Why does mundane combat make no sense?

[Kaeso]

I'm not entirely sure if it belongs in the roleplaying games section or the 3.5e section. I assume it belongs here because I'm mostly going to discuss the 3.5e rules.

My question, put rudely, is simply this: why is mundane combat in 3.5e so nonsensical? THF is the only viable fighting style in DnD, while historically it was one of the least viable fighting styles (save for TWF, which was practically never seriously used in combat (except for duels, where the main gauche was almost entirely used for defensive purposes)).

Sword & board was historically one of the most effective styles, and therefore the melee style that lasted the longest and was almost universal, from the Roman Legions to African tribesmen. A shield is just really gosh darned handy, it gives you a big metal (or wooden) plate to defend yourself against projectiles and pointy sticks, while also giving you a secondary weapon to push, shove, hook and bash with. For most historical warriors, there was almost no good reason not to use a shield.

Archery is another very effective style. No matter how you look at it, being able to kill a foe while he's too far away to retaliate is very effective. Even armies that supposedly disdained archery valued their archery regiments (the Ancient Greeks still employed archers and in spite of what events like Agincourt would have you believe, the French were almost in love with their crossbows).

That brings me to my main point: why are these styles so horribly sub-par in 3.5e? I understand that styles that work on battlefields may not be as effective in fantasy settings (for example, a single pikeman is nearly useless whereas a formation of hoplites is a force to be reckoned with). However, even within a fantasy setting sword & board and archery should be more effective than they are. When so many creatures can utterly wreck you with their amazing strength and many claws, bites, weapons and whatnot, a shield should be more valuable than ever. In that case, being able to hurt those creatures without being within range of their horrible attacks is very tempting too, a temptation that's only strengthened when you realize how many creatures in DnD can actually fly.

So, to make a long and drawn out story short, why didn't the designers think of putting more effort into making these styles as viable as they historically were and should be? Nearly every good melee build revolves around using a greatsword and taking power attack.

[OldTrees1]

Simple answer:
WotC messed up on some crucial math for TWF(less atk & less damage) & S&B(AC becomes meaningless). Archery is probably similar but I will not hazard a guess at where the math went wrong.


Step 1: Fix the math
Step 2: Differentiate the styles with via "differences in kind" in addition to how the numbers change.
Step 3: Add decent support in the way of feats and class features

[ArendK]

Honestly, the image of TWF/THF is more iconic for fantasy genre's.

There are few characters in the novels and such that used a shield if I remember correctly.
Sturm, Caramon, Tanis, and Riverwind all used either single blade or a two-handed weapon. The elf chick used sword and board, and Tika did as well (turning the shield bash into an art form if memory serves me correctly as the description goes).

Other than those two, I can't think of any others.

I know in the movies for Chronicles of Narnia, the melee characters used sword and board as well; I can't remember for the books.

Either way, each style should ideally have a different benefit.
Sword and board should be defensive heavy, THF should be high damage, and TWF should be a lot of little strikes or defensively oriented.
However, in the summarized words of Xykon; "There is a level of offense against which there is no defense." It is easier in game to create a level of offense and blast through instead of a prolonged battle.

There's no real combat fatigue mechanic I can think of, and that might have helped out with balancing sword and board. Facing also would make a difference, but that is a very high level of detail that a lot of groups may not be able to get behind. A way to force an incoming attack to hit the shield instead could also level the playing field.

For a off the top of my head fatigue mechanic for 3.P, each character has their (CONx2)+level or BAB. To attack with a given style of weapon, it requires X amount of points, with THF requiring the most per blow, and TWF would require less as it relies on faster, but less powerful strikes generally. Once a character gets below 1/4 of their max fatigue points, they suffer -2 or some other number to damage and hit as their attacks get weaker and weaker.

Yes, I know this hurts of melee combatants more than they need, but if a group is running a low or no magic campaign, it'd give a bit more of a reason to use different styles. It's just an idea, and hardly one thought out much.

[RegalKain]

For a off the top of my head fatigue mechanic for 3.P, each character has their (CONx2)+level or BAB. To attack with a given style of weapon, it requires X amount of points, with THF requiring the most per blow, and TWF would require less as it relies on faster, but less powerful strikes generally. Once a character gets below 1/4 of their max fatigue points, they suffer -2 or some other number to damage and hit as their attacks get weaker and weaker.

Yes, I know this hurts of melee combatants more than they need, but if a group is running a low or no magic campaign, it'd give a bit more of a reason to use different styles. It's just an idea, and hardly one thought out much.

Actually, this same idea could be served to balance Casters in some way, make it so casting spells greatly increases fatigue, making your concentration checks harder and harder with each casting, this could be fluffed away as being that much of a drain on your body. The downside to that entire system? Using the word Fatigue means Undead for days.

[TuggyNE]

I think the main problem with archery is that it was balanced around its strengths, but often archers (like solo scouts) are unable to apply their strengths because of the unique constraints of a dungeon-crawl-heavy game. In a dungeon, long-range abilities are as close to useless as you could wish to see, and even outdoors the messed-up Spot rules, along with the overwhelming eagerness of melee and even many spellcasters to close to their optimal ranges, make it difficult if not impossible for archers to do what they do best: (ab)use action economy over several rounds to win a fight before the enemy can join battle. If all you get is a single round of unrestricted fire before everyone is fighting at once, that's nowhere near enough of an advantage to make up for the compensating disadvantages archers were saddled with.

[NichG]

Actually, there is a little bit of sense to it.

Specifically, think about what kinds of enemies medieval soldiers would have faced. A single sword blow that gets through armor and the like would have had a good chance of disabling or killing their opponent. Since even a weak strike kills, something that would make a strike more damaging (e.g. TWF) wouldn't be that important.

In D&D however, the mundane warriors are often facing supernaturally tough creatures - or supernaturally tough warriors - that can take blow after blow without falling. In such a case it becomes important to do as much damage as you can in a single strike, especially given things like DR.

The interesting thing is, if you run simulated battles between armies of Lv1 human fighters with various feat loadouts and gear loadouts, AC turns out to be incredibly important to overall victory rates. For Lv1 human fighters against an army of the same, sword-and-board is actually fairly optimal if you can afford the shield. If you can afford chain mail, even better. The other thing that's somewhat surprising is that the best feat for said fighters turns out to be Diehard, which basically doubles or triples the amount of damage they can take before being unable to fight.

[DMVerdandi]

I think it's because melee combat is TOO abstract in DND.
Tactical feats came out REALLY late, and so did Maneuvers, but they attempt to solve the problem head on. Fighter feats in particular are not truly based on specific moves if you will, but represent every instance in a conceptual melee attack.

There are in real life MANY ways to "power attack", which depend on weapon held. For example, a "power attack" with a kitchen knife is Holding it downward and bringing it to a rise and fall stabbing motion, or gripping the handle with both hands for a linear thrust rather than a quick poke or slash. Meanwhile for a club it is a large sweeping horizontal or vertical swing with both hands.

However power attack reflects EVERY hit like that.
Maneuvers gave certain specific ways of attacking distinct bonuses, which is why it was good. It turned something abstract into something concrete.

Spells are not abstract (Sans Wish), but are very concrete and replicable effects with superior range, defined advantages and weaknesses.

[Dr. Cliché]

I think the main problem is the existence of hit points.

Shields were used primarily because, given the option, soldiers preferred to live. And, when a single sword-thrust or arrow/quarrel could easily be fatal, having a big shield to block those things was very desirable.

However, in D&D, many characters can get stabbed or shot several times without blinking. And, if they are looking a bit worse-for-wear, they'll be right as rain so long as they can stagger over to the party healer.

