Sword and Board Fighting

[RobbieOC]

I'm playing a paladin this summer who specializes in battleaxes. I want to do the ol' sword and board style fighting, and I assume the biggest pro for this style is the AC you get from the shield, but is it really worth it compared to the damage output you get from THF or TWF?

[Bears With Lasers]

TWF doesn't give you damage output unless you have bonus damage that applies to each hit.

Sword-and-board is very weak because the few points of AC don't compensate for the extra damage output, and because you're not even shield+enhancement up, you're two points up due to the Animated shield property (which allows THFers to use a shield).

[Dhavaer]

The Bloodspiked Charger tactical feat in the PHB2 uses spiked shields quite effectively, IIRC. Double your strength to damage on a charge. Note that it's not your Strength modifier, it's your Strength.

[The_Werebear]

If you are going to go that way, do TWF, Sword and Board, Improved Shield Bash, and Bashing shield.

[Kel_Arath]

The Bloodspiked Charger tactical feat in the PHB2 uses spiked shields quite effectively, IIRC. Double your strength to damage on a charge. Note that it's not your Strength modifier, it's your Strength.
Actually it says strength bonus, aka. strength mod.
Also I have always favored two handed weapons simply because I make huge beastly (maxed cha for intimidate) fighters, but thats just me. Shields are always good for AC and I generally use shield if there is another tank, so that I can hold out, but if I'm the only tank I just two hand it up.

[Matthew]

A lot depends on level. A Paladin at Levels 1-3 will probably benefit more from +2 AC than the additional 1-12 damage derived from Power Attack, Strength and a bigger Axe, because his opponents are likely to be relatively weak on Hit Points. After that you are looking at a trade off where Two Handed Fighting and Power Attack is making you look stupid. There are a few nifty Shield only Feats like Block Arrow (negates one Ranged Attack), Shield Charge and Shield Slam, but it's best not to invest any Feats in Weapon and Shield Combat Style if you are going on to play at high levels or don't have access to the retraining rules.

The difference between a Battle Axe and a Great Axe isn't too huge in terms of Damage [i.e. 1D8 to 1D12], so when you really want to cause more, you don't lose much by dropping the Shield and going Two Handed with a Battle Axe as opposed to a Great Axe.

[Dhavaer]

Actually it says strength bonus, aka. strength mod.

Ah. I was thinking of Spiked Slam, which is a full-round action, not a charge. It is double Strength, though.

[brian c]

The Spiked Slam tactical maneuver granted by the Blood-Spiked Charger feat does indeed say that it deals "twice your strength and an additional amount based on your size". Not strength bonus or strength modifier, just strength. That might be a typo or something that has been errata'ed, but as it is written that's a whole lot of damage. Any high-level fighter worth his salt should be able to do a guaranteed 50 damage on a Spiked Slam and force a fortitude save.

[Matthew]

Blood Spiked Charger is more for Two Handed Shield users than Weapon and Shield, isn't it?

[Dhavaer]

Blood Spike Charger is more for Two Handed Shield users than Weapon and Shield, isn't it?

There's nothing that really benefits from another weapon, so yes, I suppose so.

[Matthew]

I think Spiked Avalanche actually prohibits you from carrying another weapon, but that might just be my reading.

[Turcano]

If you plan on using Power Attack a lot (and you should, if you're a fighter-type), it's best to go two-handed, as you get double your strength bonus instead of 1 1/2, and triple if you get Leap Attack on top of that. If you're not getting Power Attack, it won't really make a difference what weapon you use, so you could use a shield in that case.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Get a Dwarf so you get to use the D10 Dwarven War Axe as a martial weapon rather than exotic (if you follow Klangadin, his favored weapon is Dwarven War Axe anyways, so it fits thematically).

Divine Shield feat gives your charisma bonus as an enhancement bonus to your shield, greatly increasing your AC over the short term. Sure, you blow a Turn attempt, but hey... you're not gonna be turning anything anyways. This makes a sword/board pally almost usable

[Deel]

I dunno if it's really sword and board style, but you could try a buckler with improved buckler defense. Allows THFing and retaining the buckler AC(which isn't that great without enhancements, but most shields aren't, but with enhancements and divine shield it could be fairly nice.)

[RobbieOC]

Which book is leap attack in?

[ClericofPhwarrr]

Complete Adventurer.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Divine Shield feat gives your charisma bonus as an enhancement bonus to your shield, greatly increasing your AC over the short term. Sure, you blow a Turn attempt, but hey... you're not gonna be turning anything anyways. This makes a sword/board pally almost usable

Yeah. That's the only real upside, a single decent feat for Clerics and Paladins that only works with shields.

