Real Tactics vs. Game Tactics

[Conners]

Ever think of using a plan based off reality, but found the rules of the game made it ineffective? For this reason, strategies which can be effective in one game, can be useless in another, despite both being about X.

What experiences have you had to this light? Times you wanted to try something neat which should work in theory, but the rules either stopped your plan or made the results distasteful?

[awa]

dm ruled i need craft poison to dip my arrows in dung
another indicated that stabbing a monster poison gland with an arrow resulted in a 5% chance of accidentally stabbing myself

swarm of crabs i get 5 feet of the ground am informed the swarm is a 10 foot cube so can still reach me hanging there

alternity realized it would take dozens of anti matter missiles to destroy a tank (assuming they were all amazing hits)

[erikun]

Anything involving archery and ambushes in D&D3. Seriously; unless you are standing on an airship above a perfectly flat plane, your 1d8+partial Strength per arrow is not going to make that much of a difference before your opponent gets into range. This is especially true compared to what a party could accomplish by just charging and attacking.

Heck, the party archers are frequently better close to melee combat than sniping away!


I was playing Fate 2.0 recently and didn't realize that there was a Dodge skill for combat. Needless to say, trying to run from combat and create an exit did not work nearly as well as standing and fighting would have.

[Raimun]

Anything involving archery and ambushes in D&D3. Seriously; unless you are standing on an airship above a perfectly flat plane, your 1d8+partial Strength per arrow is not going to make that much of a difference before your opponent gets into range. This is especially true compared to what a party could accomplish by just charging and attacking.


I've always thought that, in DnD 3(.5), the first level is closest to "realistic" combat. In this level a single arrow can kill a man. After that, the PCs start the slow climb to become legendary heroes and face mythical beasts. Would either die after hit with just some random, single arrow, fired by some random warrior? (Arrows fired by legendary archers and beings such as Solars are a different matter.)

Back to original topic. I've never seen that a reasonable plan (in setting) would be hampered by rules. Most GMs have been reasonable in this matter.

Also, in RPGs, I think it's important to separate "realistic" tactics and "supernatural" tactics and come up with a proper ratio, case by case.

[Spiryt]

Anything involving archery and ambushes in D&D3. Seriously; unless you are standing on an airship above a perfectly flat plane, your 1d8+partial Strength per arrow is not going to make that much of a difference before your opponent gets into range. This is especially true compared to what a party could accomplish by just charging and attacking.

Heck, the party archers are frequently better close to melee combat than sniping away!


That depends, on low levels around 3-4 archery is still perfectly viable and fun, at least in open space, with somehow 'detailed' landscape. Pretty much none of my player was actually optimised towards archering and they were scoring many kills that way.

Later, with more HP, DR, and generally everything, archery becomes rather silly indeed.

[lesser_minion]

Archery is a little bit weird. Most real-life archery successes were in fairly large-scale battles -- a formation of several hundred men takes up far more space on the battlefield, and is far easier to hit, than what D&D calls a 'colossal creature'.

For hunting and small-scale fights, the ranges will be far shorter, which suggests that D&D isn't really that far out.

And of course, even in those real-life archery successes, those archers were actually mixed in with soldiers using bills and spears, and were usually 'dug in' before the battle started, with things like stakes planted in the ground to dissuade cavalry.

[Conners]

That's an issue of to-hit chance, not damage.


One thing that bothers me about RPGs, is the, "Everyone aim for guy A." mentality. Especially when there's a lot of HP, like in 4th Edition DnD, the main strategy is to keep hitting the same guy till he drops, then focus on the next guy.

[Spiryt]

For hunting and small-scale fights, the ranges will be far shorter, which suggests that D&D isn't really that far out.



Well, except that it still fails to do much on said short ranges - even on mentioned low levels, I had to actually devise some homerules for Ranger to reliably drop a deer with 2, 3 shots so this was getting pretty silly.:smallwink:

[oxybe]

i would say part of the reason why the dogpile > kill > dogpile > kill is so effective is how the action sequence works rather then HP bloat, specifically:

instead of everyone going simultaneously or being able to respond quickly to any stimuli, you get 4 guys doing their thing and capable of working off one-another.

basically imagine a RL fight: 4 A-guys vs 4 B-guys.

instead of each picking their own guy and going at it one-on-one or ocasionally breaking off and risking turning their back to do a two-on-one, every A-guy immediately jump one B-guy.

while his buddies sit on their thumbs.

now i know that D&D and other games say these actions occur simultaneously i can't picture that fight using most TTRPG rules.

i've seen this happen in not just D&D: you rarely just pick one guy to go at in a TTRPG skirmish, you dogpile one guy until he's dead then focus on the next.

[lesser_minion]

There is actually a degree to which game tactics have to differ from real-life tactics. Real-life tactical doctrines are not meant to be fun or to provide a series of interesting decisions: they're simply the latest fruits of an ongoing effort to determine the most efficient ways to hurt people and break things.


One thing that bothers me about RPGs, is the, "Everyone aim for guy A." mentality. Especially when there's a lot of HP, like in 4th Edition DnD, the main strategy is to keep hitting the same guy till he drops, then focus on the next guy.

The reason focus fire is so important and so effective is that in D&D and other games, losing hit points does very little to stop you from fighting back, temporarily or otherwise. If you focus your fire, the threat you face will diminish over the course of a fight -- meaning that you take less damage and so on, whereas unfocused fire leaves the enemy fighting back at full strength until they're defeated. Oxybe's comments are also relevant, although I don't think the nature of turn-based combat is the real reason for the issue, since it's also been seen in a lot of video games -- Sins of a Solar Empire even has a whole game mechanic designed solely to make focus fire less viable, for example.

It's actually at its worst in 3rd edition and earlier, because those editions never needed hit points in the first place. If the caster can drop someone with a single spell, you have already lost all of the positive aspects of a hit point system -- so why are you still forcing it on archers and swordsmen?

This is actually one of the places where the "fighters can't have nice things" double standard really does exist and really does hurt the game, yet most people complaining that "fighters can't have nice things" don't even bat an eyelid over it.

Another example of real-life tactics vs. game tactics gone wrong? Fireball. We know what we would do with a Fireball spell in real life -- mainly, forcing opponents to keep their heads down while allies are likely to be vulnerable. In D&D, it isn't good for any such thing, because it costs nothing to duck behind cover.

[awa]

your right real world tactics rely heavily on suppressive fire in dnd it does not exist

[NichG]

Absolutely. Figuring out the transition point for this becomes a very important part of the table's expectations. Basically, there may be something which is a clever real life tactic that, when applied at the abstract scale, earns a bonus or a success, but when attempted microscopically ends up being unwise. The important thing is for players to realize when these situations are in play, and for the DM to be willing to have some flexibility and blend between the two or explain when a misconception is likely to be disastrous either way.

[Necroticplague]

The whole "dogpile one enemy" thing comes from the way HP works in most games. Right up until you it zero, you're perfectly fine, whether you have 1 HP or 100 you fight just as effectively. Therefore, one full health dude and one dead dude do less damage than two half-dead dudes.

In reality, we know that people become disabled but not dead when injured. In fact, if you wound a soldier enough, he needs one or two of his fellows to haul him to cover/out of harms way, while if he was dead they would leave him there (at least during the battle), so you actually remove more soldiers from an engagement by wounding than killing.

[Jay R]

i would say part of the reason why the dogpile > kill > dogpile > kill is so effective is how the action sequence works rather then HP bloat, specifically:

instead of everyone going simultaneously or being able to respond quickly to any stimuli, you get 4 guys doing their thing and capable of working off one-another.

I've done a fair number of five-on-five SCA melees. A modified version of dogpile works well.

The tactic that works best for us is to have two or three of us attack a single person, while the rest try to keep the other four enemies from having any major effect. Where we have superiority, we try to hurry the fight and kill quickly. Where we are outnumbered, we fight defensively, trying to postpone any real action.

There's a real thrill, and a crucial battle skill, in two people facing four enemies, and staying just out of range long enough for our other three to kill one fighter. There's also a crucial skill for the other three in killing the lone man quickly before his allies have time to react.

There's no SCA equivalent, because there's no way to force five melee rounds on one side of the field while only having one or none on the other side.

[Spiryt]

The whole "dogpile one enemy" thing comes from the way HP works in most games. Right up until you it zero, you're perfectly fine, whether you have 1 HP or 100 you fight just as effectively. Therefore, one full health dude and one dead dude do less damage than two half-dead dudes.

In reality, we know that people become disabled but not dead when injured. In fact, if you wound a soldier enough, he needs one or two of his fellows to haul him to cover/out of harms way, while if he was dead they would leave him there (at least during the battle), so you actually remove more soldiers from an engagement by wounding than killing.

It depends on system. If we're talking about most of D&D, and 3/3.5 in particular, then it's most definitely true.

In 3.5, or, AFAIR, in AD&D etc. as well, any sort of actual effect of harming opponent was really painfully "extraordinary"... Some magic weapon effects, obscure feats, specific class features (usually PrC/high level) to produce some thing that are pretty damn mundane from fluff point of view.

Spells were completely unfairly advantageous here.


But as Jay R mentioned, while we can't really be sure about "actual" combat, dog-pilling will most certainly be actual tactic in real steel combat or similar stuff.

Guy(s) with shield and board brawling and binding target for the guy with big damn axe to bring it down... Pretty standard tactics on Battle of Nations or similar stuff.

[navar100]

That's an issue of to-hit chance, not damage.


One thing that bothers me about RPGs, is the, "Everyone aim for guy A." mentality. Especially when there's a lot of HP, like in 4th Edition DnD, the main strategy is to keep hitting the same guy till he drops, then focus on the next guy.

It's not about hit points. If you spread your attacks against 4 opponents relatively equally, you will be attacked by 4 opponents the entire battle. If you aim for just one opponent, he will go down quickly then you are only attacked by 3 opponents. An opponent at half hit points is just as dangerous as full hit points (4E D&D bloodied condition exception accepted). He's harmless at 0 hit points. Therefore, given the choice between attacking an injured opponent and one not yet hit, you attack the injured one to get him closer to 0 hit points. The strategy is about reducing the number of attacks against you as the combat progresses.

[shadow_archmagi]

The HP thing also makes threats meaningless. You hold a crossbow to someone's head and say if they scream you'll shoot. They scream, you shoot, then they run away because one attack isn't going to stop them.

[Raimun]

The HP thing also makes threats meaningless. You hold a crossbow to someone's head and say if they scream you'll shoot. They scream, you shoot, then they run away because one attack isn't going to stop them.

If he's helpless, you can coup de grace him.

If he's not, it'd be a straight combat situation and I'd assume the character who can survive that was not actually shot through the head but got out of the way a bit and the bolt just made an ugly scratch.

The way you threaten high level characters is the way comic book villains do it. :smalltongue:

[Spiryt]

The HP thing also makes threats meaningless. You hold a crossbow to someone's head and say if they scream you'll shoot. They scream, you shoot, then they run away because one attack isn't going to stop them.

Well, with many DM you could probably argue to treat it as Coup de Grace, depending on if he's willing to interpret it as :


A helpless opponent is someone who is bound, sleeping, paralyzed, unconscious, or otherwise at your mercy.

[awa]

except how would you get them where you have a crossbow pointed at their head being grappled or pinned is not enough to make them helpless by raw mechanics it is impossible to reach that situation without dm fiat

[Hiro Protagonest]

There is actually a degree to which game tactics have to differ from real-life tactics. Real-life tactical doctrines are not meant to be fun or to provide a series of interesting decisions: they're simply the latest fruits of an ongoing effort to determine the most efficient ways to hurt people and break things.

That's not what D&D tactics are about?

Of course, in D&D, "tactics" tend to mostly be your character build, and not your actual battle strategy. You can, of course, ambush a convoy going through mountainous area by moving boulders into position and rolling them down the hill, but that tends to be the exception where you have an environmental effect that can cause damage.

I think I'm going to get a lot more enjoyment playing Planetside 2 or Arma 2 than I ever did fighting in D&D.

[navar100]

The HP thing also makes threats meaningless. You hold a crossbow to someone's head and say if they scream you'll shoot. They scream, you shoot, then they run away because one attack isn't going to stop them.

That is what the Intimidate skill is for. If an NPC blows off the threat because he has lots of hit points compared to a crossbow bolt doing 1d8 damage, then the DM is metagaming cheating.

[Hiro Protagonest]

That is what the Intimidate skill is for. If an NPC blows off the threat because he has lots of hit points compared to a crossbow bolt doing 1d8 damage, then the DM is metagaming cheating.

Except that he's not. It's the same thing as realizing that Fireball doesn't actually set things on fire. It might seem unrealistic and gamey to us but it won't to them. In their world, there are some people who can reliably survive a crossbow bolt to the head, whether it bounces off or just seems to always graze them.

[nedz]

IRL the Dogpile tactic is called Defeating the enemy in detail; also see Napoleon's strategy of the central position. Other tactics are possible in RPGs, though Hit and Run is often pointless in games where they just heal up or teleport out.


Except that he's not. It's the same thing as realizing that Fireball doesn't actually set things on fire. It might seem unrealistic and gamey to us but it won't to them. In their world, there are some people who can reliably survive a crossbow bolt to the head, whether it bounces off or just seems to always graze them.

"Boromir took 50 arrows before ..."; Heros are heroic not realistic; Heroic RPGs likewise.

[warty goblin]

"Boromir took 50 arrows before ..."; Heros are heroic not realistic; Heroic RPGs likewise.
He also died. And arrows can take quite a while to kill, even if they are lethal. Bow hunters almost always have to track the deer, and that's using multiple bladed broadheads from modern compound bows. Even after running one of those straight in one side of a deer's chest and out the other, the deer can still usually go quite a ways. Against a larger target who's determined to fight as long as possible, it's not unreasonable for it to take quite a few arrows.

Hell, it wouldn't be unreasonable to take quite a few rifle bullets.

Of course it also wouldn't be unreasonable for the first arrow to sever the aorta, and the entire fight to last six seconds.

[awa]

"...The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area...."
from the srd technically the fire ball does burn things in 3.5 although i believe second edition it explicitly did not becuase it used up the oxygen so fast. (although i have not played second edition in ages so who knows maybe i'm just making that up)

Despite that depending on the type of game im trying to run i agree with you. Otherwise you get into weird situations where certainly a level 20 barbarian would never run into a burning building d6 damge a round will kill him in seconds if he were a commoner acknowledging that he has 200+ hp is meta gaming and is therefore bad role playing.

[Conners]

i would say part of the reason why the dogpile > kill > dogpile > kill is so effective is how the action sequence works rather then HP bloat, specifically:

instead of everyone going simultaneously or being able to respond quickly to any stimuli, you get 4 guys doing their thing and capable of working off one-another.

basically imagine a RL fight: 4 A-guys vs 4 B-guys.

instead of each picking their own guy and going at it one-on-one or ocasionally breaking off and risking turning their back to do a two-on-one, every A-guy immediately jump one B-guy.

while his buddies sit on their thumbs.

now i know that D&D and other games say these actions occur simultaneously i can't picture that fight using most TTRPG rules.

i've seen this happen in not just D&D: you rarely just pick one guy to go at in a TTRPG skirmish, you dogpile one guy until he's dead then focus on the next. That is very true. This is also why you can't use your enemies as "shields" against your other enemies. An important tactic to fighting groups, is to move so that only one or two enemies are facing you, and all the others are behind them trying to go around and get to you (kind of like reverse herding).

With DnD, you can't stay in range of one guy without being in range of all of them (specially since you can move through occupied ally tiles)...



There is actually a degree to which game tactics have to differ from real-life tactics. Real-life tactical doctrines are not meant to be fun or to provide a series of interesting decisions: they're simply the latest fruits of an ongoing effort to determine the most efficient ways to hurt people and break things. Actually, if you ask some soldiers and commandos, they will admit it feels great when they pull of a detailed attack plan. The main reason it isn't fun, is your friends really will die, and you have to shoot people, and it's a lot of weight on your shoulders.


The reason focus fire is so important and so effective is that in D&D and other games, losing hit points does very little to stop you from fighting back, temporarily or otherwise. If you focus your fire, the threat you face will diminish over the course of a fight -- meaning that you take less damage and so on, whereas unfocused fire leaves the enemy fighting back at full strength until they're defeated. Oxybe's comments are also relevant, although I don't think the nature of turn-based combat is the real reason for the issue, since it's also been seen in a lot of video games -- Sins of a Solar Empire even has a whole game mechanic designed solely to make focus fire less viable, for example.

It's actually at its worst in 3rd edition and earlier, because those editions never needed hit points in the first place. If the caster can drop someone with a single spell, you have already lost all of the positive aspects of a hit point system -- so why are you still forcing it on archers and swordsmen?

This is actually one of the places where the "fighters can't have nice things" double standard really does exist and really does hurt the game, yet most people complaining that "fighters can't have nice things" don't even bat an eyelid over it.

Another example of real-life tactics vs. game tactics gone wrong? Fireball. We know what we would do with a Fireball spell in real life -- mainly, forcing opponents to keep their heads down while allies are likely to be vulnerable. In D&D, it isn't good for any such thing, because it costs nothing to duck behind cover. What mechanic does SoaSE use? Certainly, that would help.

