Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ppaladin123" data-source="post: 4492626" data-attributes="member: 60923">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! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification