D&D 5E (+)What Ubiquitous DnD Tropes Get It Totally Wrong?

[Dioltach]

As noted in another thread: elves being proficient with the longbow and longsword, even though they live in forests where both weapons would be inconvenient at best, and largely useless at worst.

 

[Tonguez]

Dwarfs don't fight enough armored opponents to favor axes over swords.

Dwarf hating Orcs with axes and spears= Sensible
Orc and Goblin hating Dwarves with axes and hammers =Illogical

Dwarven enemies are lightly armored. The main benefits of an axe over a sword is breaking shields, bypassing shields, and converting hack to blunt force though armor.

No need for that much AP damage

Axes and Hammers are practical tools, which can awesome be used as weapons. Why would a practical dwarf want to invest in Swords when they can just make sure their tools are multi-use

 

[Charlaquin]

How about "Whoosh" as in the sound of several people missing a joke.

And here I thought I was playing along with the joke. I guess I really did was explain the joke, which is generally not considered funny... My bad.

 

[Charlaquin]

Also disallow any offhand weapon other than a dagger or maybe short sword or only eventually paired scimitars, the dual wield fighting styles do not have any historical meaning other than eventually someone showing of a bit. They also contradict, that in reality two weapons make you slower if you insist on attacking with both weapons alternating. The only widespread dual wielding historically occurred with rapier / dagger and there the dagger was largely used for parrying, with the occasional stab out of an opportunity.
When using two weapons you normally use one to attack and the other to defend, because else you would have to change combat stance each time you alternate between them.

This gets trotted out every time there’s a discussion of dual-wielding and it’s just not true. Sure, there weren’t many two-weapon fighting styles outside of rapier and dagger in medieval europe, but there absolutely are historical examples of two-weapon fighting styles in other parts of the world and other time periods. And just because you generally use one weapon to attack and one weapon to defend with rapier and dagger doesn’t mean that’s the case in all two-weapon systems. On the contrary, in Eskrima you attack and defend with both weapons - generally moving both weapons simultaneously to attack with one and cover your opening with the other. Your stance does indeed change constantly, fluidly moving between 6 basic positions.

 

[Charlaquin]

Also swords are far to dominant, apart from some periods they had not much military use.

Well, they had lots of military use... as sidearms.

 

[Charlaquin]

Axes and Hammers are practical tools, which can awesome be used as weapons. Why would a practical dwarf want to invest in Swords when they can just make sure their tools are multi-use

A common misconception, but axes and hammers that are made to be weapons make terrible tools, and those that are made to be tools make terrible weapons. Maybe, in an emergency situation where you had no other option, you might use your splitting axe to defend yourself or your battle axe to split wood, but trying to make a dual-purpose weapon/tool is most likely to end up being bad at both roles.

 

[Coroc]

This gets trotted out every time there’s a discussion of dual-wielding and it’s just not true. Sure, there weren’t many two-weapon fighting styles outside of rapier and dagger in medieval europe, but there absolutely are historical examples of two-weapon fighting styles in other parts of the world and other time periods. And just because you generally use one weapon to attack and one weapon to defend with rapier and dagger doesn’t mean that’s the case in all two-weapon systems. On the contrary, in Eskrima you attack and defend with both weapons - generally moving both weapons simultaneously to attack with one and cover your opening with the other. Your stance does indeed change constantly, fluidly moving between 6 basic positions.

Yeah that special martial arts style is the exception which confirms the rule, also I think you can pretty good fight effectively with two daggers, but all weapons which are longer and heavier might get in the way of each other or slow you down while repositioning when you insist on attacking with both.

 

[Coroc]

How about:

Drow being dark-skinned. A subterranean species would be pale-skinned.

"Races" rather than "Species."

This isn't as much D&D, as I think the rules as written clarify this point, but many even long-time players still think that Hit Points refers to actual body damage rather than a combination of body, fatigue, and just being banged up and bruised. A 20th level character wouldn't be able to sustain 20x the physical damage of a 1st level character.

I've always been irked by the over-simplicity of attack bonus. STR should be a factor, but so should DEX and even INT or WIS. Or maybe the average all four, or the average of the best two, with every weapon having an STR threshold below which a penalty is received (e.g. STR 12 for longsword...you probably need to be above average STR to wield it properly).

Yea but your wood elves then need to be green skinned, and your dwarves and rock gnomes are pale as well, whilest your Halflings all are of a solid brown, no?

 

[Dioltach]

A common misconception, but axes and hammers that are made to be weapons make terrible tools, and those that are made to be tools make terrible weapons. Maybe, in an emergency situation where you had no other option, you might use your splitting axe to defend yourself or your battle axe to split wood, but trying to make a dual-purpose weapon/tool is most likely to end up being bad at both roles.

Maybe that explains the prevalence of double-bladed axes? One blade for chopping wood, one blade for chopping Orcs?

 

[Tonguez]

A common misconception, but axes and hammers that are made to be weapons make terrible tools, and those that are made to be tools make terrible weapons. Maybe, in an emergency situation where you had no other option, you might use your splitting axe to defend yourself or your battle axe to split wood, but trying to make a dual-purpose weapon/tool is most likely to end up being bad at both roles.

I’m sure that a dwarf would be able to design an axe that suits both purposes.
Also if you look at examples of historic forester axes, the difference between them and battle axes isnt so great.

Take the Tomahawk for instance - a good wood working tool and an effective hand or thrown weapon too

Finnish Axe