I guess they got the powerful wizards part across, but forgot to have some kind of drawback to it.

What kind of cover is sufficient against a fireball? I figured it was like a firey explosion, which few things would work as cover against.



It's not about hit points. If you spread your attacks against 4 opponents relatively equally, you will be attacked by 4 opponents the entire battle. If you aim for just one opponent, he will go down quickly then you are only attacked by 3 opponents. An opponent at half hit points is just as dangerous as full hit points (4E D&D bloodied condition exception accepted). He's harmless at 0 hit points. Therefore, given the choice between attacking an injured opponent and one not yet hit, you attack the injured one to get him closer to 0 hit points. The strategy is about reducing the number of attacks against you as the combat progresses. And the reason we have that is the way HP works. Also, because formation has no benefit.


The HP thing also makes threats meaningless. You hold a crossbow to someone's head and say if they scream you'll shoot. They scream, you shoot, then they run away because one attack isn't going to stop them. Or, there is a huge wall of fire. You work out that your Fort/Ref and HP are so great, you just waltz through/into it.

GMs have to make house rules against that sort of thing--or else players will stabbing themselves with a dagger all day just to show how tough they are.



If he's helpless, you can coup de grace him.

If he's not, it'd be a straight combat situation and I'd assume the character who can survive that was not actually shot through the head but got out of the way a bit and the bolt just made an ugly scratch.

The way you threaten high level characters is the way comic book villains do it. :smalltongue:


That is what the Intimidate skill is for. If an NPC blows off the threat because he has lots of hit points compared to a crossbow bolt doing 1d8 damage, then the DM is metagaming cheating. "I hold the knife tightly against their throat, threatening to cut it if they don't comply." "-15 on that roll, since they have over 60 HP and an AC of 25, and your attack does 1d4+4."


Except that he's not. It's the same thing as realizing that Fireball doesn't actually set things on fire. It might seem unrealistic and gamey to us but it won't to them. In their world, there are some people who can reliably survive a crossbow bolt to the head, whether it bounces off or just seems to always graze them. By the time you houserule things to seem reasonable, you're playing something quite different.


EDIT:
IRL the Dogpile tactic is called Defeating the enemy in detail; also see Napoleon's strategy of the central position. Other tactics are possible in RPGs, though Hit and Run is often pointless in games where they just heal up or teleport out. I don't think Napoleon's tactics look anything like DnD. In DnD, you surround one guy and bash on him, as other people bash on you. Put a circle around one guy while your backs are to four others is not a good tactic... There aren't any weak-points in DnD, no matter what angle you get attacked from--so there's no need to have a few guys focus on keeping the rest of your enemies at bay (as long as the wizards are out of range).



"Boromir took 50 arrows before ..."; Heros are heroic not realistic; Heroic RPGs likewise.
"A mile, maybe, from Parth Galen in a little glade not far from the lake he found Boromir. He was sitting with his back to a great tree, as if he was resting. But Aragorn saw that he was pierced with many black-feathered arrows[...]"

50 isn't "many arrows"... that's the Discworldian Trolls' equivalent to, "lots!".


He also died. And arrows can take quite a while to kill, even if they are lethal. Bow hunters almost always have to track the deer, and that's using multiple bladed broadheads from modern compound bows. Even after running one of those straight in one side of a deer's chest and out the other, the deer can still usually go quite a ways. Against a larger target who's determined to fight as long as possible, it's not unreasonable for it to take quite a few arrows.

Hell, it wouldn't be unreasonable to take quite a few rifle bullets.

Of course it also wouldn't be unreasonable for the first arrow to sever the aorta, and the entire fight to last six seconds. 50 would still be ridiculous. If he had armour, and the orcs arrows were poor quality, then you could be hit by a great number of partial-penetrations--but in this case, Tolkien will mean something akin to less than a dozen arrows. Remember that there's also nothing to say how many arrows Boromir fought with--he might've taken one, kept going, then been hit by five all at once (can't remember if they elaborated upon this, at the moment). Some of them could also have hit his limbs, freeing his ability to talk.

Policemen will sometimes get a guy like that, who can be hit with shotgun blasts and keep going. Drugs and willpower and a terrifying mix.

Fighting with arrows in you isn't fun, we can imagine. Boromir was committed to dying protecting the hobbits, to avenge his honour.


Despite that depending on the type of game im trying to run i agree with you. Otherwise you get into weird situations where certainly a level 20 barbarian would never run into a burning building d6 damge a round will kill him in seconds if he were a commoner acknowledging that he has 200+ hp is meta gaming and is therefore bad role playing. That's where you get to a weird conflict. On one hand, it does make sense you can't run into walls of fire or burning buildings. On the other hand, a level 20 barbarian will have been scorched by many dragons across their career--a burning house seems rather trivial in comparison to that.

The way the rule work, you can't win either way, if you want things to be plausible.

[Eldariel]

That depends, on low levels around 3-4 archery is still perfectly viable and fun, at least in open space, with somehow 'detailed' landscape. Pretty much none of my player was actually optimised towards archering and they were scoring many kills that way.

Later, with more HP, DR, and generally everything, archery becomes rather silly indeed.

Archery remains viable throughout, it's just less "one-shot one-kill" (outside Deepwood Sniper Critical builds) and more "I can shoot 100 arrows in a second and that will be enough to slay even a God".

[warty goblin]

50 would still be ridiculous. If he had armour, and the orcs arrows were poor quality, then you could be hit by a great number of partial-penetrations--but in this case, Tolkien will mean something akin to less than a dozen arrows. Remember that there's also nothing to say how many arrows Boromir fought with--he might've taken one, kept going, then been hit by five all at once (can't remember if they elaborated upon this, at the moment). Some of them could also have hit his limbs, freeing his ability to talk.

Fifty is ridiculous, so ridiculous I decided to disregard it as hyperbole.



That's where you get to a weird conflict. On one hand, it does make sense you can't run into walls of fire or burning buildings. On the other hand, a level 20 barbarian will have been scorched by many dragons across their career--a burning house seems rather trivial in comparison to that.

The way the rule work, you can't win either way, if you want things to be plausible.

I think the key word there is scorched. Presumably if you survive the dragonfire, it did not actually hit you all that directly. Removed a bit of shoe leather as you dove for cover perhaps, but not a full frontal incineration. If you walk into a wall of fire, you're rather purposefully looking for full frontal incineration.

There doesn't seem to me to be any contradiction between allowing for a hero actively attempting to escape from danger a chance to do so, and killing their stupid ass dead when they deliberately do something that should kill them.

[Hiro Protagonest]

There doesn't seem to me to be any contradiction between allowing for a hero actively attempting to escape from danger a chance to do so, and killing their stupid ass dead when they deliberately do something that should kill them.

A level 20 barbarian call fall from orbit, take max damage, and get up and dust their clothes off. Explain how he negated the damage from that.

[Conners]

You still can explain that, given low standards. Of course, it still ends up like trying to simulate war with Super Mario Brothers.

[warty goblin]

A level 20 barbarian call fall from orbit, take max damage, and get up and dust their clothes off. Explain how he negated the damage from that.

The over-application of naive extrapolation.

This doesn't seem that hard folks. The rules are a set of easy approximations to cover common occurrences. When they are pushed too far, and produce stupid results, the appropriate response is to ignore the dumbness and do something sensible. Since most high fantasy games presumably don't involve falling from orbit, the fact that the rules do a poor job of covering that is more or less irrelevant.

There's a reason most RPGs have a person to referee the rules.

[awa]

except dodging the dragon breath is described by making a reflex save. The dragon doesn't do more damge when it breathes on a barbarian locked in a cage completely unable to dodge or defend himself (the fact that he can still make his reflex save is kinda stupid ill agree.)

D&d makes more sense if you think about high level characters as literally superhuman. keep in mind our level 20 barbarian can put a hump back in a head lock, or dig through a bank vault with his bare hands. He can go several months with no water. he can even fall in a pool of lava and fairly reliably walk away from the experience (and that's with out magic items)

now just to preempt some pointless comments im talking about power attack and if you take a -4 to hit you can deal lethal damge with an unarmed strike

edit also terminal velocity falls are not that uncommon by level 20

[Yukitsu]

The over-application of naive extrapolation.

This doesn't seem that hard folks. The rules are a set of easy approximations to cover common occurrences. When they are pushed too far, and produce stupid results, the appropriate response is to ignore the dumbness and do something sensible. Since most high fantasy games presumably don't involve falling from orbit, the fact that the rules do a poor job of covering that is more or less irrelevant.

There's a reason most RPGs have a person to referee the rules.

The general rule of thumb is that most situations can only be explained by the person getting hit and surviving, there are no instances that are best explained by them having dodged it or otherwise mitigated the damage, either mechanically nor by extrapolation of effects. Just because you don't find it sensible, doesn't mean that others don't find the inverse more absurd.

[SowZ]

That is what the Intimidate skill is for. If an NPC blows off the threat because he has lots of hit points compared to a crossbow bolt doing 1d8 damage, then the DM is metagaming cheating.

It isn't metagaming, really. If a character has been hit dozens of crossbows, some fireballs, survived 80 foot falls, fought against giants, etc. etc. they are literally a super hero. Many characters are marvel level super heros. Saying it is metagame for a Barbarian to fall a hundred feet on purpose or to blow off the threat of shooting you with a crossbow is like saying that Iron Man should surrender and take off his suit because some hobo with a sawed off shotgun is pointing it at him.

[navar100]

"I hold the knife tightly against their throat, threatening to cut it if they don't comply." "-15 on that roll, since they have over 60 HP and an AC of 25, and your attack does 1d4+4."



That is still metagaming. If you want to take into account the opponent's hit points then a DC modifier of +HD or +CR is not unwarranted. At least you're not being so ornery to have the check auto-fail.

[SowZ]

That is still metagaming. If you want to take into account the opponent's hit points then a DC modifier of +HD or +CR is not unwarranted. At least you're not being so ornery to have the check auto-fail.

Yeah, but it is reasonable for a person to not be threatened by such a thing if they have survived far, far worse. These people are like Hercules or Achilles or Leonidus in Greek myth. Every culture and religion has their Joabs and Rostams and Shivajis and Richard the Lionhearts, sometimes exaggerating historical figures. But those are the stories that high level D&D emulate moreso than most fantasy/medieval literature.

[Conners]

At least you're not being so ornery to have the check auto-fail. This comment seemed more than unnecessary.

[Elderand]

Magic change warfare in very large ways.

The basic idea is this, tight formation of soldiers are a very very very bad idea in dnd due to the effect of area of effect spells.

If we go by real life medieval warfare, the majority of soldier would be commoner given a pike and told to charge at another group of commoners with pikes with the knights being used as heavy cavalry. Those commoners would be lucky to have protection beyond a simple leather vest.

What it means is that a single wizard or sorcerer can decimate an army with a fireball. And let's not even go into what a god wizard can do.

Because of how magic work in dnd, by necessity fighting is far more likely to result in guerilla warfare than it is in large scale battles.

Likewise, planned ambushes don't survive contact with divination.

[SowZ]

Magic change warfare in very large ways.

The basic idea is this, tight formation of soldiers are a very very very bad idea in dnd due to the effect of area of effect spells.

If we go by real life medieval warfare, the majority of soldier would be commoner given a pike and told to charge at another group of commoners with pikes with the knights being used as heavy cavalry. Those commoners would be lucky to have protection beyond a simple leather vest.

What it means is that a single wizard or sorcerer can decimate an army with a fireball. And let's not even go into what a god wizard can do.

Because of how magic work in dnd, by necessity fighting is far more likely to result in guerilla warfare than it is in large scale battles.

Likewise, planned ambushes don't survive contact with divination.

While this is mostly true, there isn't a single documented, European account of leather being used as armor. Otherwise, yeah, spear wielding commoners are correct. The middle east, asia, and africa may have occasionally used hides.

But yeah, D&D warfare is probably more like 'the old way' where each side puts up their best soldier or group of soldiers and the winner gets the spoils, possibly with the heroes being captured and ransomed back as opposed to killed if possible. Meanwhile, high level wizards and other casters are too valuable to risk in real combat. They are bolstering the economy with magic item crafting, divinations, and magical defenses. Infantry is more for occupation/dealing with criminals and uprisings/fending off low level monsters.

[nedz]

EDIT: I don't think Napoleon's tactics look anything like DnD. In DnD, you surround one guy and bash on him, as other people bash on you. Put a circle around one guy while your backs are to four others is not a good tactic... There aren't any weak-points in DnD, no matter what angle you get attacked from--so there's no need to have a few guys focus on keeping the rest of your enemies at bay (as long as the wizards are out of range).

The strategy of the Central position is where you commit a small part of your force to hold off half your opponents, whilst focussing your main effort on the other half. The scale is different, but it is still defeat in detail.


"A mile, maybe, from Parth Galen in a little glade not far from the lake he found Boromir. He was sitting with his back to a great tree, as if he was resting. But Aragorn saw that he was pierced with many black-feathered arrows[...]"

50 isn't "many arrows"... that's the Discworldian Trolls' equivalent to, "lots!".

50 would still be ridiculous. If he had armour, and the orcs arrows were poor quality, then you could be hit by a great number of partial-penetrations--but in this case, Tolkien will mean something akin to less than a dozen arrows. Remember that there's also nothing to say how many arrows Boromir fought with--he might've taken one, kept going, then been hit by five all at once (can't remember if they elaborated upon this, at the moment). Some of them could also have hit his limbs, freeing his ability to talk.

Policemen will sometimes get a guy like that, who can be hit with shotgun blasts and keep going. Drugs and willpower and a terrifying mix.

Fighting with arrows in you isn't fun, we can imagine. Boromir was committed to dying protecting the hobbits, to avenge his honour.



Fifty is ridiculous, so ridiculous I decided to disregard it as hyperbole.


50 was hyperbole, but wouldn't be in the context of D&D. Besides you both missed the real point and focussed on a irrelevant detail.

[rrgg]

The number one problem with trying to mimic "real world tactics" is that there tends to be very little consensus on how the real world would actually work, especially when you are talking about something like medieval warfare. Whether leather armor existed is a good one, or if the infantry really would be spear armed commoners, or if putting dung on arrowheads actually has any immediate effect. If I had my way, most bows and crossbows would be pretty much useless against most forms of armor and polearms would be able to curb-stomp almost anything in their path.

And that's just the thing, any system you use isn't gong to be a perfect simulation of real life, rather it's someone else's very specific interpenetration of how real life would work. Not to mention the fact that it doesn't get any easier when you start adding wizards and dragons and you need to figure out how they were intended to fit into the setting.

Although, I suppose this isn't necessarily a bad thing if some things don't make sense "realistically." If the perfect strategy every time was to just "do exactly what the history book says," well, where's the game? Keeping consistent rules that everyone has access to yet are still unfamiliar with is a good way of equalizing all the players and making them all think.

[Conners]

The strategy of the Central position is where you commit a small part of your force to hold off half your opponents, whilst focussing your main effort on the other half. The scale is different, but it is still defeat in detail. I guessed that was what you meant. The incentive to use a small part of your force to delay half of the enemy's force is so that you fight their other half 2-to-1. If you didn't put out that detachment, that other half would come and sandwich you in, making your position terrible with an enemy attacking your back and front.

You don't get that in DnD... you're just as defensible from the front as the back. It's just a matter of swarming the enemy. As long as you don't put your soft guys somewhere they be threatened, damage-output is the one rule, defence second to it.


50 was hyperbole, but wouldn't be in the context of D&D. Besides you both missed the real point and focussed on a irrelevant detail. Tell me how that was irrelevant, please :smallsmile:.



The number one problem with trying to mimic "real world tactics" is that there tends to be very little consensus on how the real world would actually work, especially when you are talking about something like medieval warfare. Whether leather armor existed is a good one, or if the infantry really would be spear armed commoners, or if putting dung on arrowheads actually has any immediate effect. If I had my way, most bows and crossbows would be pretty much useless against most forms of armor and polearms would be able to curb-stomp almost anything in their path.

And that's just the thing, any system you use isn't gong to be a perfect simulation of real life, rather it's someone else's very specific interpenetration of how real life would work. Not to mention the fact that it doesn't get any easier when you start adding wizards and dragons and you need to figure out how they were intended to fit into the setting.

Although, I suppose this isn't necessarily a bad thing if some things don't make sense "realistically." If the perfect strategy every time was to just "do exactly what the history book says," well, where's the game? Keeping consistent rules that everyone has access to yet are still unfamiliar with is a good way of equalizing all the players and making them all think. I guess look up blood poisoning for the arrowhead question.

You would have to take armour-piercing varieties of crossbows/bows and arrows/bolts in mind.

....So tell me, what is this perfect strategy your history book has, which can answer any realistic battle scenario...?

[SowZ]

I guessed that was what you meant. The incentive to use a small part of your force to delay half of the enemy's force is so that you fight their other half 2-to-1. If you didn't put out that detachment, that other half would come and sandwich you in, making your position terrible with an enemy attacking your back and front.

