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

[jdrakeh]

D&D has never modeled melee or ranged combat realistically (though the old weapon versus armor type tables probably got closer than anything else did insofar as verisimilitude was concerned). If you think it has or does, I can only conclude that you aren't too familiar with the reality of combat.

 

[Gort]

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

Yeah, this always bugged me in modern games. Hitpoints were supposedly dodging and diving at the last minute leaving the character fatigued for that last hit that takes him down. Trouble is, if the bullet doesn't actually hit the character, how come a .45 calibre round fatigues him more than a .22? It made no sense, and always lead to games where players would be running around with weapons nobody would use in reality to fight people.

 

[CharlesRyan]

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.

Attacking a mounted combatant's horse is a valid tactic that can often work, but I would disagree with calling a warhorse "fragile." 900 years of elite mounted cavalry (extending well into the age of firearms) would likewise disagree, I think.

William had something like 2500 mounted knights at Hastings. If he only lost 12 horses, he would have had a much higher survival rate among horses than he did among his knights. (Frankly, I'd bet he lost a whole lot more than 12, but that's the nature of the combat--not because the horses are especially fragile.)

[Funny you should mention Hastings--I was there on Saturday, and saw the battle reenacted. Frankly, all the action involving horses was pretty disappointing--precisely because they aren't fragile. If a reenactor knight does anything other than ride up vaguely close to a reenactor footsoldier, they run the real risk of the footsoldiers being seriously injured or worse by the horses (just by accident--and even with the footsoldiers in full armour with shields and helmets). And if the footsoldiers do anything more than vaguely wave their weapons toward the knights, they risk spooking the horses and getting the same result. So the cavalry charges--the real action of the battle--weren't especially exciting.]

D&D horses are tough compared to 1st-level characters, but that's as should be. Ever stand next to a shire horse or clydesdale? Massive and powerful. Easily capable of killing a man in a single wave of the hoof, and of taking far more punishment than most people. I would not want to face one that was trained for aggression.

That said, horses suffer in D&D because, unlike characters, they don't readily scale. Unless you're giving it class levels and loading it up with magic items, a horse is a pretty poor mount for a high-level character. So you start with something that is overpowered, pass through a relatively narrow band of play in which it's reasonably powered, then see it become proportionally weaker and weaker.

 

[GrumpyOldMan]

Horses - horses are fragile. William the Conqueror lost 12 at Hastings, as I recall.

He did? That's not a story I've heard before, but then accurate information about William the Bastards most important battle is a constant source of historic argumant.

 

[GrumpyOldMan]

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

It's because DnD is a game, one of many, and (as others have said) it's trying to be a bit more 'heroic' than 'historic.'

If you're looking for a game that handles mounted combat better, look elsewhere. Graphic injuries, no hit points, armour protects and encumbers, mounted combat and jousting rules?

I use HârnMaster

 

[Nyeshet]

There are other issues in dealing with horses and playing the game.

Historically, horses were considered valuable property. In combat the attackers - unless in a desperate situation - tried not to strike the horses, as they could be captured for loot or ransomed afterward should they win.

In the game, however, horses are merely another potential foe or a means to a slight (or better) bonus for the foe when attacking. Striking at the horse thus has double merit - killing a potential foe and reducing the benefit this foe gives to a probably stronger foe - who you therefore want to weaken. The value of the horse is of minimal importance, as the next dungeon will likely have treasure far greater than this - especially once past the lower levels.


As for shields, you can best represent them in 3.x edition by diversifying them. Instead of only the buckler, small shield, large shield, and tower shield, add in some more types to fill the AC+# gaps. Thus, one could then choose shields over armor to get equivalent protection. This might allow for more historical accuracy. Granted, this also increases the benefit for those wearing both armor and shield, so that might require some rearrangement somewhere to compensate. Or perhaps this is also what you are looking for?

 

[mmadsen]

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.

If hit points (and other stats) are abstract, I don't see any real problem with mounts advancing along with their riders. I also don't see a big problem with mounts "borrowing" stats from their riders -- under Lancelot, the same war horse performs better in combat than under a lesser knight.

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.

I don't think horses are fragile so much as they're vulnerable to a few specific things, such arrows, because they're difficult (not impossible) to armor or protect with a shield, and treacherous terrain.

I think we can agree that Bucephalus is an exception, but so was Alexander the Great. Can't high-level characters routinely ride high-level mounts? It's a staple of the source material, after all.

William had something like 2500 mounted knights at Hastings. If he only lost 12 horses, he would have had a much higher survival rate among horses than he did among his knights. (Frankly, I'd bet he lost a whole lot more than 12, but that's the nature of the combat--not because the horses are especially fragile.)

Isn't the contention that William personally lost 12 horses, killed underneath him? There are similar stories of officers in later, gunpowder wars, having numerous horses shot out from underneath them. There the emphasis, again, is not on horses' fragility, but on the personal bravery of the rider, who remained in obvious danger to lead his men.

That said, horses suffer in D&D because, unlike characters, they don't readily scale. Unless you're giving it class levels and loading it up with magic items, a horse is a pretty poor mount for a high-level character. So you start with something that is overpowered, pass through a relatively narrow band of play in which it's reasonably powered, then see it become proportionally weaker and weaker.

Again, I think that's fixable.

Historically, horses were considered valuable property. In combat the attackers - unless in a desperate situation - tried not to strike the horses, as they could be captured for loot or ransomed afterward should they win.

That is definitely how we've treated horses -- an important bit of loot that you don't want to kill.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

William had something like 2500 mounted knights at Hastings. If he only lost 12 horses, he would have had a much higher survival rate among horses than he did among his knights. (Frankly, I'd bet he lost a whole lot more than 12, but that's the nature of the combat--not because the horses are especially fragile.)

I assumed he meant he lost 12 horses personally. In any case, I think 3.X handles mounted combat fairly well. I'd like to see shields handled a little better - I like this idea:

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).

With perhaps a caveat that the shield takes damage as per sunder (maybe the PC takes half damage, representing bruising). I've also seen people use parry rules for shields.

 

[Dausuul]

In 4E, even without the Mounted Combat feat, horses are very useful. I would put my entire party on horseback (griffonback, dragonback) if possible. Having a move speed of 8 or 10 instead of 5 or 6 is a tremendous advantage, particularly with the more mobile nature of 4E combat.

Likewise, 4E makes shields very, very attractive. For a defender, at least, sword-and-board is generally held to be more effective than two-handed weapon fighting in 4E. The balancing of the system means that +2 is a significant improvement to defense; two-handed weapons are no longer capable of the Power Attack-driven abuses of 3.5; and the stickiness of defenders means it's no longer possible for the monster to just walk on past the guy with the crazy AC and hit somebody else.

 

[Umbran]

Horses - horses are fragile.

Modern racehorses are fragile. They've been bred for a long time to maximize a particular form of performance, and they're kept under conditions that don't help maximize their constitution.

Don't mistake modern racehorses for the war breeds of several hundred years ago, or even for today's wild horses. Honestly, if they really were fragile, they'd not have been used for war. "Healthy as a horse" did mean something at one time, even if today it seems a bit off.