It's a similar problem to when someone points a crossbow at a fighter and says "Move and I shoot!", and the fighter just shrugs. "So what? I've got 80 hit points."

[nedz]

D&D had always underrated shields, but then they are a defensive weapon and thus seen as boring. If shields were as effective as they perhaps should be then fights would be a long sequence of misses — which would only help the casters anyway.

[Vortalism]

I think the main problem is the existence of hit points.
^Swordsaged my good man.

Pretty much what he said. Not to mention that in RPGs where the HP system is based around wounding rather than HP (RoleMaster to an extent), not getting hit is pretty much the best way to avoid any of the possible outcomes of the nasty nasty damage chart. If loosing 15 HP in D&D can constitute a couple of neat scratches which trickle some blood on a 10th level Fighter, percentages can conspire against you to have your leg hacked off or your gut pierced in RoleMaster.

Therefore, this leads to a situation where damage trumps all. And what style brings home the most of said damage? THF. Anything else is secondary. If there is anything resembling a solution in D&D, then Wounds and Vitality have pretty much got to be it. Just retool it with some of the RoleMaster combat outcome charts and viola, you'll be having your players beg you for the biggest shield available before you know it.

[Kurald Galain]

Sword & board was historically one of the most effective styles, and therefore the melee style that lasted the longest and was almost universal, from the Roman Legions to African tribesmen. A shield is just really gosh darned handy, it gives you a big metal (or wooden) plate to defend yourself against projectiles and pointy sticks, while also giving you a secondary weapon to push, shove, hook and bash with. For most historical warriors, there was almost no good reason not to use a shield.
The main problem with this style in pretty much any edition of D&D is that shields only give +1 AC. A more accurate figure here would be +4.


If shields were as effective as they perhaps should be then fights would be a long sequence of misses — which would only help the casters anyway.
But this is a very good point. In game design it's generally a good thing to make offense stronger than defense, because it's more exciting for the players.

[ryu]

I think the main problem is the existence of hit points.
^Swordsaged my good man.

Pretty much what he said. Not to mention that in RPGs where the HP system is based around wounding rather than HP (RoleMaster to an extent), not getting hit is pretty much the best way to avoid any of the possible outcomes of the nasty nasty damage chart. If loosing 15 HP in D&D can constitute a couple of neat scratches which trickle some blood on a 10th level Fighter, percentages can conspire against you to have your leg hacked off or your gut pierced in RoleMaster.

Therefore, this leads to a situation where damage trumps all. And what style brings home the most of said damage? THF. Anything else is secondary. If there is anything resembling a solution in D&D, then Wounds and Vitality have pretty much got to be it. Just retool it with some of the RoleMaster combat outcome charts and viola, you'll be having your players beg you for the biggest shield available before you know it.

And that shield becomes pointless when you realize that literally every one of the once crappy evocations just became save and probably still lose. It doesn't even increase the value of shields much. All the people who actually cared about surviving attacks went for miss chances over AC anyway.

[NichG]

But this is a very good point. In game design it's generally a good thing to make offense stronger than defense, because it's more exciting for the players.

Yeah, even more generally 'it should be easier to create a change in game state than to undo it'.

That said, what one could do in terms of game design is to have defensive items not prevent attacks from working, but act to prevent certain secondary consequences of attacks that are added on. For example, every melee attack could by default also inflict a point of stat damage associated with the damage type (Int/Wis for bludgeoning, Dex for slashing, Str for piercing lets say). Shields beyond a buckler could simply prevent the side-effect of piercing damage outright, metal armor would prevent the slashing side-effect, and armor that included a metallic helmet would prevent the bludgeoning side-effect.

So you can go without the shield, but then you risk being weakened and bled out by a dozen small punctures.

Granted, this kind of thing would add a lot of tracking to the game. To simplify it, you could just have a one-off status condition so you don't have to add up bits and pieces of stat damage (something like, if you get hit hard enough without the right protective gear, you're Weakened for a minute).

[Gemini476]

The main problem with this style in pretty much any edition of D&D is that shields only give +1 AC. A more accurate figure here would be +4.


But this is a very good point. In game design it's generally a good thing to make offense stronger than defense, because it's more exciting for the players.
I do believe that shields giving +1AC is an artifact from when THF gave +1 damage. (TWF was a later, optional rule, with an extra attack at -4 to-hit with the off-hand in BECMI and I don't know what Advanced did.)

Also, back then AC was mostly between -5 and 9. So +1 is much larger than it is in 3e where BAB alone is +0 to +20.

[Vortalism]

And that shield becomes pointless when you realize that literally every one of the once crappy evocations just became save and probably still lose. It doesn't even increase the value of shields much. All the people who actually cared about surviving attacks went for miss chances over AC anyway.

I see your point there, but I never did say that this was a perfect solution. :smallbiggrin:

One idea would be a straight conversion of AC from shields to saves (probably Reflex I'd reckon), touch AC would have to be changed to a saving throw-based equivalent.

Do remember that magic was certainly a different beast in RoleMaster or MERP than in D&D. But if we're talking about mundane combat being as colourful as it could be, then I see no reason why the RoleMaster system can't be modified to suit a d20 setting. Sure it doesn't solve the problem of magic much, but that problem is a bit outside of this solution's reach.

[Vortalism]

I see your point there, but I never did say that this was a perfect solution. :smallbiggrin:

One idea would be a straight conversion of AC from shields to saves (probably Reflex I'd reckon), touch AC would have to be changed to a saving throw-based equivalent.

Do remember that magic was certainly a different beast in RoleMaster or MERP than in D&D. But if we're talking about mundane combat being as colourful as it could be, then I see no reason why the RoleMaster system can't be modified to suit a d20 setting. Sure it doesn't solve the problem of magic much, but that problem is a bit outside of this solution's reach.

Or if the above doesn't work, you could keep Hit Points on some level since the critical hits chart in RoleMaster still prescribes nominal damage. The real killer is the status effects, magical damage could be handled with the regular HP in this case.

[Kurald Galain]

Also, back then AC was mostly between -5 and 9. So +1 is much larger than it is in 3e where BAB alone is +0 to +20.

Even then: the desiners were apparently running on the assumption that wearing chainmail is four times as effective as holding a shield, whereas throughout history that's just not the case.

[Komatik]

I recall a session many years ago where I was playing a fighter. Our party had gotten involved in a fairly dramatic battle on the edge of a mountainous cliff. We had been hacking away at critters of some sort for quite some time when I got bored, and asked the GM how high up we were.

"About 100 feet from the chasm floor", he said, trying to scare me.

I did some quick math and realized that I could take the fall head-first and still only lose about 30-40 hit points (playing the averages... bad, I know). I had 60-something, so I leapt. After hitting the bottom and standing up only 34 hit points less I ran off. Orcs up above shot at me a few times, but even with 7 arrows in my body I managed to run away.

10chars10chars

[Fouredged Sword]

Hero's can survive more damage than a normal person. If we played 3.5 where a single hit would take you out of combat, then archery and sword and board would be the ONLY way to survive combat. In real life, if your armor didn't stop a hit, and your shield didn't deflect it, you died, if not immediately, then of infection or blood loss. The only people who lasted in combat where those who favored defense over offense, or hit their enemies from too far out to be counterattacked.

This is a simplification of course, but the reality of a warrior who can get hit by a greatsword 2-5 times and not die is silly in real life.

[Eldan]

Well, neither is magic. I mean, mundanes have to have something going for them. Falling off a twenty story building, then standing up and running away with six arrows in the back isn't much, compared to wizards, but it's something.

One rule I started including is that shields also apply to touch AC and reflex saves. I've toyed with the idea of the larger shields giving something like evasion or cover, too.