You don't get that in DnD... you're just as defensible from the front as the back. It's just a matter of swarming the enemy. As long as you don't put your soft guys somewhere they be threatened, damage-output is the one rule, defence second to it.

Tell me how that was irrelevant, please :smallsmile:.


I guess look up blood poisoning for the arrowhead question.

You would have to take armour-piercing varieties of crossbows/bows and arrows/bolts in mind.

....So tell me, what is this perfect strategy your history book has, which can answer any realistic battle scenario...?

Real life medieval tactics would mostly involve rounding up everyone you can, (hope you can field as many bows and horses as possible.) Most of your people probably have spears, maybe a wooden shield. No one has leather armor. Depending on the importance, you may hire some mercenaries. Then, you meet your opponent.

Both leaders talk. If one army is stronger than the other, the weaker leader will concede with his terms. Otherwise, they will negotiate/play chicken to convince the other side to surrender since no one wants to fight. There is a good chance they will come to some sort of deal. Otherwise, if it comes to blows, once any given side starts to lose troops faster than the other, (probably very early in the battle,) one side will retreat with a fairly small percentage of their force destroyed.

Real life is almost always more boring than what we make history and such out to be.

[JaronK]

Interestingly enough, mass arrow volleys are still useful in D&D, mostly due to Dragonfire Inspiration Bards. Even a group of 6 such level 1 Bards can make it deadly... as long as there are 5 with different elemental backgrounds (Kobolds!) and they're all using Masterwork War Drums, plus one guy doing standard Inspire Courage, then massed arrow volleys with Greatbows (wielded by commoners, because proficiency isn't required for volleys) do 1d10+2+10d6 damage, and enemies must make a DC 15 save or be hit even from 1300' away. This makes groups of commoners very deadly, especially since they can fire from outside of magic range. They'd probably have Tower Shields for defense, because those are cheap and there's no need for anything else. With bardic support spear armed infantry becomes a serious threat too, though they do need to be able to hit.

Still, the real world tactic of "wound one guy so he's not a threat, then move on to the next" doesn't work in D&D. It's great in Shadowrun 3, though, which is nice. Flanking works great in that game too, since cover is so important in a shooting match.

JaronK

[Conners]

Real life medieval tactics would mostly involve rounding up everyone you can, (hope you can field as many bows and horses as possible.) Most of your people probably have spears, maybe a wooden shield. No one has leather armor. Depending on the importance, you may hire some mercenaries. Then, you meet your opponent. That'd be real life medieval war tactics. If you get down to that, that's no different from modern military tactics (hire a lot of guys, guns, and tanks and planes if it's a big deal).
Depending on area and era, it might be more unusual to raise a levy than to hire mercenaries. Armour and equipment levels also would vary largely depending on the importance of the conflict and the time.


Both leaders talk. If one army is stronger than the other, the weaker leader will concede with his terms. Otherwise, they will negotiate/play chicken to convince the other side to surrender since no one wants to fight. There is a good chance they will come to some sort of deal. Otherwise, if it comes to blows, once any given side starts to lose troops faster than the other, (probably very early in the battle,) one side will retreat with a fairly small percentage of their force destroyed. This'd again be down to war as the focus, rather than a small band of mercenaries/duellists/agents/adventurers.


Real life is almost always more boring than what we make history and such out to be. Your example sure makes it sound that way.



Interestingly enough, mass arrow volleys are still useful in D&D, mostly due to Dragonfire Inspiration Bards. Even a group of 6 such level 1 Bards can make it deadly... as long as there are 5 with different elemental backgrounds (Kobolds!) and they're all using Masterwork War Drums, plus one guy doing standard Inspire Courage, then massed arrow volleys with Greatbows (wielded by commoners, because proficiency isn't required for volleys) do 1d10+2+10d6 damage, and enemies must make a DC 15 save or be hit even from 1300' away. This makes groups of commoners very deadly, especially since they can fire from outside of magic range. They'd probably have Tower Shields for defense, because those are cheap and there's no need for anything else. With bardic support spear armed infantry becomes a serious threat too, though they do need to be able to hit.

Still, the real world tactic of "wound one guy so he's not a threat, then move on to the next" doesn't work in D&D. It's great in Shadowrun 3, though, which is nice. Flanking works great in that game too, since cover is so important in a shooting match.

JaronK With all that trouble, I figure you should get better results than historical archery.

Will have to look into Shadowrun some more.

[willpell]

your right real world tactics rely heavily on suppressive fire in dnd it does not exist

How would you suggest representing such a thing under the system's rules?

[Leon]

Anything involving archery

3.5 Does not want you using a Bow (or any other Ranged weapon), it wants you in Melee or as a caster.

The effort you have to go to with ranged to keep up with what melee can reach easily with minimal effort is stupid. Its one of the two good things i found with 4e.

Hope that Next doesn't fall back into the same old stupid ways that 3.5 suffered from

[JaronK]

With all that trouble, I figure you should get better results than historical archery.

You do, by the way. A volley from commoners supported by those 6 bards fired at a group of 6th level knights (Fighter 6? Paladin 6? Knight 6? Doesn't matter much) in full plate riding Heavy Warhorses in Full Plate Barding will kill 1/4 of the knights and horses outright, it will kill 1/4 of the knights while the horses survive, it will kill 1/4 of the horses out from under the knights, and leave only 1/4 of the knights alive and uninjured... per volley. At over a thousand feet out. And Commoner 1s with Greatbows, a set of Arrows, and a Tower Shield plus those 6 bards with their Masterwork War Drums are WAY cheaper than full plate 6th level knights on full plate heavy war horses.


Will have to look into Shadowrun some more.

It's a really solid game. The reason shooting to injure matters is that as you take damage, you actually get injured with serious penalties. A 'runner who's near death is almost useless in a fight... they're limping slowly, their aim is terrible, they have serious trouble landing spells, their ability to drive is limited... basically, they're heavily injured. If you seriously injure someone, you can aim for the next target.

JaronK

[NichG]

IMC I have rules for suppressive fire. It creates a region either 5x5 or 10x10 (depending on the weapon used) such that either one must spend their move action moving out of the area/moving to cover, or one loses either a move or standard action (their choice) when passing through or spending their round within the area.

This effect does not apply to anyone immune to the attacks being used to establish the suppressing region - e.g. someone with enough DR to never take damage from a non-crit attack from that source, someone immune to fire dealing with scorching ray suppressing fire, etc.

[awa]

yes if one side is magical augmenting its forces and the other is just mundanes with armor and swords the battle is heavily in the favor of the magic dragon bards. that is very different then real world tactics.

personally im not sure how i would do suppressive fire in dnd being hit by an arrow just doesn't have enough effect to force people to keep their head down
maybe some kind of ranged intimidate with a bonus to hit if they ignored it.

[nedz]

3.5 Does not want you using a Bow (or any other Ranged weapon), it wants you in Melee or as a caster.

The effort you have to go to with ranged to keep up with what melee can reach easily with minimal effort is stupid. Its one of the two good things i found with 4e.

Hope that Next doesn't fall back into the same old stupid ways that 3.5 suffered from

Agreed, but there are other kinds of archers: Wizards, Sorcerers, Warlocks, ...


I guessed that was what you meant. The incentive to use a small part of your force to delay half of the enemy's force is so that you fight their other half 2-to-1. If you didn't put out that detachment, that other half would come and sandwich you in, making your position terrible with an enemy attacking your back and front.

You don't get that in DnD... you're just as defensible from the front as the back. It's just a matter of swarming the enemy. As long as you don't put your soft guys somewhere they be threatened, damage-output is the one rule, defence second to it.

Well, in D&D you would normally use battlefield control to split the attackers. This can be a spell, or a tripper, etc.: either way you commit a small portion of your resources to achieve this. Whether you call this divide and conquer or defeat in detail, it amounts to the same.


Tell me how that was irrelevant, please :smallsmile:.

I put the clause in quotes to indicate an idiom. Namely that of an heroic perspective rather than a realistic one. You read it as a literal quote. Since, at least, two people did this: Its probably my fault.

[SowZ]

That'd be real life medieval war tactics. If you get down to that, that's no different from modern military tactics (hire a lot of guys, guns, and tanks and planes if it's a big deal).
Depending on area and era, it might be more unusual to raise a levy than to hire mercenaries. Armour and equipment levels also would vary largely depending on the importance of the conflict and the time.

This'd again be down to war as the focus, rather than a small band of mercenaries/duellists/agents/adventurers.

Your example sure makes it sound that way.


With all that trouble, I figure you should get better results than historical archery.

Will have to look into Shadowrun some more.

Yeah, equipment would vary. I was just saying leather armor wasn't a thing, really, in all probability. It makes sense to compare it to today, sure.

As for the whole, "Two forces are presented then both leaders talk it out and usually don't even fight" thing, that happened even when war was the focus.

[Slipperychicken]

A level 20 barbarian call fall from orbit, take max damage, and get up and dust their clothes off. Explain how he negated the damage from that.

Because the DM ignored or houseruled away the Massive Damage rule.

[Jeraa]

Because the DM ignored or houseruled away the Massive Damage rule.

Or he still used it. Its only a DC 15 Fortitude save to resist death from massive damage. Any barbarian that can take 120 damage (maximum for a fall) and still survive should easily be able to make the save.

(Personally, I prefer the DC to be equal to half the damage dealt. So the minimum DC would be 25, and a DC 60 in the case of maximum falling damage.)

[Spiryt]

Or he still used it. Its only a DC 15 Fortitude save to resist death from massive damage. Any barbarian that can take 120 damage (maximum for a fall) and still survive should easily be able to make the save.


Barbarian that can just "take" 120 damage, will pretty much fail such save just once every 20 tries. :smallbiggrin:

[Slipperychicken]

Barbarian that can just "take" 120 damage, will pretty much fail such save just once every 20 tries. :smallbiggrin:

That still makes it about as dumb of an idea as hitting himself with a Finger of Death.

[comicshorse]

Real life medieval tactics would mostly involve rounding up everyone you can, (hope you can field as many bows and horses as possible.) Most of your people probably have spears, maybe a wooden shield. No one has leather armor. Depending on the importance, you may hire some mercenaries. Then, you meet your opponent.

Both leaders talk. If one army is stronger than the other, the weaker leader will concede with his terms. Otherwise, they will negotiate/play chicken to convince the other side to surrender since no one wants to fight. There is a good chance they will come to some sort of deal. Otherwise, if it comes to blows, once any given side starts to lose troops faster than the other, (probably very early in the battle,) one side will retreat with a fairly small percentage of their force destroyed.

Real life is almost always more boring than what we make history and such out to be.

I'd agree with all of it but the bolded part. Once a force breaks they are going to be stopping defending themselves and will be easily cut down. Without the discipline to do a proper withdrawal they are going to suffer heavy losses

[Spiryt]

I'd agree with all of it but the bolded part. Once a force breaks they are going to be stopping defending themselves and will be easily cut down. Without the discipline to do a proper withdrawal they are going to suffer heavy losses

It absolutely depends on all sorts of circumstances, from terrain to particular battle dynamic to combatants actual intentions towards others...

It cannot be generalized at all.

Medieval armies usually suffered most of the losses when one side ranks were broken, indeed. On the other hand, vast majority of even broken and routed armies usually survived.

Then on the other hand, obviously, there was something like Battle o Montgisard where routed Egyptians/Ayyubid forces were apparently almost completely annihilated.

So there are no hard rules at all.

[Ashtagon]

Or he still used it. Its only a DC 15 Fortitude save to resist death from massive damage. Any barbarian that can take 120 damage (maximum for a fall) and still survive should easily be able to make the save.

(Personally, I prefer the DC to be equal to half the damage dealt. So the minimum DC would be 25, and a DC 60 in the case of maximum falling damage.)

Square root of damage, doubled...

{table=head] Damage | Save DC
50 | 14
56 | 15
64 | 16
72 | 17
81 | 18
90 | 19
100 | 20
110 | 21
121 | 22
132 | 23
144 | 24
156 | 25
169 | 26
182 | 27
196 | 28
210 | 29
225 | 30
[/table]

[deuterio12]

The over-application of naive extrapolation.

This doesn't seem that hard folks. The rules are a set of easy approximations to cover common occurrences. When they are pushed too far, and produce stupid results, the appropriate response is to ignore the dumbness and do something sensible. Since most high fantasy games presumably don't involve falling from orbit, the fact that the rules do a poor job of covering that is more or less irrelevant.

There's a reason most RPGs have a person to referee the rules.

D&D has rules for being immersed in lava. It doesn't inflict instant death, it just deals a lot of damage. So yes, high-level D&D characters can explicitily go take a dive in an active volcano and get out on their own after some swimming, whitout any extrapolation involved. The writers themselves said "you can survive being covered in lava if you have this much HP".

So they falling from orbit and tanking dragon breaths suddenly doesn't sound that absurd. Medium-high level D&D characters are just that tough.

[Gnome Alone]

A level 20 barbarian call fall from orbit, take max damage, and get up and dust their clothes off. Explain how he negated the damage from that.


:thog: Thog sort of roll when Thog land.

[Slipperychicken]

Square root of damage, doubled...

{table=head] Damage | Save DC
50 | 14
56 | 15
64 | 16
72 | 17
81 | 18
90 | 19
100 | 20
110 | 21
121 | 22
132 | 23
144 | 24
156 | 25
169 | 26
182 | 27
196 | 28
210 | 29
225 | 30
[/table]


Looks like that can be easily simplified to "for every 10 damage beyond the massive damage threshold, add 1 to the save DC to resist death via massive damage". Saves the table a lot of math, and comes out to about the same thing.

[Geostationary]

What mechanic does SoaSE use? Certainly, that would help.

If I recall correctly, Shield Mitigation increases when a given ship takes more fire, thereby decreasing the total damage taken more than if it were taking less fire. It doesn't totally stop the damage, but it makes focus fire less effective after a point. Shield Mitigation is calculated from a base rate and the current dps hitting the shields, and it lowers over time; this is part of what makes phase missiles great as they can ignore the shields entirely and only have to contend with the ships' armor value. The Visari starbase also takes advantage of the mechanic with an ability that sets mitigation to 100% for a short period, in order to make the front half of the starbase immune to damage.

[SowZ]

It absolutely depends on all sorts of circumstances, from terrain to particular battle dynamic to combatants actual intentions towards others...

It cannot be generalized at all.

Medieval armies usually suffered most of the losses when one side ranks were broken, indeed. On the other hand, vast majority of even broken and routed armies usually survived.

Then on the other hand, obviously, there was something like Battle o Montgisard where routed Egyptians/Ayyubid forces were apparently almost completely annihilated.

So there are no hard rules at all.

Sure, yeah, I can agree with that. You can also run faster if you've dropped your gear. I'm just going against the idea that a battle would happen and a whole side would be wiped out. Occasionally, sure, but usually the majority of the beaten side would live. Also, I hope people don't hear me saying that the soldiers in an army were using hoes and spades and never had any training. That is not whay I am trying to say.


I'd agree with all of it but the bolded part. Once a force breaks they are going to be stopping defending themselves and will be easily cut down. Without the discipline to do a proper withdrawal they are going to suffer heavy losses

It is possible we just have different definitions of the word small. I'm saying small as compared to what books, movies, and games tell us. I'd count 20% as small, relatively.


Square root of damage, doubled...

{table=head] Damage | Save DC
50 | 14
56 | 15
64 | 16
72 | 17
81 | 18
90 | 19
100 | 20
110 | 21
121 | 22
132 | 23
144 | 24
156 | 25
169 | 26
182 | 27
196 | 28
210 | 29
225 | 30
[/table]

That's cool. I'll probably keep this table archived, thanks. Anyway, a lvl 20 Barbarian with base save 12 and, (during Mighty Rage,) a 28 con has a save of 21. If he has taken Steadfast Determination, (enough things have Endurance as a pre-req that I like the feat,) he won't even fail on a 1.


Interestingly enough, mass arrow volleys are still useful in D&D, mostly due to Dragonfire Inspiration Bards. Even a group of 6 such level 1 Bards can make it deadly... as long as there are 5 with different elemental backgrounds (Kobolds!) and they're all using Masterwork War Drums, plus one guy doing standard Inspire Courage, then massed arrow volleys with Greatbows (wielded by commoners, because proficiency isn't required for volleys) do 1d10+2+10d6 damage, and enemies must make a DC 15 save or be hit even from 1300' away. This makes groups of commoners very deadly, especially since they can fire from outside of magic range. They'd probably have Tower Shields for defense, because those are cheap and there's no need for anything else. With bardic support spear armed infantry becomes a serious threat too, though they do need to be able to hit.

Still, the real world tactic of "wound one guy so he's not a threat, then move on to the next" doesn't work in D&D. It's great in Shadowrun 3, though, which is nice. Flanking works great in that game too, since cover is so important in a shooting match.

JaronK

How well does volleying work without a bard, or is it not possible? It seems this would be the only real way for a group of low level guards to defend a city from a high CR monster.