I'd just use the shield. Two-weapon fighting is a bad choice for a Paladin since you don't have the feats to waste and the best use of Shields is as an offhand weapon with improved shield bash. You want to take Divine and Exalted feats, not worry about wasting everything on an overly long chain.

The game needs to revalue how shields work. Allowing Shield bonus to count towards touch AC is a minor houserule I like but it's too situational.

[JaronK]

One other problem with shields is that with a two handed weapon, you can just let go with one hand to cast a spell, then grab on again. Much harder when you have a shield... you need the Somatic Weaponry feat instead.

Crusaders have a few manuevers based on using shields, which might help.

JaronK

[Overlard]

There's a feat in PHBII that allows you to shield bash as well as attack with a weapon, and only take a -2 penalty on each attack roll. It's basically two weapon fighting, but only with a shield, and no dex requirements. I think it's called agile shield fighting but I'm not sure.

[Rigeld2]

Any high-level fighter worth his salt should be able to do a guaranteed 50 damage on a Spiked Slam and force a fortitude save.
As a full round action? Thats pathetic.

Any high-level fighter worth his salt should be doing well over 100 damage with a full round action.

[Morgan_Scott82]

We use a house rule in my gaming circle that marginally improves the sword and board fighter, and it stays fairly in tune with the the rules for THW. When using a shield a character recieves 1.5* the benefit of fighting defensively or total defense, and 2* the benefit of combat expertise. This mirrors the way a THW gives 1.5* your str mod to damage and a 2:1 return from power attack. Granted its not exactly equalt to the THW becuase the 1.5* Str mod to damage is always active, while the benefit to fighting defensively and Total defense requires you to give something up. Likewise the 2:1 return on combat expertise for shield users is not exactly the equivelent of the 2:1 return on power attack because Combat expertise is limited to a -5 penalty while power attack is limited to a -BAB penalty. Even so its a nice boost to the sword and board that is relatively easy to implement and closely mirrors existing mechanics.

[Grr]

You should ignore everyone, and just play what you enjoy playing. Numbers are just numbers and there's plenty of them to go around. Unique and interesting characters, as in personality, mannerisms, et al, are far more enjoyable for everyone at the table, including the DM.

If you want to play the classic guardian style Paladin with sword and shield, go for it. As long as you and your friends are having fun, don't let the numbers get in the way.

[storybookknight]

The point is, the Player's Handbook 2 has a bunch of nifty sword+board feats. You'll do less damage that THF - except that a Paladin's main source of damage is his smites anyways. Sword+Board works better for Paladins than it does anyone else, and as paladins get attacked so often having a high AC means good survivability in the long run.

[Matthew]

You should ignore everyone, and just play what you enjoy playing. Numbers are just numbers and there's plenty of them to go around. Unique and interesting characters, as in personality, mannerisms, et al, are far more enjoyable for everyone at the table, including the DM.
If you want to play the classic guardian style Paladin with sword and shield, go for it. As long as you and your friends are having fun, don't let the numbers get in the way.
I do not think that is very helpful advice. The Original Poster appears to be interested in the mechanics of his choices, regardless of what he chooses to play.

We use a house rule in my gaming circle that marginally improves the sword and board fighter, and it stays fairly in tune with the the rules for THW. When using a shield a character recieves 1.5* the benefit of fighting defensively or total defense, and 2* the benefit of combat expertise. This mirrors the way a THW gives 1.5* your str mod to damage and a 2:1 return from power attack. Granted its not exactly equalt to the THW becuase the 1.5* Str mod to damage is always active, while the benefit to fighting defensively and Total defense requires you to give something up. Likewise the 2:1 return on combat expertise for shield users is not exactly the equivelent of the 2:1 return on power attack because Combat expertise is limited to a -5 penalty while power attack is limited to a -BAB penalty. Even so its a nice boost to the sword and board that is relatively easy to implement and closely mirrors existing mechanics.
Don't forget about Improved Combat Expertise / Superior Expertise, which both remove the cap for Combat Expertise. I created a Homebrew Feat Tree to try and incorporate this idea: Skilful Defence (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34241). there is some interesting discussion there on the benefits and drawbacks of granting a 2:1 AC to AB trade off when using a Shield.