[Kurald Galain]

One rule I started including is that shields also apply to touch AC and reflex saves. I've toyed with the idea of the larger shields giving something like evasion or cover, too.

Good point. I recently looked it up and was surprised that shield bonuses don't apply to touch attacks. I mean, why should it harm me if some wizard dude is touch-of-fatiguing my shield?

[Komatik]

Well, neither is magic. I mean, mundanes have to have something going for them. Falling off a twenty story building, then standing up and running away with six arrows in the back isn't much, compared to wizards, but it's something.

One rule I started including is that shields also apply to touch AC and reflex saves. I've toyed with the idea of the larger shields giving something like evasion or cover, too.

Thing is, mundanes probably can do more in a game like Riddle comparatively, precisely because the game is so lethal. The caster needs to make just one mistake to have a crossbow bolt in his stomach (though you probably better use an arbalest because physical armor and the game's mage armor equivalent stack for some reason for pretty hilarious ACs).

Likewise, in mundane-on-mundane combat smart play gets rewarded a lot because simple damage actually reduces the opponent's capabilities, so you have other plans than just "kill asap" available. Deflect a blow, score a small wound and the opponent is concretely easier to deal with next round. Keep it up and you'll be overwhelming him with raw amount of dice in short order. Same happens to the sorcerer that gets hit. Even if he doesn't die, a good chunk of his mana pool goes poof, at which point casting concretely threatens to knock him unconscious if he wants to get anything done fast.

[Eldan]

Good point. I recently looked it up and was surprised that shield bonuses don't apply to touch attacks. I mean, why should it harm me if some wizard dude is touch-of-fatiguing my shield?

Well, it does also hurt you if he touches your armour. It makes different amounts of sense for different attacks.

[Eldan]

The problem is, even if the wizard never got more HP after level, oh, let's say 2, they wouldn't be much more fragile than they are now, at least against level-equivalent fighters.

A mid-optimized, mid-level fighter can easily deal enough damage to kill a high level wizard in one hit. I mean, how many hit points will they really have? Let's say they are quite tough and have 24 con from items or such and rolled a 4 every level. That's 16*20=320 HP. Still doable for an ubercharger. More realistic, the wizard has perhaps 18 con and therfore 6.5*20 or 130 HP. Easy. The wizard's defences are in buff spells. Invisibility, miss chance, etherealness, ironguard, ghostform, many, many others.

So if everyone has fewer HP? Fighters can kill each other more quickly. And now, wizards can use blasting spells again, to kill those fighters too. Not much change to the endurance of a wizard, though.

[SiuiS]

I'm not entirely sure if it belongs in the roleplaying games section or the 3.5e section. I assume it belongs here because I'm mostly going to discuss the 3.5e rules.

My question, put rudely, is simply this: why is mundane combat in 3.5e so nonsensical? THF is the only viable fighting style in DnD, while historically it was one of the least viable fighting styles (save for TWF, which was practically never seriously used in combat (except for duels, where the main gauche was almost entirely used for defensive purposes)).

Sword & board was historically one of the most effective styles, and therefore the melee style that lasted the longest and was almost universal, from the Roman Legions to African tribesmen. A shield is just really gosh darned handy, it gives you a big metal (or wooden) plate to defend yourself against projectiles and pointy sticks, while also giving you a secondary weapon to push, shove, hook and bash with. For most historical warriors, there was almost no good reason not to use a shield.

Archery is another very effective style. No matter how you look at it, being able to kill a foe while he's too far away to retaliate is very effective. Even armies that supposedly disdained archery valued their archery regiments (the Ancient Greeks still employed archers and in spite of what events like Agincourt would have you believe, the French were almost in love with their crossbows).

That brings me to my main point: why are these styles so horribly sub-par in 3.5e? I understand that styles that work on battlefields may not be as effective in fantasy settings (for example, a single pikeman is nearly useless whereas a formation of hoplites is a force to be reckoned with). However, even within a fantasy setting sword & board and archery should be more effective than they are. When so many creatures can utterly wreck you with their amazing strength and many claws, bites, weapons and whatnot, a shield should be more valuable than ever. In that case, being able to hurt those creatures without being within range of their horrible attacks is very tempting too, a temptation that's only strengthened when you realize how many creatures in DnD can actually fly.

So, to make a long and drawn out story short, why didn't the designers think of putting more effort into making these styles as viable as they historically were and should be? Nearly every good melee build revolves around using a greatsword and taking power attack.

When you say "sword and board" you're kind of scrunching hundreds of different actual styles of combat together. Asking why a broad category of combat utility with many possible permutations that can be custom tailored to the events at hand isn't comparable to an abstraction without those permutations and without that utility, the answer is clearer.

Sword and board does not accurately describe historical shield use, just like 'dude in heavy armor charging across the country on a Clydesdale" does not accurately describe historical cavalry.

[Person_Man]

D&D makes attempts to simulate reality with it's combat. For example, a dagger deals less damage then a greatsword. But it's also a game, and games are designed to be fun. So while a dagger deals less damage then a greatsword, either one will kill any human on the planet with a well placed hit. But that's not particularly fun for players who get stabbed a lot. There's a limit to the amount of granularity that you can fit into a tabletop roleplaying game. So while it mike make sense for a shield to be more effective when you're fighting with a line of allies using shields, including that extra rule in the base combat mechanics is too fiddly for a game where it may only occur for a small number of players.

Having said that, pretty much every combat style is well supported in 3.5/PF. They just don't do a great job of simulating reality with it. For example, there are a number of useful shield related crunch (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?123630-3-X-Person-Man-s-Guide-to-Shields). But to-hit/AC scaling in general is really hard to pin down in 3.5/PF, so investing a bunch of resources in improving your shield related stuff won't necessarily make you an amazing tank. Similarly, archery with the right magical equipment (e.g., Splitting Arrows), can deals some impressive damage at a very long range. It's just boring, and most archery related Feats happen to suck terribly because they were written in the core rules, where most non-magical Feats provide very minor bonuses (which was done in an attempt to make the game more "realistic").

[Kurald Galain]

I think the solution to that is wound penalties. (edit) to Eldan's last post.

One of the old sacred cows of D&D is that you're just as capable at 1 hit point as you are at full hit points. Based on that, in order to make fighters and the like useful in combat, they need to be boosted to the level where they can kill basically anything in one round, assuming they can get a full attack off. And based on that, to not have every character get one-shotted, we get all kinds of crazy extra defenses who by definition have to be magical. A system could get a lot of mileage out of making wounds more meaningful.

[nedz]

The problem is, even if the wizard never got more HP after level, oh, let's say 2, they wouldn't be much more fragile than they are now, at least against level-equivalent fighters.

A mid-optimized, mid-level fighter can easily deal enough damage to kill a high level wizard in one hit. I mean, how many hit points will they really have? Let's say they are quite tough and have 24 con from items or such and rolled a 4 every level. That's 16*20=320 HP. Still doable for an ubercharger. More realistic, the wizard has perhaps 18 con and therfore 6.5*20 or 130 HP. Easy. The wizard's defences are in buff spells. Invisibility, miss chance, etherealness, ironguard, ghostform, many, many others.

So if everyone has fewer HP? Fighters can kill each other more quickly. And now, wizards can use blasting spells again, to kill those fighters too. Not much change to the endurance of a wizard, though.

In earlier editions non-fighters were limited to a 2HP/HD from Con — which did make the squishes more squishy.

[ryu]

In earlier editions non-fighters were limited to a 2HP/HD from Con — which did make the squishes more squishy.

What wizard is actually relying on their HP as a line of defense? Even with the standard 14 con none of them are really going to take a reasonable hit from something that isn't drastically lower CR than they should be fighting.

[Eldan]

Exactly, that's what I mean. Example.

