Why is D&D still Medieval?

[warty goblin]

I'm going to continue to hold out for a very surface level aesthetic sense of genre. WH40k is set in the distant future, and is about dudes in power armor junping out of rocket ships and shooting alien bugs with rocket guns and laser rifles, this is totally sci-fi. The future-medival styling of that is fairly unique (although Dune exists, so not that unique), but it's still laser guns and spaceships.

So yes, in that sense Star Wars is also sci-fi. Planetary romance is a bit more accurate, but also much less useful as a descriptor since only weird edge cases like me go and track down ancient decaying Leigh Brackett paperbacks.

Fantasy? There's gotta be wizards and the supernatural in there, like vampires and dragons and curses and stuff.

Westerns? Sagebush and and six shooters and horses.

Gothic? This one's almost cheating it's so much a visual and tonal style.

Romance? Ok, this one actually is defined more by structure than by style, since you can have western romances, fantasy romances, so many werewolf and vampire romances it briefly created a new genre, and romances in any other setting where the author can set up some obstacles to the two people on the cover swapping body fluids.

And yes these are very, very surface level, and that's the point. Genre is basically what the movie poster looks like and where you find it in the bookstore. It is not critical analysis or detailed description of an individual work, or even a subset of works. And trying to turn genre into a super precise and informative descriptor by adding ever more labels and subcategories and trying to tease out the precise difference between space opera westerns and western space opera, or the exact Vampire Humping Ratio that differentiates urban fantasy from paranormal romance seems unhelpful. Much better to just leave the surface level descriptor as surface level descriptor, and do actual analysis of individual works, rather than using ever more esoteric generalities in place of that analysis.

[Anonymouswizard]

Some people classify everything that is set in space automatically as science-fiction.

But I think anything that could be called science fiction needs to have at least some kind of basis in science, and be in some way about scientific and engineering progress. In Star Trek, this very often is limited to only meaningless techno-babble, but at least it pretends to be science.
A Princess of Mars and Star Wars have no such things.

Science fiction and fantasy is more one very broad genre rather than two separate ones, but that also means where you draw the line is a matter of personal opinion and thus me knowing people who give it both tags. And now for the rest of this post I'm going to ignore personal opinion and act as if I'm an absolute authority.

For the record, it's genre is pretty clearly planetary romance, which is roughly 'fantasy adventure IN SPACE'. But as nobody uses the term it's a bit academic.

An issue with science fiction needing a grounding in science is that science moves on. Skylark of Space is a complete flight of fancy by modern standards, relying on a magical metal that allows you to get both electrical and kinetic energy out of touching copper to it, but it does have some of the trappings of science with the development of the ship. It's also the first novel anybody can agree is a space opera and was scientifically plausible at the time. Of course this gets much easier if we apply a 'as understood at the time of writing' clause.

I'm going to continue to hold out for a very surface level aesthetic sense of genre. WH40k is set in the distant future, and is about dudes in power armor junping out of rocket ships and shooting alien bugs with rocket guns and laser rifles, this is totally sci-fi. The future-medival styling of that is fairly unique (although Dune exists, so not that unique), but it's still laser guns and spaceships.

40k also includes literal demons and magic as plot elements, and very major ones. The three biggest threats to the imperium are the swarm(s) of alien bugs, the sufficiently udvanced mind uploaded aliens still in the middle of waking up, and literal demons led by all too understandable otherworldly gods*. Sorcewry exists and is notjust psychic powers, while the differences aren't immediately obvious sorcery can do more and you activate it differently to psychic powers but is really dangerous.

On the other hand if you're the one making the story you can include as much from either side as you want. You can have a very fantasy esque story on a feral world, death world, or even chaos world with swords and sorcerers, or a full blown cyberpunk story set in a hive city and neither is doing it wrong.


* The orks are probably in forth place due to fighting themselves more than anybody else.

[Morgaln]

Not sure that's an entirely useable definition. A lot of stuff in 40k is about as technobabbly as Star Trek and pretends to be science, but few would cleanly classify it as sci-fi. Much like Star Wars have a lot of detailed techmanuals and indeed explanations for it's tech stuff. None of it really important for the stories we get though.

