D&D needs improvement

[Raven Crowking]

Uhm, but I didn't compare the banded and roman armor, you guys were busy doing that. I was talking entirely ingame and just made an allusion to historical armor as it regarded the DM excercising Rule 0. Thanks for reading carefully tho.

You are correct that I assumed your comment related to the ongoing discussion.

Your response seemed to be in response to my own comment about banded armour & spikes (hence your quoting it), which was not entirely ingame, and related specifically to which edition's description of what various D&D armour types represented would be most helpful in determining their real-world counterparts.

I hope you can understand my confusion.

I would suggest that anyone who bought D&D expecting a vastly historically accurate system was on something.

The dragons, perhaps, being a dead giveaway?

There is a great deal of difference between expecting fantasy elements to be relatively true to their historic models and expecting historical elements to be relatively true to their historical models.

I didn't, please note, suggest that 2nd Ed was a better game. I suggested that it tried harder to represent historical models. And the proof is in the pudding: An entire series of reference books (blue covers) that included information on everything from castles to items of peasant dress, an entire series of reference books (green covers) for playing the game in various historical settings/eras, as well as more descriptive materials in the core books to ensure that you know what type of sword you are weilding.

Even going back to 1st Ed, the Unearthed Arcana included a reference guide to pole arms. With pictures.

You can get that sort of thing for D&D, but you have to step away from WotC to do it. Green Ronin has an excellent historical/quasi-historical series (Testament, Hamunaptra, Troy, etc.), and Expeditious Retreat's Magical Medieval series is top notch. There is a call for this sort of thing.

(It should also be noted that achieving a sense of historical accuracy doesn't require actually being historically accurate. You can throw out the bath water and keep the baby, as it were. There is a reason the core RAW in 3.X uses swords instead of howitzers, after all. The argument about what level of historical homage the core should have is related far more to taste than it is to any sort of objective optimum. Simply put, if 4E came out with all armour, weaponry, and other equipment replaced in the Core Rules by sci fi/modern equivilents -- the "+4 wand of automatic missile fire" and lightsabers, for example -- would you be on EnWorld complaining about those changes, or would you quietly choose to play another game? What if 4E made all the changes the OP suggested? How many of us, honestly, would be silent about it? I know I would not be!)

Again, I don't tend to agree with the OP about many of his points (although there are some I do agree with). Some of his points come from an ideation of history that most of us here obviously do not accept, and some of his points come from a misreading or misinterpretation of the rules. But some of his points are valid. In fact, some of them are so valid that they have been addressed in official product and are now part of the SRD.

It isn't disagreement with the OP's post that I am objecting to. Hostile dismissal (especially that which comes from a [potentially deliberate] misreading or misinterpretation of the OP's original post) is what I object to.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Nope they weren't, but they didn't wear "little or no" armor, like OP said either.

Lots of them didn't get to wear greaves, either, if the archaelogical evidence is to be accepted. Many Roman soldiers had their arms and legs exposed, at least in terms of the kind of damage they could take from the weapons they faced.

Anyway, the argument didn't make sense in the first place. He was implying that in real life shields were so good that didn't need armor on top of that (even romans didn't think like that). That's just false - in reality just about anyone who could afford armor, had it.

He is also implying that shields are more useful in real life than they are in D&D, which is true. That's why riot police still use them.

Of course it's hard to say what kind of armor would be used in a world that has very different dangers compared to ours. MM has its quotient of creatures that are based on grappling. For that reason, I might want to spike my armor

It's not completely logical to expect the residents of a D&D world to prepare themselves for conflicts from our world - rather, they should be prepared for D&D conflicts. You know, all the stuff MM says wants to eat you.

Which is why residents of a D&D world should use howitzers instead of longbows.

Seriously, though, this argument presupposes the number of encounters with those sorts of creatures that the average armoured guy is going to have. If you assume that these creatures are everywhere, then dressing up like a porcupine is a good idea. If you assume that they are rarely encountered by the average person, then the idea of spikes should be equally rare.

As an interesting side note, spiked armour does have a long and illustrious carreer in the folklore of fighting dragons. Of course, this armour is always made specifically for this task, rather than something that the knight wears normally. And, he wears it for precisely the reasons you suggest.