You're a mundane character. You're facing a high level wizard with, amongst other things, the following:

-1 single hit point
-Mirror images (so 1 in four of your attacks hit the real one)
-Incorporeality from ghost form, so only magic and magic weapons can hurt him
-Ironguard, so metal weapons can't hurt him
-Immunities to all four elements
-Whatever other defences he can think of. Probably high AC.

Do his HP matter in the slightest, now?

[deuterio12]

I think the solution to that is wound penalties. (edit) to Eldan's last post.

One of the old sacred cows of D&D is that you're just as capable at 1 hit point as you are at full hit points. Based on that, in order to make fighters and the like useful in combat, they need to be boosted to the level where they can kill basically anything in one round, assuming they can get a full attack off. And based on that, to not have every character get one-shotted, we get all kinds of crazy extra defenses who by definition have to be magical. A system could get a lot of mileage out of making wounds more meaningful.

Do you actually have any proof for that?

Because last time I checked, countless highly sucessful games use basic D&D HP where you don't take penalties for being at less than full HP. Not only RPGs, but fighting games, RTS, 4x, you name it.

On the other hand, every game system I know that implements any kind of wound penalties has severe problems. More often than not, it's simple that whoever gets an hit first wins, because the other guy will be so penalized that they have no realistic chance to pull anything anymore.

And that's because that being at 1 HP is quite different than being at 100 HP even if there's no hardcoded penalties. If you're at 100 HP you can afford to provoke Aoos, you know you can shrugg off some attacks, you can walk trough that wall of fire, etc.

But if you're at 1 HP? Then you cannot afford to go trough that wall of fire. You cannot afford to provoke Aoos. If an enemy can cast magic missile, you have to focus on them, or they're guaranteed to finish you next turn.

[Urpriest]

On the one hand, most people will argue that "you can get hit by a sword five times and live because you have enough hit points" is simply false, as hit points represent your stamina and ability to avoid hits, not merely your literal meat.

On the other hand, if that were the case then shields should increase your hit points, not merely your AC.

[Kurald Galain]

Do you actually have any proof for that?
Well, the problem we were getting at is that fighter attacks are basically an all-or-nothing effect. A fighter that can get to you and unleash a full attack will kill basically everything, and a fighter that can't do that isn't contributing. So some middle ground would be good. One way of doing that is with wound penalties, although admittedly players hate those. Another is by having the fighter add status effects (e.g. trip, daze) to his attacks. Yet another way is concluding that nothing should normally kill anyone in one round, but that means that casters shouldn't have SOD spells either.


You're a mundane character. You're facing a high level wizard with, amongst other things, the following:
Ok, but that example is well above the level at which most campaigns play. I would be more interested in fixing the level 5-10 range, than worry about the place where a wizard can have a 7th level spell permanently running where it normally lasts less than two minutes.

[ryu]

On the one hand, most people will argue that "you can get hit by a sword five times and live because you have enough hit points" is simply false, as hit points represent your stamina and ability to avoid hits, not merely your literal meat.

On the other hand, if that were the case then shields should increase your hit points, not merely your AC.

And damage from things that clearly hit with what should be lethal force make less sense too. For example the fact that being anywhere near lava, let alone SUBMERGED in it isn't simply instant death.

[gkathellar]

I'm going to actually answer your question first, and then address your misconceptions in slightly abrasive fashion.


That brings me to my main point: why are these styles so horribly sub-par in 3.5e?

For almost entirely different reasons.

In the case of the shield, it's related to the way D&D "handles" combat positioning and how little dynamism there is in D&D combat when compared to the way fighting actually works. Real close engagement transitions on a second-by-second basis between grappling, shoving matches, and mobile hit-and-run tactics. As such, a wide variety of tactics and weapons were employed by warriors to give themselves options and to change the dynamics of combat. In D&D combat, however, you mostly stand in one place (or charge at the same place over and over), occupying a 5'x5' space, hacking away at the other guy, who's doing the same. That comes down to the simple math of DPR rather than the asymmetric balance that might conceivably facilitate a more realistic setup, because asymmetric balance is hard and 3.5 is poorly designed.

In the case of the bow, it's that ranged weapons are game-breakers IRL. Get hit in the thigh by an arrow? Have fun trying not to go into catatonic shock and bleed to death. Maybe, if you're lucky, and your femur wasn't damaged, the surgeons will be able to pry the arrowhead out with only a bit of your thigh muscle still attached, and you'll only limp for the rest of your life. And the archer can do all of this Save or Die silliness this to their melee counterpart at a distance. So instead, we get annoying arrows (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AnnoyingArrows) that balance the ability to fire from a distance against reduced damage. But asymmetric balance is hard to achieve, so again ...


So, to make a long and drawn out story short, why didn't the designers think of putting more effort into making these styles as viable as they historically were and should be? Nearly every good melee build revolves around using a greatsword and taking power attack.

The designers didn't (and, in the era of PF, still don't) put much effort into making anything historically accurate (or any other kind of accurate), or else put in the effort but suffer from dramatic misconceptions about what the historical truth actually is. Why? Because they didn't have a very good grasp of the game they were making (and still don't), or any sort of clear consensus on what they wanted (or want) that game to look like in play.


while historically it was one of the least viable fighting styles

German, Italian and Japanese longsword would like to have a word with you. When they're done, the various polearms and poleaxes have assembled in an orderly line. And, uh, watch out for the quarterstaff — it's known to be particularly ornery, and it can strike from virtually any range and any direction.


(save for TWF, which was practically never seriously used in combat (except for duels, where the main gauche was almost entirely used for defensive purposes)).

I'd gesture towards the Philippines with my case of rapiers, but one of those Japanese or Chinese two-sword schools might think I was issuing a challenge.


Sword & board was historically one of the most effective styles, and therefore the melee style that lasted the longest and was almost universal, from the Roman Legions to African tribesmen.

It was also like fifteen different styles, many of which were only remotely comparable, depending on the size, shape, and material composition of the shield, as well as what weapons and armor it was employed alongside and expected to go up against. In many parts of the world where the shield remained dominant, it did so because heavy armor was nonexistent or impractical.


A shield is just really gosh darned handy, it gives you a big metal (or wooden) plate to defend yourself against projectiles and pointy sticks, while also giving you a secondary weapon to push, shove, hook and bash with. For most historical warriors, there was almost no good reason not to use a shield.

And yet, during the era of full plate, heavy chargers, pikes, arquebuses, and rapiers, it did fade from use. Towards the 15th and 16th century in Europe, the use of the shield of the battlefield declined dramatically (probably because of improving armor technology, but it's not totally clear) — although the buckler, probably the most advanced form of shield constructed to date, became a staple for both light infantry and civilian duelists. The term "swashbuckler" comes from how young swordsmen would walk around looking for fights, banging their swords against their bucklers.


Archery is another very effective style. No matter how you look at it, being able to kill a foe while he's too far away to retaliate is very effective.

Are you seriously discussing archery as a "style" in the same way as you're talking about melee combat? That's like asking, "which would win in a fight, a giant squid or an angry moose?" The two are completely different entities, especially with regards to personal combat. If you want to complain about surrealism in D&D combat with regards to archery, start with "having an extremely specialized combat role was only useful in open warfare, and would have made no sense for small, close-range skirmishes."


Even armies that supposedly disdained archery valued their archery regiments (the Ancient Greeks still employed archers

... what? Do people actually think they didn't? Of course they did. The importance of stringing and drawing the bow as an image of manhood and personal power is a recurring image in mythology, Greek and otherwise. Heracles had a bow and a quiver of poison arrows. Odysseus had a bow that only he could string and draw.