[Hiro Protagonest]

If I had my way, most bows and crossbows would be pretty much useless against most forms of armor and polearms would be able to curb-stomp almost anything in their path.
...You don't know how these weapons worked, do you?

Polearms have longer reach. Swordsman knocks it aside with his shield, moves in aggressively.

English and European warbows drew back a hundred pounds of force, and flung arrows nearly double the weight of hunting arrows. Bodkins were specifically made for piercing armor, but even broadheads had a shot at doing that.

Because the DM ignored or houseruled away the Massive Damage rule.
You know that's an optional rule in a sidebar in the DMG, right? Anyway, save DC 15, barbarian has Steadfast Determination (because why not?), automatic success.

Square root of damage, doubled...

{table=head] Damage | Save DC
50 | 14
56 | 15
64 | 16
72 | 17
81 | 18
90 | 19
100 | 20
110 | 21
121 | 22
132 | 23
144 | 24
156 | 25
169 | 26
182 | 27
196 | 28
210 | 29
225 | 30
[/table]

Alrighty, assuming absolute max damage, save DC 22. Con 16 base, +6 item, +3 tome, +1 level boost. 26 is +8 modifier. +20 after level modifier. He succeeds on a 2. If he's Raging and has Steadfast Determination, he auto-succeeds.

[Jeraa]

You know that's an optional rule in a sidebar in the DMG, right? Anyway, save DC 15, barbarian has Steadfast Determination (because why not?), automatic success.

No its not. Its a rule in the Player's Handbook, page 145. The DMG has variants for the Massive Damage rule, but the rule itself isn't a variant. Its as much part of the rules as a natural 20 being an autosuccess on attack rolls, or Power Attack trading accuracy for damage.

[nedz]

No its not. Its a rule in the Player's Handbook, page 145. The DMG has variants for the Massive Damage rule, but the rule itself isn't a variant. Its as much part of the rules as a natural 20 being an autosuccess on attack rolls, or Power Attack trading accuracy for damage.

By RAW you are right !

But does anyone actually play this ?
Obviously you do, but neither of the groups I play with use it.

The problems with it include

Non-scaling so more likely to happen in high level play, when 50 HP may not be all that much in relative terms.
It's a double whammy, taking 50+ damage is quite a blow anyway.
It's just more rocket tag, which some of us dislike.

[SowZ]

...You don't know how these weapons worked, do you?

Polearms have longer reach. Swordsman knocks it aside with his shield, moves in aggressively.

English and European warbows drew back a hundred pounds of force, and flung arrows nearly double the weight of hunting arrows. Bodkins were specifically made for piercing armor, but even broadheads had a shot at doing that.

You know that's an optional rule in a sidebar in the DMG, right? Anyway, save DC 15, barbarian has Steadfast Determination (because why not?), automatic success.


Alrighty, assuming absolute max damage, save DC 22. Con 16 base, +6 item, +3 tome, +1 level boost. 26 is +8 modifier. +20 after level modifier. He succeeds on a 2. If he's Raging and has Steadfast Determination, he auto-succeeds.

Yeah, arrows are one of the most effective things against armor. But polearms/spears are the single most widely used weapon in all of recorded history. They were the most widely used melee weapon in the majority of cultures back when melee was the primary fighting method. They are very effective. And while I can't actually say what fighting styles and techniques were widely used pre renascence, I can guess that it isn't quite so easy to counter a spear. Since most shields were wooden, I'm sure they could be shattered/splintered with the leverage lots of polearms could produce.

[Ashtagon]

That square-root thing is too complex in actual play. As a house rule, I'd go for:

Massive Damage Threshold = 30 (lower than RAW, because the penalty for failure isn't so severe).

Massive Damage Save DC = 15 + 1 per 10 points of damage over threshold.

Failing the massive damage save means you suffer a -2 penalty on all d20 rolls. This is cumulative with each failed save, and lasts until you are healed to full hit points.

Gritty variant: Threshold is equal to Constitution score plus Fortitude save bonus. Penalty on a failed save is equal to the amount you failed the save by (instead of a flat -2).

[SowZ]

That square-root thing is too complex in actual play. As a house rule, I'd go for:

Massive Damage Threshold = 30 (lower than RAW, because the penalty for failure isn't so severe).

Massive Damage Save DC = 15 + 1 per 10 points of damage over threshold.

Failing the massive damage save means you suffer a -2 penalty on all d20 rolls. This is cumulative with each failed save, and lasts until you are healed to full hit points.

Gritty variant: Threshold is equal to Constitution score plus Fortitude save bonus. Penalty on a failed save is equal to the amount you failed the save by (instead of a flat -2).

I'd say a truly gritty variant would be threshold is equal to your consitution score plus nothing, since your fortitude save is already coming into play with the save allowed.

[lesser_minion]

That's not what D&D tactics are about?

Ideally, D&D tactics would be a series of interesting decisions, in the same way as any other game's would be.

Unfortunately, things like this run into the horrible truth of game design -- many players are quite happy to do things that are unfun in a game if it lets them 'win' more easily or more often.

This is the reason why (video game) designers have to think carefully about features like permissive save systems or granting experience for defeating enemies. Level grinding and save-scumming are both incredibly tedious and boring ways to play a game, but many players will still engage in them if they're available, even when the game is properly balanced -- i.e. there shouldn't be any need for save-scumming or level grinding.


What mechanic does SoaSE use? Certainly, that would help.

The most notable example is shield mitigation -- as ships take damage, their shields adapt to the incoming fire, meaning that subsequent fire does less damage. It doesn't completely stop focus fire, but it does help. A lot of ships also have multiple weapons that can't all be brought to bear against a single target.


I guess they got the powerful wizards part across, but forgot to have some kind of drawback to it.

I'd say that it's more the designers re-using a mechanic from past editions without actually stopping to think about what it was contributing to the game. As I said, the way casters work in D&D effectively throws out the main gameplay benefit to hit points -- if the designers had thought about it, they'd have realised that they were establishing one rule for casters and another for fighters, without good reason.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Yeah, arrows are one of the most effective things against armor. But polearms/spears are the single most widely used weapon in all of recorded history. They were the most widely used melee weapon in the majority of cultures back when melee was the primary fighting method. They are very effective. And while I can't actually say what fighting styles and techniques were widely used pre renascence, I can guess that it isn't quite so easy to counter a spear. Since most shields were wooden, I'm sure they could be shattered/splintered with the leverage lots of polearms could produce.

Well, you are right about the polearms, they are still very viable dueling weapons in real life. But saying they totally pwn everything else is just wrong. Yes, I know, there are stories of guys who beat a vastly larger force with skilled use of the polearm. Well, that's because if there's a single skilled swordsman and a bunch of guys with spears and axes, the spearmen have longer reach, and while he'll take some down, he'll eventually get stabbed to death. But guys with swords/axes and shields are able to block arrow volleys much effectively than spearmen, so you can't count them out.

Ultimately, one-on-one, sword and board vs polearm is roughly even. Versus a lot of footmen, polearm wins out. Versus archers, slingers, or peltasts, sword and board wins out.

[SowZ]

Well, you are right about the polearms, they are still very viable dueling weapons in real life. But saying they totally pwn everything else is just wrong. Yes, I know, there are stories of guys who beat a vastly larger force with skilled use of the polearm. Well, that's because if there's a single skilled swordsman and a bunch of guys with spears and axes, the spearmen have longer reach, and while he'll take some down, he'll eventually get stabbed to death. But guys with swords/axes and shields are able to block arrow volleys much effectively than spearmen, so you can't count them out.

Ultimately, one-on-one, sword and board vs polearm is roughly even. Versus a lot of footmen, polearm wins out. Versus archers, slingers, or peltasts, sword and board wins out.

Hmm... I don't know how a lone swordsman could take anyone out if he is seriously outnumbered by spears. They all get to attack before he does. One of them is going to hit him and he won't have a chance to do much.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Hmm... I don't know how a lone swordsman could take anyone out if he is seriously outnumbered by spears. They all get to attack before he does. One of them is going to hit him and he won't have a chance to do much.

I'm assuming that anyone who's way outnumbered is of high skill, more than his opponents.

[SowZ]

I'm assuming that anyone who's way outnumbered is of high skill, more than his opponents.

Sure, but even the best shot with a pistol in the world surrounded by snipers in sniper range can't take down a single enemy.

[nedz]

Well, you are right about the polearms, they are still very viable dueling weapons in real life. But saying they totally pwn everything else is just wrong. Yes, I know, there are stories of guys who beat a vastly larger force with skilled use of the polearm. Well, that's because if there's a single skilled swordsman and a bunch of guys with spears and axes, the spearmen have longer reach, and while he'll take some down, he'll eventually get stabbed to death. But guys with swords/axes and shields are able to block arrow volleys much effectively than spearmen, so you can't count them out.

Ultimately, one-on-one, sword and board vs polearm is roughly even. Versus a lot of footmen, polearm wins out. Versus archers, slingers, or peltasts, sword and board wins out.

this, it's basically paper/scissors/stone

Though long spears/pikes did seem to be most successful a lot of the time: Macedonian Phalanx, Swiss Mercenaries, Landsknecht, Schiltron.

[Belial_the_Leveler]

1) Most humans have ability scores of 10 or 11. Barring some highly illegal, short-lived, poisonous drugs, there are also no ability bonuses to be had.

2) There's no magical armor and defenses in real life. The best armors are equivalent to platemail at most, with the added benefit of still working vs penetrating attacks.

3) Modern firearms are at least the equivalent of magic weapons. An assault rifle would fire 4d6 damage, critical 18-20/3x rounds at a rate of 30 shots per 6-second combat round. A grenade would match a 5d6-6d6 fireball, while something like an explosive charge or rocket could be 20d6 for a direct hit. Heavy artillery could go in the 100d6 range.

4) Civilians would be lvl 1-2 (4-6 Hit Points), police and green soldiers would be lvl 3 (16 Hit Points), SWAT and experienced soldiers would be lvl 4, maybe 5 (24-28 Hit Points). Even the most elite commandos wouldn't be more than level 6 (34 Hit Points).




Given the above differences between the real world and a heroic DnD campaign, things like suppressive fire, using cover and actual tactics start making sense.
If 3-4 rounds could seriously wound or kill even the best guys and even a gangbanger could spray two dozen bullets in your direction while blind-firing and counting on the Law of Averages to nail you, you damn well use cover, and high ground, and blindsiding opponents, and stealth, and every other tactic that can get you a clean shot while denying the enemy the same.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Though long spears/pikes did seem to be most successful a lot of the time: Macedonian Phalanx, Swiss Mercenaries, Landsknecht, Schiltron.
I was going to address spear-and-shield, but I forgot to.

Basically, they're good at charging and for countering charges. Spears can also be thrown, if they're balanced for it. Most spear-and-shielders carried a sword for melee, though.

4) Civilians would be lvl 1-2 (4-6 Hit Points), police and green soldiers would be lvl 3 (16 Hit Points), SWAT and experienced soldiers would be lvl 4, maybe 5 (24-28 Hit Points). Even the most elite commandos wouldn't be more than level 6 (34 Hit Points).

Really? You place SWAT at level 4, and green troops at level 3? I think standard SWAT is level 3 (they have some experience as policemen, but nothing compared to a soldier who has been in real combat operations).

And while experienced soldiers are roughly the same regardless of army, there's a large difference between U.S. infantry fresh out of basic training, and rebels who have practiced tactics a couple times and know how to use an AK-74 and throw a hand grenade.

[demigodus]

For the argument that running through wall of fire is unrealistic, the earliest you can get it is at level 7 (wizard 4 spell), when it deals 7+2d6 fire damage when you run through it. Or an average of 14 damage. A 10 con WIZARD of that level (NOT assuming max hp on level 1) will have an average of 17 hit points at that level.

The spell was SPECIFICALLY crafted to not be lethal. The spell not being lethal and hence it being reasonable to charge through it, isn't a flaw in the system from extrapolating it to unreasonable extends. It is INTENDED.

For surviving a fall from orbit being unrealistic, terminal velocity is indeed a real thing. There is, a point at which falling from higher is no longer worse (until you are put in a vacuum and can't breathe). You might find this unreasonable, but it is reality. It is 100% realistic. If you consider it unrealistic, what you consider realistic is simply wrong.

And the argument that a level 20 barbarian only survives a dragon breath by dodging it:
A level 20 barbarian, when not raging, with no magic items, can easily have a con of 20 or so. This puts them at an average hp of 230. He could fail to dodge (fail the reflex save of) the breath of a thousand year old (Wyrm) red dragon (aka, CR 22), get hit dead on (max damage possible, 22d10 = 220), live (10 hp left), get pissed (rage), and proceed to rip it a new one with his great axe.
The barbarian didn't dodge. He didn't get lucky. He took the breath head on, shrugged it off, and kept going. This isn't a munchkin barbarian, there is no feat/magic item abuse, nor is this some corner case. Unless you believe that the game designers never considered the case of a dragon hitting appropriate level targets with its breath weapon, this is how the rules are supposed to work. The barbarian is simply so tough he shrugs stuff like this off.
It is not unrealistic for such a barbarian to laugh at the puny fire, stroll into a burning house, and start rescuing people. He gets smashed in the face (critical hit) with massive axes for a living, He knows he can live.

[JaronK]

How well does volleying work without a bard, or is it not possible? It seems this would be the only real way for a group of low level guards to defend a city from a high CR monster.

It would do 1d10 damage instead of enough to instant kill everybody (1d10+2+10d6). That would still seriously harm level 1 troops, but it wouldn't kill off higher level troops. The nice thing, though, is no magical gear is used (just the effect of level 1 Bards), and you can use untrained troops to do it. And even without the Bards it still does kill off trained level 1 troops using untrained level 1 troops, so that's good.

Also, note that War Drums have huge range, so 6 Bards can provide support for an entire army. Plus, the War Drums can be used to communicate general orders (advance, retreat, etc) just as they were in real life. I mean, War Drums to motivate your troops and scare the enemy away and give orders in real life, so it's a real life tactic that just works for better in D&D.

JaronK

[SowZ]

I was going to address spear-and-shield, but I forgot to.

Basically, they're good at charging and for countering charges. Spears can also be thrown, if they're balanced for it. Most spear-and-shielders carried a sword for melee, though.


Really? You place SWAT at level 4, and green troops at level 3? I think standard SWAT is level 3 (they have some experience as policemen, but nothing compared to a soldier who has been in real combat operations).

And while experienced soldiers are roughly the same regardless of army, there's a large difference between U.S. infantry fresh out of basic training, and rebels who have practiced tactics a couple times and know how to use an AK-74 and throw a hand grenade.

I'd say SWAT are level two to three, green troops are level one. Experienced troops are probably mostly two. It is very competitive to become SWAT. The best policemen who want such roles get it. The best cops are probably stronger than the average soldier.

When you break down the math of it, it is silly that someone who spent a year in Iraq is maybe fifteen percent more likely to be able to shoot a human than the average person, but that's a level system for you.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I'd say SWAT are level two to three, green troops are level one. Experienced troops are probably mostly two. It is very competitive to become SWAT. The best policemen who want such roles get it. The best cops are probably stronger than the average soldier.
Really? Well, I guess a cop with a few years on the force and some decent training in tactics (serious play of airsoft/Arma is a good way of training) is more experienced than a guy who's spent a couple months in basic training.

When you break down the math of it, it is silly that someone who spent a year in Iraq is maybe fifteen percent more likely to be able to shoot a human than the average person, but that's a level system for you.

I hate level systems on principle, and treat any game with them as nothing more than a game. The real benefits of experience in combat situations come as extra points in, using the FATE Core system, Stealth, Athletics, Physique, and Perception skills, with maybe a point in your Shooting/Firearms skill once or twice over your career to represent better aim, steadier hands, and more resistance to recoil.

[The Random NPC]

Really? Well, I guess a cop with a few years on the force and some decent training in tactics (serious play of airsoft/Arma is a good way of training) is more experienced than a guy who's spent a couple months in basic training.

As a prior Airman, that would be absolutely correct. I make no judgement calls on the other branch's training.

[rrgg]

...You don't know how these weapons worked, do you?

Polearms have longer reach. Swordsman knocks it aside with his shield, moves in aggressively.

English and European warbows drew back a hundred pounds of force, and flung arrows nearly double the weight of hunting arrows. Bodkins were specifically made for piercing armor, but even broadheads had a shot at doing that.

Against someone decent with a polearm? Swordsman tries to beat away spear, finds that the speartip can move much faster than the 250 lb. man or his heavy shield for that matter. He misses completely, he can't advance because there's still a spear in the way, and he continues to be a sitting duck being poked at. And that still doesn't get into using wings to get around the shield, a wide blade to slash at unprotected extremities, or "weapons of weight" getting all smashy smashy. Additionally if the swordsman does somehow get past the tip then he still has to deal with the spearman, who has drawn his own sword.

And that's the reason proper swordsmen are almost never actually seen on the battlefield. Swords do have a place, just not as a primary weapon.


