PDA

View Full Version : D&D and poor depictions of real world things: what annoys you?



hamishspence
2008-12-08, 03:06 PM
This is more to do with descriptions and stats than actual rules- and only when D&D tries to depict a real-world thing and gets it wrong.

For example- 80 ft long triremes in Stormwrack- way too small.

8 lb greatswords in PHB 3.5- rather too big (15lb ones in 3.0 were worse)

Large Dire wolves (real one was only 5 ft long- just fractionally bigger than a wolf)

Any other things you would say are irritating?

Starbuck_II
2008-12-08, 03:27 PM
This is more to do with descriptions and stats than actual rules- and only when D&D tries to depict a real-world thing and gets it wrong.

For example- 80 ft long triremes in Stormwrack- way too small.

8 lb greatswords in PHB 3.5- rather too big (15lb ones in 3.0 were worse)

Large Dire wolves (real one was only 5 ft long- just fractionally bigger than a wolf)

Any other things you would say are irritating?

Whoa, wait you've met a Large Dire Wolf? :smallconfused:

hamishspence
2008-12-08, 03:29 PM
look them up on Wikipedia- basically only a fraction bigger than Grey Wolf- shorter in legs, stronger jaws.

kopout
2008-12-08, 03:32 PM
Whoa, wait you've met a Large Dire Wolf? :smallconfused:

the Dire Wolf is an extinct species of wolf that lived in ice age Europe, Aisha, and parts of north America, we know the size from the bones . and now you know:smallsmile:

bibliophile
2008-12-08, 03:38 PM
1d6 falling damage per ten feet. The problem I have with this is not the existence of falling damage, but that it does 1d6 for the first 10. This means that a ten foot fall will kill a tough untrained human (commoner with decent con who fails the jump check to negate the damage) every time. Perhaps 1d3 for the first ten would be better.

Blackfang108
2008-12-08, 03:40 PM
look them up on Wikipedia- basically only a fraction bigger than Grey Wolf- shorter in legs, stronger jaws.

except that the D&D Dire Wolf is not trying to be the actual Dire Wolf.

The D&D Dire Wolf is SUPPOSED to be a Wolf the size of a Volkswagen.

bosssmiley
2008-12-08, 03:41 PM
Splint and/or Banded Mail (there's no such thing Charles Ffolkes! :smallannoyed: )

4E MM Bear Lore

3E weapons, particularly double weapons

Blackfang108
2008-12-08, 03:43 PM
1d6 falling damage per ten feet. The problem I have with this is not the existence of falling damage, but that it does 1d6 for the first 10. This means that a ten foot fall will kill a tough untrained human (commoner with decent con who fails the jump check to negate the damage) every time. Perhaps 1d3 for the first ten would be better.

Not every time.

Sometimes the DM rolls a 1.

And people have been known to die from falls that short.

hamishspence
2008-12-08, 03:44 PM
they did fine with "Giant Rat", "Giant Eagle"- makes it clear they are fictional- but using real world terms can be recipe for irritation. right back in old editions it was supposedly a "prehistoric wolf"

Basilosaurus as polar whale in Frostburn- they had hardly any blubber and died out as a result of dropping temperatures.

I manage to dig out references to "spinted mail" on Wikipedia- so there was something called by that name.

Kurald Galain
2008-12-08, 03:49 PM
4E MM Bear Lore
I don't have the 4E MM, but let me guess - it defecates in the foliage?


How about, being able to deal non-lethal damage with everything, up to and including a disintegrate spell. Then again, bringing 4E into this isn't really fair, as it doesn't even try to depict anything real-world-like.

3E then, the game with its hallmark of "oh we are so realistic". Let's see, the existence of 20th-level commoners. The entire skill system, which means that a so-called Einstein will be outsmarted frequently by the average cheerleader. Crafting quarterstaves in zero seconds, and the fact that two poles cost more than a ladder. Say, didn't we cover this last week?

hamishspence
2008-12-08, 03:52 PM
I was thinking more, not rules, but depictions. Describing a greatsword as 15 lb in 3.0, describing a trireme ias being only 70 ft long in stormwrack, etc, etc.

when a monster is a real world creature, and they get it badly wrong, might count. Falchions as two handed weapons. And so on.

Blackfang108
2008-12-08, 04:01 PM
Falchions as two handed weapons. And so on.

Those HUGE things?

How AREN'T they two handed? They don't weight much, true.

Neither do Greatswords.

KKL
2008-12-08, 04:02 PM
I don't have the 4E MM, but let me guess - it defecates in the foliage?

http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/1270/bearlorevl1.png

Magnor Criol
2008-12-08, 04:10 PM
Many of the various feats you had to take to perform some martial actions bothered me.

For example, "Short Haft" - it takes special training to know that if you're wielding a polearm and an enemy moves right in front of you, move your hands up the shaft to fight.

Some of the things you have to take feats for just seem like they'd be common sense things for someone versed in war to know. I realize there's game balance reasons for them to be split by feats, but still.

Baron Malkar
2008-12-08, 04:13 PM
Bears (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/210979/december-01-2008/godless-killing-machines):smallbiggrin:

hamishspence
2008-12-08, 04:27 PM
The word Falchion in 2nd edition (and real world) referred to a one-handed, broad tipped sword very like a cleaver in loooks.

Spiryt
2008-12-08, 04:27 PM
8 lb greatswords in PHB 3.5- rather too big (15lb ones in 3.0 were worse)


Well, if you want to dwell on weapons again :

6 pound pick - fail
12pound greataxe, ranseur, halberd - fail
8 pound heavy mace - fail

And few others.

The question is if they really tried to depict a real-world thing, or just put whatever in weight section and let it be.

Zeful
2008-12-08, 04:31 PM
Some people thought (or the designers admitted) that the extra weight was supposed to represent their unusual size/shape.

Spiryt
2008-12-08, 04:39 PM
Some people thought (or the designers admitted) that the extra weight was supposed to represent their unusual size/shape.

You mean that that 12 pound is supposed to represent not actual weight but overall problems with carrying it around?

I thought about it few times indeed, and that's indeed some idea.

Even if it's true it's poorly made anyway. With longbow being more compact than mace.

hamishspence
2008-12-08, 04:42 PM
sheaths and suchlike might have made sense, if weights hadn't been quite so high.

RPGuru1331
2008-12-08, 04:44 PM
http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/1270/bearlorevl1.png

See? There's no reference to their lack of a God, or their threat to the civilized nations. How is THAT supposed to be an accurate representation of those godless killing machines?

Mando Knight
2008-12-08, 04:48 PM
Some people thought (or the designers admitted) that the extra weight was supposed to represent their unusual size/shape.

Well... I suppose I can live with that... not everyone understands that a more accurate representation of the awkwardness would be moment... (i.e. lb.-ft. or N-m)

hamishspence
2008-12-08, 04:50 PM
thing is- real bears generally do not Hug- this is a myth- only reason they grab their prey with paws is to hold it still enough to bite.

the trend toward Dire everything in MMI was a shade irritating. There are some interesting prehistoric creatures that did end up appearing- some time after their Dire equivalents.

Dire Elk- Megaloceros
Dire Shark- Megalodon
Dire Elephant- Mastodon & Mammoth
Dire Rhinoceros- Indricotherium

on the bear subject- the biggest bear ever was the short-faced running bear- imagine something the size of a dire bear- only with long legs and a fast moving hunter. I'd have liked to see the dire bear modelled on that.

Tacoma
2008-12-08, 04:58 PM
1d6 falling damage per ten feet. The problem I have with this is not the existence of falling damage, but that it does 1d6 for the first 10. This means that a ten foot fall will kill a tough untrained human (commoner with decent con who fails the jump check to negate the damage) every time. Perhaps 1d3 for the first ten would be better.

Some people have died from falling over. Just falling down from a standing start, you know. Then again there's that guy who fell onto a flowerpot that had a metal rod sticking out of it and impaled his brain, and lived.

An olympic pole vaulter (1) lands on soft ground, (2) is highly trained, and (3) sometimes gets injured. The record is something like 20 feet. We can assume that their Jump skill is maxed out, they have a good statistic, and a Skill Focus feat for Jump. Escaping the 2d6 damage in that case is entirely believable.

Falling damage was originally meant to be 1d6 per 10' per 10' fallen. The extra piece was believed to be a typo and removed. In fact, Gygax meant people to take the damage as follows:

10' - 1d6
20' - 3d6
30' - 6d6
40' - 10d6
50' - 15d6
60' - 20d6

The idea was that you hit something close to terminal velocity quite quickly and stop accelerating in an atmosphere. Skydivers experience this when they feel the sensation of falling (the acceleration) until they hit TV and then they don't feel like they're falling anymore (no further acceleration, unless such acceleration is a result of a change in direction).

Most office buildings are about 15' per floor. So a 60' fall is from four stories up.

The damage listed is meant to reflect a fall upon a hard surface. A fall on gravel or hard earth should cause half damage, sand or soft earth a quarter, water or a bog a sixth. Or alter the effective jump height.

One woman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesna_Vulovi%C4%87) survived a plane crash from a height of 33,000 feet after an explosion destroyed it. She remained largely inside the plane when it crashed (her head was sticking out of the plane where it broke) and she was treated at the scene after some delay by a German former military medic. We can conclude from this that she's a 20th level Commoner and the German made his Heal check.

Finally, the average Commoner has 3.5 HP right? Commoners tend to be rough and tough, hardy folks, certainly sturdier than average, so perhaps a 12 CON isn't out of the question. The 10' fall will, on average, not knock out the Commoner but sometimes will if he fails his Jump check (which is also based on a stat Commoners would have above average: STR, but the Commoner probably makes it only one time in four). But if it does knock out the Commoner, there is only a 1 in 6 chance it drops him below 0 HP and he needs to begin making Stabilize rolls. And since he gets 8 or so Stabilize rolls he's quite likely to succeed and survive until someone stumbles across him.

So we have a 30% chance of no damage from the Jump check, then an 83% chance of not taking enough damage to hit negatives, then at least eight 10% chances to stabilize.

I'd say the average commoner fares pretty well in a planned 10' fall onto concrete.

Now an unplanned fall ... but then again, people have died from just slipping and falling down.

Tacoma
2008-12-08, 05:07 PM
Some people thought (or the designers admitted) that the extra weight was supposed to represent their unusual size/shape.

You can lift X pounds above your head, if it's perfectly balanced in the form of freeweights.

But what if it's a wriggling, slippery Halfling? Or a big leather sack of gold pieces? Suddenly it's not so easy to lift.

This is the Encumbrance system, where your character can carry a certain Encumbrance value which is often used synonymously with Weight. And in general when we talk about the weight of an object it means the same number can be used for Encumbrance.

Except when the object is very unweildy, or of a very high volume for its weight. The common example is a big sack of feathers. It might weigh 100 pounds but it's so big and out of balance that if your character can carry 100 pounds he cannot carry this sack. Because the sack might weigh 100 pounds but its encumbrance is perhaps 150 or 200. The 100 pound sack of feathers is harder to carry than a 100 pound brick of gold (which isn't even a one-foot cube).

Weapons any heavier than a few pounds, even two-handed ones, are too slow and quickly tire you out. And since you're attacking a person who bleeds and feels pain, you really don't want to just apply as much force as possible - you want to perform a precise attack that damages systems, makes him bleed, and makes him hurt. You can accomplish the same effect with a 3 lb sword that you can with a 5 lb sword because you're not just using the weight.

Now why in the world they decided that a sword should take more Encumbrance than its weight suggests, I'll never understand. You would usually just do it for rolled-up carpets, furniture, looted housewares, televisions, stuffed animals, etc.

mikeejimbo
2008-12-08, 05:32 PM
the Dire Wolf is an extinct species of wolf that lived in ice age Europe, Aisha, and parts of north America, we know the size from the bones . and now you know:smallsmile:

And knowing is half the battle! Go Joe!

Also, the way they depict magic. I mean, they admit that's fictional, but it doesn't even work anything like ANYONE believed magic worked, ever.

Mark Hall
2008-12-08, 06:42 PM
Those HUGE things?

How AREN'T they two handed? They don't weight much, true.

Neither do Greatswords.

Simple answer: The designers were either ignorant or purposefully misinforming people as to what a falchion was.

This is a falchion (http://www.deepeeka.co.in/pcat-gifs/products-small/ah4107.jpg). It's somewhat similar to a saber, but fairly thick the entire length, instead of a saber's traditional thinness.

In 2nd edition, the two-handed scimitar was called a tulwar; not a perfect name, but not as obviously wrong.

Bonecrusher Doc
2008-12-08, 07:11 PM
My two cents on falling 10' - I figure worst case scenario you slip and land on your head or neck. That could very well kill a mere mortal :smallfrown:

Tacoma
2008-12-08, 07:15 PM
I think the ground should get to roll to hit. It might miss you, in which case you have gained the ability to fly. But it might also get a critical hit.

The world threatens 12-20(x4).

mikeejimbo
2008-12-08, 07:16 PM
Shouldn't it be that you roll to hit the ground, but might miss?

Archpaladin Zousha
2008-12-08, 07:23 PM
I'm confused about longswords. In real life, they're two handed swords. You couldn't weild a bastard sword one handed. THere's not enough strength in the arm. Furthermore, aren't longswords supposed to be six feet long?

Tacoma
2008-12-08, 07:30 PM
That assumes the Commoner is the actor. In fact we know that the world is more important than the Commoner and so takes precedence. And also the world is much bigger and made of tougher stuff. The world is also wealthier and prettier and has many more friends. I'd say in just about every circumstance the world is acting upon the Commoner.

Zeful
2008-12-08, 07:31 PM
Um, no? According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longsword), longswords were ~35in long, which was less than three feet (36)

Archpaladin Zousha
2008-12-08, 07:32 PM
Then how are they two-handed?

mikeejimbo
2008-12-08, 07:34 PM
That assumes the Commoner is the actor. In fact we know that the world is more important than the Commoner and so takes precedence. And also the world is much bigger and made of tougher stuff. The world is also wealthier and prettier and has many more friends. I'd say in just about every circumstance the world is acting upon the Commoner.

Hmm, that may be true, but I believe the source material says that flying is "throwing yourself at the ground and missing." You throw yourself, implying you are trying to hit. (Except you miss.) But IDHMBWM.