Now, if you want a ranged weapon that's neglected in modern lore, but that the Greeks used to fabulous effect, try the sling. The sling was the dominant ranged weapon in the world for ages, due to its low costs and its high returns. The bow eventually replaced it in warfare due to technological gains, but there are people who hunt using slings today.


and in spite of what events like Agincourt would have you believe, the French were almost in love with their crossbows).

The point of Agincourt was that it demonstrated how yeomen were a really excellent idea, not that it demonstrated the French only liked melee. Hell, the French even had a saying about the differences in the way Frenchmen and Englishmen used bows. IIRC, "French draw the bow, and English bend it,"


I understand that styles that work on battlefields may not be as effective in fantasy settings (for example, a single pikeman is nearly useless whereas a formation of hoplites is a force to be reckoned with).

Just for reference, a pike formation beats both of those. Pike infantry were sort of hoplites+. Moreover, you'd be hard-pressed to do better for single combat than you could do with one of the shorter polearms.


When so many creatures can utterly wreck you with their amazing strength and many claws, bites, weapons and whatnot, a shield should be more valuable than ever.

In fairness, if I were fighting a seven-hundred pound animal, I'd rather have a weapon that's six feet long than a shield and a weapon that's three feet long.


In that case, being able to hurt those creatures without being within range of their horrible attacks is very tempting too, a temptation that's only strengthened when you realize how many creatures in DnD can actually fly.

Oh, absolutely. Hell, Tolkein recognized this. "Black arrow, black arrow, arrow of my fathers, ever have you shot true, and always have I retrieved you ..."

[Eldan]

Ok, but that example is well above the level at which most campaigns play. I would be more interested in fixing the level 5-10 range, than worry about the place where a wizard can have a 7th level spell permanently running where it normally lasts less than two minutes.

Fair, but blur, mirror image, wind wall, etc. are all low-level. Sure, level 12+ are silly. But it's the same at low levels, really. The wizard has two defences: being away from frontline combat so he won't ever be attacked and making sure he's never hit.

[Eldan]

In the case of the shield, it's related to the way D&D "handles" combat positioning and how little dynamism there is in D&D combat when compared to the way fighting actually works. Real close engagement transitions on a second-by-second basis between grappling, shoving matches, and mobile hit-and-run tactics. As such, a wide variety of tactics and weapons were employed by warriors to give themselves options and to change the dynamics of combat. In D&D combat, however, you mostly stand in one place (or charge at the same place over and over), occupying a 5'x5' space, hacking away at the other guy, who's doing the same. That comes down to the simple math of DPR rather than the asymmetric balance that might conceivably facilitate a more realistic setup, because asymmetric balance is hard and 3.5 is poorly designed.

I'd say that's an entirely different problem, though. It comes from earlier editions of D&D, where combat was intended to be heavily abstracted.

You don't stand still in a five foot square. You move around to cover that area.
During a round, you don't make a single strike with your one attack roll. You are grappling, shoving, lunging, parrying and moving back and forth. Your one attack roll covers all of that, telling you how well you did it.

The problem with that is, of course, that while swordfighting is kept that abstract, other parts of the system got more and more detailed. The swordfighting merely pretends to be.

[Komatik]

gkat, it may be useful to separate duelling, self-defense and battlefield equipment. Pretty different requirements for all of those. That said, I need to find my Like button.

[Psyren]

For starters, "mundane combat" in D&D/PF stops somewhere around level 3. Once you get that first +1 sword and you're starting to fight undead/outsiders/etc. regularly, I can't really see it being called "mundane combat" anymore. And if you are trying to oppose supernatural threats with purely mundane means you'll almost certainly be at a significant disadvantage.

Second, can the OP define "viable?" THF is certainly more effective than other melee styles but that doesn't make those other styles utterly incapable of killing anything. Similarly, bows take a lot of investment to use well, but if you put in the feats/money you'll contribute to nearly every fight.

[Sam K]

Historically, the shield was popular because of the following:

1. It was fairly cheap and easy to make. This was important because armor is rare and expensive.
2. Being hit, even by glancing blows, could be deadly due to infections. Even light wounds could make you less effective in the next battle (or at harvest, when you were back at the farm). Not being wounded was quite important to your average fighting man.
3. When used in formation, it could be used to make it harder for enemies to advance, stopping you from being overran.

#3 is fairly pointless for adventurers, because even a full melee party where everyone uses a shield will be unlikely to have the numbers for a effective shield wall. #2 just doesn't come into play that often because of D&Ds abstract damage system. Taking damage simply isn't as big of a deal in DnD as it is IRL, and divine magic gets you up on your feet quickly. Finally, #1 stops being a factor after the first few levels, because any fighter can afford heavy armor quite quickly if following the WBL guidelines (which is what the game assumes).

Shields are actually quite good for the first few levels, but they quickly become obsolete because, just like in real life today, they dont protect against enough of the dangers you are likely to face. Machineguns and explosives stop shields from being viable.

Twohanded weapons have always been viable when fighting something that has no capacity for ranged attacks (most animals - consider the spears used for hunting boars, for example), or if you could afford enough armor that you could give up the defensive benefits of the shield. Heavily armored knights could use hand-and-a-half swords. Hell, the bayonett charge was viable atleast up to the first world war.

[nedz]

Exactly, that's what I mean. Example.

You're a mundane character. You're facing a high level wizard with, amongst other things, the following:

-1 single hit point
-Mirror images (so 1 in four of your attacks hit the real one)
-Incorporeality from ghost form, so only magic and magic weapons can hurt him
-Ironguard, so metal weapons can't hurt him
-Immunities to all four elements
-Whatever other defences he can think of. Probably high AC.

Do his HP matter in the slightest, now?

But Wizards who spend their actions and spell slots on defensive spells can be safely ignored. I'm not sure this debate makes any sense at high level though.

[Anlashok]

As a minor correction... THF was not useless in real life, especially considering the time and place that D&D vaguely tries to imitate. Remember that the image of a knight in plate armor with a sword and shield is almost entirely a fictional creation.

TWF wasn't particularly good in real life, I agree there.... but honestly to me the most frustrating thing is that the classes that best represent people who actually did TWF historically (duelist, samurai) suck at it in 3.5.

[ryu]

But Wizards who spend their actions and spell slots on defensive spells can be safely ignored. I'm not sure this debate makes any sense at high level though.

The vast majority of those were either relatively low level, frighteningly cheap to buy in item form, were relatively long duration, or all of the above. Also assuming use of slots only do you really think taking care of all that at minimum levels takes even half the available slots?

[Kurald Galain]

Shields should do this:

http://pictures.linkmesh.com/dragons/imagenes/dragon_shield.jpg

[Kurald Galain]

The vast majority of those were either relatively low level, frighteningly cheap to buy in item form, were relatively long duration, or all of the above. Also assuming use of slots only do you really think taking care of all that at minimum levels takes even half the available slots?

Sorry, but no. Ironguard is level 7 and lasts 1 round per level, Ghostform is level 5 and lasts 1 minute per level, Mirror Image is only level two but loses an image per attack, and I'm not even sure how he wants to be immune to all elements all at the same time. Yes, Mage Armor lasts all day but those other spells really don't.

I'd be interested to see how you'd put up defensive buffs for, say, a 5th level wizard.

[ryu]

Sorry, but no. Ironguard is level 7 and lasts 1 round per level, Ghostform is level 5 and lasts 1 minute per level, Mirror Image is only level two but loses an image per attack, and I'm not even sure how he wants to be immune to all elements all at the same time. Yes, Mage Armor lasts all day but those other spells really don't.

I'd be interested to see how you'd put up defensive buffs for, say, a 5th level wizard.

