D&D General D&D weapons vs reality

[Minigiant]

D&D doesn't match RL regarding the importance of reach ( a few inches difference matter in RL)

One of my gripes with bounded accuracy is that larger weapons should have a bonus to attack rolls and AC.

Like +1 for longswords and the like, +2 for great weapons, and +3 for reach weapons. And if bump up shields from +2 to +4 compensate.

 

[Horwath]

One of my gripes with bounded accuracy is that larger weapons should have a bonus to attack rolls and AC.

Like +1 for longswords and the like, +2 for great weapons, and +3 for reach weapons. And if bump up shields from +2 to +4 compensate.

this is baked in with damage die and possible reach.
yeah, it's too simplified but it kind of works.

smaller weapons do not get better weapon speed so larger do not get AC.

 

[dave2008]

One of my gripes with bounded accuracy is that larger weapons should have a bonus to attack rolls and AC.

Like +1 for longswords and the like, +2 for great weapons, and +3 for reach weapons. And if bump up shields from +2 to +4 compensate.

I seems to me that BA can accommodate that just fine.

 

[Minigiant]

I seems to me that BA can accommodate that just fine.

It can...

But it would end up like the game Battle Brothers where everyone is wielding a spear or pike.

 

[dave2008]

It can...

But it would end up like the game Battle Brothers where everyone is wielding a spear or pike.

I don't know Battle Brothers, but I think you can design around that

 

[Zardnaar]

It was nice to see someone stand up for the sling. It is absolutely maligned in D&D.

It became obsolete once armor and shields were being used.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It became obsolete once armor and shields were being used.

Armor and shields have been around since ancient times.

 

[Zardnaar]

Armor and shields have been around since ancient times.

Very rare though.

Greek hoplutes were somewhat unique but very few had full set of armor. Minimum requirement was shield and spear. Front line has best equipment.

Roman legions had the big shields. Most of their opponents lacked heavy infantry.

Alot of society only the elite had it. Roman's most had it.

Carthage used the Baeleric slingers. They got mentions in the Bible as well but that predates heavy armor for most part.

Bows were weaker back then. Longbow didn't exist as such (with much draw power) nor did those Mongol bows.

Heavy infantry dominated for 1000 odd years and was effective into 8th or 9th century.

 

[Horwath]

It became obsolete once armor and shields were being used.

not really, and they were better than arrows and bows of ancient times against armor.

They really were difficult to train compared even to a bow.

same way that guns replaced bows, as you can train someone how to use a gun in one day.

 

[nevin]

not really, and they were better than arrows and bows of ancient times against armor.

They really were difficult to train compared even to a bow.

same way that guns replaced bows, as you can train someone how to use a gun in one day.

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