D&D General D&D weapons vs reality

[doctorbadwolf]

Saving throws should be skills too, IMO.

Yep. That’s how I do it. You make a defense skill check when subject to a hazard or attack.

It always frustrates me when TTRPGs (and D&D in particular) will always let magic do virtually anything, but "mundane" skill usually doesn't let you even do the things that actual real-world humans can do in real life. And yet, OTOH, occasionally forces them to do things that are ridiculously bonkers.

Yep. Absolutely.

I once had a DM insist that it was "impossible" to climb a ladder with a shield equipped. It got to the point in our argument, that I literally got out a ladder and a "garbage-can lid" and ran up the ladder (without using the other hand either) to prove my side.

People can do quite crazy things with practice. (And I'm not saying that I had any practice at ladder-climbing).

Yeah the idea that you need both hands to climb a ladder is kinda funny.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Just wanna point out that war bows (not just the famous longbow, either) could pierce plate armor. The only reason crossbows even had a strong place in war was that they were much easier to train someone to use. An equivalent bow was pretty much always better in terms of range and impact and speed.

Armour was pretty effective, otherwise they would not have spent all that money getting it.
Is part of a pretty good series on the whole subject.

Watch good archers shoot small moving targets some time. They don’t have to be dangerously close.

Hell I’m not that good and I can shoot an apple at at least 40 yards, which is plenty of distance to shoot a half-dozen times before you can get to me, and I need to get my axe or mace out.

Now try doing it on a battlefield where people are trying to kill you. Also run 40 yards and see how long it takes.
I can walk 40 yards in 26 seconds (some people do 100 meters in less than 10 seconds), I think if the enemy is 40 meters/yards away and you do not have your melee weapon out you are in trouble.

 

[dave2008]

Just wanna point out that war bows (not just the famous longbow, either) could pierce plate armor. The only reason crossbows even had a strong place in war was that they were much easier to train someone to use. An equivalent bow was pretty much always better in terms of range and impact and speed.

Counterpoint, good armor good block crossbow bolts, longbow arrows, and firearms (of the era). A lot of factors played into it, but quality of the armor and angle of the impact were big ones.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Armour was pretty effective, otherwise they would not have spent all that money getting it.
Is part of a pretty good series on the whole subject.

Now try doing it on a battlefield where people are trying to kill you. Also run 40 yards and see how long it takes.

Okay. Ever done SCA? More importantly, this isn’t theoretical, people did it. Throughout history. It’s reality.

I can walk 40 yards in 26 seconds (some people do 100 meters in less than 10 seconds), I think if the enemy is 40 meters/yards away and you do not have your melee weapon out you are in trouble.

And yet, archers were effective against armor.

Armor made it harder, not impossible. Not hard enough to make archers lose importance. Bows were extremely effective all the way into the era when they were replaced by firearms, and it wasn’t until after that time that firearms actually surpassed them in efficacy, rather than just in terms of ease of training and mass production. Armor fell out of use when firearms because so quick and relatively easy to make that you could arm your entire army with them, but plate was never perfect protection. It just protected well enough in combination with tactics that it was worth it.

 

[jasper]

5 unarmed men with basic training with crossbows and daggers could easily take out a single knight. The knight can't run them down, the knight can only fight when they engage and eventually he'll tire first. That leaves out pits, killing the horse at full gallop, ropes, maces hammers. Picks and all kinds of things that require far less skill to pull off. And a well trained knight could always be poisoned. And if it takes 4 or 5 tries to kill him you lose 20 poorly trained men. Someone loses a knight and a warhorse that will take 5 years of training and lots of treasure to replace. Even at 100 people to the knight it's a good deal in war. The knight and warhorse easily cost more than a 100 people. Knights only marched around with impunity in the middle ages because people that got caught killing them were executed. But in wars or dealing with criminals all that came off. And modern breastplates that would stop the good crossbows were called tournament breastplates that requires tackle and pulley to load. They were never used in actual warfare. But layering armor and some other advanced in armor did mitigate the crossbow at the expense of making the armor heavier, hotter and more cumbersome. Bottom line the heavier the armor the more necessary support troops where. Knights did not ride around all alone in plate like they did in Arthurian or any other fantasy knight tales.