Tacoma
2008-12-08, 07:36 PM
I'm confused about longswords. In real life, they're two handed swords. You couldn't weild a bastard sword one handed. THere's not enough strength in the arm. Furthermore, aren't longswords supposed to be six feet long?

A "smallsword" was a very light sword meant mainly for fighting people who wore no armor and certainly not those wearing plate armor. They were used in the days after the gun conquered the battlefield and people largely stopped wearing heavier armor.

A "long sword" or "broad sword" was slightly longer but heavier, meant to slice unarmored folk and break the bones of people through their chain or plate armor. But at the height of plate armor design, even a sword couldn't "cut it" and wearers of plate armor were killed mainly by being unhorsed and forced to thr ground by multiple attackers, who then struck through the chinks in the armor and the helmet with daggers and beat upon him with blunt weapons. Even the average arrow made of mild iron couldn't pierce the French plate at Agincourt - as in, zero damage on a critical, buddy. Occasionally these swords would be wielded with both hands, and the hilt could be long enough to comfortably accomodate both.

A "greatsword", "claymore" or whatever was meant to be a two handed weapon only. It was simply too heavy and large to wield without both hands. It was used much more like a spear than a slicing weapon, and required a great deal of space and wielder mobility around his opponent if he wasn't straight-up piercing with it.

smallsword - about as long as your whole arm.
longsword - a few inches longer but bigger on the whole
greatsword - as long as the wielder is tall, including the entire handle. possibly slightly longer.

Tacoma
2008-12-08, 07:40 PM
Hmm, that may be true, but I believe the source material says that flying is "throwing yourself at the ground and missing." You throw yourself, implying you are trying to hit. (Except you miss.) But IDHMBWM.

YLYBAH? HCY?!

You cannot throw an object of your own size. Unless you're a Hulking Hurler with a +1 Iridium Moon of Returning.

mikeejimbo
2008-12-08, 07:44 PM
YLYBAH? HCY?!

You cannot throw an object of your own size. Unless you're a Hulking Hurler with a +1 Iridium Moon of Returning.

Well, I don't tend to bring the Hitchhiker's Guide with me everywhere I go. (I know, how blasphemous of me.) Also, I contest you can throw yourself at something, at least in real life, usually by jumping at it.

RebelRogue
2008-12-08, 07:47 PM
Well, I just fail to see why most of these things would truly bother anyone but historians or archaeologists... :shrugs: Not trying to take away from the informative nature of this thread, just pointing out that few would really care.

Tacoma
2008-12-08, 07:49 PM
Well, I don't tend to bring the Hitchhiker's Guide with me everywhere I go. (I know, how blasphemous of me.) Also, I contest you can throw yourself at something, at least in real life, usually by jumping at it.

Then you're not making an attack to throw something, you're making an attempt at using the Jump skill.

Which we've established is a separate event from the damage of the ground striking you.

mikeejimbo
2008-12-08, 07:52 PM
Then you're not making an attack to throw something, you're making an attempt at using the Jump skill.

Which we've established is a separate event from the damage of the ground striking you.

Ah, true! But of course, the damage only occurs if you hit the ground. If you miss, then you fly. As the book says though, it's throwing yourself at the ground and missing. Not the ground missing you.

Captain Six
2008-12-08, 07:54 PM
The weapon issues annoy me a bit too. In the case of the falling, if you intentionally drop or jump down you subtract 10 feet off of the fall damage. If you're shoved off of a 10 foot platform you are going to get hurt unless you can maneuver yourself well (15dc tumble check) but it takes a 20 foot fall to hurt yourself if you dropped down on your own. I thought that was pretty accurate for D&D actually.

In fact that happens to me a lot; I think something in D&D is stupid and unrealistic but as I gain fighting experience of my own I start to realize that it's actually startlingly accurate. Not VERY accurate but more accurate than I see most people give it credit for.

Skill and ability checks need some work, maybe just a smaller dice. Alter the system to use a d8 or something, randomness doesn't effect those kinds of things as much.

WaterTengu
2008-12-08, 07:55 PM
I'm confused about longswords. In real life, they're two handed swords. You couldn't weild a bastard sword one handed. THere's not enough strength in the arm. Furthermore, aren't longswords supposed to be six feet long?

a katana is a bastard sword
a bastard sword is a hand-and-a-half sword, which meeeeeeaaaannnsss...
...it was good for one or two-handed use.

but the big one for me is that scimitars are one-handed
scimitars are generally two-handed, and shamshirs are one-handed. but the words are sometimes interchanged. that and that katars cannot be thrown, they were thrown very often in india during the invasion of the Aryans. along with a lot of other, very small, things. but then again i am a weapon historian, so i don't really count.

Zeful
2008-12-08, 07:57 PM
Then how are they two-handed?

They have a long handle that facilitates two-handed use. They could also be used one-handed. A two-handed grip feels more natural as your other hand does something.

I found an article on it from these guys (http://www.swordacademy.com/weapons-longsword/index.html).

Tacoma
2008-12-08, 08:17 PM
Ah, true! But of course, the damage only occurs if you hit the ground. If you miss, then you fly. As the book says though, it's throwing yourself at the ground and missing. Not the ground missing you.

First off, I love that we're having our own little invisible conversation here like we're two Rogues hanging out in the rafters while everyone else does something else.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that you would fly in either case. Should you throw something on the ground and it misses, that object certainly must be flying. But also if the ground tried to strike you and missed then you would just be hovering there.

I expect that in the Source Material, the Author hadn't detailed the World at Faller because he had already described the Faller at World scenario. He didn't need to do both.

And furthermore the story was told from the protagonist's perspective. He was a person, if you recall. Were the story told from the perspective of the World, we might be hearing another side to the story.

And the audience, as the Author rightly expected, would be other people. Not Worlds. Certainly the World would be interested in reading about the exploits of other Worlds and the insignificant creatures crawling all over them. But unless a book should fall open or you lay it pages-down and open on the ground, the World has little opportunity to read such books.

Behold_the_Void
2008-12-08, 08:18 PM
Honestly it bothers me more that people expect a game to perfectly mirror real-world mechanics. There's enough of a passing nod to get by, but really, those details are best left as abstracted as possible for smooth gameplay.

If you want realism, play a system designed for it like GURPs.

mikeejimbo
2008-12-08, 08:19 PM
First off, I love that we're having our own little invisible conversation here like we're two Rogues hanging out in the rafters while everyone else does something else.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that you would fly in either case. Should you throw something on the ground and it misses, that object certainly must be flying. But also if the ground tried to strike you and missed then you would just be hovering there.

I expect that in the Source Material, the Author hadn't detailed the World at Faller because he had already described the Faller at World scenario. He didn't need to do both.

And furthermore the story was told from the protagonist's perspective. He was a person, if you recall. Were the story told from the perspective of the World, we might be hearing another side to the story.

And the audience, as the Author rightly expected, would be other people. Not Worlds. Certainly the World would be interested in reading about the exploits of other Worlds and the insignificant creatures crawling all over them. But unless a book should fall open or you lay it pages-down and open on the ground, the World has little opportunity to read such books.

All right, I am inclined to agree here. Poor World, I think I should leave it some books to read sometime...

WaterTengu
2008-12-08, 08:22 PM
Honestly it bothers me more that people expect a game to perfectly mirror real-world mechanics. There's enough of a passing nod to get by, but really, those details are best left as abstracted as possible for smooth gameplay.

If you want realism, play a system designed for it like GURPs.

why? why not make DnD real, it's pretty well-equipped for it, you just need to alter some rules, and add in more variants. besides playing reality with monsters and magic is fun. SCREW SMOOTH GAMEPLAY! WWWWWWWWWWWHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

mikeejimbo
2008-12-08, 08:23 PM
why? why not make DnD real, it's pretty well-equipped for it, you just need to alter some rules, and add in more variants. besides playing reality with monsters and magic is fun. SCREW SMOOTH GAMEPLAY! WWWWWWWWWWWHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

And incidentally, GURPS doesn't have to do realism, either. There's a lot you can do to speed up gameplay.

RPGuru1331
2008-12-08, 08:24 PM
Honestly it bothers me more that people expect a game to perfectly mirror real-world mechanics. There's enough of a passing nod to get by, but really, those details are best left as abstracted as possible for smooth gameplay.

If you want realism, play a system designed for it like GURPs.

Well, GURPs isn't perfect either, but modelling reality is a little difficult when we don't understand it.


why? why not make DnD real, it's pretty well-equipped for it, you just need to alter some rules, and add in more variants. besides playing reality with monsters and magic is fun. SCREW SMOOTH GAMEPLAY! WWWWWWWWWWWHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. If you are, a thousand pardons. If not, DnD is flatly not equipped for reality, in the slightest.

Innis Cabal
2008-12-08, 08:25 PM
why? why not make DnD real, it's pretty well-equipped for it, you just need to alter some rules, and add in more variants. besides playing reality with monsters and magic is fun. SCREW SMOOTH GAMEPLAY! WWWWWWWWWWWHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

But thats not what the thread is about.

I agree with BTV. This isn't real life. Its a game. Physics in a world where -BLOODY MAGIC(tm)- happens all the time...

ITS A GAME.

WaterTengu
2008-12-08, 08:25 PM
Well, GURPs isn't perfect either, but modelling reality is a little difficult when we don't understand it.


I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. If you are, a thousand pardons. If not, DnD is flatly not equipped for reality, in the slightest.

i'm not, and i've done it, as closely as possible while saying inside the lines of the system.

Magnor Criol
2008-12-08, 08:26 PM
Honestly it bothers me more that people expect a game to perfectly mirror real-world mechanics. There's enough of a passing nod to get by, but really, those details are best left as abstracted as possible for smooth gameplay.

If you want realism, play a system designed for it like GURPs.

Oh, I totally agree. In general, I really think that DnD does a pretty good job overall at making representations of life with simple die rolls. It's far from perfect, but it's really not a bad job overall, if you understand that almost everything is an abstraction.

But the point of this thread is to complain about things, not be reasonable about them. =p

Piedmon_Sama
2008-12-08, 08:27 PM
I hate bows (and ranged weapons in general) being gimped. There's a reason the Longbowman was one of the most feared (and reviled) soldiers of his day.

RPGuru1331
2008-12-08, 08:28 PM
i'm not, and i've done it, as closely as possible while saying inside the lines of the system.

....How? Just, how? The system isn't remotely similar to reality. IT doesn't bother me, but I don't want realism in my DnD. It's too much trouble to do things like "Oh, bill's using a rapier to attack the guy in full plate, that's utterly retarded, but there's going to be an AC Table for it anyway, where was it.."


I hate bows (and ranged weapons in general) being gimped. There's a reason the Longbowman was one of the most feared (and reviled) soldiers of his day.

Because you had lots of them, shooting them from much farther away then they could reach?

...Oh, right, the effective range is only like, 200 feet in DnD, ain't it?

WaterTengu
2008-12-08, 08:28 PM
I hate bows (and ranged weapons in general) being gimped. There's a reason the Longbowman was one of the most feared (and reviled) soldiers of his day.

OH i agree, the range is nowhere near long enough.

WaterTengu
2008-12-08, 08:32 PM
....How? Just, how? The system isn't remotely similar to reality. IT doesn't bother me, but I don't want realism in my DnD. It's too much trouble to do things like "Oh, bill's using a rapier to attack the guy in full plate, that's utterly retarded, but there's going to be an AC Table for it anyway, where was it.."

no, we still just use the general rules for the system, and that is + or - 2 or 4
all variables are a + or - 2 or 4

you may not want it, but i play with a bunch of historians.
so certain wepaons give a bonus to certain armor, and things like that

as for rapier against full plate, that is not completely retarded, so long as you are a high enough level to know what you are doing you could stab between the plates as there is historically normally chainmail between them.

RPGuru1331
2008-12-08, 08:33 PM
no, we still just use the general rules for the system, and that is + or - 2 or 4
all variables are a + or - 2 or 4

you may not want it, but i play with a bunch of historians.
so certain wepaons give a bonus to certain armor, and things like that

as for rapier against full plate, that is not completely retarded, so long as you are a high enough level to know what you are doing you could stab between the plates as there is historically normally chainmail between them.

Do.. your historians know about systems like rolemaster and whatnot?

WaterTengu
2008-12-08, 08:35 PM
Do.. your historians know about systems like rolemaster and whatnot?

*tilts head* we all just played DnD before we met each other, so we play that
but we are doing an L5R campaign now to test that system.

RebelRogue
2008-12-08, 08:35 PM
Well, GURPs isn't perfect either, but modelling reality is a little difficult when we don't understand it.
We certainly understand it on the scales that are relevant for a RPG involving macroscopic objects and disregarding magic! However, nobody wants to play a game this way (http://xkcd.com/505/)!

(Well, actually judging by some comments in certain 3.5 vs. 4th debates, maybe there might actually be some who'd want exactly that :smalltongue: But let's not turn this into another edition war)

Tacoma
2008-12-08, 08:39 PM
In reality the average single bowman wasn't effective at that range (200'). Modern pistols are only effective out to about half that range if you're practiced. And when I say "effective" I mean "people aren't safe walking around out there but you will not hit the dude you want to hit".

Archers were feared because - and I'm using the English bowman as an example - the person was a peasant milita dude who was required by law to train often with the bow. When war came, the army was made up of peasant levies, trained soldiers, elite knights, and mercenaries. But the English peasants made up an effective force of solid archers who while not trained as soldiers were still able to cut the butter. So the English were able to field an unfair and unbalanced force because they had a martial tradition of archery.

Crossbows were banned by Pope Innocent II because they could punch through plate armor, could be used without as much training as a bow, had a longer effective range, and in total leveled the field between the peasant and the knight far too much. People still used them but back then people feared the Pope. He did stuff.

And finally guns were even more easy to train peasants to use, which made them incredibly effective for untrained revolutionaries.



The mild iron arrowheads found at Agincourt (a battle between an invading English army and the resident French armies) were found unable to punch through the fine steel plates of the French knights under laboratory conditions. As it turns out, historians believe most of the fighting happened after the armies clashed, after the archers let fly a few times, and mob fluid dynamic theory accounts for most if not all casualties.