As for bows it all comes down to energy, how much the user can actually produce with his arm and how efficient your method of transfer is. Bows are good at propelling small objects long distances, but energy efficient they really aren't when it comes to raw power. They wouldn't be doing any more damage than a regular sword or spear thrust and there are a plenty of weapons out there capable of doing a whole lot more (Now heavy throwing spears like the pilum, those can do some damage). So when you consider that armor was designed for a purpose and not simply a static obstacle (their strongest archers can penetrate a 15 layer jack? Fine, I'll just add another few layers) then the idea that the cut off was well below all of these other threats that the armorer should have had no problem proofing his designs against seems laughable.

But that's not so important, the purpose of archers wasn't to "snipe" enemies. They generally stood in formations firing large volumes of arrows until a few managed to strike a foe in the face or some other unarmored area.



But this all sort of gets into the point I was trying to make. We could both sit here tossing back and forth thought experiments, anecdotes, interpretations of historical texts, etc. but the fact is that neither of us has any way to know for sure what the truth is.

[shadow_archmagi]

How would you suggest representing such a thing under the system's rules?

In Rogue Trader, if you've got an automatic weapon you can spell a full round action to declare an area suppressed, and everyone in the area has to make a Will save or take various penalties. (Limited to a standard action, can't voluntarily move from cover, significant penalty to hit)

That's probably a decent starting point.


Looks like that can be easily simplified... Saves the table a lot of math...

I don't think you understand what D&D is really about.

[Sith_Happens]

That is what the Intimidate skill is for. If an NPC blows off the threat because he has lots of hit points compared to a crossbow bolt doing 1d8 damage, then the DM is metagaming cheating.

Actually, Intimidate is opposed by HD+Wis, so it's built in that an NPC capable of taking a crossbow hit is less scared at having one pointed at them.

[White_Drake]

And that's the reason proper swordsmen are almost never actually seen on the battlefield. Swords do have a place, just not as a primary weapon.


Based on my (admittedly limited) knowledge, I think the expense of producing swords and training swordsmen would be more likely. Spears are easy to use. Swords are much more difficult to wield properly. Spears are cheap and simple to craft. Swords are more complex and expensive.
Also, swords (to my knowledge) were much more commonly used in armies by the elite, such as knights and samurai, because they had proper training and could afford to arm themselves.
Also, the Celts made great use of swords on the battlefield.

[SowZ]

Based on my (admittedly limited) knowledge, I think the expense of producing swords and training swordsmen would be more likely. Spears are easy to use. Swords are much more difficult to wield properly. Spears are cheap and simple to craft. Swords are more complex and expensive.
Also, swords (to my knowledge) were much more commonly used in armies by the elite, such as knights and samurai, because they had proper training and could afford to arm themselves.
Also, the Celts made great use of swords on the battlefield.

My research would indicate the same, yeah. Of course, Celts didn't usually favor that well in battles against most mainland European countries without a lot of advantages. (And I pain myself saying that. My medieval kits are Celtic as is more of my ancestory than anything else.) Swords could do really well coupled with a shield, though. Again, I am mostly going off what armies fielded who won. It is perfectly possible that a sword could fare really well against a spear and there are other reasons spear armies did so well.

[Yukitsu]

Would disagree with swords in Japan. The samurai very much used polearms as their primary melee weapon, the bow was their primary weapon overall, and when they were invented, the samurai absolutely adored using European style matchlocks in mass formations. The sword was for those situations where you didn't have a spear, you needed a weapon fast (as a spear couldn't be quick drawn when you had your bow) and to use in rituals or duels.

[tzar1990]

Also, swords (to my knowledge) were much more commonly used in armies by the elite, such as knights and samurai, because they had proper training and could afford to arm themselves.

While I can't make any definitive statements about knights, I know that Samurai actually preferred spears and bows on the battlefield, with the sword being a gentleman's weapon for duels and so on.

[SowZ]

While I can't make any definitive statements about knights, I know that Samurai actually preferred spears and bows on the battlefield, with the sword being a gentleman's weapon for duels and so on.

I actually know very little Japanese history, but I'd believe it. Even the Celts, as was previously mentioned known for swordsmanship, used lots and lots of polearms. Greeks liked spears, too. The only culture I can think of that used a sword as its primary was the Roman culture. But every soldier also carried a Pilum, (spear,) so even then. There is probably more mention of swords in Middle Eastern cultures, (Hebrew, Arabic, Persain,) and we have found a number of specimins.

But metal swords would outlast wooden spears so it would make sense we would find them, and it is possible that those cultures simply romanticized swords more and so used them a lot in literature.

[Hjolnai]

There's a good argument to be had for the lance as a knight's primary weapon - they were heavy cavalry for the most part.

At one point there was quite some discussion on the matter of popularity of swords as primary weapons, in the Real World Weapons or Armour Question thread (which is probably where this discussion belongs, really) at one point. In that discussion I think the only agreed example of large scale use of swords as main weapons was actually the Romans, and even then it was debatable (javelins being used significantly by the same troops). Spears, however, were used by almost everyone - particularly if you include pikes.

I think I'll have to find specific examples of pages which cover a lot of the discussion here. There are quite a few things worth noting about bows (for a start, the effectiveness of armour in negating them).

[JaronK]

Based on my (admittedly limited) knowledge, I think the expense of producing swords and training swordsmen would be more likely. Spears are easy to use. Swords are much more difficult to wield properly. Spears are cheap and simple to craft. Swords are more complex and expensive.
Also, swords (to my knowledge) were much more commonly used in armies by the elite, such as knights and samurai, because they had proper training and could afford to arm themselves.
Also, the Celts made great use of swords on the battlefield.

Nope. Swords are a side arm, much like a pistol carried by a soldier today. The Samurai on the field of battle used pole arms and bows, not swords. Swords were just their backup weapon, and the thing they used when not on the battlefield or if their pole arm was lost.

Even the Greatsword was quickly replaced by the Halberd on the battlefield.

Swords are seriously not battlefield weapons.

JaronK

[SowZ]

Nope. Swords are a side arm, much like a pistol carried by a soldier today. The Samurai on the field of battle used pole arms and bows, not swords. Swords were just their backup weapon, and the thing they used when not on the battlefield or if their pole arm was lost.

Even the Greatsword was quickly replaced by the Halberd on the battlefield.

Swords are seriously not battlefield weapons.

JaronK

Wouldn't wealthy warriors use a longsword in conjunction with a shield in Europe, or Samurai-caste use long swords on horseback?

[Yukitsu]

Wouldn't wealthy warriors use a longsword in conjunction with a shield in Europe, or Samurai-caste use long swords on horseback?

Shields were a mark of poor men who couldn't afford armour. The rich and powerful wore the best armour, and then had a larger weapon with more reach that required more strength and training to wield. The only reason they wore shields while mounted was because they couldn't really fight with a two handed weapon on horseback anyway.

The samurai were horse archers historically. Using a sword wouldn't be the ideal for a samurai while mounted, they had spears that were far better for that, but again, caveat that when mounted, if you lose your spear, you're really going to need a secondary weapon of some sort, so the sword of course, has to work.

[Hjolnai]

Shields were a mark of poor men who couldn't afford armour. The rich and powerful wore the best armour, and then had a larger weapon with more reach that required more strength and training to wield. The only reason they wore shields while mounted was because they couldn't really fight with a two handed weapon on horseback anyway.


That's rather an oversimplification.
In good plate, you're right in that the power given by a two-handed weapon was more important than the protection of a shield (since the plate was nearly impenetrable).

Before that time (13th-14th century or so), and so for most of recorded history, wealth just meant better mail, which isn't that great at stopping broken bones. Hence, even kings used shields in most war situations.

[JaronK]

Wouldn't wealthy warriors use a longsword in conjunction with a shield in Europe, or Samurai-caste use long swords on horseback?

Wealthy warriors in Europe would be mounted and wearing heavy duty armor, so they'd use a spear type weapon as their primary weapon (a lance would be traditional). Samurai that were mounted would favor the bow, but would also use a spear. A sword is an acceptable backup weapon once your lance is broken or if you lose momentum, but it's still not the primary weapon. Other backup weapons would include maces, flails, and similar weapons.

In general, you don't use a one handed short range melee weapon unless you have little choice.

Swords are favored in stories for the same reason pistols are favored a lot in action movies... they're the weapon someone might be walking around with when they're attacked and need to fight back. But just as today we'd prefer to use assault rifles and similar when we could chose to do so, back in the day the preferred weapons would be pole arms and ranged weapons. They're completely superior... a swordsman couldn't hope to defeat an equally trained pole arm wielder in a straight fight. And don't be fooled by the idea of just getting past the tip of the weapon to attack the pole arm wielder... it really doesn't work that way.

JaronK

[deuterio12]

Wealthy warriors in Europe would be mounted and wearing heavy duty armor, so they'd use a spear type weapon as their primary weapon (a lance would be traditional). Samurai that were mounted would favor the bow, but would also use a spear. A sword is an acceptable backup weapon once your lance is broken or if you lose momentum, but it's still not the primary weapon. Other backup weapons would include maces, flails, and similar weapons.

In general, you don't use a one handed short range melee weapon unless you have little choice.


Or if you're in a ship or inside a fortress corridor or the melee degenerated into a press of bodies or any other situation where you don't have enough space to properly use a polearm of any kind.

In naval combat short blades were the primary weapon of choice for boarding actions, since there's little space on a ship to use any kind of long weapon (plus your enemies probably had little on the way of metal armor on the sea, so slashing weapons were the choice to go.)

Samurais started as mounted archers, but over the centuries changed more and more into a melee force (because mounted archery is all fine and dandy for skirmishing, but if you want to conquer and hold territorry you need to get close and personal). Even when gunpowder weapons were introduced en masse, for samurai they were basically considered a way of supressing your enemy until you got into melee.

That's why Korea ended up beating Japan in naval warfare (japanese ships trying to close in for boarding action, koreans moving away while firing). Later on WW II there were too many sad reports of japanese foot soldiers charging in with melee weapons against gunlines.

[JaronK]

Like I said, a sword is like a pistol... you'd prefer to use something else, but it's a solid backup weapon. So if you're in tight quarters you might use one (though note that in a melee crush, short stabbing swords were generally used, not long swords or katanas or similar). Likewise, you can't have ranked formations on a ship, and again tight quarters comes up (but even then, you engage with ranged weapons first).

When the samurai moved towards melee combat, they still didn't use swords as a primary battlefield weapon. They used polearms, much like every serious army in history (even the Romans, known for their short stabbing swords and massive shields, made good use of pole arms).

Really, the dominant force on the battlefield through history has always been, at least until gunpowder became dominant, the pointy stick (either held, or launched from something).

JaronK

[Madeiner]

Back on the topic of real world vs game tactics, i noticed that everyone attacking the same target is not only a matter of HP, also a matter of having time and ability to choose the best strategy.

Recently i've been playing, Chivalry: medieval warfare. Its a FPS game that pits 10+ knights against each others, in an arena or other settings.
The best strategy would still be to pile on the same target, if you could.

However, having 10 people swinging madly in the battle, dying left and right, you really can't choose targets.
I notice in that game, when two groups charge each other, most of the times it ends with each soldier picking a target and fighting him. When one wins, he goes off helping his friends (and a 2v1 is an enormous advantage).
Also, the game has friendly fire and i assure you, if four people are attacking you at the same time and you have a shield, just backing up and defending, they are going to hit and kill each other very soon.
Even 3 on 1 if risky, and some friendly fire will probably occur.

That happens because i think the game simulates really well the chaotic part of the fight, and this doesnt happen in D&D.

The same goes for flanking. In real life, or even in chivalry, if a group gets attacked on two sides, from long range by charging soldiers, you basically panic. You can't effectively defend two sides, people just don't know what to do, even when enemies are far from the "threateaned square" that exists in d&d.
I don't know how to simulate that in d&d, so i sometimes just give a general +2 to everything the side that has "real life" advantage, like attacking from two sides even if not actually "flanking".



Some time ago i devised a new ruleset for d&d trying to counter the "pile on a single target" strategy we talked about before.
I introduced a deadlock mechanism for melee attackers. If one target attacked another, then those two were considered "deadlocked" to each other (as you would consider "grapple"), having limited movement and only being able to attack each other. If you are NOT deadlocked and are attacking a deadlocked target, you deal double damage. You cant cast spells or use ranged while deadlocked, and ranged damage was thus always doubled. (we didnt have optimized archers, so it worked)
The system was more complex than that, had feats to be able to deadlock 2 targets, and other things not worth going over here.
It succeded in its scope, so that battles were always fought trying to deadlock as many opponents as possible, because "free" targets were too scary.
However, it was really hard to keep track of who was deadlocked with whom, and it was very complex in general, so we ultimately discarded it.

[Ashtagon]

iirc, WFB and its RPG spin-offs have rules to simulate the confusion of battle. Perhaps some of those rules could be pulled out and converted?

[deuterio12]

Like I said, a sword is like a pistol... you'd prefer to use something else, but it's a solid backup weapon. So if you're in tight quarters you might use one (though note that in a melee crush, short stabbing swords were generally used, not long swords or katanas or similar). Likewise, you can't have ranked formations on a ship, and again tight quarters comes up (but even then, you engage with ranged weapons first).

My point is that a sword isn't like a pistol, because a rifle will always be a superior choice than the pistol unless you want a more concealable weapon, which really isn't of much use in any battlefield.

Plenty of situations (ships, tight quarters, fortrress assault/defense) called for swords as primary weapons (short they may be, but still swords). However in modern warfare, you only pick up the pistol if your rifle was rendered completely unuseable. Even if you're forced into tight quarters, most rifles doubles as quite nice clubs, and you can fire them at point-blank range as long as you have ammo. No sane commander ever ordered "drop your rifles, it's pistol time!"


Daggers/knives are the pistol equivalent if anything, aka something you can easily carry and conceal but still packs lethal punch, just don't expect to be able to outstab/outshoot someone with any other weapon.

[Madeiner]

Even if you're forced into tight quarters, most rifles doubles as quite nice clubs, and you can fire them at point-blank range as long as you have ammo. No sane commander ever ordered "drop your rifles, it's pistol time!"


I don't agree with that.
Inside ships, heck sometimes even inside houses, using long rifles can be so uncomfortable that its better to switch to pistols. (Actually, we use SMGs for that).
Try to wield a rifle inside cramped space and you'll notice you are not able to clear rooms effectively (your gun is inside the room before you are, and that is never a good idea), and also turning on the spot can be hard, but is necessary in a place with lots of rooms with small spaces

[Yukitsu]

That's rather an oversimplification.
In good plate, you're right in that the power given by a two-handed weapon was more important than the protection of a shield (since the plate was nearly impenetrable).

Before that time (13th-14th century or so), and so for most of recorded history, wealth just meant better mail, which isn't that great at stopping broken bones. Hence, even kings used shields in most war situations.

The best around from around the fall of Rome all the way up to the 14th century were mounted knights though. Even if they weren't wearing plate armour, they were that exception in that they were mounted and often using shields, as they were using 1 handed lances or spears anyway. Even in the case of dismounted lords, which I can only really think of Scotland where that was happening, the preferred weapon was the two handed pike, not the sword and shield.

[Spiryt]

The best around from around the fall of Rome all the way up to the 14th century were mounted knights though. Even if they weren't wearing plate armour, they were that exception in that they were mounted and often using shields, as they were using 1 handed lances or spears anyway. Even in the case of dismounted lords, which I can only really think of Scotland where that was happening, the preferred weapon was the two handed pike, not the sword and shield.

I think it's hard to say what was 'preferred' - because it depended on situation, and what was available.

But shield was widely used, on feet, there are thousands of literal and pictorial sources on this, not to mention that shield had became very important heraldic item for knight, before it's decline.


Even in the case of dismounted lords, which I can only really think of Scotland where that was happening,

Dismounted knights/lord were happening all around Europe and not only, sieges being the simplest example.

In Scottland, pike was in general preferred foot weapon, for some time, for completely unarmored folk too.

[SowZ]

Like I said, a sword is like a pistol... you'd prefer to use something else, but it's a solid backup weapon. So if you're in tight quarters you might use one (though note that in a melee crush, short stabbing swords were generally used, not long swords or katanas or similar). Likewise, you can't have ranked formations on a ship, and again tight quarters comes up (but even then, you engage with ranged weapons first).

When the samurai moved towards melee combat, they still didn't use swords as a primary battlefield weapon. They used polearms, much like every serious army in history (even the Romans, known for their short stabbing swords and massive shields, made good use of pole arms).

Really, the dominant force on the battlefield through history has always been, at least until gunpowder became dominant, the pointy stick (either held, or launched from something).

JaronK

Yeah, I've done enough full contact LARPing to know that polearms pretty much dominate. (Sure, it isn't at all the same as really doing it. But if you are using weapons that are a couple pounds or so it is probably as good a simulation as paintball.) And just as chainmail has been the most widely used armor across human history, the spear has been the most widely used weapon.

I know that polearms were the favored weapon, the myth of a battlefield full of people wielding claymores and longswords as their main weapon is probably up there with dual wielding and leather armor. But I was under the impression some people preferred a sword when using a shield/on horseback. It would make sense that they wouldn't though, so it isn't hard for me to believe.

[Spiryt]

When did Romans made good use of polearms?

