Are some of the basic elements of medieval combat too weak in D&D?

[Arravis]

I've always wondered why D&D handles mounted combat and shields so weakly in relation to their historical capabilities. I used to feel the same way about pole-arms in 1st and 2nd ed, but I feel that 3rd and 4th handle it well.
Anyway, I don't claim to be a historian, expert, or anything, so I could easily be wrong on this... I just wanted to hear a few other opinions on this issue. It's gnawed at me for a long time.

-Arravis

 

[mlund]

I've always wondered why D&D handles mounted combat and shields so weakly in relation to their historical capabilities.

Because D&D is a fantasy game, rooted in fantasy literature.

Horses were a dominant feature of historical warfare. Horses that aren't "named" supporting characters are easily killed background elements of fantasy literature. Horses don't survive fireballs - fantasy heroes do. They also aren't taken to climbing castle towers or going into underground crypts. Even in 3.X you needed extra class powers to "up-gun" your mounts to make any mounted combat tricks dependable.

Mundane mounts (read: horses) are powerful at extremely low levels and count as relatively powerful items. That scale goes up as you start getting involved with more fantastic creatures, but at the point where you start dealing with skirmishers on Rage Drakes or Unicorns the "historical" factor goes completely out the window.

As to shields, they are significant in 4th Edition. They are designed to provide a 5-10% margin from level 1 to level 30, which is huge. This is, however, a game with insubstantial wraiths, fire-breathing dragons, and mind-bending wizards. A "historical" shield is only going to go so far in a world with fantasy attacks.

- Marty Lund

 

[Arravis]

Shouldn't the option of horses being a substantial "character" be up to the DM? It seems negligent for the rules to de-emphasize them. If its something you don't prefer, don't have it in your game; but the rules handle them in a way that is at least reminiscent of real life. Its not an issue of how "heroic" it is, no more than how much does damage a longsword does is an issue of heroism.

As far as shields... they would affect things alot more than 10%, that is quite feeble.

 

[Delta]

Crikey... thread necromancy to 1978!

 

[TerraDave]

ya, talk about retro...

Jumping to the present, not only does 4E do more for shields (you now can use your sheild to ward off dragon fire...), it also does more for mounts. With one feat you can unlock the mounts capabilities...and most of them have some special capabilities.

More generally, the issue with mounts has been touched on above: balancing "realistic" rules with fantasy. What might be a good option if all your opponents are low level with (not too long) spears or short swords looks less good if they all have longbows, and not good at all when fireballs start to go off. And if you opponents live in an underground warren, well that horse is not usefull at all.

In my past games, mid level charecters tended to get their mounts shot out from underneath them (which also happens to be realistic). Do you introduce fantasy to add back the realism of using mounts? Do you go as far as to have 3.5 "pokemount" for paladins, essentially a fantastic companion that makes it easier for the paladin to invoke the mounted knight?

How much fantasy does your realism need?

 

[TerraDave]

Thinking more about this, you can actually be pretty bad a** on horseback.

Depending on the edition (this is pre 4E):

-Do you multiply damage when charging with a lance?
-Does the rider get a "to hit" bonus from height from being on horseback
-Is there barding or something else (magic, the mounted combat feat from 3E) that offers more protection to the horse?
-Is encumbrance generous enough so that the horse gets extra movement even with the plate clad warrior and barding (if used)?

Put all this together, and you have a pretty strong mounted warrior, at least at lower levels.

 

[ppaladin123]

D&D lets me slash through full plate using a one-handed longsword.....that's not exactly an accurate depiction of armor mechanics. It's more evidence that D&D is a mish-mash of flavorful elements from hundreds of years/multiple periods of combat technology.

 

[mlund]

Shouldn't the option of horses being a substantial "character" be up to the DM?

Not unless the other player's at the table are willing to go along with it. One player playing multiple characters while everyone else waits their turn is a Table Taboo - something 4th Edition tried to get away from.

If everyone is one-board with the idea of "named" mounts and the game is going to play out that way you can certainly inject enough fantasy into a given mount to make it playable at all levels. If nothing else you can slap a template or Class Levels onto the thing.

Unless you want to go there, though, a warhorse is a lvl 3 monster with 40-something hit-points in a world where PCs don't die to "historical" threats.

It seems negligent for the rules to de-emphasize them. If its something you don't prefer, don't have it in your game; but the rules handle them in a way that is at least reminiscent of real life.

No, it is not negligent in the least. You have a pet-project you want to emphasize, a part of "realism" you want to inject and make more prominent in your own games than is necessary. That's why we have House Rules.

As far as shields... they would affect things alot more than 10%, that is quite feeble.

That's your opinion, not anything remotely resembling fact - especially considering this is a fantasy game - where characters don't even have facing. Like the man said, most weapons in the PHB shouldn't be able to cut through Plate Mail in the first place.

- Marty Lund

 

[am181d]

Like the man said, most weapons in the PHB shouldn't be able to cut through Plate Mail in the first place.

Where is the assumption that weapons cut *through* plate mail? I kind of assumed (based on the fact that players aren't constantly replacing their plate mail) that it was just getting dinged and battered...

 

[Humanophile]

One-handed weapons don't necessarily slice through the actual armor. It may happen from time to time, but more often the hits are when the weapon hits a non- or lightly-armored part. That's the beauty of an abstract combat system.

As for horses, all I can do is repeat the question of why we need to be mindful of realistic horses when everything else starts stretching that boundary. A low-level character on a horse can be an impressive figure on the battlefield. A high-level mounted character can be similarly impressive, on the condition that his mount is equally fantastic. Why does "mount" necessarily need to mean Equus across all levels and styles of play?