RC

 

[Numion]

Seriously, though, this argument presupposes the number of encounters with those sorts of creatures that the average armoured guy is going to have. If you assume that these creatures are everywhere, then dressing up like a porcupine is a good idea. If you assume that they are rarely encountered by the average person, then the idea of spikes should be equally rare.

The PHB is hardly about the average joe of D&D world. It's about the heroes, who, in fact, are grappled pretty often. While the standing armies of D&D world (which I admittedly know little of, since they rarely show up in my games) would probably go without spikes to battle, an adventurer would be more likely to order spikes for his outfit.

With this in mind, I think it makes sense to spikes as an option in PHB. It's for the adventurer, not the militia.

As an interesting side note, spiked armour does have a long and illustrious carreer in the folklore of fighting dragons. Of course, this armour is always made specifically for this task, rather than something that the knight wears normally. And, he wears it for precisely the reasons you suggest.

In a game called Dungeons & Dragons, what is the big objection? I'll reiterate: the equipment section is quite clearly written with the adventurer in mind. It has portable battering rams, disguise kits and manacles listed. Is the average joe going to need those any more than armour spikes, unless he's in to bondage (in case of manacles)?

 

[Keoki]

It's accurate. I think it was Mentioned in GURPS 3rd edition, and GURPS--whatever you may beleive it's ther flaws are--is a rigorously researched product.

Now that's funny - it's in a roleplaying game, so it must be true!

 

[Raven Crowking]

Numion, please note that the comment arises in a paragraph wherein I am suggesting that, when determining what type of historical armour is closest to D&D armour, that the 2nd Ed descriptions are better because they attempted to pair the two (historical & D&D armour). Though, were I to be in charge, I would have upped the price of adding spikes to armour based upon the request being so unusual. I would have also included a "sliding rivets" option that ups the price of armour in exchange for a decreased armour check penalty. But that's just me.

As far as shields go, if you want to increase the effectiveness of a shield without increasing its AC value, you could use the following rule:

Once per round, a character can take a successful hit upon his shield. The character must decide to use this option before the damage is rolled. Doing so provides attacks of opportunity from any other attackers who threaten him. A blow taken on the shield offers DR equal to the shield's hardness plus any magical bonus. However, if the damage exceeds the DR provided, the shield is riven (destroyed) and useless.

For the purposes of this rule, a buckler provides 2 less points of DR than normal, a large shield 1 additional point of DR, and a tower shield 3 additional points of DR.​

 

[Raven Crowking]

Oh, and yeah, a typical Roman soldier was lightly armoured in comparison to a guy wearing D&D banded mail. Look at the picture in the book!

 

[Numion]

Numion, please note that the comment arises in a paragraph wherein I am suggesting that, when determining what type of historical armour is closest to D&D armour, that the 2nd Ed descriptions are better because they attempted to pair the two (historical & D&D armour).

Maybe they'll include such in 4E. For me, and all the D&D players I know, the descriptions in 3E have been quite ok, FWIW. Are most D&D players familiar with historical armour? If not, then the comparisons would be wasted on most people. I don't really know how many D&D players know about historical armor.

I don't, and apparently the OP didn't either :\

Though, were I to be in charge, I would have upped the price of adding spikes to armour based upon the request being so unusual. I would have also included a "sliding rivets" option that ups the price of armour in exchange for a decreased armour check penalty. But that's just me.

Since nothing was mass produced in those times anyway, unusual requests should have lesser impact on price. Spikes cost 50gp already - the average joes 500 days income. Seems plenty to me.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Numion, the comparison is only relevant on this thread because of the claim that the typical Roman soldier wore armour equivilent to D&D banded mail. Compared to everything else that the OP said, this is pretty silly minutia to have even been brought up. Even if the Roman Legions wore full plate, it wouldn't affect the claim that shields are not nearly as useful in D&D worlds as they are in the real world (which is, IMHO, an accurate claim).

Focusing on the armour that the Romans wore, rather than the actual point being made, seems like a simple and rather silly attempt to deflect the point that actually impacts the rules (i.e., relative value of shields).