In "Classical" period it was pretty much all swords and javelins. Before ~ 300 something BC and after 300 AD, one handed spear was modus operandi indeed, but there was certainly long period of greatest Rome power, when spear was for watchmen, guards etc. - not for actual battlefield.

[SowZ]

When did Romans made good use of polearms?

In "Classical" period it was pretty much all swords and javelins. Before ~ 300 something BC and after 300 AD, one handed spear was modus operandi indeed, but there was certainly long period of greatest Rome power, when spear was for watchmen, guards etc. - not for actual battlefield.

The pilum was widespread and longer and heavier than most javelins and was used to destroy shields, probably. They were probably used as a melee weapon in the right situations.

[Yukitsu]

I think it's hard to say what was 'preferred' - because it depended on situation, and what was available.

But shield was widely used, on feet, there are thousands of literal and pictorial sources on this, not to mention that shield had became very important heraldic item for knight, before it's decline.

Dismounted knights/lord were happening all around Europe and not only, sieges being the simplest example.

In Scottland, pike was in general preferred foot weapon, for some time, for completely unarmored folk too.


The pictures would likely have been men-at-arms, not wealthy lords. Harold's army for example, wasn't a mass shield wall of wealthy lords, it was primarily relatively reliable soldiers with their equipment paid for by a lord who would have fought from horse back. Harold's army, which was using a shield wall still portrays important figures as cavalry.

Even then, the portrayal of many of the infantry on the side of Harold was of large axes, not swords. The Battle of Hastings being in England, would have only really been indicative of parts of the British isles and Scandinavia, but it's still an indicator that the sword and shield from foot wasn't really the noble ideal for a wealthy knight or lord.

[Necroticplague]

When did Romans made good use of polearms?

In "Classical" period it was pretty much all swords and javelins. Before ~ 300 something BC and after 300 AD, one handed spear was modus operandi indeed, but there was certainly long period of greatest Rome power, when spear was for watchmen, guards etc. - not for actual battlefield.

I thought the mode of operation (not sure what time), was that there would be a front line of people holding short spears and tower shields, while the next several lines would take advantage of incredibly long (in the realm of 15 ft) spears, with that first line just their to hold the line.

[Elderand]

swords can be very good weapon on a battlefield and indeed saw wide use as something other than a side weapon


By the roman legions

Hiding behind the equivalent of tower shield, form a tight disciplined line and use a gladius, a shortsword equivalent, to hack, slash and pierce through the very small space afforded by a row of tower shield.

There are several reasons why swords became less used during medieval time in real battle.

First, bronze became more difficult to produce due to a rarification of easily available tin and so producing weapons with a large amount of metal in it was more costly, mostly because iron was forged, bronze was molded. You can produce a very large quantity of bronze sword extremely quickly. Not so with iron swords. While you can make a spear whitout even any iron, all you need is a relatively long stick with a sharpened point.
Second the romans legions were highly trained and disciplined soldiers while an army in the middle age tended to be peasent conscripted just before a battle and a few knights. Or mercenaries. No highly trained cohesive unit. Whitout that training the legion tactic doesn't work.

[Yukitsu]

I thought the mode of operation (not sure what time), was that there would be a front line of people holding short spears and tower shields, while the next several lines would take advantage of incredibly long (in the realm of 15 ft) spears, with that first line just their to hold the line.

That'd be earlier Rome, half of mid era Rome and Greece across almost all time periods. The Romans swapped to the gladius for a variety of debatable reasons, making them, the early German tribes and the Spanish relatively unique in their heavy use of the sword.

Mainly, the reason in my opinion this could happen was the lack of good heavy armour in many cases necessitating a shield (segmentata was good where it did protect, but does have more undefended parts of the body than chain), and the complete lack of charging melee cavalry during the time period. When you do have to carry a shield essentially, a one handed spear is not tremendously different from a one handed sword.

I think part of the reason they didn't maintain the Greek style spear formation was that they didn't have the same level of quality of infantry in their later years. The Gladius was a more useful weapon if you couldn't maintain formation, whereas the pike, which had formerly been the weapon of their absolute best men, required absolute coordination at the army level to avoid losing to a flank assault.

Edit: Back on topic, by my best guess, I assume that nations which are fully capable of universal education to the point where everyone can get a single level of wizard, changes warfare to something almost directly analogous to at least WWI warfare, even assuming you're running it to the cap of level 6. The best wizards would be about equivalent to heavy artillery. I think emulating that era of war would be relatively realistic given the rule sets.

[warty goblin]

swords can be very good weapon on a battlefield and indeed saw wide use as something other than a side weapon


By the roman legions

Hiding behind the equivalent of tower shield, form a tight disciplined line and use a gladius, a shortsword equivalent, to hack, slash and pierce through the very small space afforded by a row of tower shield.

There are several reasons why swords became less used during medieval time in real battle.

First, bronze became more difficult to produce due to a rarification of easily available tin and so producing weapons with a large amount of metal in it was more costly, mostly because iron was forged, bronze was molded. You can produce a very large quantity of bronze sword extremely quickly. Not so with iron swords. While you can make a spear whitout even any iron, all you need is a relatively long stick with a sharpened point.
Second the romans legions were highly trained and disciplined soldiers while an army in the middle age tended to be peasent conscripted just before a battle and a few knights. Or mercenaries. No highly trained cohesive unit. Whitout that training the legion tactic doesn't work.

This post is pretty much entirely factually wrong.

A large part of the post-Marian combat order seems to have focused on throwing javelins, followed by a short hard charge to destroy and throw back the enemy, who had been disrupted and rendered vulnerable by the pila. I've read reasonably convincing arguments that Roman legionaries fought in a much more open formation than a Greek hoplite or post Philip II phalangite. It takes a fair bit of space to throw javelins, and the active, offensive use of a large shield can be easily hampered by people pressing too close to your sides. The Romans certainly did fight in very close order - the testudo for instance - but this does not seem to have been a general battlefield deployment so much as a very specific formation to defeat a very particular threat.

Secondly the adoption of the large scutum and short gladius has pretty much nothing to do with the collapse of Mediterranean and near East bronze age civilizations. Mostly because that collapse occurred half a millennium before Rome was even founded, and by the time of Rome's rise, iron weapons had long dominated the battlefield. The gladius was made out of iron, not bronze. The pilum was again iron. Both the earlier chainmail and later lorica segmentata were iron. Whatever the difficulties of producing iron compared to bronze weapons, Romans fought almost entirely with iron weapons. By the later empire, they were producing pattern forged steel, perhaps to facilitate the move to the longer spatha.

Finally, the whole hordes of poorly trained peasant conscripts thing is essentially a myth. Throughout the later dark ages and middle ages, everything I've read has indicated the vast bulk of most armies were made up of trained professional soldiers. They would mostly have been part time it is true, but until the rise of heavy horse in Europe circa 1100, shield walls, at least in the northern regions, seemed to have been the combat mode of choice.

[Spiryt]

The pilum was widespread and longer and heavier than most javelins and was used to destroy shields, probably. They were probably used as a melee weapon in the right situations.

Pilum was very widespread, and perhaps main weapon of legions in many cases, but it's not polearm, other that it indeed has a piece of stick - it's a javelin.

In some situations it is mentioned as melee weapon - mainly as poor mans anti-cavalry pike, but it's still javelin first and foremost.


The pictures would likely have been men-at-arms, not wealthy lords. Harold's army for example, wasn't a mass shield wall of wealthy lords, it was primarily relatively reliable soldiers with their equipment paid for by a lord who would have fought from horse back. Harold's army, which was using a shield wall still portrays important figures as cavalry.

Even then, the portrayal of many of the infantry on the side of Harold was of large axes, not swords. The Battle of Hastings being in England, would have only really been indicative of parts of the British isles and Scandinavia, but it's still an indicator that the sword and shield from foot wasn't really the noble ideal for a wealthy knight or lord.

Well, no, those pictures could depict everyone from man at arms and "just" a knight to actual kings.

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/static/miniatures/original/433-5.jpg
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/static/miniatures/original/142-1.jpg


Sword and shield wouldn't probably be 'ideal' on foot because knight was supposed to be mounted warrior, being of foot was very not ideal in the first place.

Even then, some spear and shield would be probably preferred, in age of mail, but sword would be available sidearm, while while (additional) spear for foot combat was often not.

While mounted, as soon as lance/spear was broken/dropped/non-usable, sidearm like sword or axe would be obviously used.

[Tanngrisnir]

Back on topic, by my best guess, I assume that nations which are fully capable of universal education to the point where everyone can get a single level of wizard, changes warfare to something almost directly analogous to at least WWI warfare, even assuming you're running it to the cap of level 6. The best wizards would be about equivalent to heavy artillery. I think emulating that era of war would be relatively realistic given the rule sets.

Regarding the bit I bolded, in your games do you have it that just anyone can take a level of wizard if they wish? I like to have magic be rather rare and mistrusted, quite like it is in Warhammer.

That way a single Wizard in a battle is more akin to, say, one group of infantry taking on another group of infantry that also has a tank. The tank will cause a fair amount of damage and will change the tactics the enemy will need to employ, but is still manageable.

Have you, or indeed anyone reading this thread, ever run or been in something like a Heroes of Battle campaign with such a level of magic saturation? If so, how did it go? Did you enjoy it? I'm just curious.

[Yukitsu]

Regarding the bit I bolded, in your games do you have it that just anyone can take a level of wizard if they wish? I like to have magic be rather rare and mistrusted, quite like it is in Warhammer.

That way a single Wizard in a battle is more akin to, say, one group of infantry taking on another group of infantry that also has a tank. The tank will cause a fair amount of damage and will change the tactics the enemy will need to employ, but is still manageable.

Have you, or indeed anyone reading this thread, ever run or been in something like a Heroes of Battle campaign with such a level of magic saturation? If so, how did it go? Did you enjoy it? I'm just curious.

I think in a realistic setting, it would be a likely direction for a nation to take. A lord that notices that the more educated were both more productive (in a direct sense) but that those individuals also make for the best basic soldiers would seriously slant a nation in that direction, but those who were too stupid to be wizards could still provide meat shield formations or what not.

The thing about wizardry is that it's based around study, not any inherent power. That means if you create a society that realizes the potential power of educating the masses, or a certain elite, they can acquire significantly more power than their neighbors, which is essentially how things have worked in reality.


Well, no, those pictures could depict everyone from man at arms and "just" a knight to actual kings.

Harold is specifically pointed out, and is mounted during his death.

And of course I've agreed with the side arm status of the sword. I'm arguing against the idea that sword and shield was a good weapon combination that people would prefer, it really wasn't.

[Spiryt]

Harold is specifically pointed out, and is mounted during his death.

That's good, but this is Bayeux Tapestry, and then there are depictions and descriptions of knights with sword and shields all over Medieval period.

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/static/miniatures/original/645-9.jpg
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/static/miniatures/original/645-10.jpg




And of course I've agreed with the side arm status of the sword. I'm arguing against the idea that sword and shield was a good weapon combination that people would prefer, it really wasn't.

But it was "good weapon combination", and people were using it a lot.

I'm not sure what you are really arguing - the fact that something is mainly a side arm doesn't mean that it's not "good".

If it wasn't good, it wouldn't be used.

[SowZ]

This post is pretty much entirely factually wrong.

A large part of the post-Marian combat order seems to have focused on throwing javelins, followed by a short hard charge to destroy and throw back the enemy, who had been disrupted and rendered vulnerable by the pila. I've read reasonably convincing arguments that Roman legionaries fought in a much more open formation than a Greek hoplite or post Philip II phalangite. It takes a fair bit of space to throw javelins, and the active, offensive use of a large shield can be easily hampered by people pressing too close to your sides. The Romans certainly did fight in very close order - the testudo for instance - but this does not seem to have been a general battlefield deployment so much as a very specific formation to defeat a very particular threat.

Secondly the adoption of the large scutum and short gladius has pretty much nothing to do with the collapse of Mediterranean and near East bronze age civilizations. Mostly because that collapse occurred half a millennium before Rome was even founded, and by the time of Rome's rise, iron weapons had long dominated the battlefield. The gladius was made out of iron, not bronze. The pilum was again iron. Both the earlier chainmail and later lorica segmentata were iron. Whatever the difficulties of producing iron compared to bronze weapons, Romans fought almost entirely with iron weapons. By the later empire, they were producing pattern forged steel, perhaps to facilitate the move to the longer spatha.

Finally, the whole hordes of poorly trained peasant conscripts thing is essentially a myth. Throughout the later dark ages and middle ages, everything I've read has indicated the vast bulk of most armies were made up of trained professional soldiers. They would mostly have been part time it is true, but until the rise of heavy horse in Europe circa 1100, shield walls, at least in the northern regions, seemed to have been the combat mode of choice.

The segmentata was briefly used, too. The hamata, (maille,) saw much wider use.

My study has taught me that important battles between countries included a number of well armed legions that were paid per battle, and perhaps the highest up in society, (kings and true warlords,) had a standing army, but the actual 'army' of most lords consisted of man-at-arms that were otherwise just normal working joes who also knew how to fight. They would be ammased in bulk primarily in order to field large forces to intimidate more local enemies into giving in to their demands. I could be wrong, but that has been my research.

The dark ages is a strange term, too, it implies things that are also myths.


Pilum was very widespread, and perhaps main weapon of legions in many cases, but it's not polearm, other that it indeed has a piece of stick - it's a javelin.

In some situations it is mentioned as melee weapon - mainly as poor mans anti-cavalry pike, but it's still javelin first and foremost.

I think you could call a long javelin a kind of spear, especially since they used it to break enemy shield formations and at fairly close ranges.

[Tanngrisnir]

I think in a realistic setting, it would be a likely direction for a nation to take. A lord that notices that the more educated were both more productive (in a direct sense) but that those individuals also make for the best basic soldiers would seriously slant a nation in that direction, but those who were too stupid to be wizards could still provide meat shield formations or what not.

The thing about wizardry is that it's based around study, not any inherent power. That means if you create a society that realizes the potential power of educating the masses, or a certain elite, they can acquire significantly more power than their neighbors, which is essentially how things have worked in reality.

Yeah I can see that, but I tend to lean towards the notion that learning to cast spells is one of those things that not many people are smart enough to master, like really high end theoretical physics or something like that. So that while you can try to educate/create as many wizards as possible, very few will be able to actually cast spells.


Harold is specifically pointed out, and is mounted during his death.

Just thought I should mention that whether or not the person we think is Harold is actually Harold is disputed among scholars.

Anyway, sorry for that diversion, now for me to say something more on topic.

In a 3.5 game I play in I made a pole-arm using fighter built around tripping. My main role in the party is to place myself in a choke point or on one of our flanks and hold as many of the enemy there as possible, freeing up the other party members to take down the significant threats of the encounter. So, in my experience, you can sort of use real world tactics but on a different scale, so that my one character acts like a regiment of pole-arm warriors would etc.

[SowZ]

Yeah I can see that, but I tend to lean towards the notion that learning to cast spells is one of those things that not many people are smart enough to master, like really high end theoretical physics or something like that. So that while you can try to educate/create as many wizards as possible, very few will be able to actually cast spells.

Anyway, sorry for that diversion, now for me to say something more on topic.

In a 3.5 game I play in I made a pole-arm using fighter built around tripping. My main role in the party is to place myself in a choke point or on one of our flanks and hold as many of the enemy there as possible, freeing up the other party members to take down the significant threats of the encounter. So, in my experience, you can sort of use real world tactics but on a different scale, so that my one character acts like a regiment of pole-arm warriors would etc.

I work it that way, too, but it is just my setting. It is a little contrary to the actual rules. In game mechanics you can cast spells that would be very useful to society with an Int of 11. And since mose people are level 1-2 anyway, that is all you need. And then there are the other casting classes. Some people will be born as sorcerers. Some people could learn to be bards, others clerics, (though most clerics aren't actually clerics by class, sure.) Shoot, there are even urban druids. Most people will have at least an 11 in either Wis, Cha, or Int. Then you have Psions, Warlocks, etc. etc.

Either way, I think it is reasonable that a society who completely gears itself towards caster training and education could have 50% casters. And more casters overall means more high level ones. And now we have tippyverse.

[Yukitsu]

That's good, but this is Bayeux Tapestry, and then there are depictions and descriptions of knights with sword and shields all over Medieval period.

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/static/miniatures/original/645-9.jpg
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/static/miniatures/original/645-10.jpg


I'd agree with their utility when assaulting a wall, but in the other cases, it's clearly mounted knights, one of whom has been dismounted, and unarmoured peasants. I'd mentioned previously that mounted combatants were an exception, in that in their case they benefited from using a shield.


But it was "good weapon combination", and people were using it a lot.

I'm not sure what you are really arguing - the fact that something is mainly a side arm doesn't mean that it's not "good".

If it wasn't good, it wouldn't be used.

Because people were arguing that it was, in some roundabout way, either more common or superior to other weapons, which it wasn't. They were a backup that you used when you couldn't use what you actually wanted to, or were too poor to wear good armour.

