D&D General D&D weapons vs reality

[Horwath]

Seriously a lot of armor is really overrated. People don't know that knights where like tanks they required support. Men at arms shield men etc. one of the things that eventually killed armor along with guns was that once the men in armor were separated from support units 3 or 4 unarmored men and sometimes dogs with daggers and picks could drag them down and kill them by poking into the cracks. Armored knights alone in full plate mail were easy picking. Shoot the horse with an arrow take him down and any group of halfway trained people could take him out because he was slow. Like a pack of hyenas taking down a lion. Add to that crossbows and anything short of jousting armor was a deathtrap. Once crossbows came into the picture heavy armor was doomed

yes and no.

while there are weapons that can deal with armor, mostly blunt weapons, warhammers and poleaxes., armor was not doomed until reliable firearms came into battle.

and even then armor is not obsolete, we have armor now. against fire arms.

high medieval breastplate was immune to all bows and crossbows. Unless poorly made.


as for ganging up on a trained medieval knight, yeah good luck, anyone wants to volunteer to be in the first five men that a knight will behead before rest maybe manage to take him down?

 

[Willie the Duck]

General points:

• D&D doesn't match RL regarding the importance of reach ( a few inches difference matter in RL)
• you only need the necessary strength to wield a weapon in RL. Dex is the main factor in hitting (with any weapon) in RL.
• Simple vs martial can be odd and not match RL
• unarmed is basically equal to armed combat which is not realistic - but fun and should stay

He then goes into weapon types and specific weapons. I may or may not give a summary of those

This guy is a lot less focused on “um, actually”ing than the people who make this kind of content tend to be. He talks not only about how weapons really work, but also engages in more speculation about how you might approximate some of the less realistic applications seen in fantasy media. He’s more focused on archery than other forms of combat, and he enjoys mixing in fun acrobatic stuff instead of pure, proper Olympic target archery. For example, he also practices pole dancing, and uses those skills to pull off stuff like shooting from tree branches.

Okay. Good. I will add it to the stack. Glad to see it isn't 'I've practiced Martial Art X for 5 years/heard the word HEMA three times/watched Todd's LindyGladitoria Youtube for the past 6 months and am convinced no other gamer knows this stuff' version 8,675,309.

Re: Slings --
Any number of weapons are 'obsolete once armor and shield are being used,' yet still saw plenty of use. Spears/pikes are notably bad at penetration, yet get used pretty much throughout history. Swords, particularly slashing-focused ones, also generally (so, yes, except a bunch of exceptions) had trouble with armor and shields. Sometimes this meant only using it against the softest troops. Sometimes, it meant going around the armor -- which was possible because near full-body complete armoring was rare up until very late (doubly so when applied to one's horse). Sometimes it meant that the weapon was mostly to disrupt or make you keep your head down/shield up/whatever so you are more vulnerable to the real main thrust.

Slings undoubtedly did slip from common battlefield usage in some part as more and more troops would have had helms and shields and other armor. But I think there were any number of other reasons. Their status as high-skill-requiring weapons used by non-densely-packed foot troops was always a niche troop type that you had to work to make work, and fluctuated with situation and technology (moreso, I am saying, as this applies to every troop type).

 

[dave2008]

Slings undoubtedly did slip from common battlefield usage in some part as more and more troops would have had helms and shields and other armor.

If you take a look at the videos posted above, slings could do serious damage to armor! Taking a hit in the head even with a helm is not a good idea!

 

[dave2008]

Okay. Good. I will add it to the stack. Glad to see it isn't 'I've practiced Martial Art X for 5 years/heard the word HEMA three times/watched Todd's LindyGladitoria Youtube for the past 6 months and am convinced no other gamer knows this stuff' version 8,675,309.

Also, just want to clarify he is discussing the 5e24 rules as he specifically comments on weapon mastery properties. He likes most of them for flavor but would change a few (he doesn't think "graze" makes sense for the greatsword and suggests cleave maybe).

PS - he is clearly trained in many weapons, but bows are his specialty. His knowledge and skill regarding archery is impressive.

 

[Willie the Duck]

If you take a look at the videos posted above, slings could do serious damage to armor! Taking a hit in the head even with a helm is not a good idea!

1. I said I would add it to the stack of things to watch.
2. You cut my quote around the fact that I said, in effect, 'yes, I'm sure it had something to do with it, but... {other more compelling reasons}'

Regardless, yes, slings come in with maces and warhammers as weapons that 1) are hampered by armor, but 2) still are effective against armored opponents (and not by going around the armor). If it doesn't penetrate, it'll still really ring someone's bell and damage the armor. That gives certain contexts to when they ended up being used. It's always a subtle dance between how well something works and how well alternatives would do.