Their arrows were primarily effective when fired in a large group all at once, at a block unit of lightly armored enemy soldiers, preferably those unaware of the archers and not ready with their shields.

I'd give some other examples like bushmen considering 30 feet to be about effective range for hunting with a bow, or the Romans picking up conquered whoever it was and employing their archers in elite units because those people had a military tradition of archery. But I'm tired and lazy.

WaterTengu
2008-12-08, 08:42 PM
In reality the average single bowman wasn't effective at that range (200'). Modern pistols are only effective out to about half that range if you're practiced. And when I say "effective" I mean "people aren't safe walking around out there but you will not hit the dude you want to hit".






is that what range is in DnD, oh, oops. i always thought range was at what point shooting was useless.

Piedmon_Sama
2008-12-08, 08:48 PM
Because you had lots of them, shooting them from much farther away then they could reach?

...Oh, right, the effective range is only like, 200 feet in DnD, ain't it?

Because once you got good with a bow and arrow, you were death on legs. The English Yeomen, the Mongols, Byzantine Cataphracts, the tribesmen of Sudan, North American Indians, the Rajputs of India--hell, even the Samurai at one point--all made bows their primary weapon. Because you can get good enough to shoot a guy in the face with one every time. And I just wish it was possible to be that kind of stud in D&D, but the arrow always has to "skip off his shoulder!" or something to explain why it does pitiful damage every time.

Zeful
2008-12-08, 08:59 PM
Because once you got good with a bow and arrow, you were death on legs. The English Yeomen, the Mongols, Byzantine Cataphracts, the tribesmen of Sudan, North American Indians, the Rajputs of India--hell, even the Samurai at one point--all made bows their primary weapon. Because you can get good enough to shoot a guy in the face with one every time. And I just wish it was possible to be that kind of stud in D&D, but the arrow always has to "skip off his shoulder!" or something to explain why it does pitiful damage every time.

Except if you can do it, NPC's can do it. How would you like it if around 8th level you are instantly killed by the rogue from 30ft away that you can't even see?

The reason bow were given pitiful damage was because heroic fantasy (which D&D is based off mind you) was centered around the melee warriors, and mages, not archers.

Matthew
2008-12-08, 08:59 PM
A lot of crazy talk and popular myths starting to appear in this thread.

Longbowmen: These are not just peasant rabble trained to use long bows. For the most part they are professional soldiers little different in status from mercenary crossbowmen.

Crossbowmen: Crossbows and bows of all sorts were banned for use against fellow Christians by successive popes and councils. It speaks to virtually nothing about the effectiveness of the weapon.

Arrowheads: A lot of tests have been conducted over the years, but nothing conclusive has ever been found about arrows punching through armour because of the undetermined variables involved; it is one of the hottest topics in military history.

Rapiers Against Full Plate: Rapiers do not see significant battlefield use for good reason. Yes, if you were very lucky and very precise you might manage to penetrate the armour through a slit of some sort. More likely, the guy will kill you.

Scimitars: Scimitar is a word for sword, conventionally used in English to describe a one handed curved blade of central asian origin. It is not usually two handed by any stretch of the imagination. Shamshirs, tulwars and various other names may describe roughly the same thing, but mostly translate in their original language to "sword".

Katana: Katana are intended for two handed use in a similar manner as what are usually referred to as "long swords". That is to say, there are cuts and strikes that can be made with one hand on the hilt, but they generally were not intended for use with a shield or a second weapon.

Long Sword: The D&D "long sword" is what is commonly referred to as an "arming sword" or "knightly sword", but it is not entirely inaccurate to call them "long swords" either. However, modern weapon nomenclature usually uses "long sword" to refer to a type of sword conventionally not used with a shield or second weapon.

Two Handed Swords: Typically, a two handed sword will have a blade length anywhere from 36" to 60" and more. It's hilt will generally be no shorter than 9", but the longer the blade the longer the hilt. Modern weapon nomenclature is a minefield, but you could tentatively divide such weapons into "long sword", "great sword", and true "two handed sword". However, such distinctions are hardly universal.

For more information, follow these links:

Medieval Sword Forms (http://www.thearma.org/terms4.htm#Medieval%20&%20Renaissance%20Sword%20Forms%20and%20Companion%2 0Implements)
Albion Next Generation Swords (http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/swords-albion-mark-nextgen.htm) (modern reproductions for your comparison)
ARMA Articles (http://www.thearma.org/essays.htm)

See particularly: The weighty issue of two handed swords (http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html) and Talhoffer Longsword: Armoured and Unarmoured (http://www.thearma.org/essays/Talhoffer/HT-Web.htm), amongst others.

There is an excellent resource here at Giant in the Playground stickied for discussing this stuff, well worth your time: The Real World Weapon and Armour Questions and Answers Thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80863).

RPGuru1331
2008-12-08, 09:00 PM
The reason bow were given pitiful damage was because heroic fantasy (which D&D is based off mind you) was centered around the melee warriors, and mages, not archers.
Robin Hood and the Merry Men disagree, and are generally the poster boys of CG.

BRC
2008-12-08, 09:03 PM
Well, at low levels, DnD makes a decent amount of sense

Assuming your standard soldier is a 1st level warrior with a bonus to Con, he's got an average of 5hp. A Longsword or Waraxe (which we are given to believe are the standard melee weapons) wielded by somebody with a bonus to Str deals an average of 5 damage. So one good chop from a waraxe can drop somebody to 0 or negatives, which if we extrapolate that too "Disabled and probably dying of blood loss" isn't that unrealistic as things go.


It's at higher levels where people could shrug off a ballista bolt that things get ridiculous.

Piedmon_Sama
2008-12-08, 09:06 PM
Except if you can do it, NPC's can do it. How would you like it if around 8th level you are instantly killed by the rogue from 30ft away that you can't even see?

If you were enough of a 'tard to walk into a trained bowman's sights, you deserve what you get.

Play it smart, stay alert, keep a set of eyes in the back of your head, and you live. You don't? Arrow to the face. Sounds like a fun game to me.


The reason bow were given pitiful damage was because heroic fantasy (which D&D is based off mind you) was centered around the melee warriors, and mages, not archers.

Like RPGuru said, Robin Hood is just one of plenty of mythical/folk heroes who used bows (such as Heracles, Paris of Troy, Arjuna, and Rama to name a few).

WaterTengu
2008-12-08, 09:06 PM
Rapiers Against Full Plate: Rapiers do not see significant battlefield use for good reason. Yes, if you were very lucky and very precise you might manage to penetrate the armour through a slit of some sort. More likely, the guy will kill you.

Scimitars: Scimitar is a word for sword, conventionally used in English to describe a one handed curved blade of central asian origin. It is not usually two handed by any stretch of the imagination. Shamshirs, tulwars and various other names may describe roughly the same thing, but mostly translate in their original language to "sword".

Katana: Katana are intended for two handed use in a simialr manner as what are usually referred to as long swords these days. That is to say, there are cuts and strikes that can be made with one hand on the hilt, but they generally were not intended for use with a shield or a second weapon.




1. we are talking battlefield, we are talking combat, so there are of course differences. and i agree with you, most of the time you are right, im just a nut, so i will take off like 1 AC from the plate, unless it is built with no space in the front, but being connected in the back, but that costs more.
2. it is used that way, but in general i have heard the words scimitar and shamshir not used inter-changedly in the middle east today or in period sources.
3. that is the tachi, they were a tad longer than the katana, but the katana is a perfect hand-and-a-half sword. they were used interchangedly, but one definitely needs training to use one effectively one-handed, as it was with the bastard sword.

Matthew
2008-12-08, 09:12 PM
1. we are talking battlefield, we are talking combat, so there are of course differences. and i agree with you, most of the time you are right, im just a nut, so i will take off like 1 AC from the plate, unless it is built with no space in the front, but being connected in the back, but that costs more.

I have no problem with folks doing whatever they want to do.



2. it is used that way, but in general i have heard the words scimitar and shamshir not used inter-changedly in the middle east today or in period sources.

It may well be the case that these words are not used interchangably in the middle east. Scimitar is an English word of uncertain origin, postulated to be possibly a corruption of shamshir.



3. that is the tachi, they were a tad longer than the katana, but the katana is a perfect hand-and-a-half sword. they were used interchangedly, but one definitely needs training to use one effectively one-handed, as it was with the bastard sword.

Believe me, I know the difference between a tachi and a katana; the latter is not a hand and a half sword. Out of interest, though, what makes you think that it is?

Brainfart
2008-12-08, 09:13 PM
Arrowheads: A lot of tests have been conducted over the years, but nothing conclusive has ever been found about arrows punching through armour because of the undetermined variables involved; it is one of the hottest topics in military history.


I remember watching 'Weapons that Made Britain', and some tests were conducted in the 'Longbow' and 'Armour' episodes. The (normal, i.e. not AP) arrows fired from an air-cannon under controlled conditions could penetrate a munitions steel breastplate at short range, but barely punctured the later hardened/tempered steel. It's certainly not conclusive, but I hope it helps.

Also, I found this (http://www.royalarmouries.org/what-we-do/research/analytical-projects/armour-piercing-arrowheads) link on AP arrows, which suggests that contrary to popular belief, bodkins weren't intended for use against heavy armour.

WaterTengu
2008-12-08, 09:14 PM
I have no problem with folks doing whatever they want to do.


It may well be the case that these words are not used interchangably in the middle east. Scimitar is an English word of uncertain origin, postulated to be possibly a corruption of shamshir.


Believe me, I know the difference between a tachi and a katana; the latter is not a hand and a half sword. Out of interest, though, what makes you think that it is?

with period scrolls and depictions they tend to be used in various ways, dpending on the clan and the teachings therein. many depict them used single-handed and the other used to hold another weapon, holding a wound shut, or even just empty. many sohei were famous for their one-handed katana forms.

Matthew
2008-12-08, 09:17 PM
I remember watching 'Weapons that Made Britain', and some tests were conducted in the 'Longbow' and 'Armour' episodes. The (normal, i.e. not AP) arrows fired from an air-cannon under controlled conditions could penetrate a munitions steel breastplate at short range, but barely punctured the later hardened/tempered steel. It's certainly not conclusive, but I hope it helps.

They definitely can do it, the question is always at what range and with what frequency versus what sort of body armour? Good series that, by the by; there is a website maintaining some of the results here: Weapons that made Britain (http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/W/weapons/index.html).



Also, I found this (http://www.royalarmouries.org/what-we-do/research/analytical-projects/armour-piercing-arrowheads) link on AP arrows, which suggests that contrary to popular belief, bodkins weren't intended for use against heavy armour.

A really interesting subject, because you would think bodkin arrows would be even more effective against mail armour than plate.



with period scrolls and depictions they tend to be used in various ways, dpending on the clan and the teachings therein. many depict them used single-handed and the other used to hold another weapon, holding a wound shut, or even just empty. many sohei were famous for their one-handed katana forms.

They certainly can be held with one hand, and there are cuts and strikes designed for one handed attack, such as the draw cut, but the predominant form with katana always reverts back to two hands. They cannot be described as "hand and a half swords" mainly on account of the length of the grip. In the Edo period you get the "school of two swords", but that is putting the weapon to uses for which it was not designed (which is not to say it cannot be effective).

RPGuru1331
2008-12-08, 09:20 PM
Like RPGuru said, Robin Hood is just one of plenty of mythical/folk heroes who used bows (such as Heracles, Paris of Troy, Arjuna, and Rama to name a few).
I had forgotten Arjuna. Question is, how many DnDers could tell you who he is, without Wikipedia :smallbiggrin: (Or just people in the west, really)

WaterTengu
2008-12-08, 09:21 PM
A really interesting subject, because you would think bodkin arrows would be even more effective against mail armour than plate.

but the small impact space would, i'm just trying to think of some reason, punch hole, albeit a small one.

WaterTengu
2008-12-08, 09:24 PM
I had forgotten Arjuna. Question is, how many DnDers could tell you who he is, without Wikipedia :smallbiggrin: (Or just people in the west, really)

as in Earth Girl Arujuna, the anime?

Matthew
2008-12-08, 09:27 PM
but the small impact space would, i'm just trying to think of some reason, punch hole, albeit a small one.

From what I have seen of tests, the most likely reason is "layered armour". A bodkin will go through mail well enough, but it has limited cutting power to get through the textile armour underneath. Once you start seeing plate armour, though, the primary concern becomes getting through the plate, which is when you start to see "pile" arrows. It may be for this reason, that textile armour started to be worn over mail in the late medieval period. Just guesses, though.

One interesting thing about one of the descriptions (http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/sources/agincourt.htm) of the battle at Agincourt is that the French advanced with their heads bowed to avoid arrows going through their visors. That speaks to a significant confidence in the tops of their helmets!

RPGuru1331
2008-12-08, 09:35 PM
as in Earth Girl Arujuna, the anime?

No, though I'm sure she's named for him. Arjuna was the hero of the Upanishads, and quite a badass, after Krishna got him to stop whining.

Zeful
2008-12-08, 11:05 PM
If you were enough of a 'tard to walk into a trained bowman's sights, you deserve what you get.
So MMM/Rope trick strategies? Because if bow instadeath is a valid tactic, everyone will use it, meaning walking outside, or by a window, will mean death for the heroic adventurer. It's either that or villains take another hit from the idiot ball to even make the higher levels accessible.


Play it smart, stay alert, keep a set of eyes in the back of your head, and you live. You don't? Arrow to the face. Sounds like a fun game to me.
Right, because there are just as many ways to boost spot as there is hide. By following 30ft away from a group an assassin can get a minimum +3 to hide while only taking a -3 to spot. 50 or 100ft? It's possible to trail a group based on it's most visible member, most likely a cleric, or fighter (who has a -4 or -5 to hide because of heavy armor, lack of hide as a class skill, and less focus on Dex than a rogue) and take out the wizard/rogue once you set down, killing everybody else at their leisure. All before a wizard can get access to teleport.

Piedmon_Sama
2008-12-08, 11:54 PM
So MMM/Rope trick strategies? Because if bow instadeath is a valid tactic, everyone will use it, meaning walking outside, or by a window, will mean death for the heroic adventurer. It's either that or villains take another hit from the idiot ball to even make the higher levels accessible.

