D&D General DM Says No Powergaming?

Oofta

Legend
I reject the idea that every barony, duchy or county would arm their peasants for fear of peasant rebellion. And Vikings did raid France, very often. You also don’t mention the German principalities, that were often at war with one another.
Feel free to ignore examples of the real world where the commoners owned longbows and were required to train in them to the point that other hobbies were made illegal. I didn't even discuss things like Norse culture in the 10th century. Was it ubiquitous that much of the population was trained in at least some sort of weaponry? No. Neither was the idea that every barony, duchy or county refused to arm their "peasants"*. France has a tiny fraction of the coastline that England has, but I also accept that there were other historical differences in how the country was ruled. We're also only looking at a tiny fraction of the world over a very narrow span of time.

Some kingdoms will have a population that can defend themselves and be armed, some will not. Feel free to run your campaign any way you want. I try to have the culture match the world they live in, not some pseudo-medieval society based on minimal knowledge and cherry picking specific historical periods.

*Every commoner being a dirt poor half starved peasant is also a myth, it varied wildly depending on when and where you're talking about, just like it always has.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Oofta

Legend
Just to be clear, that wasn't at all the purpose of training people in longbows and maintaining that training.

At the time, most of Britain hadn't really been raided for hundreds of years (the South West is a slightly different story but longbowmen didn't tend to come from there). Further most of them were fairly deep inland.

The purpose of the edicts forcing longbow training was to ensure that a fairly difficult-to-maintain resource (at other countries did not possess in the same way) was maintained, which is to say, a supply of well-trained longbowmen. Not just the small standing army, but people who could be drawn upon when it was time to go shoot from Frenchmen. And that army was primarily used offensively, or at least outside the borders of the British isles.

You seem to be thinking of it like American "Minutemen" or something or Wood Elves sentries or something, who are there primarily to defend against what is perceived as a regular threat. That's the wrong way to look at it. This is the government forcing people to train so they'll be ready to fight in their wars, not to defend coastal settlements from Vikings who hadn't raided them for 200+ years.

Thus it doesn't really make sense re: dragons.

Re: dragons the government is going to make a sanguine decision - do they lose more people/houses/livestock/crops trying to fight off dragons, or just fleeing from dragons. If you can kill dragons with a few dozen or hundred men with bows, dragons will be hunted to extinction within generations, at least in populated areas. And there will be armies and expeditions going after the remaining ones, even in frontier areas. I mean, jeez, just look at how tiny or perceived threats are reacted to throughout history.

There isn't going to be any passive-ass "I guess we should arm everyone with a longbow in case a dragon comes". They'll hunt them to the ends of the earth.

If you can't kill a dragon with a bunch of guys with longbows, then suddenly we get a more D&D-like situation.

My only real point was that there was no "Nobles would never arm the citizenry" precedence, and yeah I obviously oversimplified some ideas of why different countries took different approaches.

How historical precedence applies to a fantasy world is really largely in the hands of the author because why societies make the decisions they do even in the real world is open to debate.
 

My only real point was that there was no "Nobles would never arm the citizenry" precedence, and yeah I obviously oversimplified some ideas of why different countries took different approaches.
I mean, there absolutely is precedence.

History works pretty reliably here. As soon as a state becomes "organised" and truly a state, rather than a collection of chiefdoms perhaps bowing to one leader (which essentially what Scandinavia still was in the 900s), it takes away "war weapons" from the populace, and state troops and militias (who are a far smaller fraction of the population than previously were armed, and may well not own their own weapons) take over over from the "armed populace" in defence.

This happens over and over, well back into ancient times. I mean the Romans were very keen on it. They habitually disarmed people and took over defending them (not always successfully, eh, Colchester? The 9th were a bit useless there!) as part of their colonization/state-building process.

I'm struggling to think of any counter-examples at all until Europe starts colonizing the rest of the world. British longbowmen aren't a counter-example, as discussed.

Once Europe does start the process of colonization, however, the "armed populace" comes back into fashion. If you're a colonial power, with a far-away "frontier", particularly one that isn't very heavily populated, it makes sense to arm the populace and use them instead of trying to maintain a standing army all the way out there. Of course it doesn't always work out, because that "armed populace" is ideally placed to revolt if their leadership would benefit from doing so, c.f. The American Revolution lol.
How historical precedence applies to a fantasy world is really largely in the hands of the author because why societies make the decisions they do even in the real world is open to debate.
Sure, but this is a peculiarly reliable pattern.

The pattern can be broken of course. We shouldn't discuss the political implications of it, but the US broke the pattern with the 2nd amendment, which essentially created a situation where "war weapons" of that era (and their descendants) were mandated as legal to the entire population, and made that a major point of the society's early decision-making and traditions.

It's certainly possible to envision an organised/developed fantasy nation which did something similar. Especially if that nation evolved from a frontier-style nation.
 