Someone here once described sci-fi as roughly "exploring the human condition if technology progresses" and I think that's kinda good. I also see it as an category looking at the big picture, the power lies in the collective. Say mankind itself has the power to change the stars, what happens? What does it mean to be human? Fantasy is more often a case where the individual is the up-powered, often in comparison as society as a whole and we ask what does it mean to be human here? It will be rather different stories.

Ultimately I think splitting hairs too much isn't very productive. I know a western when I see one. Like 99,99% of the time that's really the only thing that matters.

The definition I read (in an AD&D supplement, no less) is that it's not science fiction if it contains impossible concepts. By that definition only hard science fiction is actually science fiction. I disagree with that definition; e. g. I'd classify Babylon 5 as science fiction, even though it leans towards the softer side of the scale. Star Wars, however, is very much fantasy. It has all the classic fantasy trappings, except that it's set in a high technology surrounding. That becomes even more obvious if you look at Eragon, which is a blatant rip-off of Star Wars transplanted into a regular fantasy setting.
I think your definition is pretty good. A story that is more about the progress of humanity and societal change as a whole will lean toward science fiction, whereas stories that primarily focus on individuals and their growth are more likely to go into the fantasy corner (but see below).


Personally, I have a hard time divesting western from guns. As such, I find it easier to classify stories in a futuristic setting as westerns (obvious examples would be Mad Max or James Cameron's Avatar). But even then, there are exceptions like The Seven Samurai. The problem with tropes is, there isn't that definite trope or set of tropes that must be there to make it a western. For example, if we take the showdown at high noon or the train heist that seem to be very important indicators for a western to Raziere, I'll point to "Dances With Wolves," which has neither and yet clearly counts as a western in my eyes. On the other hand, the TV show Burn Notice has both and isn't a western at all.
If I had to put my finger on where to draw the line between western and fantasy this is it: western has a general lawlessness; the protagonist in a western has to take the law into their own hands, as there just isn't an authority he can turn to. The person who is stronger/faster/deadlier makes the rules. He's also often acting out of personal motives (revenge or greed are most common). The story concerns itself with the protagonist's actions and how they affect him. There's no greater story in the background that will be affected by the protagonist's success or failure.
In fantasy, there are nations, meaning there are authorities. These might be allies or antagonists to the protagonist, but either way she can't just take matters into her own hands and expect not to suffer any consequences. Diplomacy and social skills will be far more important to a fantasy protagonist. There also tend to be higher stakes than just personal matters. Something bigger is going on in the background that the protagonist will get entangled in (voluntarily or not), and her success will have consequences for how that event plays out.

Neither of these are absolutes. There are certainly examples on both sides that break the mold. D&D can do both, so it's not even helpful to determine whether D&D is a western or not. Personally I think that D&D was designed to do the first more so than the second, at least in early editions.

[Max_Killjoy]

Could a setting hit the right feel with wands instead of guns?

[Anonymouswizard]

Could a setting hit the right feel with wands instead of guns?

Probably, Eberron is halfway there and IIRC somewhat controversially so when it first came out. Focus on the right elements (the Houses, the commercialisation of magic, and some of the more graft-like magical items) and you can run a cyberpunk plot in Eberron with only minor adjustments. Sure there's no computer equivalent because Eberron is actually in the rough 1920s magiotech-wise, but in practice that just means you're bringing along a magician to bypass wards and ransacking the Guild's archive instead of bringing along a hacker to bypass electronic locks and cameras and ransacking the mega's database.

I'm actually vaguely disappointed that the 5e Artificer with a pet is only able to make a medium one. I want to run away from the guild we've just robbed on a mechanical horse (and carriage).