Most soldiers throughout history have primarily employed ranged weapons for a good reason. But not all adventures take place on a battlefield. There are some places where a bow or crossbow will be inappropriate or useless--at court, where you may have to defend your honor in a sword duel, or if you're on an assassination mission and need concealable weapons. My point is, even if you ramped up the bow there would still be times and places where it would be useless.

EDIT: This is just assuming there are no legal prohibitions against walking around with a bow or crossbow, which again were pretty well extant for obvious reasons.


Right, because there are just as many ways to boost spot as there is hide. By following 30ft away from a group an assassin can get a minimum +3 to hide while only taking a -3 to spot. 50 or 100ft? It's possible to trail a group based on it's most visible member, most likely a cleric, or fighter (who has a -4 or -5 to hide because of heavy armor, lack of hide as a class skill, and less focus on Dex than a rogue) and take out the wizard/rogue once you set down, killing everybody else at their leisure. All before a wizard can get access to teleport.

Uh, I think in most scenarios, if your assassin is behind cover then the PCs can get out of his line of sight after the first shot in fairly short order....

Mark Hall
2008-12-09, 12:02 AM
Well, I just fail to see why most of these things would truly bother anyone but historians or archaeologists... :shrugs: Not trying to take away from the informative nature of this thread, just pointing out that few would really care.

I am a historian. For six years, I was married to an archaeologist. Both of us specialized in the early Middle Ages.

Zeful
2008-12-09, 12:28 AM
Most soldiers throughout history have primarily employed ranged weapons for a good reason. But not all adventures take place on a battlefield. There are some places where a bow or crossbow will be inappropriate or useless--at court, where you may have to defend your honor in a sword duel, or if you're on an assassination mission and need concealable weapons. My point is, even if you ramped up the bow there would still be times and places where it would be useless.

Uh, I think in most scenarios, if your assassin is behind cover than the PCs can get out of his line of sight after the first shot in fairly short order....
True, but in that one shot, you lost your Wizard. So unless the Rogue has a scroll of Protection from arrows, or maxed out hide himself he's likely to go down next turn. Your Cleric has no chance of hiding with his armor on due to the check penalty, so he has to stay out of Line of sight. And since he's unlikely to find the culprit with a spot check, he's relegated to risking his head to fight. Bow Instadeath with a moderately intelligent user will TPK, every single time. Simply because running only delays the inevitable, it doesn't actually save you.

Prak
2008-12-09, 12:43 AM
Splint and/or Banded Mail (there's no such thing Charles Ffolkes! :smallannoyed: )

4E MM Bear Lore

3E weapons, particularly double weapons

http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Bear_Lore (NSFW)

Piedmon_Sama
2008-12-09, 01:05 AM
True, but in that one shot, you lost your Wizard. So unless the Rogue has a scroll of Protection from arrows, or maxed out hide himself he's likely to go down next turn. Your Cleric has no chance of hiding with his armor on due to the check penalty, so he has to stay out of Line of sight. And since he's unlikely to find the culprit with a spot check, he's relegated to risking his head to fight. Bow Instadeath with a moderately intelligent user will TPK, every single time. Simply because running only delays the inevitable, it doesn't actually save you.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. So a guy with a crossbow and a vantage point can take out a bunch of guys he gets the drop on? Yes, that's always been the case, so?

Zeful
2008-12-09, 01:19 AM
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. So a guy with a crossbow and a vantage point can take out a bunch of guys he gets the drop on? Yes, that's always been the case, so?

My point is you have to hit the Villians with the Idiot Ball (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IdiotBall) to keep them from massacring the players at level 8 if you give bows an instadeath option. Why should my genius level villains (16+int) not use a valid tactic that makes perfect sense to use? If my players do something stupid, then I'm not bothered by teaching them the lesson of Stupidity Kills (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TooDumbToLive). The same goes for my villains, but a 30+ Int Wizard will not fall prey to it. He's too damn smart to!

The game is based around everyone having fun. Arbitrarily handicapping my villains does not for me a fun game make. Neither does a moderately smart villain TPKing the party simply for reaching level 8 (or 10, whatever) make a fun game for the players.

lisiecki
2008-12-09, 01:22 AM
there's no way your going to even have a 1% chance of finding a high class call girl wandering the streets at night, and far more than 10% that your going to find a cheap trollop or a saucy tart.

And whats an aged madam doing out at night wandering the streets any ways?

random11
2008-12-09, 01:45 AM
I don't care about mistakes such as items' weight. It never gets calculated in any way, so I hardly notice it anyway.

When it comes to animals, I don't consider it as a mistake. Instead, as I say it to players: "This is not a wolf, this is an animal that for the sake of simplicity, I use the word 'wolf' so you can understand how it looks".
This approach has two advantages:
1) The player needs to use his character's animal lore instead of his private knowledge (this is also a reason why I never use the exact description and stats as written in rulebooks)
2) It helps the DM to create his world without people constantly arguing about what something is "supposed" to be like. It is unrealistic to expect anyone to know about physics, chemistry, history, archeology, botany and zoology, even if it is only on trivia question levels.

I do like realism, which is also why I prefer more realistic systems such as GURPS over heroic ones like D&D, but I also know that regardless of what system I use, a fantasy world of adventures will never be, and should never be like the real world in every aspect.

Piedmon_Sama
2008-12-09, 01:51 AM
My point is you have to hit the Villians with the Idiot Ball (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IdiotBall) to keep them from massacring the players at level 8 if you give bows an instadeath option. Why should my genius level villains (16+int) not use a valid tactic that makes perfect sense to use? If my players do something stupid, then I'm not bothered by teaching them the lesson of Stupidity Kills (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TooDumbToLive). The same goes for my villains, but a 30+ Int Wizard will not fall prey to it. He's too damn smart to!

The game is based around everyone having fun. Arbitrarily handicapping my villains does not for me a fun game make. Neither does a moderately smart villain TPKing the party simply for reaching level 8 (or 10, whatever) make a fun game for the players.

You're like, way past what I was talking about. I wouldn't make bows and crossbows "instant death," I would want to make them not suck. But yes, if you're caught dead-to-rights by a man with a bow, crossbow or pistol that should be a very bad place to be. It shouldn't be all that hard to avoid getting into that position, however, unless you drop your guard. And unless you're fighting in salt flats or something, cover is not all that hard to come by (not to mention this is exactly what Tower Shields are for). Ammo can run out, people can creep towards the enemy using Move Silently, or characters with big honor or egos can call each other out for honorable melee. There's still plenty of room for 1337 sword-skills in a more realistic setting.

Magic, of course, changes the whole thing. When I DM I usually make Clerics, Wizards, etc. so rare that they're generally not taken into account by commanders. It's just a whole lot easier to do it that way than think through what all 1-3 level spells being easily available would entail (for war and society).

Enlong
2008-12-09, 01:52 AM
3.5's drowning rules.

Specifically the lack of rules to stop drowning once it's started.

Zeful
2008-12-09, 02:00 AM
You're like, way past what I was talking about. I wouldn't make bows and crossbows "instant death," I would want to make them not suck. But yes, if you're caught dead-to-rights by a man with a bow, crossbow or pistol that should be a very bad place to be. It shouldn't be all that hard to avoid getting into that position, however, unless you drop your guard. And unless you're fighting in salt flats or something, cover is not all that hard to come by (not to mention this is exactly what Tower Shields are for). Ammo can run out, people can creep towards the enemy using Move Silently, or characters with big honor or egos can call each other out for honorable melee. There's still plenty of room for 1337 sword-skills in a more realistic setting.
I see, I didn't notice a change in focus. Yes bows suck, no it wouldn't be bad if a cross/bow did 2d8 (or 3d4, whatever) damage.


Magic, of course, changes the whole thing. When I DM I usually make Clerics, Wizards, etc. so rare that they're generally not taken into account by commanders. It's just a whole lot easier to do it that way than think through what all 1-3 level spells being easily available would entail (for war and society).
This is a different can of worms. Magic in D&D is very easy to use, much like most modern PCs Operating Systems (Ever use DOS?) any idiot can use it. This should not be true. Magic should be more like the 2nd ed system, with larger time requirements, penalties for you'd-be-stupid-if-you-didn't-learn-this-spell, and bigger risks for failure.

Sebastian
2008-12-09, 03:54 AM
1d6 falling damage per ten feet. The problem I have with this is not the existence of falling damage, but that it does 1d6 for the first 10. This means that a ten foot fall will kill a tough untrained human (commoner with decent con who fails the jump check to negate the damage) every time. Perhaps 1d3 for the first ten would be better.
you are forgetting that

a) they can still roll a 1
b) they can actually succed that Jump check, turning it in non-lethal damage
c) even going to negative HP don't necessarily kill them. They can still stabilize.

about the question, a thing that annoy me are arrow wound more specificaly that there are no rules, even if optional, to remove the arrow from the wound once it stick into you. to be fair that is not a problem limited to D&D, I have not found a single RPG that include rules for it, not even the supposedly more "realistic" ones like GURPS.

Shademan
2008-12-09, 04:38 AM
what annoys me? well in arms and equipment guide the brigandine is listed as a very clumsy armour that is INFERIOR to lamellar! UNACCEPTABLE, I SAY!
it was one of the most dexterous medium armours (you could run at full speed in it) out there and the lamellar was intended to be used on horseback against foes at lower altitude than yourself!
RAGE!

Kemper Boyd
2008-12-09, 05:13 AM
It has always sort of annoyed me that the D&D rules are completely unable to cope with situations like this:

You are trying to pick a lock. You don't have a weapon in your hand. You hear someone clearing his throat behind you, you turn. There is a guardsman with a crossbow pointed at your chest.

In real life, you are screwed. In D&D, not so much.

Oslecamo
2008-12-09, 05:18 AM
My point is you have to hit the Villians with the Idiot Ball (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IdiotBall) to keep them from massacring the players at level 8 if you give bows an instadeath option. Why should my genius level villains (16+int) not use a valid tactic that makes perfect sense to use? If my players do something stupid, then I'm not bothered by teaching them the lesson of Stupidity Kills (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TooDumbToLive). The same goes for my villains, but a 30+ Int Wizard will not fall prey to it. He's too damn smart to!


Because int isn't the only mental stat. Just because you have high int it doesn't mean you're life-smart. There's also wisdom and charisma for that. Your wizard knows how to kill the PCs. He just isn't wise enough to know he should kill the PCs right now nor charismatic enough to want to kill the PCs.

Also, the party isn't the only enemy of the BBEG. Perhaps he is too busy with those solars constantly trying to take him down.

BardicDuelist
2008-12-09, 05:29 AM
I'm confused about longswords. In real life, they're two handed swords. You couldn't weild a bastard sword one handed. THere's not enough strength in the arm. Furthermore, aren't longswords supposed to be six feet long?

HWAH? Um...no. Not at all. In fact, that's more inaccurate than the D&D depictions. I believe it was explained better already, but no. Just no.

6ft long sword? Yes they existed. They were used against people on horseback by people on foot. Once the person was unhorsed, they dropped the unwieldy thing and usually hit them with a blunt object or stabbed them in the face with a dagger.

BardicDuelist
2008-12-09, 05:35 AM
They have a long handle that facilitates two-handed use. They could also be used one-handed. A two-handed grip feels more natural as your other hand does something.

I found an article on it from these guys (http://www.swordacademy.com/weapons-longsword/index.html).

"Those guys" aren't necessarily a credible source...

Two-handed swords weren't used very often (although they were used), primarily because a shield was a better idea, or those that could afford a sword were on horse. Situations with people fighting like depicted on the website linked to were rather rare.

Tengu_temp
2008-12-09, 05:35 AM
The fact that DND does poorly at depicting real world does not annoy me.

The fact that DND (pre-4e, at least) does poorly at depicting a heroic, high fantasy setting does annoy me. Oh so very much.

Spiryt
2008-12-09, 05:39 AM
Two-handed swords weren't used very often (although they were used), primarily because a shield was a better idea, or those that could afford a sword were on horse. Situations with people fighting like depicted on the website linked to were rather rare.

Rather rare? Whole swordmanship schools existed just to teach people art of unarmed civilian duel with longsword. :smallconfused:

BardicDuelist
2008-12-09, 05:56 AM
Rather rare? Whole swordmanship schools existed just to teach people art of unarmed civilian duel with longsword. :smallconfused:

Yes, whole schools existed to teach that. However, not with swords of those sizes (which were up to the men's shoulders).

What do you mean by "unarmed civilian duel with longsword?" If the person is unarmed, they lack a longsword, and most civilians would not have longswords either. In fact, most people did not have longswords.

I am not saying that fights like that didn't happen, but they weren't common.

These schools that you talk about, I assume, are primarily the German ones, such as Blossfechten. While they certainly existed, historical accounts of duels or fights happening in the way depicted on the website are sparse to non-existent.

Roderick_BR
2008-12-09, 08:06 AM
Stuff
We can also point out how people doesn't actually jump off rooftops. They sit on a corner, and try to slip down, reducing as much as possible the distance between their legs and ther floor. And even then some people break legs, etc. for examples on how people minimize this sort of accident in their day-to-day.
So the fall damage is based on actually falling from an high height (like just walking off the rooftop), and falling flat on a hard surface.
Not forgetting people in real life that fall less than 4 ft, and break necks, backs, etc. as Tacoma said. Hospitals are full of people like that.

Now, ridiculous things... well, the way HP works would be the first in the list. I'd say it's a very holywoodian thing, and let it at that.

How about speed? Initiative, Dexterity, Reflex, Movement, extra attacks by having an high BaB. Most of these have little to no relation.

Kemper Boyd
2008-12-09, 11:03 AM
Now, ridiculous things... well, the way HP works would be the first in the list. I'd say it's a very holywoodian thing, and let it at that.

HP works well enough and it's realistic enough. Attempting to emulate real-life injuries is kludgy and terrible and an abstracted system is better for gaming. However, HP-based systems don't really take into account things like it's really hard to be just lightly wounded from certain sources and there's injuries that can't really kill you but they can hinder you from acting at full efficiency.

