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

[tomBitonti]

One style in one book does not a MUST make. What you describe sounds rather like what I see in some forms of recreation fencing - it is not generally used in the heavy-armor fighting I have seen.

Generally speaking, the strike against the arm/hand you mention is not easy - at the time you can target his arm or hand, his weapon is leading and coming at you - you have to get around the weapon to get at the arm, and trying to do so generally means you are open to getting hit with the weapon.

There is one maneuver that I've gotten to consistently work when sparring with wooden sticks, which is to attack my opponents hand/forearm when they attack me. There seems to be a bit of an exposure which is an easy target if the opponent isn't being careful. We both use wooden sword and a kite shield.

I am generally pretty terrible at this stuff, and suffer more than my share of bruises, but that counterattack seems to work pretty well.

I suppose that a better attacker would make their attack less predictable, and perhaps my opponents haven't had the best form (they definitely tighten up quite a bit after suffering this attack once or twice), but making the attack has been relatively easy, since it doesn't have to go quite as far past their attack, or their shield. It does take careful timing.

It really may be a form problem, rather than a dependable response, since it is a lot harder to execute once it is expected.

 

[Umbran]

It really may be a form problem, rather than a dependable response, since it is a lot harder to execute once it is expected.

I'm not an expert by any means, but that'd be my guess.

My experience is with SCA heavy list fighting - one form of with is typical "sword and board". From my experience, here's the basic issue: in order to get that arm shot off, you need two things - an opponent who "telegraphs" what they are going to do very strongly, and a lot of speed. The weapon arm only comes forward during an attack, so to hit it you have to see their intention, start their attack after they start theirs, but finish before they do.

The SCA uses "honor code" style hits. You have to hit hard enough for them to feel it through their armor. Typically, going for so much reactive speed sacrifices power, ending up in a light hit that doesn't count.

But then, I'm not a sword and board expert - I typically fight polearm.

 

[RFisher]

For the second one, AoOs, and there are feats designed to lets polearm wielders tear the hell out of people trying to get close to them-Hold the Line and Stand Still are the two that spring to mind.

Yeah, but AoOs don’t really do a very good job of it. And they only do it at all for pole-arms with reach, which brings us back to the secondary attack modes thing.

The feats do better, but... IIRC, these aren’t in the core rules. Having to spend a feat on a feat from a supplement doesn’t strike me as doing justice to the weapons.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I think shields were probably undervalued even in original D&D, when a +1 bonus was big deal and defensive modifiers were scarce (e.g. no Dex mod to AC). Later bonus inflation exacerbated the problem.

Currently, I'm using a house rule from Fight On! Issue #2. Basically, you can decide to take damage from a blow on your shield, instead of to your hit points; if you do so, the shield is rendered unusable (cloven, broken, or whatever).

 

[Cadfan]

The biggest problem with mounts and D&D design is that PC hit points scale, but the hit points of a generic horse stay static. If you set a horse's hp so that it makes sense for a level 1 or 2 character, eventually you reach a point where anything that even threatens a PC will also kill the PCs horse in one hit.

The best solution would probably be to have scaling mount hp, like the game did with the paladin's mount in 3e. It would get you the outcome you want, while simultaneously causing every simulationist player's head to finally explode.

 

[S'mon]

Horses - horses are fragile. William the Conqueror lost 12 at Hastings, as I recall. D&D horses are extremely tough compared to 1st level characters. They, and many other animal stats, seem scaled for a world where normal humans are ca 3rd level. Bucephalus is an exception, not the rule.

 

[Drowbane]

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

3e shields are pretty laughable. Any optimized fighter-type is probably using a two-hander.

3e lances kick some serious tail while mounted. study mounts are hard to come by.

3e Polearms - I dunno, I think its too easy to step up into thier reach. Perhaps polearms should be able to attack at 5 and 10 feat. Perhaps for the cost of making them exotic (in such case I'd give fighters 1 to 3 free exotic profs)?

 

[frankthedm]

The problem is D&D's level of abstraction. If shield & armour were considered separately (shield gives cover, armour reduces damage) you'd get a much more realistic effect.

Which is exactly what WFRP corrects [IMHO].

 

[mmadsen]

3e shields are pretty laughable. Any optimized fighter-type is probably using a two-hander.

3e lances kick some serious tail while mounted. study mounts are hard to come by.

3e Polearms - I dunno, I think its too easy to step up into thier reach. Perhaps polearms should be able to attack at 5 and 10 feat. Perhaps for the cost of making them exotic (in such case I'd give fighters 1 to 3 free exotic profs)?

Many of these problems come about, quite indirectly, from making "hitting" easy but "hurting" hard, with not-really-escalating ACs and rapidly escalating hit points.

The system accidentally gets things right for heavily armored knights, who did eschew shields for two-handed axes -- at least when fighting each other -- but real combat is more typically about getting one good shot in against a fellow who's defending himself and threatening to counter-attack, not about doing enough damage to whittle him down.

This gets particularly weird in a modern setting, where elephant guns take down "name" characters faster than accurate small-caliber weapons.

 

[Truth Seeker]

There is no disagreement here on that analysis...but for those who are older (player wise), sometimes it is craved to have a more 'realistic' feel to the setting as time (playing wise) passes.

(We players like to be mentally challenged)

But there will be no attempt to cater to such a feeling, cause it will be deem not marketable enough (in a high demand ratio), to produce.

Hence, that why the search to seek out the true representation of those 'proper' use of materials (shields, swords, etc), in their eras, has stoked the curiousity of those to seek it.

D&D in it's current format, will not rise to that point, it hasn't since 1st Ed. and it never will. From a marketing standpoint, if they did cater to the realstic side of those eras, they would have a very restricted age catergory of buyers.

And Hasbro, does not want that.

My current campaign is a sort of historical fantasy, set in 1198. The chevalier class I built for the campaign (classic Crusades-era mounted knight) really wants to fight from horseback--and that's even after I worked pretty hard to tone down the degree to which being on horseback is integral to his training and fighting style.

The problem is, one guy fighting from horseback isn't really compatible with most RPG adventuring encounters, nor with the ensemble cast approach that works best in D&D and most RPGs. I can keep it balanced out in my own campaign, with hand-tuned classes and encounters and themes that keep the specific characters in mind, but not everyone would have the same experience in a typical D&D milieu.

So it's like so many other issues: D&D (rightfully) balances simulation against a game experience that's the most fun most of the time. On this issue, the simulation direction might not serve D&D well--but as my own example shows, YMMV, and you can always alter the game to fit your own desires and expectations.