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

[Delta]

Seriously, deja vu. I feel like "weapon vs. AC" needs to pop up in the next rulebook, with Gary crying later about how all the simulationists demanded it from him.

 

[garyh]

If everyone wants to run around on horses, that's fine. The problem is if mounts are part of one class' power (such as paladins in older editions). Then, if a character of that class is put in frequent mount un-friendly situations, a large portion of their power is removed. 4e has done away with that pretty well, and you can still take a feat (as a choice!) and hop on a mount if you want and the campaign goes that way.

 

[Fifth Element]

Where is the assumption that weapons cut *through* plate mail? I kind of assumed (based on the fact that players aren't constantly replacing their plate mail) that it was just getting dinged and battered...

Indeed. A weapon doesn't have to break skin to cause damage. The force of the impact can cause the loss of hit points. Even if it just winds you, 4E is quite explicit that hit points are not just physical damage, so that fits as well. (Just like 1E.)

 

[hafrogman]

I think the shield's power in D&D is about correct. It's a useful device, but not the absolute neccessity it would be on a medieval battlefield. Primarily because D&D is not about the medieval battlefield. It's never been very good at simulating war at all. Shields in personal combat are a very different beast.

As for mounts, as people have pointed out, the problem with mounts in a heroic game, is that there generally haven't been rules for heroic mounts. In 3.X this changed a little with animal companions. Best mounts I've ever had were animal companion horses/riding dogs. Buy some magic barding, and a sandleblanket of resistance and you're good.

We'll see how 4e handles animal companions, and I expect that they won't be limited to certain classes any more, which could make them the answer to your mount question, when the appropriate expansion is released. I don't think it's really a weakness for them not to be in the core rules though, as they will be rarer in a game that features Dungeons in the title.

 

[Starbuck_II]

Where is the assumption that weapons cut *through* plate mail? I kind of assumed (based on the fact that players aren't constantly replacing their plate mail) that it was just getting dinged and battered...

In 3rd edition, you had to inflict injuries to poison people...how does a dagger not cut through plate mail to poison you?


Either he finds a hole in your armor (not so full was it) or he went through the armor.

 

[Verdande]

That's your opinion, not anything remotely resembling fact - especially considering this is a fantasy game - where characters don't even have facing. Like the man said, most weapons in the PHB shouldn't be able to cut through Plate Mail in the first place.
- Marty Lund

Minor quibble aside- stating that shields have less of an effect in D&D than in real life isn't exactly an opinion. In real life, by many accounts, having a shield was more important than wearing heavy armor. It protected you from arrows and most melee attacks, something that just doesn't happen in D&D.

To the Original Poster- I agree with you, and so do many people. I've always wondered why a 3 foot disk of metal strapped to your arm and considered a necessity in medieval combat seemed to be thrown to the wind in D&D. I liked the way 3e handled shields, by having them give you cover as well as AC, although the rest of the system was pretty off-kilter.

You could always house-rule that back, especially if you play OD&D or AD&D. I wouldn't recommend it in 4th edition, where a +1 or 2 bonus to AC is a pretty decent boost.

 

[ppaladin123]

I was pointing out that a longsword (which is a one-handed slashing weapon) would not do much if anything to someone wearing full plate in real life. To actually damage someone in full plate you would either need 1. a precise stabbing weapon expertly aimed at joints/weak points in the armor, or 2. a bludgeoning weapon and enough momentum to inflict concussions and contusions. This is how historical warriors dealt with plate during the period it existed and was viable: the window between the invention of guns and the invention of quick, cheap, reliable (and sometimes plate-piercing) guns.

This is not how d&d deals with full plate. D&D has always assumed that slashing weapons can penetrate heavy armor and do damage (earlier editions), or that they can tire out, harry or otherwise "damage" plate wearers (4e).

Honestly though I don't see a problem with this. By sacrificing some realism, the game lets a collection of anachronistic weapons, armor and fighting styles coexist in balance. That broadens your role playing options and lets you play a variety of heroic archetypes without having to worry about imminent death (e.g. beowulf in his chain shirt can coexist with gilgamesh in leather and lancelot in plate).

I suppose it is reasonable to argue about how much realism can be dropped before you lose willing suspension of disbelief and the game no longer appeals to one's desire to have at least some simulationist elements. Nothing in d&d has crossed the line for me!

 

[RFisher]

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.

Aren’t secondary attack modes and the ability to keep a foe at bay two important aspects of pole-arms? How does 3e handle these aspects well?

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

Aren’t secondary attack modes and the ability to keep a foe at bay two important aspects of pole-arms? How does 3e handle these aspects well?

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.

 

[Umbran]

As for mounted combat - historically, mounted warriors are strong en masse. Yes, when you're fighting a war, a line of armored men on horses at full gallop were a power to be reckoned with.

However, D&D does not focus on mass combat. D&D is about small unit tactics. There, horses aren't nearly as powerful. A footman in a formation can't dodge a line of lancers. A fighter in a field facing one horse has only to wait until the last moment, and take a step aside. In D&D combat, human agility over very short distances tends to win over a horse's mass and longer-distance speed.

So, if and when we have mass combat rules for D&D, I would expect the strength of cavalry to be included. But for D&D's skirmish-scale stuff, I don't know if it is really an omission.