Fhaolan
2008-12-09, 04:06 PM
Splint and/or Banded Mail (there's no such thing Charles Ffolkes! :smallannoyed: )


Actually... there is, providing you look at Eastern European armour, Turkish, Byzantine, etc. The Armenian Heavy Calvalry used armour that is sufficiently similar to D&D banded armour to count in my opinion. The Vagarian Guard of Norsemen in Byzantine had armour that would probably count as splint.

Yes, the stuff is exceedingly rare in the typical Western European regions, but it did technically exist. And the statistics for the D&D equivalents are all weird. But the *concept* is valid.

Mark Hall
2008-12-09, 04:34 PM
Splint and/or Banded Mail (there's no such thing Charles Ffolkes! :smallannoyed: )

The Roman Army disagrees with you. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorica_segmentata)

Hzurr
2008-12-09, 05:04 PM
The Roman Army disagrees with you. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorica_segmentata)

But if it makes you feel better, the Roman army disagreed with a lot of people.

Zeful
2008-12-09, 05:04 PM
Because int isn't the only mental stat. Just because you have high int it doesn't mean you're life-smart. There's also wisdom and charisma for that. Your wizard knows how to kill the PCs. He just isn't wise enough to know he should kill the PCs right now nor charismatic enough to want to kill the PCs.

Also, the party isn't the only enemy of the BBEG. Perhaps he is too busy with those solars constantly trying to take him down.

Yes but an average wis (10-11) means your not going to go: "Oh these guys are being a nuisance and ruining my plans, I won't kill them in the hopes that find their efforts futile in the long run." Charisma is confidence

And just because the wizard has other enemies, doesn't mean he can't just conjure up a simulacrum or two of ancient gold dragons and have them hunt down the party.

Fhaolan
2008-12-09, 05:06 PM
Splint and/or Banded Mail (there's no such thing Charles Ffolkes! :smallannoyed: )


Actually... there is, providing you look at Eastern European armour, Turkish, Byzantine, etc. It all depends on how exactly you define banded, and splint. The Armenian Heavy Calvalry used armour that is sufficiently similar to D&D banded armour to count in my opinion. It was usually limited to arm and leg armour, with the body being lamilar. The Vagarian Guard of Norsemen in Byzantine had armour that would probably count as splint. Non-overlapping strips of metal either on a leather backing for arms and legs, or a maille backing for the body. Splint barding for horses, with splints on maille backing was common throughout Eastern Europe.

Yes, the stuff is exceedingly rare in the typical Western European regions, but it did technically exist. And the statistics for the D&D equivalents are all weird. But the *concept* is valid.

Oslecamo
2008-12-09, 05:14 PM
The fact that DND does poorly at depicting real world does not annoy me.

The fact that DND (pre-4e, at least) does poorly at depicting a heroic, high fantasy setting does annoy me. Oh so very much.

What's exactly missing for you, just out of curiosity? Could you be a little more specific?

Killing big monsters in creative ways...Check.

Swimming in lava... Check.

Killing people with your good looks...Check.

Cuting tanks/other hard stuff in half with swords...Check.

Big explosions...Check.

Power behind your wildest dreams...Check.

Zeful: 10-11 wisdom means you recognize the party is a threat, but aren't willing to to spend too much atention on them.

So instead of a super expensive dragon simulacrum, you send a bunch of orcs/medium level NPCs/ other random monster you had laying there.

This is, isn't what it happens in 99% of the fantasy stories out there? The BBEG keeps sending stronger and stronger minions to face the party in regular intervals, allowing the party to develop their abilities. He never sends a super strong minion to face the beggining party. And thus random ecounters are born.:smalltongue:

AslanCross
2008-12-09, 05:23 PM
I had forgotten Arjuna. Question is, how many DnDers could tell you who he is, without Wikipedia :smallbiggrin: (Or just people in the west, really)

One of the five brothers in the Mahabharata. He was a skilled archer and the son of Indra. His companion was Krishna, avatar of Vishnu.

Rama was himself an incarnation of Vishnu, from the Ramayana.

If I'm not mistaken, both have used the Brahmastra, an incredibly powerful blessed arrow that was described in some places to have the effect of a nuke.

(I teach Asian lit, and in our school we stage productions of the Ramayana every year.)

theMycon
2008-12-09, 05:47 PM
there's no way your going to even have a 1% chance of finding a high class call girl wandering the streets at nightWell, there is... just not on business seeking work. She's a call girl, you have a middleman call for her. That doesn't mean she never needs to run to the grocery store at 3AM to pick up a bottle of Italian dressing.

Kemper Boyd
2008-12-10, 07:03 AM
Lots of people seem to go all "it's a fantasy game with wizards so there is no need for realism" which is wrong.

The problem with D&D is that it has too much baggage from previous editions which should be addressed in the name of versimilitude. Stuff like swords should be expensive, spears should be better then they are and reach weapons in general should be handled better.

Also fixing the gold-based economy would be pretty good.

warmachine
2008-12-10, 09:42 AM
In 4e, that moving diagonally only costs 1 square. I find it condescending that WotC thinks counting in alternate 1 square/2 square costs is too difficult in combat.

Blackfang108
2008-12-10, 09:51 AM
In 4e, that moving diagonally only costs 1 square. I find it condescending that WotC thinks counting in alternate 1 square/2 square costs is too difficult in combat.

I find it amusing that you find it condescending.

because this is something that you have to go out of your way to feel condescended towards.

Tengu_temp
2008-12-10, 10:27 AM
What's exactly missing for you, just out of curiosity? Could you be a little more specific?


Characters are too reliant on magical items. Casters are too overpowered and make non-casters obsolete. Specialization is rewarded to such a point that being versatile means there's nothing you're good at (unless you're a caster or factotum), and therefore suck.

There are some lesser elements, but those three are my main gripes.

Immutep
2008-12-10, 10:35 AM
A "smallsword" was a very light sword meant mainly for fighting people who wore no armor and certainly not those wearing plate armor. They were used in the days after the gun conquered the battlefield and people largely stopped wearing heavier armor.

A "long sword" or "broad sword" was slightly longer but heavier, meant to slice unarmored folk and break the bones of people through their chain or plate armor. But at the height of plate armor design, even a sword couldn't "cut it" and wearers of plate armor were killed mainly by being unhorsed and forced to thr ground by multiple attackers, who then struck through the chinks in the armor and the helmet with daggers and beat upon him with blunt weapons. Even the average arrow made of mild iron couldn't pierce the French plate at Agincourt - as in, zero damage on a critical, buddy. Occasionally these swords would be wielded with both hands, and the hilt could be long enough to comfortably accomodate both.

A "greatsword", "claymore" or whatever was meant to be a two handed weapon only. It was simply too heavy and large to wield without both hands. It was used much more like a spear than a slicing weapon, and required a great deal of space and wielder mobility around his opponent if he wasn't straight-up piercing with it.

smallsword - about as long as your whole arm.
longsword - a few inches longer but bigger on the whole
greatsword - as long as the wielder is tall, including the entire handle. possibly slightly longer.


Almost entirely correct. Except, that two handed weapons were used with a Gyroscopic motion which allowed the weight to work in the wielders favour, so not really anything like a spear. And Whilst arrows that were used for hunting (which i suppose you could class as average) might not have penetrated plate armour in the period of agincourt, the arrows they used for war certainly could and did. Otherwise things would have gone very differently.

Almost forgot my Grievences, V3.5 (all i know) The fact that an empty flask weighs 1-1/2 pounds and soap weighs 1 pound. Some of the kit in the goods and services list mean if you wanted to live comfortably on the move, you couldn't carry anything else like weapons. Change of clothes?! Forget it!

warmachine
2008-12-10, 10:42 AM
I find it amusing that you find it [4e diagonals only cost 1 square] condescending.

because this is something that you have to go out of your way to feel condescended towards.
To me it's not. I'm all in favour of gameplay being more important than accuracy but the inaccuracy of 4e diagonal movement is obvious on the battlegrid just by looking at it in action. Yet the simple fix is, seemingly, too complicated. I don't have to go out of my way, it finds me when the apparant, visible distance between you and the enemy isn't so large because he's moving diagonally.

kamikasei
2008-12-10, 10:45 AM
Almost forgot my Grievences, V3.5 (all i know) The fact that an empty flask weighs 1-1/2 pounds and soap weighs 1 pound. Some of the kit in the goods and services list mean if you wanted to live comfortably on the move, you couldn't carry anything else like weapons. Change of clothes?! Forget it!

I second this peeve.

Blackfang108
2008-12-10, 10:53 AM
To me it's not. I'm all in favour of gameplay being more important than accuracy but the inaccuracy of 4e diagonal movement is obvious on the battlegrid just by looking at it in action. Yet the simple fix is, seemingly, too complicated. I don't have to go out of my way, it finds me when the apparant, visible distance between you and the enemy isn't so large because he's moving diagonally.

then houserule it.

nothing's chiseled in stone.

and even if it were, Hammers exist for a reason.

grow some thicker skin and realize that not everything is condescending against you.

Diamondeye
2008-12-10, 11:09 AM
Things that annoy me: (3.5)

Dire Flails.
Orcish Double Axes.
Double swords (to a lesser degree)

Pretty much the entire armor chart. There's really only 3 or 4 worthwhile armors on the whole thing depending what class you are, and with mithril it becomes pretty much trivial to get armor heavier than your class ought to have reasonably early in your adventuring career. In order to make most of the armor types useful I had to re-work most of the chart and the properties of the armor, the most major step being shifting breastplate to heavy and banded to medium. I also removed mithril's ability to shift an armor's weight category, although it retains all its other nice properties.

The incredibly feat-intensive nature of 2-weapon fighting, and its tendency to force people into using light weapons and having high DEX scores. This took considerable re-working as well. From all I've heard, learning to fight with 2 weapons is not nealy the accomplishment D&D makes it seem like, and in any case, if people think its cool to fight that way, they shouldn't need to devote so much of their character development to just being able to do it in the first place.

Oslecamo
2008-12-10, 11:31 AM
Characters are too reliant on magical items. Casters are too overpowered and make non-casters obsolete. Specialization is rewarded to such a point that being versatile means there's nothing you're good at (unless you're a caster or factotum), and therefore suck.

There are some lesser elements, but those three are my main gripes.

Well, but as far as I see, in 4e you still need lots of items to be effective, and you're still greatly rewarded for specializing in something(I'm looking at you 4e fighter!). Items have been weakened in 4e, but since everything else has also been weakened, items remain as importat as ever.


Diamondeye: Two words:chainmail bikini. There are people who think it's cool. But few DMs will be willing to give you +10 armor bonus for wearing just a loincloth and a small strip of metal.

As for TWF, well, how many armies you see out there that use soldiers specialized in using two weapons at the same time? I think it explains why TWF demands a lot more work to use

And you can still use two weapons at the same time whitout any feats. You'll just suck at it, but well, your fighter isn't going to learn how to properly shoot fireballs just because you think it's cool right?

kjones
2008-12-10, 11:36 AM
The incredibly feat-intensive nature of 2-weapon fighting, and its tendency to force people into using light weapons and having high DEX scores. This took considerable re-working as well. From all I've heard, learning to fight with 2 weapons is not nealy the accomplishment D&D makes it seem like, and in any case, if people think its cool to fight that way, they shouldn't need to devote so much of their character development to just being able to do it in the first place.

From my understanding, when people historically fought with two weapons, it usually wasn't "I hit you with the sword in my right hand, I hit you with the sword in my left hand". You would have, say, a dagger in your off-hand which you would use to parry or otherwise assist your main-hand attacks.

D&D 3.5 does not model this well. (Ironically, 4e kind of does, except with rangers.)

DigoDragon
2008-12-10, 12:10 PM
ITS A GAME.

**soft clapping from the audience of catgirls**

I agree, it is just a game and in order for game mechanics to be playable there does need to be consessions made to simplify math and physics. :smallsmile: I don't mind most of the depictions mentioned, it doesn't annoy me much at all nor prevent me from having fun.

Tengu_temp
2008-12-10, 12:32 PM
Well, but as far as I see, in 4e you still need lots of items to be effective, and you're still greatly rewarded for specializing in something(I'm looking at you 4e fighter!). Items have been weakened in 4e, but since everything else has also been weakened, items remain as importat as ever.


Compare the number of magic items a 4e character needs to be effective the the number a 3.5 character needs to be effective. The first is much lower.

4e favours versatility more than 3.5 because:
1. Feats are less powerful, and therefore you can afford to buy feats to improve your versatility.
2. Each class has useful skills, and getting new skills is easy.
3. Multiclassing is more limited, but you gain full-strength powers that way, instead of getting mostly useless stuff while weakening your base class at the same time.
In 4e, it is possible to play a fighter who's good at sneaking and dabbles in some magic. In 3.5, such a character would suck.

warmachine
2008-12-10, 12:43 PM
That you can't spells more frequently by standing still rather than moving. Yeah, I know the gameplay reasons but being unable to use the time consumed in move actions for standard actions annoys me.

Doug Lampert
2008-12-10, 12:48 PM
I hate bows (and ranged weapons in general) being gimped. There's a reason the Longbowman was one of the most feared (and reviled) soldiers of his day.

More feared than the guys his employer would RATHER HAVE HAD instead?

Historically the English crown would allow limited substitutions of longbowmen for men-at-arms at two longbowmen substituting for one man-at-arms for the same (total) pay. But units still had a minimum number of men-at-arms to make sure they brought some good troops to go with all those archers...

That's how good the people who knew BEST how good a longbowman thought he was, almost half as good as a real man-at-arms. And AFAIK this was consistent in hiring contracts for well over a century both for the Hundred Years War and the War of the Roses.

The reason the English could win outnumbered 7:1 is that they were a disciplined professional army and their opponents weren't, and that matters far more than weapon choice. (It's also why they lost the Hundred Years War, they couldn't garrison their conquests adequately.)

Arrows unhorsed mounted men (you CAN'T armor a horse all that well), they disorganized formations, they were better than crossbows against anything but the very best armors (better rate of fire), but bows weren't a wonder weapon.


I see, I didn't notice a change in focus. Yes bows suck, no it wouldn't be bad if a cross/bow did 2d8 (or 3d4, whatever) damage.

Because one arrow does more damage than being hit in the face by a great-sword. Oh, wait, it doesn't.