One bolt under the arm in the knee joint etc and without support the knight was done.

To be fair most crossbows of that time were lower quality and you have to be about 30 or so feet from the knight and you'd be aiming at the gaps in the armor. The high end high powered expensive ones that took far more time to load were far more deadly. The other issue is most knights in those times wore what they could afford. Up in 1600's you'd still see poor knight wearing armour made in the 1400's because it was very expensive. Only the richest and most important wore the latest greatest armor.

Not surprising. The US army still uses Korean era equipment for some units because it's good enough for their job and it's cheap.

Eventually generals and commanders realized a well trained army with less expensive armor and gear was always the better way to go. One man covered in steel was just not cost effective.

paging the big fat duke sir john the bearkiller to the white courtesy phone. I have seen fat very overweight guys run down a group of six lightly armoured guys and put a beat down on them. It hurts if they just body check you.
I have also learn to put my sCA, history, hema friends aside and just play the game. A game which has dragons flaming whole towns but a group four can bring down in 30 seconds.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

A lot of these arguments make a few common mistakes (often both sides of the argument). For example:

Just because powerful bows aimed well could penetrate heavy armor doesn't mean that you could rely on them to consistently do so.

Similarly, just because you could March around in plate impervious to many standard attacks doesn't mean you weren't vulnerable to being ganged up on, slow, and in trouble if you got knocked over.

Nearly always people like to compare best case scenarios of one side to worst of the other, or someone who is very competent or lucky to someone who is not.

It's like when people compare martial styles: They often wind up with a scenario where they show one side (the one that they prefer, or know more about) doing their shtick well, and the other side doing theirs poorly.

The truth is, it often comes down to exceptional people who have had good teachers, are well-equiped, understand what they are doing, make the right decisions at the right moments, and get lucky do very well against those that fail at one or more of the above.

And you can't maintain all of the above for your whole career, either. Age and ego play a factor, too.

 

[MGibster]

I don’t think of myself as a facial hair person (I’m bi, but I generally prefer more feminine traits). But, there does seem to be a correlation between guys I find attractive and slight facial hair. Maybe it’s not the hair itself that attracts me, but that facial hair style just happens to be popular among the kinds of guys I’m into?

No doubt you watched too many episodes of Miami Vice with Don Johnson.

 

[Charlaquin]

No doubt you watched too many episodes of Miami Vice with Don Johnson.

Nah, it was That 70s Show that infected my brain with the snark worms.

 

[AlViking]

Just wanna point out that war bows (not just the famous longbow, either) could pierce plate armor. The only reason crossbows even had a strong place in war was that they were much easier to train someone to use. An equivalent bow was pretty much always better in terms of range and impact and speed.

That depended on the quality of the armor and the bow. I've seen demos where an arrow from a longbow could penetrate but not by enough to do significant damage. On the the hand, the average soldier was not provided with high quality armor.

But I do agree that crossbows were easier to use and firearms even easier.

 

[MGibster]

I once had a DM insist that it was "impossible" to climb a ladder with a shield equipped. It got to the point in our argument, that I literally got out a ladder and a "garbage-can lid" and ran up the ladder (without using the other hand either) to prove my side.

I once had a player explain to me that a human being couldn't run a certain distance under a certain amount of time. We exited the house, and I demonstrated he was wrong by running that distance under the allotted time. And even back when I was in great physical shape I was a slooow runner. I find a lot of people, myself included, sometimes have difficulty judging the difficulty of physical activities they're unfamiliar with.

paging the big fat duke sir john the bearkiller to the white courtesy phone. I have seen fat very overweight guys run down a group of six lightly armoured guys and put a beat down on them. It hurts if they just body check you.

Just watch a game of American football to see how fast a 300 pound man can run 10-20 yards.