[Satinavian]

If I had to put my finger on where to draw the line between western and fantasy this is it: western has a general lawlessness; the protagonist in a western has to take the law into their own hands, as there just isn't an authority he can turn to. The person who is stronger/faster/deadlier makes the rules. He's also often acting out of personal motives (revenge or greed are most common). The story concerns itself with the protagonist's actions and how they affect him. There's no greater story in the background that will be affected by the protagonist's success or failure.
In fantasy, there are nations, meaning there are authorities. These might be allies or antagonists to the protagonist, but either way she can't just take matters into her own hands and expect not to suffer any consequences. Diplomacy and social skills will be far more important to a fantasy protagonist. There also tend to be higher stakes than just personal matters. Something bigger is going on in the background that the protagonist will get entangled in (voluntarily or not), and her success will have consequences for how that event plays out.

Hm, that would make "The Sons of the Great Bear" not really a western and for me that is one of the more iconic ones.

[Witty Username]

Probably, Eberron is halfway there and IIRC somewhat controversially so when it first came out. Focus on the right elements (the Houses, the commercialisation of magic, and some of the more graft-like magical items) and you can run a cyberpunk plot in Eberron with only minor adjustments. Sure there's no computer equivalent because Eberron is actually in the rough 1920s magiotech-wise, but in practice that just means you're bringing along a magician to bypass wards and ransacking the Guild's archive instead of bringing along a hacker to bypass electronic locks and cameras and ransacking the mega's database.

I'm actually vaguely disappointed that the 5e Artificer with a pet is only able to make a medium one. I want to run away from the guild we've just robbed on a mechanical horse (and carriage).

I feel your pain, more classes should get horses.

Magic does weird things to setting structure with even a moderate amount of thought, Eberron is one of my favorite examples of that. As for cyberpunk but with magic, I feel the alternate cover for Eberron: Rising from the Last War is almost there already. BTW that cover is beautiful.

[Anonymouswizard]

I feel your pain, more classes should get horses.

Magic does weird things to setting structure with even a moderate amount of thought, Eberron is one of my favorite examples of that. As for cyberpunk but with magic, I feel the alternate cover for Eberron: Rising from the Last War is almost there already. BTW that cover is beautiful.

I honestly can't remember if beastmasters are allowed to take a ghorse as their companion. But yeah, mounts and personal vehicles (animal or engine powered as suits the technology level) should be far more common, and in D&D should have more options to make them central to your character build.

I'd actually love to give each class a 'you have a mount' subclass in 5e, but it would take a lot of work and for some it would likely be pretty incidental.

But yeah, that alternate cover is beautiful and looks very cyberpunk. I love Eberron partially for the industrialised magic and cyberpunk parallels, it's one of the few settings I'd actually use D&D to run. On the other hand I also enjoy games like Coriolis, which is somewhat soft science fiction (using both psychic powers and gravatic drives as well as a wormhole network) that dresses itself up in the trappings of fantasy. It's not an artificial intelligence, it's a Djinni. The wormholes are just 'portals', while religion is incredibly important and psychics are viewed through that lens. There's a lot of nice things you can do by letting the trappings bleed over.

Yes, writing that down, Coriolis has a lot in common with Star Wars on a basic level. I'm actually not quite sure why my brain ver firmly slots it in the 'science fiction' category. Great atmosphere though.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I honestly can't remember if beastmasters are allowed to take a ghorse as their companion. But yeah, mounts and personal vehicles (animal or engine powered as suits the technology level) should be far more common, and in D&D should have more options to make them central to your character build.

I'd actually love to give each class a 'you have a mount' subclass in 5e, but it would take a lot of work and for some it would likely be pretty incidental.

For 5e particularly, my issues with mounts comes down to three things:

1) non-scaling, so they become a liability fast. Which means if you've got an "I'm mounted" subclass, then you're losing your subclass to the first fireball. Which sucks. Not insuperable.
2) bad fit for lots of adventuring. Mounts (for anyone but small creatures) don't work well indoors, where a lot of adventuring happens. So building a subclass around that means you're without a subclass for a large and unpredictable amount of the time.
3) (More generally) a lack of benefit. Having a mount doesn't make you faster over land. Carrying more stuff is ok, but many groups don't really track encumbrance (mine doesn't, except for big single items), so it's kinda moot. Move speed is nice in combat, but with the way it works it's kinda janky (since you and your mount don't actually share a turn, you can't move/attack/move. At least how I read the rules).