At fifth level? Abrupt jaunts, mirror images, and a pile of effects likely to end combat within the first round. This assumes one of two scenarios are in effect. Either the wizard is alone and those defenses just say no to anything he'd have to deal with, or he has a party of similarly competent individuals to take up some of the slack. Personal choice would be a cleric, a druid, and particularly optimized psion.

[Urpriest]

gkat, it may be useful to separate duelling, self-defense and battlefield equipment. Pretty different requirements for all of those. That said, I need to find my Like button.

If we're going to go for this, we shouldn't focus on any of the above. D&D characters aren't soldiers and they don't duel, they sneak up on their enemies indoors, surround them, and stab them to death.

In short, we should be balancing weapons in D&D based on what historical criminals used, not historical knights and warriors.

[Kurald Galain]

At fifth level? Abrupt jaunts, mirror images, and a pile of effects likely to end combat within the first round.
Ending combat in the first round is offense. We know that works, but we were talking defense. Does this mean that you intend to start every combat by casting Mirror Image, and that you can spare four spell slots for that at level 5?

[Fouredged Sword]

It would be very cool if we used the wound and vitality point system, and a shield added your BAB as DR/- VS incoming attacks, but it should be slaved to your iterative count, and only for vitality points. Your shield makes it easier and less energy intensive to avoid wounds, though a heavy hit will still take it out of you, even if it lands on the shield. A level 6 fighter would gain DR 6/- on the first hit, and 1/- on the second each round. A level 20 fighter would get 20/15/10/5 on the first through the fourth hit each round.

That would be interesting, and make a shield a useful and unique defense. Shields would still provide their defense bonus, and I would boost it to +1/+2/+4/+8 for bucklers/light/heavy/tower. Maybe not allow the DR with a tower shield, just have it be a stack of AC. You can't really parry with one.

Pair this with the Armor as DR rules, to grant a baseline DR that would apply to all attacks (but not stacking with shield DR, as an attack hits ether your shield OR armor, not both).

It would make for an interesting and dynamic defense system, through probably more to keep track of than most players want to deal with.

[Psyren]

@ Schrodinger's Wizard discussion (who is apparently only a Conjurer since Abrupt Jaunt): I would argue that 5th level is also past the boundaries of "mundane combat" anyway. I mean, between Expeditious Retreat and Haste you've already got an old man in a dress who can win any foot race on the planet for instance, never mind flight.


Shields should do this:

http://pictures.linkmesh.com/dragons/imagenes/dragon_shield.jpg

Honestly, I can't blame them for not wanting mundane shields to do that. It's pretty silly when you think about it - even in that picture you can see the fire rushing around to her unprotected legs and abdomen, not to mention the questionable effectiveness that a wooden or metal barrier would even have in a situation like that.

It's worth noting at least that Tower Shields can do this, at least in PF.

[Kurald Galain]

Honestly, I can't blame them for not wanting mundane shields to do that. It's pretty silly when you think about it - even in that picture you can see the fire rushing around to her unprotected legs and abdomen, not to mention the questionable effectiveness that a wooden or metal barrier would even have in a situation like that.

Ok, let me paraphrase that: assuming a shield exists in the game world that doesn't melt (just make it of adamantine or dragonhide or unobtainium), then a trained combatant should be able to use it like that. If the shield does melt, well, replace dragon by a bunch of archers, for example.

[ryu]

@ Schrodinger's Wizard discussion (who is apparently only a Conjurer since Abrupt Jaunt): I would argue that 5th level is also past the boundaries of "mundane combat" anyway. I mean, between Expeditious Retreat and Haste you've already got an old man in a dress who can win any foot race on the planet for instance, never mind flight.



Honestly, I can't blame them for not wanting mundane shields to do that. It's pretty silly when you think about it - even in that picture you can see the fire rushing around to her unprotected legs and abdomen, not to mention the questionable effectiveness that a wooden or metal barrier would even have in a situation like that.

It's worth noting at least that Tower Shields can do this, at least in PF.

At level five why would you pick another wizard than abrupt jaunt conjurer? I mean maybe if elven generalist is allowed to stack with domain wizard, but if that's not the case why not simply take the jaunt and free slots while they're good and spend a pittance retraining later when those lost schools start to have meaning?

[Komatik]

If we're going to go for this, we shouldn't focus on any of the above. D&D characters aren't soldiers and they don't duel, they sneak up on their enemies indoors, surround them, and stab them to death.

In short, we should be balancing weapons in D&D based on what historical criminals used, not historical knights and warriors.

I don't mean balancing. I just mean to say that context matters a hell of a lot when determining what kind of murderator you want to use. Swords are amazing for cutting through cloth and flesh, easy to move quickly and can be worn easily => splendid self-defense tool. Would never ever ever ever use one as a primary weapon against something like a dragon, because dying sounds like a bad idea. Etc. etc. Not to make daggers or saps wtfbbq amazing because PCs are murderhobos.

[gkathellar]

I'd say that's an entirely different problem, though. It comes from earlier editions of D&D, where combat was intended to be heavily abstracted.

My point is less that combat shouldn't be abstracted, and more that because it is abstracted, the inherent advantages of different fighting styles don't play out. As a result, the game demands more asymmetric balance, but ... the designers were (are) awful at that, even when they tried, which mostly they didn't (don't).


gkat, it may be useful to separate duelling, self-defense and battlefield equipment. Pretty different requirements for all of those. That said, I need to find my Like button.

They all had more interplay than you might expect. I've seen combat manuals that show horseback rapier-and-arquebus techniques meant to be employed against similarly armed cavalry, or depict how to use a smallsword or buckler alongside your pike. The same longsword techniques that had so much traction in civilian settings came into play for infantry with zweihanders. So on and so forth — the 16th-17th century battlefield was bizarre (and awesome).

Either way, thank you.


For starters, "mundane combat" in D&D/PF stops somewhere around level 3. Once you get that first +1 sword and you're starting to fight undead/outsiders/etc. regularly, I can't really see it being called "mundane combat" anymore.

True. One of the key assumptions of real-world-combat is vulnerability. One of the key assumptions of being a heavy combatant in D&D is a degree of invulnerability. It makes things weird.


If we're going to go for this, we shouldn't focus on any of the above. D&D characters aren't soldiers and they don't duel, they sneak up on their enemies indoors, surround them, and stab them to death.

That's a pretty big assumption you're making about everyone's games, there.


In short, we should be balancing weapons in D&D based on what historical criminals used, not historical knights and warriors.

1) Plenty of the time, they used the same things.
2) Plenty of the time, they were the same things.

[Morty]

It's a combination of several different things. First, we have an injury system with no depth whatsoever. You hit things until they run out of hit points, that's the long and short of it. Then, we have the complete lack of tactical depth. Again, you roll to hit and damage until someone falls over. As a result, just about the only thing that matters in armed combat is dealing damage as quickly as possible, because you can't do much else, apart from tripping and dealing attacks of opportunity. Using a two-handed weapon is the best way to deal damage quickly. Dual wielding results in spending a lot of feats to end up dealing less damage, because the designers dropped the ball so hard it made a crack in the floor and thought that extra attacks are really good. Then we have shields, which theoretically should mean that you trade offence for defence, but the defence you get in exchange for giving up damage is more or less worthless, since AC scaling is dysfunctional. Tempus help you if you want to fight with dexterity without being a rogue.

[SimonMoon6]

Basically, shields should give "cover". Tower shields are an over-the-top example, giving complete cover. And then, cover should give a flat miss chance, like spells often do.

Imagine if a standard shield gave everybody a 40% miss chance (including a 40% protection against spells and breath weapons and so forth). I think shields would then be more popular BUT offense is usually still preferred to defense in games. (In reality, you can't simply roll up a new character if you die.) However, at high levels where those sorts of miss chances are often the only way to stay alive (after armor class becomes pointless), shields would make a come back.

