Prone=Flatfooted?

[Tyrloch]

It's not a strictly historical campaign, but close to it. It's probably about 80% human, with a few humanoid races and there was one dragon encounter. But it was a very rare thing -- not commonplace like in a normally run 3.5 game. Not one of the core members ever liked the concept of the monk class, and it was confirmed when we brought in a new player who played one -- it was just asinine.

Again, before anyone goes after me again for trying to rewrite the PHB, I already admitted that this was my fault for attempting to inject too much realism in a fantasy game. Perhaps I should start looking for another system -- one with a higher death rate where you don't have to nickel & dime everything to bring it down. I'm a firm believer in the "one punch" scenario, as opposed to paper-cutting someone 100 hit points-worth to kill them.

Another problem is that I practice archery, knife & hawk throwing, whipcracking, swordplay and 2-weapon fighting. I also build medieval crossbows -- standard as well as double-crossbows (which is another weapon that gets totally raped in the current rules!). So when something from the rulebook doesn't jive with the way it really works, then it irritates me to no end. I realize the the game isn't broken -- it works fairly well as is, but I would like it be just a little closer to reality. Anyway, just my thoughts; everyone is free to agree or disagree, but a few responses were so deeply rooted in sarcasm that it felt as though I was being scolded by my momma (or my wife!!). I've been playing for 30+ years, and come to think of it, I don't think I've ever tried to fix any of the other editions before this one, hmmmmm...

 

[Darklone]

Realistic games aren't that much fun, believe me.

And pretty often D&D rules are closer to reality than many other games that are supposed to be close to reality. AC isn't that unrealistic. (Oops, where was that closed can of worms?)

 

[Theroc]

Two weapon fighting? Such as rapier and parrying dagger? Just curious as I was taught early on by my hoplologist fencing instructor that D&D style two weapon fighting with two swords meant for offence was nigh unheard of in Medieval European times, to the point that he looked at me incredibly funny when I said I found it hard to believe NO ONE did it.

He said that halfstaff and such were fairly common.

Anyways, just had to ask what sort of two weapon fighting you were talking about there, especially since I've never heard that called as such before.

Anyways, My responses were not meant to be sarcastic or scolding so much as more lighthearted and joking.

 

[Tyrloch]

I called it 2 weapon fighting as sort of a blanket statement to cover escrima stick-fighting, sword & dagger, Sword & flail, sword & shield (bashing), and 2 swords (Florentine). It helps that not only am I lefty & close to being ambidextrous, but also the 2-handed whip routines really get that off-hand up to snuff with the dominant hand. And even if there's no historic precedent for defense with the 2 weapon styles, it can be done...

 

[green slime]

Realism is about as sought after in my games as realism is in a hollywood blockbuster action movie.

In real life medieval Europe, people wallowed in ignorance and superstition. Armies suffered most deaths after the battle was fought, with the state of medicine, and the lack of basic hygene.

Soldiers suffered for days before dying of horrible wounds.

Feodal lords ran riot over peasants and commoners, who had no or little recourse to justice.

I'll stick with my fantasy, thanks. Monks, dragons, and fireballs.

If you want a system representing medieval life in gory detail, try Harn. Just don't get involved in any fights. You'll likely end up dead, or at best invalided.