 

[Raven Crowking]

Also, going back to the OP, there is a lot of "My hat of d02 know no limits" here. In that (in)famous rant the ranter suggests that 3.E is both too complex and not complex enough at the same time.

Regardless of who we are, it seems that role players want complexity in their games. At the same time, they don't want pointless complexity. The problem is, of course, that depending upon the type of game you wish to run or play in, what might be pointless to someone else is useful to you, and what might be useful to the majority is pointless to you.

"Good" complexity and "bad" complexity are very subjective states.

It really should not surprise us that some people want additional complexity in some aspects of the game while at the same time wanting less in others. The game attempts to reach a median where it is useful to the majority without being bogged down by complexity that the majority wouldn't necessarily find useful. If you need more complexity on any given topic, the OGL has made it possible to find that complexity. If you need a simpler system on any given topic, the OGL has made it possible to find that simplicity.

The desire to change aspects of the rules to your liking is no reason to abandon what is a vigorous and highly successful overarching ruleset......Especially given that you are more likely to find support for the changes you want to make within the d20 System than within any other rpg in the world.

RC

 

[Keoki]

I agree that D&D/d20, like all roleplaying systems, is not very realistic. But a truly realistic game, I think, wouldn't be very fun to play.

XP system - Arbitrary and needlessly complex. The DM should assign XP as he or she feels, not as the rules dictate. (In more rules-lawyer environments, such as Living Grayhawk, XP values are already planned in game write-ups so why have such a complex system??).

For better or worse, the CR system is designed according to not only a character's level, but also the typical amount and strength of magic items and other equipment at that level. And the magic items/gold received for defeating monsters works hand-in-hand with their XP values. By the way, "arbitrary" and "complex" seem to contradict each other.

Hit Points - Soldiers and adventurers in real life stop fighting after they're wounded --not after they keel over and die. It makes no sense that a fighter should have 300 HP and only feel hurt after getting down to zero.

Hit Dice - Just because I'm a Barbarian, and you're a wizard, I have three times the amount of life as you. What?

Again, we're talking about a fantasy world with fictional characters, Black Leaf. The raging barbarian with a dozen arrows sticking of him isn't realistic, but it is fun. And the effects of accumulated wounds can be simulated with the Clobbered rules from the DMG. Just takes a little more bookkeeping.

AC - I'm wearing a ton of armor, therefore you can't hit me. Rediculous notion.

An armor bonus represents the ability to absorb damage, not avoid it. The mechanic you're looking for is touch attacks, which don't count armor.

Initiative - I'm more flexible / faster than you, therefore I'm always the first one to react in situations. (It would make more sense if initiative was based on wisdom -- skills like listen and spot.)

So a wise 90-year-old would be faster than an Olympic gymnast? Now that is ridiculous.

Strength Adds to HIT - I'm strong, therefore I aim well.
Dexterity Adds to HIT only if I take a special feat (or ranged) - I've got good hand eye coordination, but I don't have this ability, so I can't aim melee attacks.

Strength does help swing a weapon faster and steadier. For those weapons that don't rely on that, check out the Weapon Finesse feat.

Platinum Pieces - Where in the heck did medevil soceities learn how to smelt platinum?!

It's a fantasy. Fiction. As in, not real. Druids really couldn't cast spells, either. At least, not as far as we know...

Two Weapon Fighting - Historically speaking, two weapon fighting was another method of defense, just like using a shield. It was also employed as a method of disarming opponents and confusing enemies. But never was it used as blatantly attacking an opponent like one would do with two fists. Drittz did it, therefore I can too.

It's often used as a method of defense in D&D as well.

Bard - What the heck were they thinking?

I must admit, I don't like this class either.

Druid - nature boys are suddenly religious too?

Yes. In fact, they were more about religion than about nature.

Wizard/Sorcerer - FAFS (Familiers are free stats)

Actually, in most games I've played, the utility of having a familiar usually comes in a lot handier than the stats. Especially if the familiar can fly.

Skills - There are too many. Specifically, most of the skills in D&D rely on DC set checks, not opposed. Yet the ones used the most are the opposed checks (spot, listen, diplomacy, bluff, etc.) More skills means more skill checks the DM has to make (or skills the DM simply forgets about). More skill checks means slower play.