(Also this brings up another reason why shields are pointless. All they do is increase armor class. Even if they added a lot to armor class, it wouldn't matter because armor class soon becomes pointless unless you go crazy with it.)

[Incanur]

My question, put rudely, is simply this: why is mundane combat in 3.5e so nonsensical?

While I would also prefer a more historically inspired system, D&D makes few claims to either history or simulation. D&D combat makes about as much sense as most computer- and video-game combat, which is to say that it's hard to explain outside of its own logic. As posted in another thread, the initiative system can result in a human reaction time as high as 9 seconds, which is just ridiculous. Hit points hardly resemble real wounding dynamics at all. And on and on.


THF is the only viable fighting style in DnD, while historically it was one of the least viable fighting styles (save for TWF, which was practically never seriously used in combat (except for duels, where the main gauche was almost entirely used for defensive purposes)).

This depends on the time and place. In Western and Central Europe from the 14th century through the 16th, two-handed weapons proved thoroughly viable. Warriors fighting on foot used spears, axes, halberds, pikes, and swords in both hands more than they used shields. In China and Japan, two-handed weapons rose to prominence earlier and lasted just as long.


Sword & board was historically one of the most effective styles, and therefore the melee style that lasted the longest and was almost universal, from the Roman Legions to African tribesmen.

See above. In European antiquity through the 13th century or so, sure. After the middle of 14th century, no. Shield continued to see use into the 17th century, but if anything two-handed weapons predominated.


Archery is another very effective style.

Definitely, though armor provide considerable to near-perfect defense against arrows.


That brings me to my main point: why are these styles so horribly sub-par in 3.5e?

They not that bad depending on the campaign and the build. One reason archery isn't that effective is because of the dungeon scenario. That makes sense. Sword and board might well be the ideal style for dungeon crawling, as it was often favored for sieges.


(for example, a single pikeman is nearly useless

This is a common misconception. The full 18ft pike saw effective employment in duels and combat in loose formation. Various 16th-century masters instructed how to duel with the pike, and George Silver considered it one of the best weapons for single fighting in the open. Antonio Manciolino similarly recommend the long spear over shorter weapons like the two-handed sword and partisan.


However, even within a fantasy setting sword & board and archery should be more effective than they are. When so many creatures can utterly wreck you with their amazing strength and many claws, bites, weapons and whatnot, a shield should be more valuable than ever. In that case, being able to hurt those creatures without being within range of their horrible attacks is very tempting too, a temptation that's only strengthened when you realize how many creatures in DnD can actually fly.

I don't think a shield would actually so great against typical fantasy monster. You wouldn't want to get that close. Archery would indeed by the way to go, with long spears as a distant second. A more historically guided fantasy-combat system would have heroic archers drawing mighty bows and slaying monsters with a single enchanted arrow. Unless a monster has impenetrable armor over its vitals, different physiology, or some amazing dodging ability, one well-place arrows should kill, though usually not immediately.

[deuterio12]

I believe the main problem here is that D&D is a turn-based game. Real world combat is heavily based in fast reactions. That's really hard to emulate in a system where each character acts at a time.


Well, the problem we were getting at is that fighter attacks are basically an all-or-nothing effect. A fighter that can get to you and unleash a full attack will kill basically everything, and a fighter that can't do that isn't contributing. So some middle ground would be good. One way of doing that is with wound penalties, although admittedly players hate those. Another is by having the fighter add status effects (e.g. trip, daze) to his attacks. Yet another way is concluding that nothing should normally kill anyone in one round, but that means that casters shouldn't have SOD spells either.

Four party members attack an enemy. All hit with one attack that deals damage. The fourth attack kills the monster. Are you seriously arguing that the first 3 players didn't contribute anything?:smallconfused:

[Kurald Galain]

Four party members attack an enemy. All hit with one attack that deals damage. The fourth attack kills the monster. Are you seriously arguing that the first 3 players didn't contribute anything?:smallconfused:

Check the context of the thread. If the fourth party member did enough damage to kill the enemy without his teammates, as is common for fighters in 3E/PF, then the other three didn't contribute. This isn't 4E where every PC's turn is supposed to deal damage equal to 25% of a monster's health.

[Adverb]

...and Tika did as well (turning the shield bash into an art form if memory serves me correctly as the description goes).

I believe she took Weapon Focus (frying pan).

[Slipperychicken]

I think it would be helped somewhat if the following were in the game (Some inspiration taken from Shadowrun)


Armor/shields/dragon-hide mitigate damage instead of reducing hit chance.
Shields contribute meaningfully to damage mitigation.
Ability to dodge/parry can scales evenly relative to hit chance.
Hit points don't scale so much (so that any hit can be threatening, and armor and dodge chance are more important).
"Injury" penalties (i.e. For every X points below your maximum health, you take a -Y injury penalty to all saves/skills/attack rolls/dodge chance, and being injured makes spellcasters need to make checks to cast, and X and Y vary somewhat with level and certain abilities).
Being KO'd by damage can result in lasting, potentially crippling injuries (i.e. Roll on the mortal wounds table)

[Psyren]

Ok, let me paraphrase that: assuming a shield exists in the game world that doesn't melt (just make it of adamantine or dragonhide or unobtainium), then a trained combatant should be able to use it like that. If the shield does melt, well, replace dragon by a bunch of archers, for example.

Well again, it's not just the material but the size that matters as well. Putting aside the conductivity or volatility of the barrier itself, you would need magic to explain why such a small impediment is effective against a conflagration like that.


At level five why would you pick another wizard than abrupt jaunt conjurer? I mean maybe if elven generalist is allowed to stack with domain wizard, but if that's not the case why not simply take the jaunt and free slots while they're good and spend a pittance retraining later when those lost schools start to have meaning?

You could take this kind of thinking to its logical conclusion and say "Why play anything other than pun-pun? After all every other build is less powerful."

In other words, maybe I don't want to play a conjurer because that's not my character concept. I might even want to play Vaarsuvius and ban it entirely.

[Togo]

I think part of the problem is this board's local meta - they kinds of characters that are created, the assumptions that are made ('but why would anyone make a wizard that wasn't a specialist conjurer'), and the level of optimisation that is used. If you turn every fight into competing glass cannons, then of course using a sheild, or favouring a two weapon style that only works to full effect after you've closed to melee, are going to be sub-par. Everything is about getting in the killer blow, spellcasters are assumed to have heavy magical defenses, and noone ends up within full attack range unless they want to be. It's not just the game system, it's also the way it's used.

It's perfectly possible to play D&D using sword and board, archery, or two weapon fighting. It doesn't work as well in higher optimisation games, but it's perfectly viable in a low-op or highly controlled environment, such as a tournament.

The combat system is based around trade-offs between to hit, damage, and AC. Break that system, which is easy enough to do by ignoring AC and going with some other defence, and of course it starts to work less well.

Similarly, most races are actually fairly well-balanced. But you could argue that kobolds can most easily become Pun-Pun and thus no other races are viable. You'd be right, for the construction limits you had in mind, but it's not really a serious flaw in the game.

[Tvtyrant]

I think the actual issue here is that mundane offense shatters mundane defense. An ubercharger can auto-kill anything in one hit, while the most optimized AC ever is still defeated by a single feat or maneuver (touch attacks amirite?)

So say we used the shield bonus for DR as well as AC, so a tower shield would give you DR4 against an attack of 2d6+6 for a raging barbarian at level 1. He deals 9 damage to you anyway, and you deal 1d6+3 to him with your one handed sword. Even with a fairly high DR you have dealt less damage, and you likely have less health then him.