[Tanngrisnir]

I work it that way, too, but it is just my setting. It is a little contrary to the actual rules. In game mechanics you can cast spells that would be very useful to society with an Int of 11. And since mose people are level 1-2 anyway, that is all you need. And then there are the other casting classes. Some people will be born as sorcerers. Some people could learn to be bards, others clerics, (though most clerics aren't actually clerics by class, sure.) Shoot, there are even urban druids. Most people will have at least an 11 in either Wis, Cha, or Int. Then you have Psions, Warlocks, etc. etc.

Either way, I think it is reasonable that a society who completely gears itself towards caster training and education could have 50% casters.

Indeed. That would be a terrifying total war scenario to be in.

[SowZ]

Indeed. That would be a terrifying total war scenario to be in.

Yeah. I mean, some people could argue that NPCs mostly use NPC classes. But there is the generic spellcaster and the adept. If nothing else, (since an unoptimized level 1 caster may not be better than, say, a Fighter in a straight up fight,) such a nation would have such an excess of wealth they would be terrifying. And, again, more low level casters meand more high level ones. Which, by itself, makes a nation stronger.

[Elderand]

This post is pretty much entirely factually wrong.

A large part of the post-Marian combat order seems to have focused on throwing javelins, followed by a short hard charge to destroy and throw back the enemy, who had been disrupted and rendered vulnerable by the pila. I've read reasonably convincing arguments that Roman legionaries fought in a much more open formation than a Greek hoplite or post Philip II phalangite. It takes a fair bit of space to throw javelins, and the active, offensive use of a large shield can be easily hampered by people pressing too close to your sides. The Romans certainly did fight in very close order - the testudo for instance - but this does not seem to have been a general battlefield deployment so much as a very specific formation to defeat a very particular threat.

Secondly the adoption of the large scutum and short gladius has pretty much nothing to do with the collapse of Mediterranean and near East bronze age civilizations. Mostly because that collapse occurred half a millennium before Rome was even founded, and by the time of Rome's rise, iron weapons had long dominated the battlefield. The gladius was made out of iron, not bronze. The pilum was again iron. Both the earlier chainmail and later lorica segmentata were iron. Whatever the difficulties of producing iron compared to bronze weapons, Romans fought almost entirely with iron weapons. By the later empire, they were producing pattern forged steel, perhaps to facilitate the move to the longer spatha.

Finally, the whole hordes of poorly trained peasant conscripts thing is essentially a myth. Throughout the later dark ages and middle ages, everything I've read has indicated the vast bulk of most armies were made up of trained professional soldiers. They would mostly have been part time it is true, but until the rise of heavy horse in Europe circa 1100, shield walls, at least in the northern regions, seemed to have been the combat mode of choice.

I was wrong on the bronze thing. I was completely out of order on that one.
Claiming that romans didn't fight in close formation however is simply no true. They did throw javelin, but after that they were likely to close rank with shield covering and fighting with swords. Did they fight more loosely than greek phaanx ? Probably, but they did advocate each man got 3 feet space sideway to fight. That is still pretty tight.

As for armies in the middle age, they were not composed mainly of professional soldiers. The period cover the best part of a millenium, composition of amries have varied wildly. But for at least a couple centuries the major party of an army was composed of peasent that were due to serve as an army for up to 45 days a year.
Compared to the knights those peoples were poorly trained. And 45 days a year doesn't make one a professional soldier, it barely qualify as part time job. Especialy since, depending on the country, it was one male per family who did this. Nothing says it was always the same male who did it, reducing effective experience even more.

My point about peasent armies was not that they didn't use shieldwalls though but that they used spears rather than swords with those shieldwalls because the spear was easier.

Further reading indicate that the reasons swords fell out of favor was the advent of cavalry.

[Spiryt]

They would be ammased in bulk primarily in order to field large forces to intimidate more local enemies into giving in to their demands. I could be wrong, but that has been my research.

The dark ages is a strange term, too, it implies things that are also myths.


In some cases of defensive war, it was most certainly true. From townsfolk militia to peasants defending countryside.

But actual "man-at arms" would most certainly not be 'working joes', more probably very minor land-owners, if anything.

Some peasants straight from ploughing wouldn't be employed on large scale, because it simply had no sense most of the time.


Yeah I can see that, but I tend to lean towards the notion that learning to cast spells is one of those things that not many people are smart enough to master, like really high end theoretical physics or something like that. So that while you can try to educate/create as many wizards as possible, very few will be able to actually cast spells.

That completely depends on setting...

In most of 'classical' ones it's not really about being "hard" or "needing smarts" - after all, but rather requiring some special "gift", "power", "attunement" or whatever.

Or require some mystical journeys, dances under the moon, demons and beasts and generally magic's pretty much required to be not used for mundane.

In some settings, like a lot of D&D stuff, to some extent, it tends to some kind of more sentient and malicious computers.

[Tanngrisnir]

That completely depends on setting...

Yeah, I know. When I say that I tend towards that notion, I'm saying those are the settings I prefer to play in.

[SowZ]

In some cases of defensive war, it was most certainly true. From townsfolk militia to peasants defending countryside.

But actual "man-at arms" would most certainly not be 'working joes', more probably very minor land-owners, if anything.

Some peasants straight from ploughing wouldn't be employed on large scale, because it simply had no sense most of the time.



That completely depends on setting...

In most of 'classical' ones it's not really about being "hard" or "needing smarts" - after all, but rather requiring some special "gift", "power", "attunement" or whatever.

Or require some mystical journeys, dances under the moon, demons and beasts and generally magic's pretty much required to be not used for mundane.

I used the word man-at-arms improperly, since that implies well armed and well trained. It makes sense to employ your average citizen if your goal is to hopefully intimidate with larger forces. Besides, the idea of drafting for military service isn't nonsensical. Modern cultures do it. Ancient cultures did it. Anywhere from sources talking about drafting in medieval times to the Old Testament, drafting average joes to fight is a common thing. At the end of the day, a person is smart and wants to live and can figure stuff out fairly quickly.

[Spiryt]

Because people were arguing that it was, in some roundabout way, either more common or superior to other weapons, which it wasn't. They were a backup that you used when you couldn't use what you actually wanted to, or were too poor to wear good armour.

The thing is that it was actually used widely, not only where one didn't have what he "wanted to".

Sword is in many cases superior to spear - especially if one has solid armor, and people with swords tended to armored ones, obviosuly.

It's more close, maneuverable, versatile 'personal', and so on...

Generally very handy, especially for less 'organized combat. It was also common form of foot duel/tournament/fight. Both for it's own purposes and training for real war.



And thus it was used a lot.




Modern cultures do it. Ancient cultures did it. Anywhere from sources talking about drafting in medieval times to the Old Testament, drafting average joes to fight is a common thing. At the end of the day, a person is smart and wants to live and can figure stuff out fairly quickly.

Well, modern cultures are really different things, so it's hard to compare. For most part they obviously have way more efficient ways of forcing someone to serve in army.

But yeah, drafting someone wasn't unheard at all - it just wasn't really common, and someone drafted usually was becoming a semi-professional soldier, in eventual effect.

While urban militias pretty much trained quite a lot, and some of them were taking some semi-military duties during peace as well.

[SowZ]

The thing is that it was actually used widely, not only where one didn't have what he "wanted to".

Sword is in many cases superior to spear - especially if one has solid armor, and people with swords tended to armored ones, obviosuly.

It's more close, maneuverable, versatile 'personal', and so on...

Generally very handy, especially for less 'organized combat. It was also common form of foot duel/tournament/fight. Both for it's own purposes and training for real war.



And thus it was used a lot.





Well, modern cultures are really different things, so it's hard to compare. For most part they obviously have way more efficient ways of forcing someone to serve in army.

But yeah, drafting someone wasn't unheard at all - it just wasn't really common, and someone drafted usually was becoming a semi-professional soldier, in eventual effect.

While urban militias pretty much trained quite a lot, and some of them were taking some semi-military duties during peace as well.

Nah, hey, I don't believe that armies were people that were approached in the field and told, 'take your hoe or chopping axe and run at the halberd wielding housecarls in full mail, you'll be fine.' I am suggesting that a Lord expected a good chunk of his able bodied male population to know enough about fighting to get by and to be on call some of the time for going to a battle, which may or may not be fought once the army is assembled because both lords don't actually want to engage.

So a lot of the armies would be the working class. That doesn't mean the working class were all field workers who knew only their twenty neighbors and couldn't even write their name, either. They don't have to be completely untrained in fighting.

[Yukitsu]

The thing is that it was actually used widely, not only where one didn't have what he "wanted to".

Sword is in many cases superior to spear - especially if one has solid armor, and people with swords tended to armored ones, obviosuly.

It's more close, maneuverable, versatile 'personal', and so on...

Generally very handy, especially for less 'organized combat. It was also common form of foot duel/tournament/fight. Both for it's own purposes and training for real war.

And thus it was used a lot.

It was used a lot because everyone had to have something as a backup, and swords were better than most other backups.

They weren't superior to the spear. That's why polearms remained as a primary weapon up until the 1700s, while swords were reserved almost entirely for duels or officers. If you wanted to look at combat when it was disorganized, loose and personal, the mounted combatant reigned supreme, as a loose or disparate formation could not withstand cavalry. In those dense formations required to survive cavalry, they lost every advantage a sword in a duel could provide. What kind of person would prefer the sword and shield when the primary force to be opposed completely ignored the set up?

[Hiro Protagonest]

Because people were arguing that it was, in some roundabout way, either more common or superior to other weapons, which it wasn't. They were a backup that you used when you couldn't use what you actually wanted to, or were too poor to wear good armour.

The Greeks used rather long spears for wielding in one hand. Such weapons were completely unwieldy when combat broke out. These weapons were used for lining up in formation and charging or breaking charges. If the line ever broke, though, they would drop their spears and take out their spathas at the nearest opportunity.

[Yukitsu]

The Greeks used rather long spears for wielding in one hand. Such weapons were completely unwieldy when combat broke out. These weapons were used for lining up in formation and daring the enemy to come at you, at which point they would be stabbed to death. If the line ever broke, though, they would drop their spears and take out their spathas at the nearest opportunity.

That's a wonderful demonstration of what a backup weapon is, thank you for providing that.

[Hiro Protagonest]

That's a wonderful demonstration of what a backup weapon is, thank you for providing that.

Except "backup weapon" implies that they only take it out when the other one breaks, especially if you compare it to a pistol while the primary gun is an assault rifle or carbine.

If you've been talking about it being like a pistol in the unspoken context of a sniper's gear, or AT personnel, then yeah, that makes more sense.

[Spiryt]

They weren't superior to the spear. That's why polearms remained as a primary weapon up until the 1700s, while swords were reserved almost entirely for duels or officers. If you wanted to look at combat when it was disorganized, loose and personal, the mounted combatant reigned supreme, as a loose or disparate formation could not withstand cavalry. In those dense formations required to survive cavalry, they lost every advantage a sword in a duel could provide. What kind of person would prefer the sword and shield when the primary force to be opposed completely ignored the set up?

Because en-masse, field combat was not by any means "default" setting - in fact, in Medieval Eurpope period, it was often quite rare.

Raids, skirmishes, sieges and what not would be very common at times, as well.

Assuming that any such situation, or disorganized battlefield would be about cavalry is not really correct either.

[Yukitsu]

Except "backup weapon" implies that they only take it out when the other one breaks, especially if you compare it to a pistol while the primary gun is an assault rifle or carbine.

If you've been talking about it being like a pistol in the unspoken context of a sniper's gear, or AT personnel, then yeah, that makes more sense.

It's not that dissimilar to very close urban combat today. If you're in a building at very close quarters, there may be some specialists with you that have close quarters guns, but an assault rifle for example, has far too much possibility for friendly fire. At those sort of close in, mixed up combat, you have to switch to your pistol, unless you want to risk friendly fire passing through walls or floors. That doesn't make your pistol your primary weapon, that's situations rendering your primary weapon inadequate.

I mean, unless you're going to argue that a Greek Phallanx was a sword man's formation, I don't have any idea where you're going here, they were clearly first and foremost spear or pike men.


Because en-masse, field combat was not by any means "default" setting - in fact, in Medieval Eurpope period, it was often quite rare.

Raids, skirmishes, sieges and what not would be very common at times, as well.

Assuming that any such situation, or disorganized battlefield would be about cavalry is not really correct either.

Those were fought by formations known as a "lance" which consisted almost entirely of mounted men, or at least mounted men on one side. Fighting off raids, raiding and skirmishing were the responsibility of the knight or lord and his retinue.

Sieges relating to actual combat were never common in any era of warfare.

[SowZ]

Because en-masse, field combat was not by any means "default" setting - in fact, in Medieval Eurpope period, it was often quite rare.

Raids, skirmishes, sieges and what not would be very common at times, as well.

Assuming that any such situation, or disorganized battlefield would be about cavalry is not really correct either.

In some large battles, even, there were hardly any cavalry, or one side didn't field cavalry. The Battle of Hastings, for example, had no English cavalry to speak of at all and had a number of soldiers reknown for shield and close range combat with weapons like swords and axes. Of course, the axes were close in length to pollaxes and they lost anyway with many of their squads killed practically to the last man so...

[Hiro Protagonest]

It's not that dissimilar to very close urban combat today. If you're in a building at very close quarters, there may be some specialists with you that have close quarters guns, but an assault rifle for example, has far too much possibility for friendly fire. At those sort of close in, mixed up combat, you have to switch to your pistol, unless you want to risk friendly fire passing through walls or floors. That doesn't make your pistol your primary weapon, that's situations rendering your primary weapon inadequate.

Generally, if you expect to be fighting unarmored opponents in CQB, you're given an SMG. The reason carbines are becoming more common is because body armor is getting better and more common.

[Yukitsu]

Generally, if you expect to be fighting unarmored opponents in CQB, you're given an SMG. The reason carbines are becoming more common is because body armor is getting better and more common.

Yes, but if you're a squad's designated marksman, you can't spontaneously pull a carbine out of your arse on command to replace your assault rifle, much like how a spearman can't spontaneously pull a flanged mace out of thin air when the spear wouldn't be adequate. That's why weapons like pistols or swords are great backups, but they aren't good enough that you'd want it as your main weapon, or argue that it's better than the correct weapon for the context.

[Spiryt]

Those were fought by formations known as a "lance" which consisted almost entirely of mounted men, or at least mounted men on one side. Fighting off raids, raiding and skirmishing were the responsibility of the knight or lord and his retinue.

Sieges relating to actual combat were never common in any era of warfare.

Most probably. In many places and times mounted combat would be completely predominant.

Still, a lot of it was fought dismounted from majority of reasons, from terrain to to tactical ones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blanchetaque

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/The_French_defeated_before_Calais_by_Edward_III.jp g

http://www.thearma.org/arttalk/mid1300s.JPG

[Hiro Protagonest]

Yes, but if you're a squad's designated marksman, you can't spontaneously pull a carbine out of your arse on command to replace your assault rifle, much like how a spearman can't spontaneously pull a flanged mace out of thin air when the spear wouldn't be adequate. That's why weapons like pistols or swords are great backups, but they aren't good enough that you'd want it as your main weapon, or argue that it's better than the correct weapon for the context.

Well, technically, you can probably change out the barrel before going in if you have a CM901... but that's getting into a revolutionary gun design that the military will probably buy in only limited numbers for their best men (Rangers and SEALs), seeing how the guys at Colt had to be jerks and patent the quick-change mechanism AND pull the gun out of the Individual Carbine competition.

Designated Marksmen are basically snipers with better firefighting capability, though. And I already said pistol's an important weapon for snipers.

[JaronK]

Except "backup weapon" implies that they only take it out when the other one breaks, especially if you compare it to a pistol while the primary gun is an assault rifle or carbine.

No, a backup weapon is a weapon you use when your primary weapon won't work well for any reason, not because it breaks. The Greeks used their spears as a primary weapon, then switched to short stabbing swords when the spears wouldn't work well... so the sword is a backup weapon. This is identical to a soldier ditching his assault rifle for something smaller when dealing with extreme close quarters, or similar. It doesn't mean the primary weapon broke.

JaronK

[Yukitsu]

Well, technically, you can probably change out the barrel before going in if you have a CM901... but that's getting into a revolutionary gun design that the military will probably buy in only limited numbers for their best men (Rangers and SEALs), seeing how the guys at Colt had to be jerks and patent the quick-change mechanism AND pull the gun out of the Individual Carbine competition.

Designated Marksmen are basically snipers with better firefighting capability, though. And I already said pistol's an important weapon for snipers.

Depends on the army in question. Many designated marksmen aren't all that different from the rest of their squad sans the machine gunner. Pop the scope off, and he's identically equipped to the others for the most part.

[rrgg]

Pilum was very widespread, and perhaps main weapon of legions in many cases, but it's not polearm, other that it indeed has a piece of stick - it's a javelin.

In some situations it is mentioned as melee weapon - mainly as poor mans anti-cavalry pike, but it's still javelin first and foremost.


Even then however it's still a completely different animal than the short, finger-width javelins used by skirmishers. Exactly how you classify it might depend on what pilum design you are talking about specifically. But in general I consider it to be closest in form (long thing with a sharp point), length, and weight to other generalist thrusting/throwing spears of the era.