[Max_Killjoy]

Unless the mount gets to "level up", yeah, it becomes an easy target.

See also, many setups for animal companions, familiars, etc, over the years.

[Anonymouswizard]

For 5e particularly, my issues with mounts comes down to three things:

1) non-scaling, so they become a liability fast. Which means if you've got an "I'm mounted" subclass, then you're losing your subclass to the first fireball. Which sucks. Not insuperable.
2) bad fit for lots of adventuring. Mounts (for anyone but small creatures) don't work well indoors, where a lot of adventuring happens. So building a subclass around that means you're without a subclass for a large and unpredictable amount of the time.
3) (More generally) a lack of benefit. Having a mount doesn't make you faster over land. Carrying more stuff is ok, but many groups don't really track encumbrance (mine doesn't, except for big single items), so it's kinda moot. Move speed is nice in combat, but with the way it works it's kinda janky (since you and your mount don't actually share a turn, you can't move/attack/move. At least how I read the rules).

And I get another reminder as to why I don't like D&D. As well as my general dislike for the dungeon model. Also mounts don't give a bonus to overland speed? What do people in D&D settings use riding horses for?

I'm going to go and see if I can find some people willing to play Fate. Got some ideas for a space opera (either straight or, if people want fantasy, using the Aether Sea fluff).

[PhoenixPhyre]

And I get another reminder as to why I don't like D&D. As well as my general dislike for the dungeon model. Also mounts don't give a bonus to overland speed? What do people in D&D settings use riding horses for?

I'm going to go and see if I can find some people willing to play Fate. Got some ideas for a space opera (either straight or, if people want fantasy, using the Aether Sea fluff).

Generally, horses don't make you faster over long hauls. They make you way more comfortable and able to haul more stuff. Even in the real world. But neither of those is modelled all that well in D&D, so...

[Mechalich]

Generally, horses don't make you faster over long hauls. They make you way more comfortable and able to haul more stuff. Even in the real world. But neither of those is modelled all that well in D&D, so...

Horses arguably make you faster over certain kinds of terrain, especially untilled grassland which their bodies handle easily while the human ankle struggles with the complex microtopography. Walking across untilled grassland, compared to trails or roads in the same terrain, is extremely tiring and hard on the knees, something I can attest to personally (most people in the US have very little experience with untilled expanses because there is so little native grassland remaining, a field that was plowed a century ago will be far 'flatter' at the microscale than native grassland). So if you're riding around on something like the Eurasian steppe, and have multiple mounts, then you move faster, assuming there are no hoof-breaking obstacles like prairie dog towns.

This is actually a major difference between the setting of traditional Westerns and most D&D settings. In the classic 'Wild West' huge chunks of the land have not yet been tilled because they are either too arid to support agriculture and are only suitable as rangeland, or because farmers have only just moved into the region and are just starting to commence with tillage (the classic Little House on the Prairie involves the Ingalls family homesteading in just such an area in Kansas). By contrast, in Medieval Europe almost all level ground had, at some point, been tilled and even much of the pasture land, having originally been forested (hillsides in Ireland and such), was evened out by cutting and the removal of stumps, which causes the land to smooth through erosion.

In Medieval Europe the fastest route from point A to point B almost always involved a road or at least a trail, whereas in the 19th Century American West those were largely absent and overland travel was in many cases the only option. The impacts of this difference on society were significant.

[Tanarii]

Generally, horses don't make you faster over long hauls. They make you way more comfortable and able to haul more stuff. Even in the real world. But neither of those is modelled all that well in D&D, so...

Right. It's about 25-30 miles for humans and 25-30 miles for a horse for a normal days ride.