There's a feat in PHBII that allows you to shield bash as well as attack with a weapon, and only take a -2 penalty on each attack roll. It's basically two weapon fighting, but only with a shield, and no dex requirements. I think it's called agile shield fighting but I'm not sure.
Agile Shield Fighter. Unfortunately, it's prerequisites are annoying and it doesn't scale past Level 5, so it's a bit of a dead end. You almost always better off taking Two Weapon Fighting, if you have the Dexterity.

The point is, the Player's Handbook 2 has a bunch of nifty sword+board feats. You'll do less damage that THF - except that a Paladin's main source of damage is his smites anyways. Sword+Board works better for Paladins than it does anyone else, and as paladins get attacked so often having a high AC means good survivability in the long run.
Indeed it does, but it's still not enough to overcome the benefits of Two Handed Fighting, sadly.

[Grr]

All I'm saying is that pointless worrying about the game mechanics isn't in the spirit of role-playing and detrimental to the overall fun for everyone involved. Numbers and stats don't make for good stories, lasting memories, or interesting anecdotes.

[Ivius]

One other problem with shields is that with a two handed weapon, you can just let go with one hand to cast a spell, then grab on again. Much harder when you have a shield... you need the Somatic Weaponry feat instead.

Crusaders have a few manuevers based on using shields, which might help.

JaronK

Divine spells are unaffected by arcane spell failure. That's why it's called arcane spell failure.

[Matthew]

All I'm saying is that pointless worrying about the game mechanics isn't in the spirit of role-playing and detrimental to the overall fun for everyone involved. Numbers and stats don't make for good stories, lasting memories, or interesting anecdotes.
Yes, but what I am saying is that the Original Poster isn't iasking about that, he's asking what the pros and cons are of of choosing Weapon and Shield over Two Handed Fighting. Telling him to ignore the answers to his question is a bit silly. Saying, don't worry about the mechanics is slightly different.

[Person_Man]

As Bears mentioned, you are far better off using a two handed weapon and an animated shield.

Paladins are generally very feat hungry, and there are far better feats out there then the somewhat helpful shield feats. For example, Power Attack, Divine Might, Divine Shield, Divine Vigor, Leadership, Dragon Cohort, various racial feats, the Mounted Combat tree, etc.

[RobbieOC]

So far I've chosen improved smiting, power attack, and mounted combat. I'm strongly considering weapon focus, because the battleaxe is very important to his back story, and then taking a flaw like murky-eyed to get another feat. Where are those divine feats you mentioned?

And I'm not hugely worried about the mechanics, but I don't want to be way behind the warblade. That's my main worry. I hate to say it, because I know a lot of people around here have mentioned they don't like it, but I'm playing a Paladin/ Gray Guard because the flavor fits really well with the character I had in mind. I'm more of a casual player as far as mechanics go, but I don't want to be so far behind that I won't have fun.

Thanks for all the suggestions.

[Turcano]

I'm strongly considering weapon focus, because the battleaxe is very important to his back story, and then taking a flaw like murky-eyed to get another feat.

From a purely mechanical standpoint, Weapon Focus is generally not considered to be worth the feat slot (unless its a prerequisite for something better). This is especially true because you're playing a paladin and therefore have spellcasting ability, so you can get that +1 through your spells (i.e., bless, bless weapon, magic weapon, bull's strength, greater magic weapon, holy sword). It has the added benefit of applying to all of your weapons, not just the battleaxe. Just make sure not to apply non-stacking spells (bless will be the go-to spell in this regard), roleplay your focus on the battleaxe, and you should be all right.

[Sornas]

Divine spells are unaffected by arcane spell failure. That's why it's called arcane spell failure.

That is true, but it might help to have a hand free to cast the spells in the first place, regardless of failure.

[Matthew]

From a purely mechanical standpoint, Weapon Focus is generally not considered to be worth the feat slot (unless its a prerequisite for something better). This is especially true because you're playing a paladin and therefore have spellcasting ability, so you can get that +1 through your spells (i.e., bless, bless weapon, magic weapon, bull's strength, greater magic weapon, holy sword). It has the added benefit of applying to all of your weapons, not just the battleaxe. Just make sure not to apply non-stacking spells (bless will be the go-to spell in this regard), roleplay your focus on the battleaxe, and you should be all right.

Indeed. Again, the benefits of Weapon Focus are greater at Level 1 than at Level 9. Even if your DM uses Weapon Proficiency Groups, the benefit is limited, but if you have access to retraining, it might be worth taking.

