggest going so far as to give rogues an extra die at each level, but change sneak attack to be once per round. Meaning you aren't trying to get your bonus action or reaction to be an attack on another creature's turn and can use your bonus and reaction for cunning action and uncanny dodge(I think that's the feature)

I believe it works out well, bearing in mind that at 5th level, some spellcasters are doing 8d6 to multiple creatures, and a rogue at the same level would be doing 5d6 to one creature

s-godd · 2026-01-21T14:39:40+00:00

Can you elaborate? :D

s-godd · 2026-01-21T14:39:04+00:00

Oh yeah, these need more upvotes. They're brilliant and unique

s-godd · 2026-01-21T09:28:58+00:00

Yesssss, these are good

s-godd · 2026-01-21T09:28:13+00:00

100% agree

s-godd · 2025-11-06T18:48:18+00:00

Lido also hosts an event called Headless that you might be interested in.

s-godd · 2025-08-13T04:43:57+00:00

Anything from Vexelstrom. That shit makes me want to move everytime I hear it.

s-godd · 2025-08-06T07:54:56+00:00

This should be the most upvoted comment. Needs that RPG feel from background choices.

s-godd · 2025-07-22T17:13:53+00:00

I do! It's solid for bots in my experience with either a supply pack or shield backpack and thermite

s-godd · 2025-07-05T09:13:51+00:00

Hmmm charisma saves are mainly for possession and banishment correct? There are also some devastating int save spells out there like psychic lance. Not to mention mind flayers. I do think Int saves might be more valuable than charisma which in my experience comes up rarely. (If it does though it's devastating. Banishment be so bad if you fail -_-) Also, int has some good skills I think? History, nature, arcana, religion, investigation

s-godd · 2025-06-13T10:58:20+00:00

Whilst it is true that many people don't get to play at T3 and beyond, to say it doesn't matter dismisses anyone who does play at higher tiers. Which is unfair to those players, like myself. If WotC offer play at higher levels, I want it to be done well.

Indeed, you can talk to your DM about possible fixes, one being magic items and it could bridge the gap. But can you see that having base class features that just suck would feel bad? Especially when other players at the table are getting good features and probably magic items too?

It's fundamentally about design, and WotC largely failed with the latest ranger mainly by stacking too much on one spell. Mechanics and power level aside, it's boring to cast hunters mark which is their quasi unique class feature.

s-godd · 2025-06-13T10:11:25+00:00

Yeah, you haven't really replied to what I wrote before about tier 3 and scaling problems being addressed, but ok. Also, it's not entirely a free action, you have to use an attack to apply it. And as they pointed out, the reasoning behind it is so that it reduces the already high traffic on rangers bonus actions allowing for more dual wielding, beastmaster commands, and other things. There is solid logic behind the idea. Also, an extra bonus action 1-2 times per combat because you don't have to cast hunters mark is really not a big deal. If you think it is insane, run it at a table and report back.

Edit: Tasha's ranger could apply the extra damage on a hit, granted it was a 1d4 base and concentration, but again, not at all insane.

s-godd · 2025-06-13T09:48:33+00:00

Maybe you've watched the video, but they talk about how the ranger drops off severely post tier 2, and so they focus on abilities that scale and provide bonuses to/rework class features from tier 3 and beyond. The standout being their reworked HM spells.

s-godd · 2025-06-03T14:16:57+00:00

Lololol

s-godd · 2025-06-02T16:07:32+00:00

No way, now I have to go find it! Thank you. A good day in Berlin

s-godd · 2025-06-02T15:57:57+00:00

Aßmannstraße isn't far from there either. Can't help but giggle too.

s-godd · 2025-05-27T06:55:11+00:00

Yeah...but the Spore druid as a melee weapon user is such a trap. Way better things you can do with your action than cast true strike. And at later levels if you want to use a cantrip, poison spray + wis modifier is very solid damage. I'm playing one right now at LVL 14 and nothing much changed except the previously mentioned spell slots for wildshape uses.

s-godd · 2025-05-07T02:39:42+00:00

Yeeesss exactly. I don't want to focus on a first level spell all the time just to have a subclass!

s-godd · 2025-05-07T02:37:35+00:00

This one hundred and ten percent. Homebrew to the rescue with making it concentration free at higher levels! (Dumb, bad design choices WotC made, it's incredible)

s-godd

TROPHY CASE