Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 2854142" data-attributes="member: 18280">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.   <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=":)" /> The dragons, perhaps, being a dead giveaway?   <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /> 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.   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> 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.</blockquote>

Verification