But it's definitely possible to do more if done right. Mongols used to rotate through something like 5 horses per rider, in order to cover 50-60 miles in a good day. And IIRC that was for extended periods, a month or so.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Horses arguably make you faster over certain kinds of terrain, especially untilled grassland which their bodies handle easily while the human ankle struggles with the complex microtopography. Walking across untilled grassland, compared to trails or roads in the same terrain, is extremely tiring and hard on the knees, something I can attest to personally (most people in the US have very little experience with untilled expanses because there is so little native grassland remaining, a field that was plowed a century ago will be far 'flatter' at the microscale than native grassland). So if you're riding around on something like the Eurasian steppe, and have multiple mounts, then you move faster, assuming there are no hoof-breaking obstacles like prairie dog towns.

Right. It's about 25-30 miles for humans and 25-30 miles for a horse for a normal days ride.

But it's definitely possible to do more if done right. Mongols used to rotate through something like 5 horses per rider, in order to cover 50-60 miles in a good day. And IIRC that was for extended periods, a month or so.

The bold is the important thing. One horse/person (or worse, shared riding) isn't any faster (averaged over long journeys) than walking. Way more comfortable and requiring less effort, sure. But not all that much faster.

Having copious remounts (so you can unburden some while riding the others) changes all of that. That's how the Pony Express worked as well, as well as post roads through ancient times. But that's not really practical for "Mount as Subclass" D&D-style, because if you're dealing with a herd of horses you'll also need more people to watch them.

And doesn't solve the "ok, now we went inside this dungeon where we'll actually do most of the session...and your mount doesn't fit" problem. Or the "your mount is paper, so once you hit like level 5, it's an active liability" problem.

My current game had a paladin (halfling) with a riding dog for mobility until he got find steed. Taking it into any kind of combat situation was a major risk, because a single hit even from a weak creature would kill it, burning resources and causing the player sadness. PHB-only Beastmaster rangers have the same issue--their subclass can be killed and then takes a long time and resources to reset.

[Williamnot]

You can't really put sci-fi into a game called Dungeons and Dragons.

Dungeons and Dragons is just a system though. Reskin stuff, throw in a little bit of homebrew, and boom you have your modern or sci-fi campaign. I'm doing a post-apocalyptic campaign myself pretty soon. Melee weapons are just reskinned as salvaged tools and s8gn posts that have been cobbled together or something similar. Guns are just homebrew. All the monsters are just reskins of pre-existing statblocks, and the environment could always be whatever the hell you wanted it to be.

Play whatever the hell you wanna play. Doesn't matter the genre as long as it's fun.

[Tanarii]

Dungeons and Dragons is just a system though. Reskin stuff, throw in a little bit of homebrew, and boom you have your modern or sci-fi campaign.

There are a ton of third party publishers that have done exactly this. Some have converted spells to technology and psionics (or "The Force), others just ripped out the majority of spells and written their own, then used them for technology.

I liked 5WR Star Wars the best. It clarified some stuff in my mind though. Magic as The Force works for me. But classes that use D&D style "spells" as technological effects just doesn't work for me.

I know from 4e that I'm totally fine with martial classes using heavily codified/restricted and limited use maneuvers. But for whatever reason it just doesn't work for me as supposedly using a gadget to trigger it. Same applies to Artificers, which are literally magical-artificer specialist. They totally breaks my immersion when they supposedly use an object but represent it in game with a spell being cast.

[Anonymouswizard]

You can't really put sci-fi into a game called Dungeons and Dragons.

Somebody's never been on an expedition to the Barrier Peaks.

Dungeons and Dragons is just a system though. Reskin stuff, throw in a little bit of homebrew, and boom you have your modern or sci-fi campaign.

It depends, if I want a, in my mind, 'proper' science fiction game I'm going to have to do a lot of rewriting, including potentially writing alternative classes.

Now it's not impossible, but for many games I would be throwing out 90% of the material and writing my own dtuff, keeping only the basic mechanics. At that point I might as well just run something designed for playing that.

Like, I've got plans to write a Chronicles of Darkness adaptation for 5e, even started on Changelings, but it's something I'm doing for fun. And it does rip out almost everything, even the Fighter and Rogue get reworked, but again this is a project for fun and to flex my game designing muscles, if I wanted to run urban fantasy I'm much more likely to run (possibly houserules) CofD.