[Vogonjeltz]

Hero's can survive more damage than a normal person. If we played 3.5 where a single hit would take you out of combat, then archery and sword and board would be the ONLY way to survive combat. In real life, if your armor didn't stop a hit, and your shield didn't deflect it, you died, if not immediately, then of infection or blood loss. The only people who lasted in combat where those who favored defense over offense, or hit their enemies from too far out to be counterattacked.

This is a simplification of course, but the reality of a warrior who can get hit by a greatsword 2-5 times and not die is silly in real life.

This is a good point, most NPCs at the normal (read: 1st level) can be killed by any weapon. The great sword is basically overkill.

Hp is an abstraction of the ability of a hero to weather threats that would certainly kill a lesser person. In the example of taking three greatsword hits, this represents the hero exerting themselves and taking only minor wounds, as opposed to getting run through.

I agree with TuggyNE that the majority of scenarios are more favorable to a THF style than a Ranged style. Of course, this could be mitigated if rough terrain (preventing charging) were taken into account more often.

[wayfare]

I'm not entirely sure if it belongs in the roleplaying games section or the 3.5e section. I assume it belongs here because I'm mostly going to discuss the 3.5e rules.

My question, put rudely, is simply this: why is mundane combat in 3.5e so nonsensical? THF is the only viable fighting style in DnD, while historically it was one of the least viable fighting styles (save for TWF, which was practically never seriously used in combat (except for duels, where the main gauche was almost entirely used for defensive purposes)).

Sword & board was historically one of the most effective styles, and therefore the melee style that lasted the longest and was almost universal, from the Roman Legions to African tribesmen. A shield is just really gosh darned handy, it gives you a big metal (or wooden) plate to defend yourself against projectiles and pointy sticks, while also giving you a secondary weapon to push, shove, hook and bash with. For most historical warriors, there was almost no good reason not to use a shield.

Archery is another very effective style. No matter how you look at it, being able to kill a foe while he's too far away to retaliate is very effective. Even armies that supposedly disdained archery valued their archery regiments (the Ancient Greeks still employed archers and in spite of what events like Agincourt would have you believe, the French were almost in love with their crossbows).

That brings me to my main point: why are these styles so horribly sub-par in 3.5e? I understand that styles that work on battlefields may not be as effective in fantasy settings (for example, a single pikeman is nearly useless whereas a formation of hoplites is a force to be reckoned with). However, even within a fantasy setting sword & board and archery should be more effective than they are. When so many creatures can utterly wreck you with their amazing strength and many claws, bites, weapons and whatnot, a shield should be more valuable than ever. In that case, being able to hurt those creatures without being within range of their horrible attacks is very tempting too, a temptation that's only strengthened when you realize how many creatures in DnD can actually fly.

So, to make a long and drawn out story short, why didn't the designers think of putting more effort into making these styles as viable as they historically were and should be? Nearly every good melee build revolves around using a greatsword and taking power attack.

Sub-par compared to what? If you are comparing to magic, the problem isn't the combat system, it is the magic.

Compared to other combat styles, the problem is that you can do so little in combat that gives you a huge tactical boost. Even the weapons themselves don't offer too much benefit.

Reach weapons don't mean much unless you can lockdown the opponent. IRL, keeping the opponent from getting to you is a function of getting impaled by the big stick. In D&D, you need a build to let you do that.

Shields are super versatile -- weapon and armor both. But being trained with a shield only includes the defense, not offensive capabilities. You need to invest some feats to actually be good at shield as a second weapon. Add to that how D&D downplays the defensive benefits of shields (why no parrying? or bonus to reflex saves) and you have some issues.

Bows don't get an attribute. Why not just add dex to damage as "shot placement". And why not allow power attack with ranged weapons -- treat it as a sniper shot to a weak and small point?

[Slipperychicken]

Bows don't get an attribute. Why not just add dex to damage as "shot placement". And why not allow power attack with ranged weapons -- treat it as a sniper shot to a weak and small point?

Because the designers don't understand how draw-strength works.

PF patched this a little bit with Deadly Aim (ranged power attack, basically). If you ask me, neither of those should cost a feat. Maybe make it a default combat option called something like "risky strike".

[wayfare]

In reference to magic, D&D went too far in giving folks ways to avoid taking damage and making combat irrelevant. We are talking beyond scry-and-die here. Personal force-fields, portable dimensional apertures, and becoming a ghost is too much all together, especially with no limits that similarly apply to you.

[Raimun]

D&D is a game of heroic fantasy. Not a game of realistic simulation.

That's why.

Mythical heroes don't need to be concerned of such things as "defensive advantages of shields" or "superior range of bows"... unless they want to and use Feats for it. Such heroes can easily out manuever shielded opponents and take a few or more arrows to torso and keep fighting. Besides, everyone knows you can't behead a dragon with a gladius.

If every melee type character was forced to fight with sword and board, because "nothing else makes sense", the game would be dull. Many iconic fictional swordsmen don't use shields, so it makes sense many D&D-characters don't either.

I know there are games that are more realistic than D&D and where shields are pretty mandatory. You should try them if this issue bothers you so much.

[Incanur]

Mythical heroes don't need to be concerned of such things as "defensive advantages of shields" or "superior range of bows"... unless they want to and use Feats for it.

Beowulf used a shield at times and so did various Lord of the Rings characters. Shields strike me as a staple of fantasy combat, actually.


If every melee type character was forced to fight with sword and board, because "nothing else makes sense", the game would be dull.

It also wouldn't look anything like 14th-16th-century Europe.

[TuggyNE]

Mythical heroes don't need to be concerned of such things as "defensive advantages of shields" or "superior range of bows"... unless they want to and use Feats for it.

And, of course, when they do use feats for it, those usually if not always end up being less effective anyway. The system is working as intended.


Such heroes can easily out manuever shielded opponents and take a few or more arrows to torso and keep fighting. Besides, everyone knows you can't behead a dragon with a gladius.

If every melee type character was forced to fight with sword and board, because "nothing else makes sense", the game would be dull. Many iconic fictional swordsmen don't use shields, so it makes sense many D&D-characters don't either.

It's one thing to say "the game's combat should not be dominated by certain styles that in real life were very effective". It's quite another to argue, as you are, that those styles (various shield-heavy styles, archery, etc) should be so far from dominating that they remain in their current state of being third-class citizens in the D&D combat world at best. No one's arguing that the game should be set up so all serious combatants are either archers or carry a shield all the time; we're merely arguing that those characters that wish to use bows or shields should at least not be substantially inferior, and should have their reasonable niches.

TL/DR: No one archetype is so inherently more suitable for the game that it should occupy a favored place in the rules: not the one you like, or the one I like, or the one the designers like.

[Incanur]

As others have said, archery, TWF, and shields aren't that bad in 3.5. Shields are fine at the lower levels. +2-3 AC matters. At higher levels, well, they're good for clerics because of magic vestment. TWF works well enough with sneak attack; roll up a daring outlaw and you're golden. Alternatively, go warblade for tiger claw maneuvers. Archery depends greatly on the campaign, but in the lower and mid levels it can be solid in any longer-range encounter and even better than THF in the right group. (Many BFC spells lend themselves to ranged attacks.) At higher levels, grab Hank's bow (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20061227a) and you'll probably do okay. Add splitting for extra fun.

As I aside, I personally favor the historical approach. George Silver's hierarchy of weapons for single combat serves as my main guide. I dislike specialization. Historically, each major weapon has it's place.

[Morty]

If every melee type character was forced to fight with sword and board, because "nothing else makes sense", the game would be dull.

Instead, melee types are strongly directed towards two-handed weapons, because other styles are much less effective. That's somehow less dull?