Immutep
2008-12-10, 01:40 PM
More feared than the guys his employer would RATHER HAVE HAD instead?

Historically the English crown would allow limited substitutions of longbowmen for men-at-arms at two longbowmen substituting for one man-at-arms for the same (total) pay. But units still had a minimum number of men-at-arms to make sure they brought some good troops to go with all those archers...

That's how good the people who knew BEST how good a longbowman thought he was, almost half as good as a real man-at-arms. And AFAIK this was consistent in hiring contracts for well over a century both for the Hundred Years War and the War of the Roses.

The reason the English could win outnumbered 7:1 is that they were a disciplined professional army and their opponents weren't, and that matters far more than weapon choice. (It's also why they lost the Hundred Years War, they couldn't garrison their conquests adequately.)

Arrows unhorsed mounted men (you CAN'T armor a horse all that well), they disorganized formations, they were better than crossbows against anything but the very best armors (better rate of fire), but bows weren't a wonder weapon.



Because one arrow does more damage than being hit in the face by a great-sword. Oh, wait, it doesn't.

The real reason the longbowmen were paid less is not so much the affectiveness of the weapon, rather it has more to do with politics and costs. longbowmen were for the main part drafted from the peasantry, who were expected by law to own and practise with a longbow all their adult life, and were also held in less asteem (Therefore would be paid less just to keep the commoner down). Also, the average cost of equipping a Man-at-Arms was significantly higher as well, so his pay had to reprisent this.

The english army might have been small, even for the most part maybe more experienced than certain rivals of the time. But they were by no means a proffessional army. Oliver Cromwell was the first example of a truely proffessional army britain had ever seen.

As for an arrow in the head doing more or less damage than a great-sword, Thats just speculation, Harold Godwinson would certainly vote on the side of arrows being more dangerous for example! It's all about how the blow lands and where.

lisiecki
2008-12-10, 04:56 PM
Come on people, lets get back to the important thing
Lets get back to the whores

Oslecamo
2008-12-10, 05:23 PM
Compare the number of magic items a 4e character needs to be effective the the number a 3.5 character needs to be effective. The first is much lower.

But everything except starting HP is much lower in 4e. You have much less magic items, deal much less damage, have only one attack per turn, ect, ect. At best you know around a dozen powers, even if you're epic level. So of course you get fewer body slots to put magic stuff into.



4e favours versatility more than 3.5 because:
1. Feats are less powerful, and therefore you can afford to buy feats to improve your versatility.
Give enough time for 4e being filled with splatbooks filled with uber feat chains and we'll talk about this. You don't see that much powerfull feats in core do you?



2. Each class has useful skills, and getting new skills is easy.

Everybody has usefull skills in 3.X. Even the fighter has intimidate to boss little people around and handle animal to get purple wurms as pets.

As for geting new skills, well, it is easier in 4e. But you don't have any real reasons to do it, because skill training is much weaker in 4e.

Geting UMD in the fighter in 3.X would be hard, but would greatly increase it's power. Geting stealthiness in 4e...Woot, I get a +5 bonus in stealth checks? Don't I get to dance trough my enemies whitout geting hit or impress gods or unlock the powers of magic?



3. Multiclassing is more limited, but you gain full-strength powers that way, instead of getting mostly useless stuff while weakening your base class at the same time.

It depends on what you multiclass. A fighter diping into barbarian here and rogue here may end much stronger than a pure fighter if done right.

Sure you lose stuff if you multiclass a pure caster, but hey, weren't you saying they can do everything by themselves? So why multiclass from them in the first place?


In 4e, it is possible to play a fighter who's good at sneaking and dabbles in some magic. In 3.5, such a character would suck.

Except your 4e sneaky fighter magic also sucks. His armor and shield are hindering his stealthiness, and he can't afford to have the stats to make his magic powers whortwhile. Or his stealthiness. In a world with so few bonuses, every +1 counts more than ever. If he took ritual casting it's even worse, since rituals suck by themselves.

Any other 4e fighter will mop up the floor with him.

Immutep
2008-12-10, 06:14 PM
The incredibly feat-intensive nature of 2-weapon fighting, and its tendency to force people into using light weapons and having high DEX scores. This took considerable re-working as well. From all I've heard, learning to fight with 2 weapons is not nealy the accomplishment D&D makes it seem like, and in any case, if people think its cool to fight that way, they shouldn't need to devote so much of their character development to just being able to do it in the first place.

Ooh good one!

Kurald Galain
2008-12-10, 06:45 PM
Compare the number of magic items a 4e character needs to be effective the the number a 3.5 character needs to be effective.
Depends on your definition of "effective", really. 4E is middle road: the most item dependent classes in 3E (e.g. fighters) are much less item dependent in 4E; the least item dependent classes in 3E (e.g. druids) are much more item dependent in 4E.

So no: it's not that in 4E people are less item dependent; it's that in 4E, all classes are equally item dependent, whereas in 3E some classes required tons of items, whereas others could do without any.


4e favours versatility more than 3.5 because:
No it doesn't. Characters in 3E can be much more versatile than in 4E.

So you're making the same mistake as above: it's not that 4E allows for greater versatility, it's that in 4E, all amounts of versatility have (roughly) the same power level, whereas in 3E, depending on how versatile you want your character to be, its power can fluctuate all over the place.

In 3E you can make builds on a square, ranging 1-10 in versatility and 1-10 in power level. In 4E, you can make builds ranging 3-4 in versatility and 5-7 in power level.

Tacoma
2008-12-10, 06:51 PM
I don't like how I walk into a whorehouse and they're like

"Oh you want a whore you say? Ten gold pieces for an hour my good man!"

And I'm all like

"Dude I could outright buy a donkey for that much and have enough left over for a tarp and a pair of galoshes"

But I'm sure that implies the wrong line of thinking.

Mike_G
2008-12-10, 07:13 PM
Come on people, lets get back to the important thing
Lets get back to the whores


I may have to sig this.

lisiecki
2008-12-10, 07:16 PM
I don't like how I walk into a whorehouse and they're like

"Oh you want a whore you say? Ten gold pieces for an hour my good man!"

And I'm all like

"Dude I could outright buy a donkey for that much and have enough left over for a tarp and a pair of galoshes"

But I'm sure that implies the wrong line of thinking.

Thats why a trip to a whore house costs 19 gold and some change.
Cause you need a whore, a donkey, a tarp and a pair of galoshes


I may have to sig this.

go on... you know you want to

Kemper Boyd
2008-12-10, 08:57 PM
From my understanding, when people historically fought with two weapons, it usually wasn't "I hit you with the sword in my right hand, I hit you with the sword in my left hand". You would have, say, a dagger in your off-hand which you would use to parry or otherwise assist your main-hand attacks.

There's styles where both weapons are used to an equal degree in attack and defense, like the great tomahawk-bowie knife style.

hewhosaysfish
2008-12-11, 09:27 AM
I don't like how I walk into a whorehouse and they're like

"Oh you want a whore you say? Ten gold pieces for an hour my good man!"

And I'm all like

"Dude I could outright buy a donkey for that much and have enough left over for a tarp and a pair of galoshes"

But I'm sure that implies the wrong line of thinking.

Where are you getting the figure of 10gp/hour from?
My DMG lists an "entertainer/performer" as getting 4sp/day (p105. Table 4-1: Prices For Hireling Services).

Kurald Galain
2008-12-11, 09:55 AM
Where are you getting the figure of 10gp/hour from?

Because he's looking for masterwork :smallbiggrin:

Diamondeye
2008-12-11, 10:22 AM
Diamondeye:[/B] Two words:chainmail bikini. There are people who think it's cool. But few DMs will be willing to give you +10 armor bonus for wearing just a loincloth and a small strip of metal.

Chainmail bikini isn't on the armor chart.


As for TWF, well, how many armies you see out there that use soldiers specialized in using two weapons at the same time? I think it explains why TWF demands a lot more work to use

I think it's got more to do with the fact that two weapon fighting would take up a lot more room, require you to supply twice as many weapons, and doesn't lend itself to the lance/pike style of fighting that keeps horsemen at a distance or, on the flip side, breaks up blocks of infantry. D&D, however, is not primarily a wargame simulating armies; it's about small groups of individuals, and individuals fighting other individuals, or for that matter, bizarre monsters, won't necessarily limit themselves to what's used by armies trying to repel cavalry charges.


And you can still use two weapons at the same time whitout any feats. You'll just suck at it, but well, your fighter isn't going to learn how to properly shoot fireballs just because you think it's cool right?

I also think fighting with a big 2-hander is cool, but it doesn't require an immense number of feats. The fact of the matter is that people did learn 2-weapon fighting; it just wasn't generally used on battlefields.

Fighting with melee weapons is in the purview of the fighter class. Shooting fireballs isn't. That's not a valid comparison. This thread, in any case, is about peeves with real-world comparisons, and shooting fireballs doesn't fit into the category of "things I can do in the real world" in the first palce.

By the way, yes, my fighter can "learn to shoot fireballs". It's called multiclassing into Eldritch Knight.

theMycon
2008-12-11, 10:22 AM
Because he's looking for masterwork :smallbiggrin:

Don't you have to get thse dry-cleaned if you get anything on them, though?


just like that rental Dalmation... frickin' Brad Nowell costume

mikeejimbo
2008-12-11, 11:07 AM
**soft clapping from the audience of catgirls**

From the extraordinarily thinning audience of catgirls?

lisiecki
2008-12-11, 11:12 AM
Where are you getting the figure of 10gp/hour from?
My DMG lists an "entertainer/performer" as getting 4sp/day (p105. Table 4-1: Prices For Hireling Services).

Hey,

You can pay what ever you want.
At the lower end of the scale you can just pay for a sap one time, and make your own fun.
Some of us however, are looking for fun times that don't involve magical crotch rot because she did a bulette show the night before

juggalotis
2008-12-11, 11:44 AM
4e issue. the fact that my frail elf wizard with only a 12 str can carry 120 pounds without and hindrance and as long as he uses 2 hands can carry 240 pounds.

Oslecamo
2008-12-11, 11:57 AM
I also think fighting with a big 2-hander is cool, but it doesn't require an immense number of feats. The fact of the matter is that people did learn 2-weapon fighting; it just wasn't generally used on battlefields.

Fighting with melee weapons is in the purview of the fighter class. Shooting fireballs isn't. That's not a valid comparison. This thread, in any case, is about peeves with real-world comparisons, and shooting fireballs doesn't fit into the category of "things I can do in the real world" in the first palce.

By the way, yes, my fighter can "learn to shoot fireballs". It's called multiclassing into Eldritch Knight.

Fine. It's called "game balance". TWF can be easily broken since it doubles the effeciency of your fixed damage bonuses. Like sneack attack and the like.

You probably don't remember but in 3.0 power attack granted the same damage bonus no matter if you used one or two hands holding the weapon.

So two weapon fighting was all the rage, since even with the feat and dex recquirements your damage would scale faster than the two handed guy.

In 3.5 it was changed, but two weapon fighting remains quite strong, if you bother to get a fixed bonus to your damage like sneack attack.

Don't want to get a fixed bonus to your damage? Well, then you may as well ask to build an effecient two handed fighter whitout strenght.

Two handed fighting rewards strenght, power attack, leap attack, ect, ect. Two weapon fighting rewards dexterity, the respective feat, and the other respective feats.

Quite balanced actually.

Artanis
2008-12-11, 12:06 PM
OK, I've never had the inclination to sig a forum quote before, but this time I just can't resist. Do you three mind if I sig the following?:


"I don't like how I walk into a whorehouse and they're like, 'Oh you want a whore you say? Ten gold pieces for an hour my good man!'"
--Tacoma
"Where are you getting the figure of 10gp/hour from?"
--hewhosaysfish
"Because he's looking for masterwork :smallbiggrin:"
--Kurald Galain

...come to think of it, it might be a good idea for me to run it by the mods too :smallwink:


Edit: Note, it wouldn't actually be in quote tags

juggalotis
2008-12-11, 12:09 PM
now that i think of it i dont believe ive ever made a town without a whorehouse.

Kurald Galain
2008-12-11, 12:20 PM
OK, I've never had the inclination to sig a forum quote before, but this time I just can't resist. Do you three mind if I sig the following?:

Go ahead :)

lisiecki
2008-12-11, 12:28 PM
See people this is what its all about, its all about the whores...
Caus lets face it other wise were going to end up on page 35 dealing with people saying "An undead amazon with a saber fighting a werewolf is unrealistic, because historically, amazons used spears."

juggalotis
2008-12-11, 12:37 PM
What do we want then people? thats right, ALE AND WHORES

Oslecamo
2008-12-11, 01:51 PM
What do we want then people? thats right, ALE AND WHORES

BRING OUT BOEF AND THE RULES TO GET DRUNK!

Blackfang108
2008-12-11, 01:57 PM
BRING OUT BOEF AND THE RULES TO GET DRUNK!

Quintessential Temptress also works insteaf of BOEF.

And the Celtic Mythology(can't remember the name) book has rules for getting drunk. (Of course.)

Matthew
2008-12-11, 02:02 PM
There is truly not enough emphasis on this in D20/3e:

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i226/Plle200/Motivational%20Posters/ale_whores2.jpg

Oslecamo
2008-12-11, 02:05 PM
Quintessential Temptress also works insteaf of BOEF.

And the Celtic Mythology(can't remember the name) book has rules for getting drunk. (Of course.)

Actually, arms and equipment guide has rules for geting drunk, and it's oficial D&D material. It even has exotic beverages and rules to make your own drinks out of the stuff you find out there:smallbiggrin:

Immutep
2008-12-11, 03:06 PM
As far as goes with the whole two weapon fighting thing, the main reason more millitary un its didn't employ it was the shield wall. From as far back as the greeks (maybe further, but this is as far back as my knowledge goes) the shield wall was the foremost formation for core infantry. It allowed the shield of one fighter to protect his left side and the right side of the next man to the left whilst still providing enough room to use his main weapon.

Which, is another thing about core rules of D&D. I know that adventuring parties aren't going to employ the shield wall themselves, but they might well encounter others who do, yet the feats for doing so (and actually gaining any benefit for doing so) don't appear in the main three. I've seen them in complete warrior which sort of makes up for it, but these are core use tactics and they weren't addressed.