[Tanarii]

Somebody's never been on an expedition to the Barrier Peaks.

Temple of the Frog technically. Although it felt a lot less sci-fi IIRC

[Max_Killjoy]

It depends, if I want a, in my mind, 'proper' science fiction game I'm going to have to do a lot of rewriting, including potentially writing alternative classes.

Now it's not impossible, but for many games I would be throwing out 90% of the material and writing my own dtuff, keeping only the basic mechanics. At that point I might as well just run something designed for playing that.

Like, I've got plans to write a Chronicles of Darkness adaptation for 5e, even started on Changelings, but it's something I'm doing for fun. And it does rip out almost everything, even the Fighter and Rogue get reworked, but again this is a project for fun and to flex my game designing muscles, if I wanted to run urban fantasy I'm much more likely to run (possibly houserules) CofD.

Same here.

By the time I do the surgery necessary to make the shambling rules-golem that is D&D work with a setting that isn't D&D-style fantasy, I might as well be using a different system from the start.

[Mechalich]

There's a difference between the d20 system, and it's variants, and full-on D&D. The core set of d20 mechanics is very adaptable, mathematically simple at its core, and well designed around the tactical combat minigame. It adapts quite well to almost any tactical combat-focused scenario, including to space fantasy (and was adapted to Star Wars twice). Actual D&D is very much another story.

Somebody's never been on an expedition to the Barrier Peaks

There's a difference between putting space-based elements into a game and actually doing science fiction. You can drop elements from anything into another system and as long as you get the numbers to something approaching mechanical balance all that will happen is that it will look really incongruous. Disney authored a highly successful series of RPGs in which Goofy and Donald Duck are formidable fantasy warriors; aesthetics are the most malleable element of a system.

Theme, by contrast, is much harder to change. Science fiction, as a genre is focused on the question of how some element, usually a technology but sometimes something more esoteric like simply the existence of aliens or psychic powers, impacts the conditions and society. Fantasy, when it asks questions at all, is far more concerned with ethical and religious quandaries (sometimes through fairly specific allegories), and questions about authority and power and the proper way to wield said authority and power.

D&D, and in fact almost all RPGs, are heavily tilted toward fantasy. The collaborative nature of tabletop play makes the interrogation of complex questions extremely challenging for even the most mature and in-depth tables. That's why games that purport to investigate such questions - like VtM originally claimed to - don't actually get played the way the designers think they will. In fact one of D&D's great strengths, as a system, is that the wargame roots of Gygax et al. meant they didn't try to go all that much deeper than 'kill evil, take its stuff!' and D&D's intended gameplay form remains a strong match for what a huge portion of tables actually want to do when they get together for game time, even if various editions have struggled to actually deliver that experience at times.

[HouseRules]

SiFi, Gary Gygax's notation for Science Fiction as published in Dragon's Magazine, started off as Science Fantasy, but a movement to remove the Religious Nature of Magic made it renamed to Science Fiction. Magic must be Scientific, and commonly called Psionic for mental-based magic. Non-human Religions must undergo Archeology and/or other Social Sciences before they may be a root to Magic of any form.

[Anonymouswizard]

Temple of the Frog technically. Although it felt a lot less sci-fi IIRC

Sometimes you go for the slightly better known module...

Same here.

By the time I do the surgery necessary to make the shambling rules-golem that is D&D work with a setting that isn't D&D-style fantasy, I might as well be using a different system from the start.

I mean, if I could find d20 Modern for a reasonable price I might run it. As has been said the core d20 system is solid and versatile, it's just everything that D&D piles on those basic mechanics isn't. But as it is I'm much better off using Modern AGE as I've been able to pick it up comparatively cheaply.

I've noticed that there's generally three types of people with RPGs. One absolutely loves D&D and will try to play everything in it, one bounces between a handful of systems because they're better for certain things, and the third collects systems just because. I'm very much the third category, although I could run Fate for the rest of my life and not regret it (speaking of which, I should pick up Shadow of the Century). So I have a very different view to those who just want to use D&D, I enjoy seeking out new systems and seeing what interesting mechanics they have (Coriolis gives mechanical benefits for regular prayer, which I think is a great touch).