Oofta

Legend
I mean, there absolutely is precedence.

History works pretty reliably here. As soon as a state becomes "organised" and truly a state, rather than a collection of chiefdoms perhaps bowing to one leader (which essentially what Scandinavia still was in the 900s), it takes away "war weapons" from the populace, and state troops and militias (who are a far smaller fraction of the population than previously were armed, and may well not own their own weapons) take over over from the "armed populace" in defence.

This happens over and over, well back into ancient times. I mean the Romans were very keen on it. They habitually disarmed people and took over defending them (not always successfully, eh, Colchester? The 9th were a bit useless there!) as part of their colonization/state-building process.

I'm struggling to think of any counter-examples at all until Europe starts colonizing the rest of the world. British longbowmen aren't a counter-example, as discussed.

Once Europe does start the process of colonization, however, the "armed populace" comes back into fashion. If you're a colonial power, with a far-away "frontier", particularly one that isn't very heavily populated, it makes sense to arm the populace and use them instead of trying to maintain a standing army all the way out there. Of course it doesn't always work out, because that "armed populace" is ideally placed to revolt if their leadership would benefit from doing so, c.f. The American Revolution lol.

Sure, but this is a peculiarly reliable pattern.

The pattern can be broken of course. We shouldn't discuss the political implications of it, but the US broke the pattern with the 2nd amendment, which essentially created a situation where "war weapons" of that era (and their descendants) were mandated as legal to the entire population, and made that a major point of the society's early decision-making and traditions.

It's certainly possible to envision an organised/developed fantasy nation which did something similar. Especially if that nation evolved from a frontier-style nation.

The point with English bowmen is that they had reason and motivation to ensure that a large portion of the populace was well equipped with weapons. The reasons and motivations for fantasy kingdoms is going to be different, but IMHO being regularly invaded by monsters is reasonable justification.

There are better examples, it was just the one that popped to mind because I think if a dragon becomes too much of an issue a kingdom that can gather together 5,000 longbow archers would be a significant threat to the dragon. While a dragon demanding tribute is a well worn trope of fantasy fiction, so is the trope of that dragon going too far and being killed off. While typically the dragon is killed by a small heroic contingent or even a brave individual, an army could also do the job. Probably one with a large contingent of, say, 5,000 archers armed with longbows.

Could a dragon take out villages and small towns? Sure. But push for too much, make it too costly, and the dragon will be hunted. To paraphrase an old saying, in my campaign world there are old dragons, there are bold dragons, there are no old bold dragons.
 

Could a dragon take out villages and small towns? Sure. But push for too much, make it too costly, and the dragon will be hunted. To paraphrase an old saying, in my campaign world there are old dragons, there are bold dragons, there are no old bold dragons.
I gotta be honest, based on human history, if dragons ever wiped out entire villages, any dragons at all, I'm pretty sure there wouldn't be any dragons 500 years later (except beyond the reach of man). I don't think people would go "case by case" lol. Especially not if dragons are even RUMOURED to have treasure, god can you imagine?
 

MNblockhead

A Title Much Cooler Than Anything on the Old Site
No darkcvision in 5e is designed to obliviate the need for light. This just does not happen often & the vast majority of things that might make the passive perception matter tend to make the GM look adversarial & trigger player vrs gm. even 3.x darkvision was less reliable than 5e. 2e darkvision was pretty much ask your gm in the PHB & the DMG giving the DM some advice they can follow or not.

Eventually having magictorches that happen to be weapons & things is still torches.
I get more accused of adversarial DMing when old-fashioned torches are involved. I have a problem with selective versimiltude and the tropes of torches in medieval and fantasy movies and games bug me. Magical flashlights? Cool. 🤷‍♂️
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
I gotta be honest, based on human history, if dragons ever wiped out entire villages, any dragons at all, I'm pretty sure there wouldn't be any dragons 500 years later (except beyond the reach of man). I don't think people would go "case by case" lol. Especially not if dragons are even RUMOURED to have treasure, god can you imagine?
Going by human history, there would be millions of half dragon humans that consider themselves the only humans ever.
 


tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
Epic
LOL no.

1E/2E Continual Light has a 60ft radius. It's outright better than 60ft Darkvision, which gives you Disadvantage. Dead wrong re: 3.XE Darkvision. As a cold fact it worked better than 5E Darkvision. You can't even argue that lol, it's just a fact. Passive Perception is reduced by 5 in Darkvision, note, because of the Disadvantage.

There's no "eventually" about level 3 really either.
This is just wrong on a mechanical level & there are two reasons why. Firstly the scale of one inch changed from 3.x on, secondly the presentation of infravision

Back in 2e a one inch square represented ten feet. For 3.x that has been one inch to five feet. Some of the values no doubt stayed the same and effectively doubled but most ranges were reduced accordingly to follow with the change from. In 2e having a 60 got light source with a movement speed of...
Movement
Closely related to time is movement.