Ascension
2008-12-11, 03:13 PM
There's also the whole "It takes a lot less training for a man to use a shield than to use two weapons" thing, plus the "Two weapons aren't really as much help as they'd seem to be" thing, and the "Outside of D&D people are really squishy if they don't have proper protection" thing. So it's not just shield wall tactics discouraging dual-wielding.

But why are we still discussing things that don't involve ALE and/or WHORES? It's not sexist, necessarily, we can get male whores involved too.

RPGuru1331
2008-12-11, 03:17 PM
But why are we still discussing things that don't involve ALE and/or WHORES? It's not sexist, necessarily, we can get male whores involved too.

You'd have to, for all the female adventurers.

lisiecki
2008-12-11, 03:19 PM
I fully encourage male whores, female whores, demi human whores, anything with an int of 3+ whores.
As long as money is exchanged and sentient beings are degraded, its all good

kjones
2008-12-11, 03:21 PM
There's styles where both weapons are used to an equal degree in attack and defense, like the great tomahawk-bowie knife style.

Sure, but even then, you usually didn't attack with both weapons at the same time. Not many (I can't think of any, but I'm sure there are some... note that they are an overwhelming minority) focused on hitting with two weapons at once.

This is because the real world doesn't have hit points, and if you're sacrificing all your defense for offense, you'll regret it pretty quickly.

Lord Tataraus
2008-12-11, 03:44 PM
Sure, but even then, you usually didn't attack with both weapons at the same time. Not many (I can't think of any, but I'm sure there are some... note that they are an overwhelming minority) focused on hitting with two weapons at once.

This is because the real world doesn't have hit points, and if you're sacrificing all your defense for offense, you'll regret it pretty quickly.

Using tiger hook/head swords would be an example of where you would strike with both at once, granted you've completely disarmed and tripped your opponent by that time, but then you do the good ol' scissor cut on the neck to decapitate...but again that is probably pretty rare and they are only to be used in duels are against small numbers of likely less skilled warriors.

Oslecamo
2008-12-11, 04:03 PM
Sure, but even then, you usually didn't attack with both weapons at the same time. Not many (I can't think of any, but I'm sure there are some... note that they are an overwhelming minority) focused on hitting with two weapons at once.

This is because the real world doesn't have hit points, and if you're sacrificing all your defense for offense, you'll regret it pretty quickly.

Yeah, something like that. Normally when you fight with two weapons in real life you use one of them as a shield. You just need one clean blow to defeat your oponent, and only need one clean blow to be defeated yourself.

Delivering one blow with two weapons isn't that hard, but D&D doesn't contemplate this option. You deliver two separate blows.

Delivering two blows with two weapons at the same time, now that's much harder.

Still, taking a spear/sword and cleaving your oponent's armor with it's simply much easier and effecient than taking two light weapons and dancing around to try to hit your enemy weak points.

theMycon
2008-12-11, 07:01 PM
On the whole "ale and whores thing", I have but one comment to add...
epic slut cleave (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=455859).

(Don't worry. You'll only have to get to post 11 before it starts to degenerate into D&D nerdiness. Before that you may start learning life lessons, however.)

Tacoma
2008-12-11, 07:14 PM
Combatants can use either hand's equipment for offense or defense or for distraction. Much of the benefit of the weapon and shield combo is that the shield does a lot of passive blocking. Your opponent just doesn't see nearly as many openings and when he does, if he attacks close to the shield you can quickly block.

However the shield has very little use as a weapon, perhaps less than a club of equal weight.

Using two weapons, the benefit was at least partly the fact that your opponent has to defend against two sources of attack and feints would be very common. The fact that the opponent had to worry about so many attack angles made him defensive and unwilling to take advantage of many of your openings. And you do have openings, because your secondary weapon isn't anywhere as good at blocking as a full shield.

The tomahawk and knife is an excellent example of this multiple-angle problem. Imagine being faced with a spear-wielder. You have to worry about jabs and the occasional wild slash, maybe kicks. But with the tomahawk-knife fighter, you have cross slashes, inward slashes, upward and downward versions of both, overhand slashes, jabs, kicks, body checks, and all variations of the above in the form of feints. It's just crazy. You'd do well to just run away.

Oops. Tomahawk in the back. Good stuff.

A shield can also be used as cover, against ranged attacks. Your secondary weapon simply has so little chance to parry an arrow you're better off just trying to dodge it. And that's very tough. Most successful dodges happen simply as a result of the defender's already-committed movement. If he had to wait until he saw the attack, then rebalance himself and move his whole body, he's far less likely to dodge anything.

Which is why in reality, being caught "flat-footed" really does result in you taking a moment to rebalance which can be used by an already-balanced opponent to get a shot or two in.

juggalotis
2008-12-11, 07:15 PM
god i love this forum :)

Tacoma
2008-12-11, 07:18 PM
On the whole "ale and whores thing", I have but one comment to add...
epic slut cleave (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=455859).

(Don't worry. You'll only have to get to post 11 before it starts to degenerate into D&D nerdiness. Before that you may start learning life lessons, however.)

I love how the nerd subculture exists in the thread and all the "cool guys" who are really just clueless ignore them. Because they don't have that set of social skills necessary to communicate effectively.

Oslecamo
2008-12-11, 08:23 PM
The tomahawk and knife is an excellent example of this multiple-angle problem. Imagine being faced with a spear-wielder. You have to worry about jabs and the occasional wild slash, maybe kicks. But with the tomahawk-knife fighter, you have cross slashes, inward slashes, upward and downward versions of both, overhand slashes, jabs, kicks, body checks, and all variations of the above in the form of feints. It's just crazy. You'd do well to just run away.

Oops. Tomahawk in the back. Good stuff.


The problem with this strategy is that if you're facing more than one oponent things start to get ugly quickly.

Neither the tomahawk or the knife have much range by themselves, so you control a little area, and it's really hard to feint two oponents at the same time, specially if they're smart enough to attack from two diferent directions.

Sword and broad on the other hand covers a bigger area and the shield leaves you a lot less holes for flanckers to explore.

A two handed sword defends itself simply because anything coming whiting range is gonna get cleaved into oblivion. And it has a big swing range.

Finally the spear is the best weapon in threatening, since you can attack the tomahawk+knife maniac whitout actually geting in range of his weapons. Feint all you like, your body still needs to get stuck on my spear for you to hit me.

Of course, they all lose to the crossbow maniac who can shot them from very far away.:smalltongue:

ericgrau
2008-12-11, 08:36 PM
OH i agree, the range is nowhere near long enough.

1000 feet isn't long enough? 2000 with a feat...

kjones
2008-12-11, 08:57 PM
If we're talking realistically here, fighting multiple opponents is something that D&D doesn't model realistically, since usually you just lose. But that's something I'm willing to overlook. Two-weapon silliness, on the other hand, just bothers me.

horseboy
2008-12-11, 09:57 PM
No, though I'm sure she's named for him. Arjuna was the hero of the Upanishads, and quite a badass, after Krishna got him to stop whining.Huh, and here I was thinking it was the new, in vogue way of saying "Ajax". He brings up Hercules and not Ajax. :smallconfused:


So MMM/Rope trick strategies? Because if bow instadeath is a valid tactic, everyone will use it, meaning walking outside, or by a window, will mean death for the heroic adventurer. It's either that or villains take another hit from the idiot ball to even make the higher levels accessible.
Right, because there are just as many ways to boost spot as there is hide. By following 30ft away from a group an assassin can get a minimum +3 to hide while only taking a -3 to spot. 50 or 100ft? It's possible to trail a group based on it's most visible member, most likely a cleric, or fighter (who has a -4 or -5 to hide because of heavy armor, lack of hide as a class skill, and less focus on Dex than a rogue) and take out the wizard/rogue once you set down, killing everybody else at their leisure. All before a wizard can get access to teleport.Pretty much two of my many problems with D&D. You can't do a "real" dungeon crawl if only one person in the party can find their ______ with a map and both hands, and if you can't do a "real" dungeon crawl with D&D what good is it? And Nerf based weapons technology.
There is truly not enough emphasis on this in D20/3e:WINNER!

TheCountAlucard
2008-12-12, 03:52 AM
Still, taking a spear/sword and cleaving your oponent's armor with it's simply much easier and effecient than taking two light weapons and dancing around to try to hit your enemy weak points.

It's worse than that; in standard D&D rules, you can't sunder armor! Why? Because.

Leon
2008-12-12, 04:29 AM
1000 feet isn't long enough? 2000 with a feat...

Then all you have is a knife

Oslecamo
2008-12-12, 05:12 AM
It's worse than that; in standard D&D rules, you can't sunder armor! Why? Because.

Probably because armor has so many HP that it's just much more simple to kill the wearer than to destroy the armor.

warmachine
2008-12-12, 05:38 AM
I've never been annoyed by the orders of magnitude for HP but I am annoyed that, for 3e, this magnitude doesn't appy to negative HP. That heroic warrior can withstand many arrows without flinching where one would slay a commoner but one such arrow will finish him once he's down. Aren't heroes meant to be tough bastards?

Oslecamo
2008-12-12, 06:06 AM
I've never been annoyed by the orders of magnitude for HP but I am annoyed that, for 3e, this magnitude doesn't appy to negative HP. That heroic warrior can withstand many arrows without flinching where one would slay a commoner but one such arrow will finish him once he's down. Aren't heroes meant to be tough bastards?

And they are tough bastards.

They're so tough that when they finally stop moving, well, it's because they're really on their last breath.

Mr.Commoner over there, however, gets one hit in the head and falls on the floor, because he's a wuss, so he drops with a sneeze.

When your 200 HP barbarian reaches -1, it's because he's got several internal organs pierced, slashed and crushed lost 99% of it's blood and by all acounts should be more than dead right now, but managed to hold on fighting thanks to his strenght of will/supernatural energies embebed on his body/being damn tough.

Other personal view is that mr.barbarian's body is so hardly trained that he keeps fighting even when he falls uncoscious, so he actually lost his senses when he reached 100HP, but still kept fighting.

theMycon
2008-12-12, 09:43 AM
I love how the nerd subculture exists in the thread and all the "cool guys" who are really just clueless ignore them. Because they don't have that set of social skills necessary to communicate effectively.

It's rather brilliant & hilarious to watch them interact in less-silly threads.

Or rather, watch the various sub-cultures interact with eachother.

The thread that got me to join, nigh on 5.5 years ago, started out raging against a bumper sticker that said "It's not Jesus? Then it's not progress." It quickly went from "you're sitting in 3 tons of steel, moving at 60-some MPH, from a fuel thought worthless when you were born, in comfortable AC despite being a 90-degree day outside, and you're saying it's not progress?" to planning how to turn Jesus into a hovercar with VTOL that gets 90MPG with optional ******** attachment.

Being discussed by a dozen engineers of different fields. Figuring out how to do it.

Zeful
2008-12-12, 01:04 PM
1000 feet isn't long enough? 2000 with a feat...

3300ft with a Composite Longbow of Distance and the Far Shot feat (((110x2)x1.5)x10)

Tacoma
2008-12-12, 03:05 PM
And there's no reason why shooting straight down should have a maximum range. Just linearly increasing range penalties until you hit the ground.

Orbital Archer build, anyone?

And while a spear does have longer reach, and getting inside that reach is quite difficult, it doesn't come down to "if you want to hit me you will guaranteed be speared first". Certainly it would be possible for a man to deflect a spear thrust and charge forward while the spear-wielder is bringing it back to center. It's just unlikely.

vanderath
2008-12-12, 04:02 PM
Oh, so much to grouse about.

1 Prices, Descriptions and weights of Equipment. Lots of little annoyances.
Clothing is the same weight for all characters... and how much does your backpack hold exactly? or a basket?
Paper is made of Cloth?
Noteably: Check the price of dried carrots in the Arms and equipment guide. 1 gold per OUNCE.
Sod adventuring, i'm gonna be a D&D farmer.

2 Average is poor. The average (st 8) gnome does so little damage that they can (almost) heal you with a series of vigorous unarmed strikes. (Don't get me started on the Hand-Crossbow of Healing...) When you take the Equipment weights issue into account, There's a reason Halflings are often rogues: if they try to wear heavy armour, wield a decent sword and carry a packed lunch, they can't move. Mind you, for the average halfling, the lunch tends to be the problem.

3 Quarterstaffs. Free because your common or garden tree branch comes pre-weighted and balanced. Also a D&D staff-fighter only uses the one grip and stance. Suuure. Oh, and there's no bonus to parrying for using that stance, either.

3a Spears have only one end. No chance you can get bludgeoning damage, or shift your grip to the double weapon quarterstaff grip.

3b Masterwork slingshot bullets. 7 gold each. for +1 to hit. Each one, obviously, hand carved by dwarven ballistic experts to make them so much more effective than your regular "cheap" 1/2 pound lead sphere. (And even regular slingshot bullets are destroyed on impact.) yeah there's so much wrong there.

3c+ The same lack of nous is probably true for many other weapons.

4 Skills. A Commoner or even an Expert have fewer skills than a Rogue - despite the fact that they spend less time learning about weapon and armour use, and their livelyhoods depend on their skills. A fighter can certainly hit things, but as Search and Spot are Cross Class, he generally can't find them to hit them. Gnomes and Halflings (average 8ST) cannot climb.
And if I, as a fighter, go into that cave there and hack a lot of things apart with my falchion I suddenly become more adept at, say, riding a horse. Which is somehow much harder for my rogue friend to learn.

5 Feats and the rate you get them.: especially Leadership: So my high charisma bard is going to take longer to learn Whirlwind Attack because groupies started following him around...? Um, ok, maybe he could be a little distracted... but should he also take a little longer because he can be described as "stealthy"?

6 If I multiclass as a bard/sorcerer/Wizard I somehow get the mystic energy to fully power all three classes?

7 Should I multiclass and reach the lofty levels known as "Epic" no amount of study will grant me the knowledge of any more spells than I happened to have learned when I got that 20th level.

8 Why should characters in Ebarron or the Forgotten realms be familiar with spells like "bigby's clenched fist", or Mortenkainen's lubrication, much less use that name for them?