But yes, I could run everything in Fate except for a D&D style Dungeon Crawl. It is a good thing that I hate dungeons.

[LibraryOgre]

This is actually a major difference between the setting of traditional Westerns and most D&D settings. In the classic 'Wild West' huge chunks of the land have not yet been tilled because they are either too arid to support agriculture and are only suitable as rangeland, or because farmers have only just moved into the region and are just starting to commence with tillage (the classic Little House on the Prairie involves the Ingalls family homesteading in just such an area in Kansas). By contrast, in Medieval Europe almost all level ground had, at some point, been tilled and even much of the pasture land, having originally been forested (hillsides in Ireland and such), was evened out by cutting and the removal of stumps, which causes the land to smooth through erosion.

For D&D settings, I'd point to the Forgotten Realms "Western Heartlands", between Baldur's Gate and Elturel, or event the Savage Frontier, between the cities. All of these are untilled rangeland. Kingdoms of Kalamar has the Shadesh West and Lake Jorak region.

Right. It's about 25-30 miles for humans and 25-30 miles for a horse for a normal days ride.

But it's definitely possible to do more if done right. Mongols used to rotate through something like 5 horses per rider, in order to cover 50-60 miles in a good day. And IIRC that was for extended periods, a month or so.

Caesar's legions reportedly could handle 50 miles a day, if they were on a Roman road.

You can't really put sci-fi into a game called Dungeons and Dragons.

Expedition to the Barrier Peaks.

[Tanarii]

Caesar's legions reportedly could handle 50 miles a day, if they were on a Roman road.

I'd never heard that, but a quick google search shows the Roman legion marched about the distances I stated.

[snowblizz]

Caesar's legions reportedly could handle 50 miles a day, if they were on a Roman road.

I'd never heard that, but a quick google search shows the Roman legion marched about the distances I stated.

I guess it all boils down to how long will the Legions march (and do they stop on Ides or not). A Roman Legionnaire was expected to be able to do 4.5 miles in an hour at "full pace". So 11 hours of marching would indeed cover 50 miles. Obviously a normal march pace wouldn't be that far and a Legion would stop and build camps each day too. I wouldn't want to try and fight a battle after a full pace march.

[HouseRules]

I guess it all boils down to how long will the Legions march (and do they stop on Ides or not). A Roman Legionnaire was expected to be able to do 4.5 miles in an hour at "full pace". So 11 hours of marching would indeed cover 50 miles. Obviously a normal march pace wouldn't be that far and a Legion would stop and build camps each day too. I wouldn't want to try and fight a battle after a full pace march.

For the Romans, 12 hours of summertime is 14 hours meantime, while 12 hours wintertime is 10 hours meantime.

The radius of a County or Civil Parish is one day marching at of double time, or two days marching at quick time. For light cavalry, this is 42 miles, and for infantry, this is 48 miles.

[Calthropstu]

For D&D settings, I'd point to the Forgotten Realms "Western Heartlands", between Baldur's Gate and Elturel, or event the Savage Frontier, between the cities. All of these are untilled rangeland. Kingdoms of Kalamar has the Shadesh West and Lake Jorak region.



Caesar's legions reportedly could handle 50 miles a day, if they were on a Roman road.



Expedition to the Barrier Peaks.

It took me 12 hours to go 34 miles in a single day when I was 17. Straight walking.

It took me 2 hours to finish a 10 mile jog at the same age. So yes, I could see jogging 50 miles in a day. You would be exhausted at the end, especially in armor.

[LibraryOgre]

On horses: In 3e, I had a lot of mounted characters be Rangers, using their animal companion as a mount, and adding a "mounted" style that they could choose.

[Necrosnoop110]

Greyhawk had an order of knights who used handguns, IIRC revolvers. I think the explosive powder was a secret of their knightly order.

DUDE!!! TIL. Unreal, lifelong D&D nerd and still I learn something new on these forums. Thanks. Anybody got a source on that?