D&D General D&D weapons vs reality

[doctorbadwolf]

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? Though (and forgive me if this is TMI), guys hit different since I started HRT. I was into guys since long before that, but… I dunno, it’s hard to describe, but it’s just appealing in a different way than it used to be.

That makes sense. Even without hormone treatments, a change in perspective like accepting and leaning into your identity can change how you see other people. Add hormones (which IIRC do make your mind a little less crystalline while you are on them, almost similar to how your brain is more “fluid” when you’re younger), and it tracks that some of your biases, perceptions, preferences, etc, would shift noticeably.

 

[dave2008]

I’d love to see a D&D do something similar, especially in a D&D that turns combat checks (and magic) into skill checks.

I have been thinking about that too. Combat checks and skill checks are both types of ability checks so it just makes sense (and easy to do). Adding spells will ruffle some feathers but I think it is the way to go too.

 

[dave2008]

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? Though (and forgive me if this is TMI), guys hit different since I started HRT. I was into guys since long before that, but… I dunno, it’s hard to describe, but it’s just appealing in a different way than it used to be.

I don't have any personal bodily experience with HRT (I do have experience as my daughter and some of my friends are trans), but since we are sharing at the boarderline of TMI:

First, I want to clarify that I am in no way a furry, but...when I was younger (and I still mostly agree still) I always thought a lioness was the most beautiful creature. The mix of strength, grace, and overall athleticism I find captivating. I generally think humans pale in comparison (with the exception of my partner of course ).

Not sure what that has to do with D&D weapons vs Reality! Maybe it is an unarmed combat thing!

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I have been thinking about that too. Combat checks and skill checks are both types of ability checks so it just makes sense (and easy to do). Adding spells will ruffle some feathers but I think it is the way to go too.

Hell yeah. Just make it all skills.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't have any personal bodily experience with HRT (I do have experience as my daughter and some of my friends are trans), but since we are sharing at the boarderline of TMI:

First, I want to clarify that I am in no way a furry, but...when I was younger (and I still mostly agree still) I always thought a lioness was the most beautiful creature. The mix of strength, grace, and overall athleticism I find captivating. I generally think humans pale in comparison (with the exception of my partner of course ).

Not sure what that has to do with D&D weapons vs Reality! Maybe it is an unarmed combat thing!

I understand. The Lion King made us all feel ways we didn’t fully understand. Disney in general really seemed to want to make my generation (milennials) into furries.

 

[Charlaquin]

Hell yeah. Just make it all skills.

Saving throws should be skills too, IMO.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

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

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.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Hell yeah. Watching him amble up a tree and shoot at a decent draw length while holding himself in place with his legs really made me more ambitious with my archers. (I have always been permissive as a dm, but held myself back more as a player)

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).

 

[nevin]

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?

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.