So I don't expect realism at all in my D&D.
1 Encumberance gets ignored by default.
2 PC's aren't average, and those that are need heroes to protect them.
3 I accept that a "quarterstaff" is a single stance 0-cost collection of weapon stats which just happens to have a phoenetic similarity of name to a real life item. I accept that with most stat rolls, naming a first level character is like naming a goldfish.
4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 Once you accept these, it's much easier to suspend your disbelief on such matters as the existence of gnomes, dragons and magic.

And thus it retains its fun.

Zeful
2008-12-12, 04:09 PM
8 Why should characters in Ebarron or the Forgotten realms be familiar with spells like "bigby's clenched fist", or Mortenkainen's lubrication, much less use that name for them?
Spellcraft. You don't have it, you know nothing about magic. At all.

hamishspence
2008-12-12, 04:13 PM
big-name wizards have reputations crossing the planes. Though Spell compendium did remove many of the personal names from spells.

Tacoma
2008-12-12, 04:16 PM
Paper is made of Cloth?

Actually, early parchment was made from pulverized rag linens that were collected. Early recycling program. But demand quickly outstripped (groan) supply.



Noteably: Check the price of dried carrots in the Arms and equipment guide. 1 gold per OUNCE.
Sod adventuring, i'm gonna be a D&D farmer.

Being a carrot farmer is colloquially known as "sod adventuring" (double groan).



3b Masterwork slingshot bullets. 7 gold each. for +1 to hit. Each one, obviously, hand carved by dwarven ballistic experts to make them so much more effective than your regular "cheap" 1/2 pound lead sphere. (And even regular slingshot bullets are destroyed on impact.) yeah there's so much wrong there.

Also note that you can use a spell to create or shape a mathematically perfect sphere (because it's magic after all) and it WON'T count as Masterwork. Oh no. You need a nearsighted Dwarf with a metal file for THAT level of quality.



Gnomes and Halflings (average 8ST) cannot climb.

Centaurs can climb a free-hanging rope.



Why should characters in Ebarron or the Forgotten realms be familiar with spells like "bigby's clenched fist", or Mortenkainen's lubrication, much less use that name for them?

To be fair, "Mordenkainen's Lubrication" should fall under Prestidigitation. Or Grease. These applications are known as "out of the box roleplaying" and your DM encourages it. Honestly.

Zeful
2008-12-12, 04:29 PM
big-name wizards have reputations crossing the planes. Though Spell compendium did remove many of the personal names from spells.

Spellcraft is still the skill that governs spell knowledge. If you don't have it you know nothing of magic.

hamishspence
2008-12-12, 04:30 PM
Sorcerers. They don't Know the whys and wherefores- they can still cast spells. and you can create a wizard with no spellcraft ranks. Wouldn't be a very good wizard though.

Tacoma
2008-12-12, 04:31 PM
I always assumed that when a Wizard made a new spell the name was encoded in the formula. If you changed the name when you wrote it down, the spell wouldn't work anymore. You'd have to go through all the work re-creating the spell to change its name.

In this way Wizards are able to maintain their reputation after they have no control over Guild politics.

I guess most people look at it like a computer file, where the text of the filename is right there in a predictable place and there's no consequence to altering it.

vanderath
2008-12-12, 04:40 PM
[QUOTE=Tacoma;5463575]Actually, early parchment was made from pulverized rag linens that were collected. Early recycling program. But demand quickly outstripped (groan) supply.

As you note, that's Parchment. Seperate material entirely. Like most of what I was mentioning, it's a minor but annoying thing.

oh, and

Mordenkainen's LuCUBration is what I meant... 6th level spell. For some reason I always read/write that one wrong.

And sadly, (particularly if bigby's spells are also used) it has nothing to do with grease. :P

hamishspence
2008-12-12, 04:42 PM
Parchment is made from sheepskin. Rag paper is not the same thing as parchment.

Blackfang108
2008-12-12, 04:45 PM
Parchment is made from sheepskin. Rag paper is not the same thing as parchment.

You're thinking of Vellum.

hamishspence
2008-12-12, 04:54 PM
the book I've got says: Parchment- made from skin of sheep or goats- Vellum, made from skin of calf.

paper- until 1850: linen and cotton rags- pulped.

I also checked Wikipedia- all three are valid for parchment, really fine grade material of any of the three is vellum, despite the word itself meaning "calfskin"

Mark Hall
2008-12-12, 05:01 PM
Oh, so much to grouse about.

1 Prices, Descriptions and weights of Equipment. Lots of little annoyances.
Clothing is the same weight for all characters... and how much does your backpack hold exactly? or a basket?
Paper is made of Cloth?


As pointed out, many early papers (not parchment) was made of pulverized cloth. Many high-quality papers today, in fact, have a high cotton content.

Tacoma
2008-12-12, 05:01 PM
I know what you mean, but I imagined a bunch of peasants with skinless calfs walking around bleeding into their shoes because they took advantage of the local Wizard's offer of 1 GP per calf skin.

They were sad.

Blackfang108
2008-12-12, 05:06 PM
the book I've got says: Parchment- made from skin of sheep or goats- Vellum, made from skin of calf.

paper- until 1850: linen and cotton rags- pulped.

I also checked Wikipedia- all three are valid for parchment, really fine grade material of any of the three is vellum, despite the word itself meaning "calfskin"

Ah.

It's been awhile since ancient history class.

Oslecamo
2008-12-12, 05:07 PM
You all realize that in order for D&D to properly nitpick every of those details in an acurate way the PHB would be the size of a house and cost at least as much, right?

And then the munchkins would still find loopholes to abuse.

vanderath
2008-12-12, 05:14 PM
hmm learn something new every day.

hamishspence
2008-12-12, 05:20 PM
I'm not focussing on rules here, but on description- when they describe something real, and get in wrong, not so good. when they get it right- good. It can't be a perfect simulation (or perfect in depictions) but when they get something very wrong that they got right in earlier editions (falchion in 3.0-3.5)- not good.

horseboy
2008-12-12, 08:39 PM
8 Why should characters in Ebarron or the Forgotten realms be familiar with spells like "bigby's clenched fist", or Mortenkainen's lubrication, much less use that name for them?
Well, Eleminster, Mordenarkian, and later Raistlen all got together periodically for tea and swap spells and talk about how many clones Bigby had left and yadda, yadda, yadda. No really, grab some 2nd edition era Dragons. I couldn't make up something so trite.

Oslecamo
2008-12-13, 04:33 AM
I'm not focussing on rules here, but on description- when they describe something real, and get in wrong, not so good. when they get it right- good. It can't be a perfect simulation (or perfect in depictions) but when they get something very wrong that they got right in earlier editions (falchion in 3.0-3.5)- not good.

Do I need to remind you of katanas? Some people will swear that they're the best weapon evar. Others will say it's nothing more than a glorified longsword. And then we all have the media where katanas are cuting giant robors into half and parrying bullets whitout breaking.

What are the designers suposed to do in those kind of situations? They're gonna draw fire one way or another. Because people can't agree in reality, and then there will be people demanding the D&D rules reflect their favorite fictional works.

lisiecki
2008-12-15, 08:27 AM
6 If I multiclass as a bard/sorcerer/Wizard I somehow get the mystic energy to fully power all three classes?

So
in real life you can only pick two?

warmachine
2008-12-15, 09:06 AM
I find the logistical logic behind trade of partially charged wands annoying. Merchants will buy them from you but no partially charged wands of any kind are being sold. They can't be recharged, there's no point destroying them and they take up little space, so the merchants would try to sell them. They could be sold to static organisations, such as churches, nobels, city guards and guilds, but merchants aren't going to deny they have any to adventurers. Merchants aren't going to pass up a potential sale. Yet no merchant has any.

Yes, I know this risks a flame war.

hewhosaysfish
2008-12-15, 09:55 AM
Merchants will buy them from you but no partially charged wands of any kind are being sold.

Where did you get that impression? The DMG has rules for pricing partially charged items (p214) and makes no mention of whether this if for purchase or for sale.

DigoDragon
2008-12-15, 11:37 AM
From the extraordinarily thinning audience of catgirls?

Nah, that's poorly depicted thing in D&D. :smallwink:

Artanis
2008-12-15, 12:17 PM
I find the logistical logic behind trade of partially charged wands annoying. Merchants will buy them from you but no partially charged wands of any kind are being sold. They can't be recharged, there's no point destroying them and they take up little space, so the merchants would try to sell them. They could be sold to static organisations, such as churches, nobels, city guards and guilds, but merchants aren't going to deny they have any to adventurers. Merchants aren't going to pass up a potential sale. Yet no merchant has any.

Yes, I know this risks a flame war.
You could also assume that shopkeepers have ways of consolidating charges that is unfeasable or otherwise too much of a PitA for adventurers to bother with.

warmachine
2008-12-15, 01:13 PM
You could also assume that shopkeepers have ways of consolidating [wand] charges that is unfeasable or otherwise too much of a PitA for adventurers to bother with.
That is a fabrication and not RAW. Even if it was possible, it would seem extremely odd that a merchant always has wand charges of the same spell that consolidate to exact multiples of 50. Even then, consolidation is bad for business as a fully charged wand can be out of a potential customer's budget. If a customer wanted fully charged, he'd buy new anyway.

As for hewhosaysfish, partially charged wands may only be purchased during character creation, not during game play as proved in the Giamonk thread. Let's not open that argument again.

Artanis
2008-12-15, 01:27 PM
Well yeah it's not RAW. Hence "assume" and not something like "know".

Zeful
2008-12-15, 02:03 PM
As for hewhosaysfish, partially charged wands may only be purchased during character creation, not during game play as proved in the Giamonk thread. Let's not open that argument again.

You do realize there's a section in the DMG which covers item availability? According to that I can buy any partially charged wand as long as the price isn't over the GP limit of the town in question.

RPGuru1331
2008-12-15, 02:08 PM
You do realize there's a section in the DMG which covers item availability? According to that I can buy any partially charged wand as long as the price isn't over the GP limit of the town in question.

No, it doesn't say that. There's rules for ch arac ters to start with it. THat's it.

Pres umably, they wanted to avoid the TOTAL Magic Mart (tm), where it's set up for your convenience, and you can find any item as l ong as you can pay for it.

THey mostly failed, but Rods charged to your Convenience are still outside most people's suspension of disbelief.

chiasaur11
2008-12-15, 02:13 PM
....oh, no.

It's happening again!
Curse the dark hand of Snuggles, derailer of threads! We really don't need this debate again.

Zeful
2008-12-15, 02:20 PM
No, it doesn't say that. There's rules for characters to start with it. That's it. :smallconfused:You sure? Because my DMG has the page for town GP limit, and Ready Cash bookmarked. So I'm pretty sure the rules exist. And those rules state that if the price of an object less than or equal to a town's GP limit, you can buy it.


Presumably, they wanted to avoid the TOTAL Magic Mart (tm), where it's set up for your convenience, and you can find any item as long as you can pay for it.

They mostly failed, but Rods charged to your Convenience are still outside most people's suspension of disbelief.

I'm not saying the rules make sense, or do their job (simulating a pseudo-medieval economy), but they do exist.

Yukitsu
2008-12-15, 02:36 PM
:smallconfused:You sure? Because my DMG has the page for town GP limit, and Ready Cash bookmarked. So I'm pretty sure the rules exist. And those rules state that if the price of an object less than or equal to a town's GP limit, you can buy it.


You certainly can get items from towns of up to the correct value. However, partially charged wands are not a listed item, and can only be attained by buying a fully charged wand and using charges, or by buying one at character creation. There are not rules stating they exist beyond those times, nor are there rules for creating them, other than creating a full one and blowing charges.

Doug Lampert
2008-12-15, 05:14 PM
The real reason the longbowmen were paid less is not so much the affectiveness of the weapon, rather it has more to do with politics and costs. longbowmen were for the main part drafted from the peasantry, who were expected by law to own and practise with a longbow all their adult life
Wrong, they weren't drafted, they were paid professionals and volunteered. So were the men-at-arms for that matter even though in theory the crown COULD draft them. Effectively everyone in England who owed military service paid scuttage (shield tax) to avoid it, and the money was used to hire men who could be retained for more than 40 days, sometimes the SAME men who'd paid the scuttage.

The practice was required purely to create a recruiting pool.

And the archers were very very well paid compared to most people. Half what a man-at-arms got was something like 20 times what the French paid supposedly professional mercenaries. War of the roses tapestries show longbowmen in plate armor, that stuff wasn't cheap.

And they weren't peasants, they were yeomen, a different social class entirely.

TheCountAlucard
2008-12-15, 07:46 PM
You certainly can get items from towns of up to the correct value. However, partially charged wands are not a listed item, and can only be attained by buying a fully charged wand and using charges, or by buying one at character creation. There are not rules stating they exist beyond those times, nor are there rules for creating them, other than creating a full one and blowing charges.

In my mind, it's kind of like why no one sells half-pizzas or partial tubes of toothpaste.

RebelRogue
2008-12-15, 08:19 PM
In my mind, it's kind of like why no one sells half-pizzas or partial tubes of toothpaste.
You can buy pizza slices lots of places :smallwink:

Yahzi
2008-12-15, 11:08 PM
partially charged wands may only be purchased during character creation, not during game play as proved in the Giamonk thread.
Wait, are you saying my 1st level necromancer can buy a 1-charge wand at character creation by RAW?

Wait, that's still 225 gp... dang.

vanderath
2008-12-16, 09:21 AM
So
in real life you can only pick two?

well, the grouse was poorly explained on my part, so:

If you take three part time jobs, do you get as much accomplished in a 8 hour working day as three people working one of those jobs each for the full 8 hours?
Suppose A restaurant gives a day's training for each role in their organization. (Although it doesn't take the entire day to teach washing up, assume the washing up course and job covers other duties that the washer-up does during the working day.)

One guy takes three of the day-long courses. Three other guys each take a one day course.
Now Mr. Multiclass can work as short order cook all morning and fill as many orders as the other cook can in the entire day, but because he is waiting table in the afternoon, He's all refreshed and bright eyed in comparison to the waiter who also did the morning shift? And then once he's done that, can go wash as many dishes as the guy who has been at that task all day too?
(Edit: Digression = bad)