[Bears With Lasers]

All I'm saying is that pointless worrying about the game mechanics isn't in the spirit of role-playing and detrimental to the overall fun for everyone involved. Numbers and stats don't make for good stories, lasting memories, or interesting anecdotes.

IT'S FREAKIN' D&D, guy! D&D isn't a very good system for good stories, lasting memories, or interesting anecdotes! The system is intrinsically a big part of the game--part of the appeal of D&D is playing the wargame aspect. People who do that are not inferior to you. They are not worse players. Quit telling them to play the exact same way you do.

If they really want Good Stories, Lasting Memories, and Interesting Anecdotes, they should put down D&D and pick up Nobilis, or Spirit of the Century, or some other game that actually enhances roleplaying rather than working against it.


But they're playing D&D. You know, the high-crunch game that details combat more than anything else? And in D&D, a character with a two-handed weapon pretty much always has the advantage over a character with a sword and shield, regardless of encounter design, because the characters will serve similar functions and the main difference will be -2 ac, +one heck of a lot of damage.

[Sendal]

If your fighting style is going to be sword and board your not going for max damage anyway. be content that that your only doing 15 damage per hit. with a mid level paladin using divine shield to get your AC into the thirtys, you'll be laghing when everyone only hits you once every 20 attacks.

just stand in the door, be a brick wall, and let archers and casters kill stuff. If that doesn't work, after half an hour the monsters will probably get fed up and go home anyway.

[Flawless]

IT'S FREAKIN' D&D, guy! D&D isn't a very good system for good stories, lasting memories, or interesting anecdotes!

That is simply NOT true!
Because of the interessting game mechanics alone, you will get your share of lasting memories and strange anecdotes. ;)

[Person_Man]

So far I've chosen improved smiting, power attack, and mounted combat. I'm strongly considering weapon focus, because the battleaxe is very important to his back story, and then taking a flaw like murky-eyed to get another feat. Where are those divine feats you mentioned?

And I'm not hugely worried about the mechanics, but I don't want to be way behind the warblade. That's my main worry. I hate to say it, because I know a lot of people around here have mentioned they don't like it, but I'm playing a Paladin/ Gray Guard because the flavor fits really well with the character I had in mind. I'm more of a casual player as far as mechanics go, but I don't want to be so far behind that I won't have fun.

Thanks for all the suggestions.

Improved Smiting is much weaker then Divine Power.

Power Attack is always a good choice.

Mounted Combat is only a good choice if you end up with Spirited Charge. Also, while I'm a huge fan of the mounted feat tree, its only a good idea if you're a small race. Otherwise, you never get to use it when you're underground (pretty much half the time in Dungeons and Dragons). So you might want to use the PHBII Smiting alternative instead. It seriously pumps your Smite, but you have to give up your mount.

Weapon Focus is really bad compared to most other feats.

If you're worried about being under powered, buy the Spell Compendium. There are some really useful Paladin spells in it, such as Resurgence, Rhino's Rush, Warning Shout, Divine Insight, Knight's Move, Find the Gap, and others. You won't be as powerful as a Warblade, but you'll definitely be able to keep up, as long as you choose decent feats.

Gray Guard will screw your caster progression (which, as mentioned above, is actually useful for a Paladin if they own the Spell Compendium), and your mount progression, and your Turn Undead progression. It only has only one really useful class ability, the Devastating Touch, which deals No Save damage to Evil creatures with a touch attack. But its limited to your pool of Lay on Hands healing (level*Cha bonus). So you pretty much get 1 instant kill per day against an Evil creature. Spiffy, but not really worth it IMO. But if you do it, definitely use the PHBII Smite alternative, since your mount will suck. And find every way possible to pump your Cha.

For Paladin PrC, I prefer Fist of Raziel, Cavalier, Hospitaler, and/or maybe one level of Pious Templar for Mettle.

[RobbieOC]

Gray Guard will screw your caster progression (which, as mentioned above, is actually useful for a Paladin if they own the Spell Compendium), and your mount progression, and your Turn Undead progression. It only has only one really useful class ability, the Devastating Touch, which deals No Save damage to Evil creatures with a touch attack. But its limited to your pool of Lay on Hands healing (level*Cha bonus). So you pretty much get 1 instant kill per day against an Evil creature. Spiffy, but not really worth it IMO. But if you do it, definitely use the PHBII Smite alternative, since your mount will suck. And find every way possible to pump your Cha.

I hadn't even thought to look through the PHBII. I'll definitely check out their smiting stuff. In a few practice fights I've run my Paladin through, I have really enjoyed smiting. I'll look into that. Thanks.