Maces were common in the classic era, and then saw a resurgence in the late medieval/renaissance. Much of the era in-between, the common tactic was instead to use sword or spear and try to get around the shield and mail of the time (axes being the dual-use 'if you can't evade, this still telegraphs a lot of force through' weapon of choice). Once plates got more common, the tactics switched to* punching through with narrow spikes/half-swording, or going back to ringing the other guy's bell. If stronger and stronger bows, crossbows, and firearms hadn't come along, there might have been a resurgence in slinging (although again, highly skilled lightly packed footmen that work better for skirmish/disruption than primary takedown...).
*along with pikes to stop horses, falchions vs. lightly armored troops, and all the other exceptions I know someone will point out if I don't mention them.

Also, just want to clarify he is discussing the 5e24 rules as he specifically comments on weapon mastery properties. He likes most of them for flavor but would change a few (he doesn't think "graze" makes sense for the greatsword and suggests cleave maybe).

There's undoubtedly many of them that are iffy at best. Graze might really be better for maces/hammers/slings, representing the above effect.

PS - he is clearly trained in many weapons, but bows are his specialty. His knowledge and skill regarding archery is impressive.

That's good. I haven't seen as many of those around. Nice that he's a millennial or younger, as I think most of the people I tend to think of in the medieval arms Youtuber crowd are us fogeys. Also nice that he looks more like a gymnast than a power lifter. For the past decade or two (probably since 4e put dex as the attribute for to-hit and damage) , realism discussion around bows seem to focus excessively on gamers rediscovering that, yes, archery requires a lot of strength and every archer shouldn't look like Orlando Bloom/Errol Flynn. I'm sure he can bring some nuance to the discussion in the 'it takes everything' vein.

 

[dave2008]

That's good. I haven't seen as many of those around. Nice that he's a millennial or younger, as I think most of the people I tend to think of in the medieval arms Youtuber crowd are us fogeys. Also nice that he looks more like a gymnast than a power lifter. For the past decade or two (probably since 4e put dex as the attribute for to-hit and damage) , realism discussion around bows seem to focus excessively on gamers rediscovering that, yes, archery requires a lot of strength and every archer shouldn't look like Orlando Bloom/Errol Flynn. I'm sure he can bring some nuance to the discussion in the 'it takes everything' vein.

IIRC he does discuss that a little in this video (how you really need Dex to hit with all weapons, even greatswords, and war bows need a great deal of strength to use properly)

 

[Micah Sweet]

IIRC he does discuss that a little in this video (how you really need Dex to hit with all weapons, even greatswords, and war bows need a great deal of strength to use properly)

Yeah, in a more realistic game Dex should affect all weapons, and Str should be used a minimum score for certain weapons.

But Dex is already so powerful I'd rather mess with the ability score vs skill system than give it more power directly.

 

[dave2008]

Yeah, in a more realistic game Dex should affect all weapons, and Str should be used a minimum score for certain weapons.

But Dex is already so powerful I'd rather mess with the ability score vs skill system than give it more power directly.

In my "theoretical" D&D, Dex is the to hit stat with Str being the damage stat for all weapons.* Of course I would revise other things so there is no one uber stat. I thinking making them all relatively equal should be a goal of 5.2e or any version of 6e.

*There will some exceptions, but that is where I would start. I think bows, crowsbows, and slings might not have any damage bonus from ability scores for example.

 

[Chaltab]

In my "theoretical" D&D, Dex is the to hit stat with Str being the damage stat for all weapons.* Of course I would revise other things so there is no one uber stat. I thinking making them all relatively equal should be a goal of 5.2e or any version of 6e.

*There will some exceptions, but that is where I would start. I think bows, crowsbows, and slings might not have any damage bonus from ability scores for example.

Bows might since a full draw puts more energy into the arrow than a partial draw.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

This guy is a lot less focused on “um, actually”ing than the people who make this kind of content tend to be. He talks not only about how weapons really work, but also engages in more speculation about how you might approximate some of the less realistic applications seen in fantasy media. He’s more focused on archery than other forms of combat, and he enjoys mixing in fun acrobatic stuff instead of pure, proper Olympic target archery. For example, he also practices pole dancing, and uses those skills to pull off stuff like shooting from tree branches.

Also, for the guy-attracted folks among us, he’s pretty cute. If lean but athletic is your thing, at least.

Small correction;

He is fracking gorgeous. Lol

But seriously, I just watched this yesterday and loved the video. He’s always entertaining and informative, and pulls from fantasy media, gaming, HEMA, and well researched historical knowledge.

I loved his video on historical, mythical, and modern fictional, trick shots, like the William Tell shot and Odysseus and Robin Hood, etc.

And he really shows just how much more fantasy archers should be able to do than a lot of people think, which I love.

Possibly my favorite thing he does though, is show how diverse archery actually is, and how different combat archery is from Olympic archery.