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

[pemerton]

If shield & armour were considered separately (shield gives cover, armour reduces damage) you'd get a much more realistic effect.

To simulate the power of the shield, I would suggest allowing those skilled in its use to have a chance to completely block one attack per round.

In addition to Harnmaster and WHFRP mentioned upthread, I'll add Rolemaster and Runequest as systems which implement variations on this idea.

 

[S'mon]

And it's so easy to fix. If Gandalf's glowing with magical power, and the orcs understandably turn to run away, then the cavalry charge can mow them down.

Jackson made a slight nod to realism in Return of the King, when the Rohirrim charge the orcs at Pelennor fields the orcs form a spear line, but it looks like they falter and give way *before* the charge hits.

 

[S'mon]

D&D also seems to undervalue horse charges. Even if you're hitting with a sword you should get a bonus to your damage because of the speed of the horse. I've seen a DM who wouldn't even give a bonus for a spear attack from a horse charge, becuase it was a spear and not a lance. I don't know how one can misunderstand physics so basically!

I think D&D also undervalues missile fire somewhat. In OD&D it's fine because everything does 1d6. In later editions, damage from bows seems to get outstripped by virtually everything.

I guess you're right about the charge, maybe a cavalry sabre type weapon should do x2 damage same as a lance; a longsword could do +2 damage. I already have inappropriate weapons take -2 to hit from horseback so that'd be fair.

Re bows - individual arrows vs armoured foes historically rarely killed; so I wouldn't boost damage. Winch crossbows were the exception, and certainly the heavy crossbow remains underpowered. But they also took a lot longer than 6-12 seconds to load. I've experimented in my games with arbalests that fire 1/3 rounds for 2d10, and heavy siege arbalests firing 1/5 for 4d10, both ignoring some armour. In practice I found the math calculation is too complex to be very worthwhile.

 

[CharlesRyan]

D&D seems to elide the longsword (a later, 2-handed weapon) with the arming sword (a 1-hander).

Definitely, but it's an easy fix. In my 1198 campaign, the omnipresent chevalier's sidearm with the D&D longsword stats is simply called the arming sword, while the much rarer 2-handed weapon with the D&D greatsword stats is called the longsword.

 

[Choranzanus]

No idea whether the "12 horses" tale is true. The Saxons had almost no missile troops, so maybe not. You hear these tales more commonly from the age of gunpowder, as noted above.

I've visited Senlac hill a couple times myself and toured round the battlefield & museum. Well worth visiting. Also seen the Norman museum in Bayeux which takes a more pro-William interpretation.

Well it is not totally unrealistic given that a horse run at full speed will last a few minutes at best and then it is as good as dead. If you are a commander of a battle that last at least few hours, perhaps a whole day, I can well imagine you needing a spare mounts.

Edit: Anyway, don't mind me. I have a bee in my bonnet over the scene in The Two Towers where the heroes ride out of Helm's Deep into a solid mass of hundreds of orcs and scatter them with their horses. IRL that's totally impossible. Horses never break massed spear infantry on a frontal assault, they *will not* charge onto spears/pikes. The only times it's happened is when the horse is killed by missile fire prior to reaching the line and momentum carries it on into the spear wall.

Lets not underestimate knights. According to medieval battle manuals a trained knight is equivalent to 4-12 footmen (which would be spearman armed with a heavy shield), with 8 being often quoted figure. Sure, pikemen can stop knights, but spearmen certainly can not. If you think you can block a mounted charge with a shield you would get washed away in no time.

Mounted lance is incredibly powerful weapon. We know that knights could topple warwagons and various mobile battlements. The fact that knights were in danger of being dismounted even if hit only to a shield tells you a lot.
If you look at some older depictions of "knight vs dragon" theme it is hard not to notice that knight always charges the dragon with lance, never with sword. Lance is precisely the kind of weapon that people in medieval times would have used against such a foe.

 

[S'mon]

Lets not underestimate knights. According to medieval battle manuals a trained knight is equivalent to 4-12 footmen (which would be spearman armed with a heavy shield), with 8 being often quoted figure. Sure, pikemen can stop knights, but spearmen certainly can not. If you think you can block a mounted charge with a shield you would get washed away in no time.

True at an individual level, but horses won't charge into a formed shield wall. Of course a shield wall is immobile in the dark & middle ages, and spear & shield fell out of use pretty early. In practice, mounted armoured warriors dominated from roughly the 11th century (earlier further east) until the emergence of drilled pike units in the late 15th century.

 

[S'mon]

According to medieval battle manuals a trained knight is equivalent to 4-12 footmen (which would be spearman armed with a heavy shield), with 8 being often quoted figure.

Yes, but that's 8 barely trained, usually unarmoured peasant levies vs an armoured knight, trained pratically from birth. Swiss pike, Landsknechte pike, longbowmen, foot knights, could all be superior to a mounted knight in the right circumstances.

Edit: In practice it wasn't uncommon for knights to go into battle dismounted, as at Agincourt.

 

[mmadsen]

Definitely, but it's an easy fix. In my 1198 campaign, the omnipresent chevalier's sidearm with the D&D longsword stats is simply called the arming sword, while the much rarer 2-handed weapon with the D&D greatsword stats is called the longsword.

Shouldn't a medieval longsword be a D&D bastard sword (not a greatsword)?

 

[Switchblade]

True at an individual level, but horses won't charge into a formed shield wall. Of course a shield wall is immobile in the dark & middle ages, and spear & shield fell out of use pretty early. In practice, mounted armoured warriors dominated from roughly the 11th century (earlier further east) until the emergence of drilled pike units in the late 15th century.

Not true. I have seen a horse charge a shieldwall. It was a demonstration on why there were large gaps kept between the lines in a shield wall. The horse knocked the first two shields apart as it broke the line, got through the second but lost momentem and stopped before the third with no where to go. Then 2 blokes demonstrated how to drag someone from a stationary horse. The horse didn't seem bothered by the effort of doing this. The poor volunteers in the front row on the other hand must have felt that. Of couse the wall was armed with axes rather than spears.

 

[CharlesRyan]

In practice it wasn't uncommon for knights to go into battle dismounted, as at Agincourt.

Yes, but Agincourt was 1415. A discussion that goes from Saxon shield walls to Agincourt in the same breath is about as useful as a discussion the lumps the Gulf War and the American Civil War into the same mish-mash. Sure, they're both in the age of gunpowder, but beyond that they share few tactical traits.

I guess what this really tells us is that the question--are horses or shields undervalued in D&D?--really depends on what sort of combat environment underpins your vision of D&D combat. It looks like the closer your vision is to the dark ages (at least, a dark ages in which the stirrup is in common use), the more underpowered horses and shields seem to be. The closer you are to the renaissance, the less so.

Or something like that.