-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Are some of the basic elements of medieval combat too weak in D&D?
- Thread starter Arravis
- Start date
Compared to humans and other apes, horses and nearly all large herbivores are pretty fragile. Deer, horses, sheep, even goats, they're not designed with the durability of omnivores and carnivores. Anyone who's looked after horses IRL (not just throughbred racehorses) knows that yes, they are big and strong and dangerous, but they also show a strong propensity to drop dead if ill-cared for. In the wild, this is compensated for by rapid reproduction.
TheNovaLord
First Post
by boring the combatants to tears....
for example "my starting character has two strikes around at a chance of 36%, and you can try a 42% chance to block with your shield and/or a 26% chance to dodge...."
zzzzzzzzzz
CharlesRyan
Adventurer
So, I'm no expert by any stretch of the imagination. But, as mentioned, I went to that very battle this weekend, which in addition inspired a lot of reading about it both before and after.
William was unhorsed ("pulled from his horse" was how it was described at the reenactment), and he famously grabbed a new horse (depending on who's telling the story, he might even have killed one of his own knights to get it) and removed his helmet to reassure his own lines that he was still alive and the battle wasn't lost.
I haven't come across any mention that he lost more than one horse, and the sources are unclear as to whether that horse was even actually killed (or he was simply pulled off it). I could definitely be wrong, but I would think that the loss of 12 horses would have been noteworthy given how much attention the loss of a single horse was given at the reenactment and in other accounts I've read over the past week.
William was unhorsed ("pulled from his horse" was how it was described at the reenactment), and he famously grabbed a new horse (depending on who's telling the story, he might even have killed one of his own knights to get it) and removed his helmet to reassure his own lines that he was still alive and the battle wasn't lost.
I haven't come across any mention that he lost more than one horse, and the sources are unclear as to whether that horse was even actually killed (or he was simply pulled off it). I could definitely be wrong, but I would think that the loss of 12 horses would have been noteworthy given how much attention the loss of a single horse was given at the reenactment and in other accounts I've read over the past week.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
DreadPirateMurphy
Explorer
Maybe having a .45 pointed in your direction is much more stressful than having a .22?
As far as horses go, it's all well and good to say that horses aren't effective by themselves, but that much animal is darned intimidating. I think that's part of the reason urban police forces still use mounted police. As for the idea that you can step aside, well, I used to own a replica of a cavalry sabre circa 1830. It was a head-lopper, no question, and it was LONG.
Cavalry is useful enough that it took a combination of rifled firearms with percussion caps and reliable mechanized transport to finally make them go away on the battlefield for good, though the frontal cavalry charge was waning well before that.
As for a fantasy world, well, would I rather go against a giant on a fast, big animal, or standing alone? Mounts should be standard in the wilderness, IMNSHO.
Ed_Laprade
Adventurer
Oh yeah. I got some nasty looks in the theater when I commented, loudly, that the cavalry charging downhill into massed pikes was dead meat. Or words to that effect.
Actually, yes, big, loud guns are extremely intimidating, and morale is an important element of combat -- but this effect has very little to do with "hitting" (whatever that means in D&D), and it probably shouldn't ablate a Constitution-based score of toughness (i.e. hit points).
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.
I think that shields are overvalued in some instances in D&D, undervalued in others. I would think that having a shield and no other armor is a big jump over having no armor and no shield... it should give more than a +1. On the other hand, having a shield with full plate is utterly superfluous.
D&D seems to elide the longsword (a later, 2-handed weapon) with the arming sword (a 1-hander).
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.
D&D seems to elide the longsword (a later, 2-handed weapon) with the arming sword (a 1-hander).
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.