Personally, I think the skill system is one of the best things in 3E - a vast improvement over the nonweapon proficiencies of yesteryear.

Listen and Spot - Why isn't this one "sense" skill?

You mean to say someone that has a hearing problem automatically has poor vision too??

Climb, Run, Swim, Jump, etc - Why isn't this one "athletics" skill?

Not all swimmers can climb well, and not all climbers can swim. Seems like a no-brainer.

Move Silently, Hide - Why aren't these a "stealth" skill?

So they can be opposed, respectively, by Listen and Spot. Also, some things, like camouflage, will affect one of these skills but not the other.

Tumble, balance, etc - Why aren't these an "acrobatics" skill?

I studied aikido for eight years. As a result, I have exceptional balance. Don't think I could do a somersault, though.

Craft - Why is this even a skill in D&D? Buying a masterwork weapon or armor isn't hard, and crafting one takes too long.

Who would you find to make a masterwork weapon (or any weapon, for that matter) if the skill didn't exist??

Knowledge (of) - Why aren't these skills associated with other classes or skills? I mean, if you're a wizard, you MUST know SOMETHING about arcane magic.

You do. You know how to cast spells. That said, I dislike the fact that Knowledge skills are trained only. This means that a foreigner with 1 rank in Knowledge (local) knows more about a place than someone that's lived there all their life. Silly.

Perform - We know the bard is useless anyway, so why is this even in D&D?

Bards aren't the only ones that use Perform skills.

Spellcraft - Why isn't this associated with a class?

I'm not sure what this means. It's a class skill for most spellcasters.

Item creation feats - Why should I waste a feat and XP when I can just buy the item for the same price?

You can't buy the item for the same price. It's cheaper to make it yourself.

Two Weapon Fighting - Too complex. Trying to fix a mechanic that is broken with rules = even more complex.
Two Weapon Defense - Only +1 to AC?

Yes - the feats are carefully balanced. Of course, there are more feats a two-weapon fighter can get to increase that.

Any +2 to 2 skills feat - Worthless. Most of these skills aren't used much anyway.

Tell that to the rogue that just Tumbled to avoid an attack of opportunity from an ogre. Worthless, indeed!

Full Plate - -6 Armor check penalty? And Full Plate is one size fits all? +1 max dex bonus? Last time I checked, all full plate must be custom made to fit a specific body type, and because the plates work so well together, people can do acrobatics while in full plate.

You can do acrobatics in full plate in D&D, too. Just not as well. You're right that someone else's armor might not fit very well, but this is a detail that's not very entertaining to deal with in a FANTASY game.

Shields - Wow, if I didn't know better, shields are worthless. Wonder why the Romans sent full armies into battle with full tower shields and did just fine with little or no armor?

No, tower shields are pretty good in D&D too. And the Roman legionnaires were some of the most heavily armored soldiers of their era.

Arcane Failure - If I can swing a greataxe at an enemy in full plate, why does it prevent me from casting spells in it? If someone of superhuman dexterity (+5) can run around in studded leather without penalty, why does a spellcaster fail spells in it?

It could be that a spellcaster's gestures have to be exceptionally precise. Or it could just be an issue of game balance. In any case, I, for one, am glad of this particular game mechanic.

Attacks of Opportunity - My enemy is suddenly able to attack (again) because I did something. (???)

Yes. D&D combat assumes that combatants are constantly shifting and jockeying for position, attacking only when there's an opening. If someone creates an opening that wasn't there previously, you get to attack.

Multiple attacks - I move, therefore I attack only once per round.

Wouldn't granting characters an unlimited number of actions per round be fun?

Cover - I have a giant tower shield, which only grants me +4 to AC, but now I'm behind a wall. You can't attack me because I'm behind this wall. Guess archers are too dumb to arc their arrows.

Sure they can. See Heroes of Battle. However, because they can't actually see the target, their chances of hitting aren't very good.

P.S. Only +4 to AC? That's not enough??

Multiple attackers - two hundred bears attempt to jump on an adventurer. None of them are able to hit him, because his AC is obviously, too high.

First of all, 200 bears couldn't attack a single adventurer at the same time. Secondly, if you take a look at the aid another and flanking rules, their chances for damaging him increase significantly.