[Devils_Advocate]

Numbers and stats don't make for good stories, lasting memories, or interesting anecdotes.
Disagreement.


That is simply NOT true!
Because of the interessting game mechanics alone, you will get your share of lasting memories and strange anecdotes. ;)
Agreement.

On a D&D messageboard, you can post a thread called "Natural 1 stories" or "Natural 20 stories", and players will come and post their accounts of how mechanics manifested themselves as exciting consequences in game. Veteran players may get very nostalgic.

I do agree with Bears that it only makes sense to use the d20 System in the first place if you like the system. If you don't care about the rules and would as soon disregard them, why have them at all? If that's your attitude, doesn't tracking a bunch of statistics just distract from the story?

[Grr]

IT'S FREAKIN' D&D, guy! D&D isn't a very good system for good stories, lasting memories, or interesting anecdotes!
Any DM that lets the mechanics of the rules get in the way of a good story doesn't deserve to be a DM.

[Rigeld2]

Any DM that lets the mechanics of the rules get in the way of a good story doesn't deserve to be a DM.
Any DM that lets anything get in the way of fun doesn't deserve to be a DM.

[Charity]

I'm not sure deserve has got anything to do with it.
Most folk run games for their friends in my experiance, certainly with table top. I run a game for my friends, sometimes mechanical issues arise, and when this occurs, I tend to come to the good folk of these boards for ideas on how these are best played out.
The advice I have recieved has in the most part been very helpful.

Grr you seem to come to each and every thread with the same agenda.
I am happy for you that you have a great buch of players whom enjoy your games immensly.
This thread is about mechanical issues, as far as it is possible to tell.
I would imagine the original poster would rather not fill it with a debate that has nothing at all to do with the questions he has raised.

[Bears With Lasers]

Any DM that lets the mechanics of the rules get in the way of a good story doesn't deserve to be a DM.

As If. It's a fact, jack: system matters. The rules you use affect how gameplay goes. There's a reason that a typical Exalted game plays differently from a typical D&D game. Mechanics can support theme. They can cast some thngs in a certain light. And they can distract from play. Consider Exalted's stunting mechanic: you get a few bonus dice and/or regain some Essence or Willpower for describing things in a fancy way that fits with the genre. What does this do? This makes people more likely to provide fancy descriptions and describe things in an impractical but Awesome way! If you want to swing down on a rope and attack your enemy, you're free to do so and you may well get a bonus. Meanwhile, if you want to do that in D&D, you first have to make a skill check with a skill you probably don't have. One system encourages it, the other penalizes it. It's pretty obvious how that's going to affect play.

The system affects how you play. A system with lots of rules will involve spending more time rolling dice, rolling damage, et cetera than one with few rules. D&D makes it so very easy to just say "I attack him" and roll a die. Meanwhile, if you're playing something like Wushu, you're not rolling to see whether or not you hit the guy--you're rolling to determine the outcome of the entire conflict. You can describe kicking him in the fact, you just can't describe yourself winning until it's mechanically settled.

The rules also define the world. A high-level D&D character has a crapton of hit points. Therefore, natural hazards that do hit point damage--like, say, acid pits or lava--are naturally less threatening. D&D makes healing easy... so taking damage just plain isn't an issue, because the cleric can fill you up. D&D pretty inevitably leads to characters taking more risks with thier characters, because when that bugbear stabs you, it doesn't mean your character has huge physical penalties for the next month, it means that the cleric's going to need to use a wand charge.

The rules matter. The rules affect how your story goes. The rules affect the outcome and the process. Most of the time, D&D's rulset does not help you tell good stories. You want to tell a story about a man who beats foul sorcerers through skill, strength, and determination (like, oh, Conan)? Well, D&D isn't very good for that... but the Conan RPG isn't half bad at it.
You can tell stories with D&D, but the rules get in your way, rather than helping you.


Furthermore, you somehow seem to have managed to entirely neglect the fact that the crunch is part of D&D for a reason, and is part of its appeal, and there's nothing wrong with enjoying that aspect of D&D.

[Raum]

Any DM that lets the mechanics of the rules get in the way of a good story doesn't deserve to be a DM.It's a game. Any DM ignoring or changing mechanics on the fly is simply cheating.

Don't kid yourself by claiming "a story" what it's really become is "the DM's story" which the players barely even participate in because said DM cheats when their actions don't fit his story.

A good RPG has a story, but it's authored by both DM and PCs. Anything else is no longer a game. May as well put the character sheets down and just have "story hour".

[Turcano]

Any DM that lets the mechanics of the rules get in the way of a good story doesn't deserve to be a DM.

Except for the fact that the OP asked for advice on the mechanics, and he asked about the mechanics because he's playing Dungeons & Dragons, not Let's Pretend.

[Morty]

As Bears mentioned, you are far better off using a two handed weapon and an animated shield.



At least if you don't mind fighting with shield hovering around you.

[Dausuul]

Hey, look, a thread being derailed!

*gets popcorn and watches train wreck*

Anyway... regarding the OP's question, by the RAW, it's fairly pointless to go sword-and-board once you get up to levels where you can afford an animated shield. Of course, your DM might ban animated shields for extreme lameness (or you might not be able to bring yourself to use one), in which case sword-and-board is not quite so sub-par... but at high levels the monsters will hit you nine times out of ten anyhow, and you're better off cranking up your damage output. That x2 Power Attack is just too good to give up.

Edit: At low levels, the shield is a tolerable, if probably not quite optimal, buy.

[Saph]

IT'S FREAKIN' D&D, guy! D&D isn't a very good system for good stories, lasting memories, or interesting anecdotes!

Other people ARE capable of playing D&D and getting lots of good stories, lasting memories, and interesting anecdotes. Ask them. Just because you can't do it doesn't mean it's impossible.


The system is intrinsically a big part of the game--part of the appeal of D&D is playing the wargame aspect. People who do that are not inferior to you. They are not worse players. Quit telling them to play the exact same way you do.


You should try following your own advice.

Lots and lots of people, including me, manage to play D&D in a story-oriented way. You keep telling us to find another system, and it's becoming really irritating. Do you really think we're so dumb that it's never occurred to us to try anything else? I've played plenty of systems, and, on the whole, I prefer D&D for my story-oriented games.

You can't make a story- or memory-oriented D&D game work for you? Not a problem. But stop telling us that we can't either.

- Saph

[Bears With Lasers]

Other people ARE capable of playing D&D and getting lots of good stories, lasting memories, and interesting anecdotes. Ask them. Just because you can't do it doesn't mean it's impossible.
I didn't say it was impossible. One of my most fondly-recalled games was a D&D game (with some handwaving of the rules). The rules did get in the way periodically, though.


You should try following your own advice.

Lots and lots of people, including me, manage to play D&D in a story-oriented way. You keep telling us to find another system, and it's becoming really irritating. Do you really think we're so dumb that it's never occurred to us to try anything else?I think that there are a lot of good systems out there that people, for one reason or another, haven't tried. Some of these games, like Dogs in the Vineyard or Nobilis, most people just plain haven't heard of. Some of them, like Spirit of the Century, are relatively new, or genre-based but adaptable. It can be hard to find players for a game that isn't D&D. If they've tried them and it's Not For Them, well, okay.

And a lot of the time when you do play D&D in that way, you're handwaving away a whole bunch of the rules. It's not common to see the tactical-wargame of D&D go ignored... which is why I suggest that games like that might be better off with a system that doesn't have that element, and instead focuses on mechanics that enhance roleplaying and help shape and/or guide gameplay rather than being a game unto themselves.


I've played plenty of systems, and, on the whole, I prefer D&D for my story-oriented games.Which ones, and why? What does D&D bring to the table that they don't? How does it contribute to rather than detracting from storytelling?


You can't make a story- or memory-oriented D&D game work for you? Not a problem. But stop telling us that we can't either.

- SaphI'm not saying you can't. At least, I don't recall saying that. It's possible to do so.
What I'm saying is that when you do so, the system itself isn't helping you. See the Stunting mechanic example--some rules affect gameplay in a positive (for that particular game; you wouldn't want people doing Awesome things in a gritty realistic game) way. D&D's rules don't do that.

I'm not telling people to play the way I do--I'm suggesting mechanics sets which might be better for the way they say they like to play. I wouldn't recommend Spirit of the Century to someone looking for a game that's tactical-combat-heavy; I might suggest Burning Wheel, though, or Exalted, or a houserule-heavy D&D.

[Roethke]

Psst.

I started a thread, so folks here can go back to talking about Sword & Board. If they want to.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40768

[Bears With Lasers]

I'm pretty sure sword and board has been covered, really.

[Saph]

edit: Moved my post to the "D&D, Systems, and Storytelling" thread to avoid further thread derailment.