It's not that swords are a useless weapon, indeed the one thing less common than swords used as primary weapons seems to have been polearm users without a sidearm of some sort. What I'd argue is that A. a soldier with sword and shield is going to be significantly less versatile and effective than a soldier with sword, shield and spear (even if it's simply thrown, a tactic which I also think tends to be greatly underestimated) and B. (although the evidence is a bit more tricky) that two-handers (with sidearm again) still retain the advantage over just sword and shield.

[nedz]

Claiming that romans didn't fight in close formation however is simply no true. They did throw javelin, but after that they were likely to close rank with shield covering and fighting with swords. Did they fight more loosely than greek phaanx ? Probably, but they did advocate each man got 3 feet space sideway to fight. That is still pretty tight.
That's called open order. You have obviously never done any drill. To form up in open order you hold your right arm out so that your fist touches the left shoulder of the guy to your right. This usually involves a lot of shuffling. In Close order you bend your arm so that your elbow touches the guy's upper arm. Ranks are always separated by an arms length, or you will trip over the guy in front of you when you move off; this is also why you march in step.

[SowZ]

That's called open order. You have obviously never done any drill. To form up in open order you hold your right arm out so that your fist touches the left shoulder of the guy to your right. This usually involves a lot of shuffling. In Close order you bend your arm so that your elbow touches the guy's upper arm. Ranks are always separated by an arms length, or you will trip over the guy in front of you when you move off; this is also why you march in step.

Done my share of marching, and yeah, I am not a fan of close order.. Try doing color guard or marching with arms close order and you realize how much one bad move can throw a lot of people off. I can't imagine how anyone would have used a sword in a Phalanx. At least a shortspear is a short, thrusting motion over your own shoulder.

[Elderand]

Because it wasn't used in wide circular motion, it was used for stabbing and up and down slashing. If your arm is not moving sideway that's plenty of space.

[warty goblin]

Even then however it's still a completely different animal than the short, finger-width javelins used by skirmishers. Exactly how you classify it might depend on what pilum design you are talking about specifically. But in general I consider it to be closest in form (long thing with a sharp point), length, and weight to other generalist thrusting/throwing spears of the era.


I'd think that long soft iron shaft would make a pilum a fairly poor thrusting weapon. Once that gets bent, it's gotta be a mother to fight with. Not to say a person couldn't do it, but it wouldn't be my first choice of a fighting spear.

[JaronK]

Note that the Pilum was the Roman throwing spear, but they had another one as well for combat (the Hasta). This was used by legionaires for quite a while, though it was eventually replaced by the Pilum/Gladius combo in all but the wealthiest troops (yes, the elite troops kept the spears).

JaronK

[Conners]

Perfect example of weird tactics vs. real tactics: Metal Gear Peace Walker, the Outer Ops missions.

You can throw up to either soldiers or vehicles on these missions. Problem is, you might as well flip a coin to see who wins, even if one side is far stronger...

Soldiers can choose to shoot, throw a grenade, or fire a rocket. Tanks and helicopters can choose to shoot or fire rockets. It is entirely, absolutely random as to which enemy they target, and which weapon they use.

So, you might get all your soldiers firing machine guns completely ineffectively against a tank, and firing anti-tank rockets at light infantry.

If they had added in some real tactics - like, your back line can't be hit by the enemy's back line - this minigame could be quite fun... Instead, it's an exercise in frustration.

[Doug Lampert]

:thog: Thog sort of roll when Thog land.

More to the point, IIRC at least 4 people have fallen out of airplanes or had their plane break up arround them at high altitude without a parachute and lived (and the actual number almost certainly higher than 4).

At least 2 Americans from WWII bombers, one more or less uninjured, one with a broken leg, one more recent stewardess from a plane that broke up over eastern europe (badly injured), one stewardess who was ejected when part of the roof tore off over the Amazon basin who then WALKED out to where she could get help.

Just how many people TOTAL has this happened to that four or more have lived and two of those walked away?

There have also been survivors from chute failures, but partial deployment may have saved them so I'm not counting them. It's also likely that a few non-americans survived in WWII, but that there aren't good records for the eastern front.

If an ordinary stewardess or ball gunner can survive an arbitrarly long fall if he or she lands right on the correct material (a tree with branches that break prior to breaking bones) then I **** well want my rediculously tough superhero who's protected by divine aid and by absurd luck to have a fairly good chance of surviving it too.

DougL

[Slipperychicken]

More to the point, IIRC at least 4 people have fallen out of airplanes or had their plane break up arround them at high altitude without a parachute and lived (and the actual number almost certainly higher than 4).


I see it working out in 3.5 as such: These people had about ~21 hp and rolled close to minimum (20) damage for the fall. They could have been level 3 Experts with 14 Con and very lucky HD rolls. Or perhaps level 3 Aristocrats with slightly less lucky rolls :smalltongue:

[Eldariel]

I see it working out in 3.5 as such: These people had about ~21 hp and rolled close to minimum (20) damage for the fall. They could have been level 3 Experts with 14 Con and very lucky HD rolls. Or perhaps level 3 Aristocrats with slightly less lucky rolls :smalltongue:

Or level 20 Commoners for all we know; after all, we have no way of determining our HD.

[SowZ]

I see it working out in 3.5 as such: These people had about ~21 hp and rolled close to minimum (20) damage for the fall. They could have been level 3 Experts with 14 Con and very lucky HD rolls. Or perhaps level 3 Aristocrats with slightly less lucky rolls :smalltongue:

One of the examples was a soldier. He could have been a level 2 Warrior. Some of these people were very very injured, too, so they could have gone well into the negatives.

[Beleriphon]

On the Roman pilum one of the uses, as far as I've read, was to be thrown in a volley and deny the opposing forces their shields since the pilum would get lodged in the mostly wooden shields forcing the wielder to discard the thing.

[Starbuck_II]

One of the examples was a soldier. He could have been a level 2 Warrior. Some of these people were very very injured, too, so they could have gone well into the negatives.

If he was negative, he would have been unconscious not have a broken leg.

[Doorhandle]

On the Roman pilum one of the uses, as far as I've read, was to be thrown in a volley and deny the opposing forces their shields since the pilum would get lodged in the mostly wooden shields forcing the wielder to discard the thing.

Ranged sunder?

[SowZ]

If he was negative, he would have been unconscious not have a broken leg.

I would have a tough time believing these people didn't black out at some point, even if the 'falling through the sky means you black out' thing is a total myth, then when they hit the ground, surely.

[Beleriphon]

Ranged sunder?

Sure, that seems like a reasonable interpretation. Or an item that causes anybody using a shield that is hit by it to take a -4 penalty to either defenses or attacks. Not sure with would be better.

[Spiryt]

Sure, that seems like a reasonable interpretation. Or an item that causes anybody using a shield that is hit by it to take a -4 penalty to either defenses or attacks. Not sure with would be better.

As usually, there's really problem with coming up with such specific mechanic for one weapon.

If one throws axe, or spear at a shield, he can just as easily 'jam' it that bad.

We have accounts of pila being apparently "optimized" for such possible effect, due to easily bending shafts, some pins or whatever, but any heavy object stuck in a shield would do the trick.

[Doug Lampert]

I would have a tough time believing these people didn't black out at some point, even if the 'falling through the sky means you black out' thing is a total myth, then when they hit the ground, surely.

If falling through the sky means you black out then there are a lot of skydivers who somehow missed this. And I believe the stewardess over the Amazon basin landed in shallow water, if she'd blacked out on impact for any length of time she'd have drowned.

Basically, she was not at negative HP in D&D terms and there's no good reason to suppose she's high level.

A long fall needs to be able to NOT do significant damage even at terminal velocity and even taking a relatively low level commoner as your baseline for what's significant.

Look, a lot of follow-up discussion has more or less assumed 20 damage. While 20d6 CAN roll a 20, it happens only one time in more than 3 quadrillion tries. And yet we have four or more out of the VASTLY smaller pool of candidates who've taken such a fall and lived. It's not plausible that this is from minimum damage rolls.

Let's say somehow 100,000 people have fallen 20,000+' without a chute and not landed in the ocean far from land (where it doesn't actually matter if the fall kills them because we'll never know if it doesn't). I have no idea how it could be as high as 100,000, but let's pretend. Now all we need is for pretty much EVERYONE who took 43 damage or less damage to live to explain the observed number of survivors.

Oh, I forgot to subtract some damage for a soft landing and tumbling. So let's suppose there were 100,0000, they ALL fell on something soft, and they ALL made their tumble checks, we're all the way down to needing EVERYONE to survive only 36 points of damage.

But wait, 2 of them may well have been reduced to negatives (I'm perfectly willing to call a broken leg negatives, it would take you out of the fight). So actually EVERYONE who makes such a fall could have 35 HP and if there are 100,000 of them and they all land in something soft and they all make their tumble roll then you'd expect about the observed number of not badly injured survivors and we'd still be in the right ballpark on reduced to negatives.

So, to explain actual falls, we mearly need to assume that draftees with limited training or combat experience and airline stewardesses have an AVERAGE of 35 or so HP and are well trained in tumble.

I find it vastly easier to believe that long falls are less dangerous in real life than in D&D land than that the actual situation is something like the above.

Thus when someone claims that HP shouldn't help with a fall or wants a vastly more damaging falling system because "no one should be able to survive a fall from orbit" they are wrong; terminal velocity falls are survivable in the real world, maybe not often, but then terminal velocity falls don't happen that often in the first place.

D&D falls are far more damaging than real world falls. A terminal velocity fall in the real world is near certain death for an ordinary person (I'm certainly not volunteering to help test the lethality), but it is only near certain death, not certain death.

DougL

[lesser_minion]

The rules need not model any given thing exactly as it would work in real life -- if only 43 in 100,000 people can do something, then failing to model the possibility at all is not, IMHO, a significant crime.

Most importantly because the knowledge that falling without a chute is bloody painful and quite probably lethal is something that we could make use of in a real fight, and in a way that's not appreciably different from how we might use that knowledge in-game.

As for high-level characters, since they don't occur in real life, it's a bit more reasonable that you can't use this real-world knowledge against them as easily. I think this thread was meant to be about glitches rather than legitimate scenarios where real-life tactics and in-game tactics differ, however.

[SowZ]

If falling through the sky means you black out then there are a lot of skydivers who somehow missed this. And I believe the stewardess over the Amazon basin landed in shallow water, if she'd blacked out on impact for any length of time she'd have drowned.

Basically, she was not at negative HP in D&D terms and there's no good reason to suppose she's high level.

A long fall needs to be able to NOT do significant damage even at terminal velocity and even taking a relatively low level commoner as your baseline for what's significant.

Look, a lot of follow-up discussion has more or less assumed 20 damage. While 20d6 CAN roll a 20, it happens only one time in more than 3 quadrillion tries. And yet we have four or more out of the VASTLY smaller pool of candidates who've taken such a fall and lived. It's not plausible that this is from minimum damage rolls.

Let's say somehow 100,000 people have fallen 20,000+' without a chute and not landed in the ocean far from land (where it doesn't actually matter if the fall kills them because we'll never know if it doesn't). I have no idea how it could be as high as 100,000, but let's pretend. Now all we need is for pretty much EVERYONE who took 43 damage or less damage to live to explain the observed number of survivors.

Oh, I forgot to subtract some damage for a soft landing and tumbling. So let's suppose there were 100,0000, they ALL fell on something soft, and they ALL made their tumble checks, we're all the way down to needing EVERYONE to survive only 36 points of damage.

But wait, 2 of them may well have been reduced to negatives (I'm perfectly willing to call a broken leg negatives, it would take you out of the fight). So actually EVERYONE who makes such a fall could have 35 HP and if there are 100,000 of them and they all land in something soft and they all make their tumble roll then you'd expect about the observed number of not badly injured survivors and we'd still be in the right ballpark on reduced to negatives.

So, to explain actual falls, we mearly need to assume that draftees with limited training or combat experience and airline stewardesses have an AVERAGE of 35 or so HP and are well trained in tumble.

I find it vastly easier to believe that long falls are less dangerous in real life than in D&D land than that the actual situation is something like the above.

Thus when someone claims that HP shouldn't help with a fall or wants a vastly more damaging falling system because "no one should be able to survive a fall from orbit" they are wrong; terminal velocity falls are survivable in the real world, maybe not often, but then terminal velocity falls don't happen that often in the first place.

D&D falls are far more damaging than real world falls. A terminal velocity fall in the real world is near certain death for an ordinary person (I'm certainly not volunteering to help test the lethality), but it is only near certain death, not certain death.

DougL

The rules don't need to be perfectly simulationist. They should represent what can happen fairly reasonably in a way that facilitates gameplay.

[nedz]

IRL I thought that it was the deceleration which killed.

IIRC There was a plane crash where the plane flew into the ground at an angle.
The people at the front died, but some at the back survived because the fuselage crumpled which meant that their speed reduced over a longer time frame.

[Doug Lampert]

The rules need not model any given thing exactly as it would work in real life -- if only 43 in 100,000 people can do something, then failing to model the possibility at all is not, IMHO, a significant crime.

Most importantly because the knowledge that falling without a chute is bloody painful and quite probably lethal is something that we could make use of in a real fight, and in a way that's not appreciably different from how we might use that knowledge in-game.

As for high-level characters, since they don't occur in real life, it's a bit more reasonable that you can't use this real-world knowledge against them as easily. I think this thread was meant to be about glitches rather than legitimate scenarios where real-life tactics and in-game tactics differ, however.

No, it doesn't need to be perfect, or even very good at all.

But, if you make an argument based on "Realism" and your change would make things LESS realistic then you are clearly WRONG.

And people regularly argue, including in this thread, that high level characters surviving long falls is "unrealistic" when in fact perfectly ordinary nobodies can survive such falls, no divine favor, no insane toughness, just terminal velocity and landing correctly on the right thing by pure dumb luck.

If regular people can survive it in real life then my insanely tough barbarian surviving it in the game is NOT a problem with realism in the game system or a case where something that should realistically work is failing.

There's not a problem with every level 1 commoner being killed by such a fall in game, the odds are pretty bad. But there's a SERIOUS problem with arguments about damage from such a fall that assume no one can possibly survive it.

DougL

[Psymple]

I find this thread quite amusing...
I once played a D20 Modern Campaign (its still running) and attempted to build a character similar to The Lizard using mutations and the "tougher" classes.

At she became so tough she could literally walk through battles and bullets would bounce off her or if they did hit they wouldn't do enough damage to even bother her for the first fight of the day.

At a boss fight if our campaign the majority of her companions died when our ship was smashed out of the sky by demons and was forced to surrender or die... She shot herself in the head refusing to surrender or be killed by them and despite being on only 30 hp and the DM allowing me to take a automatic critical hit because she was shooting herself in the head she still survived with -9hp and automatically stabilized due to class skills..

Mad huh...

Now she has fire resistance 6 and walks around in burning buildings taking only minor damage per turn just to prove to a new person how bad-ass she is and that they should follower her lead or fear for their lives... xD

Oh she also permanently wears a parachute so she can jump out of planes/off skyscrapers/incase she misses when jumping between two hovar cars (all of which happened in the first ever session we played)... I like the rules allowing you to make superheroes... isn't that the point?

[SowZ]

No, it doesn't need to be perfect, or even very good at all.

But, if you make an argument based on "Realism" and your change would make things LESS realistic then you are clearly WRONG.

And people regularly argue, including in this thread, that high level characters surviving long falls is "unrealistic" when in fact perfectly ordinary nobodies can survive such falls, no divine favor, no insane toughness, just terminal velocity and landing correctly on the right thing by pure dumb luck.

If regular people can survive it in real life then my insanely tough barbarian surviving it in the game is NOT a problem with realism in the game system or a case where something that should realistically work is failing.

There's not a problem with every level 1 commoner being killed by such a fall in game, the odds are pretty bad. But there's a SERIOUS problem with arguments about damage from such a fall that assume no one can possibly survive it.

DougL

No, but it DOES prove that a character is superhuman when they can survive such falls practically every time, no matter how many times. Or falling in lava. Or swimming in acid. Yes, there are less than a dozen documented cases of people falling in lava and surviving. No, it doesn't mean that someone who can do it and be fine over and over again is not from Grecian myth.

[lesser_minion]

I find this thread quite amusing...
I once played a D20 Modern Campaign (its still running) and attempted to build a character similar to The Lizard using mutations and the "tougher" classes.

At she became so tough she could literally walk through battles and bullets would bounce off her or if they did hit they wouldn't do enough damage to even bother her for the first fight of the day.

Well, again, since we don't have super-tough mutants in real life, we can't necessarily apply real tactics against them. I imagine that the realistic solution to fighting something like this would be a .50 calibre rifle or a 30mm cannon.


I like the rules allowing you to make superheroes... isn't that the point?

It's a perfectly reasonable goal, but not every game has to be about superheroes, or even wish-fulfilment.

On a side note, do you mind if I frogmarch you over to the UK in the playground meetup thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=264505)?