Clearly your character is able to move;
otherwise, adventures would be rather
static and boring. But how fast can he move? If a large, green
carrion crawler is scuttling after Rath, is the redoubtable dwarf
fast enough to escape? Could Rath outrun an irritated but
heavily loaded elf? Sooner or later these considerations
become important to player characters.
All characters have movement rates that are based on
their race. Table 64 lists the movement rates for unencum-
bered characters of different races.

A character can normally walk his movement rate in tens of
yards in a single round.
An unencumbered human can walk
120 yards (360 feet), slightly more than a football field, in one
minute. A dwarf, similarly equipped, can walk 60 yards in the
same time. This walk is at a fairly brisk, though not strenuous,
pace that can be kept up for long periods of time.
However, a character may have to move slower than this
pace. If the character is carrying equipment, he may move
slower because of the encumbrance, if this optional rule is used
(see “Encumbrance” in Chapter 6: Money and Equipment). As
the character carries more gear, he gradually slows down until
he reaches the point where he can barely move at all.
When a character is moving through a dungeon or similar
setting, his movement rate corresponds to tens of feet per
round (rather than the tens of yards per round of outside

Table 64:
Base Movement Rates

Race Rate
Human 12
Dwarf⸶ 6
Elf⸶ 12
Gnome 6
Half-elf⸶ 12
Halfling ⸶6
60feet on a light source is half the range that a human/elf/half elf can move in one round & equal for dwarf/gnome/halfling.

Dark vision was called infravision in 2e & the rules for it were divided between the PHB as well as the DMG. The DMG said
Infravision sThere are two definitions of infravi-

ion that can be used in the AD&D
game. The first is simple but lacks
detail. It is, however, a perfectly adequate definition for
those who don’t want to bother with the complexities of
infravision. The second, optional, definition, adds another
level of detail to the game. It allows the DM to create spe-
cial situations in which the function of infravision becomes
important, but requires the DM to keep track of more rules
and more details.
Standard Infravision
The easiest definition of infravision is that it allows charac-
ters to see in the dark. Nothing more is said about how this
works—it simply works. Characters do not see into the infared
spectrum or “see’’ heat or anything else. They just see in the
dark as clearly as they do in normal light. However, since it is
a somewhat magical power, the range is not that of normal
vision—infravision ability extends only 60 feet. Beyond this
only normal vision is allowed.
Optional Infravision
This definition is much more scientific and accurate to
what we know of physical properties of the real world. To
its advantage, this definition makes infravision very differ-
ent from normal sight, with its own strengths and weak-
nesses. To its disadvantage, it introduces a certain amount
of scientific accuracy (with all its complications) into a
fantasy realm.
According to this definition, infravision is the ability to
sense or “see’’ heat. The best comparison is to thermal imag-
ing equipment used by the armed forces of many different
nations today. This special sense is limited to a 60-foot
range. Within this range, characters can see the degrees of
heat radiated by an object as a glowing blob translated into
colors like a thermagram.
If this definition is used, there are several things that
must be considered. First, large heat sources will temporar-
ily blind characters with infravision just as looking at a
bright light blinds those with normal vision. Thus, those
attempting to use infravision must make the effort to avoid
looking directly at fires or torches, either their own or the
enemy’s. (The light from magical items does not radiate
significant heat.) Second, the DM must be ready to state
how hot various things are. A literal interpretation of the
rule means that characters won’t be able to tell the floor
from the walls in most dungeons. All of it is the same tem-
perature, after all.
The DM must also be ready to decide if dungeon doors
are a different temperature (or radiate heat differently) from
stone walls. Does a different color or kind of stone radiate
heat differently from those around it? Does the ink of a page
radiate differently enough from the paper to be noticed?
Probably not. Can a character tell an orc from a hobgoblin or
a human? Most creatures have similar “thermal outlines”—
somewhat fuzzy blobs. They do not radiate at different tem-
peratures and even if they did, infravision is seldom so acute
as to register differences of just a few degrees.
Be sure you understand the effects this optional definition
of infravision can have—there are dangers in bringing scien-
tific accuracy to a fantasy game. By creating a specific defini-
tion of how this power works, the DM is inviting his players to
apply logic to the definition. The problem is, this is a fantasy
game and logic isn’t always sensible or even desired! So, be
aware that the optional definition may result in very strange
situations, all because logic and science are applied to some-
thing that isn’t logical or scientific.
Other
Forms
of Sight

If the optional definition of infravision is
used, the DM has set a precedent for
using scientific laws to explain the ability.
Some people, arguing that there are visual
organs that can apparently see into the
infrared spectrum (using infravision), will
also argue for other forms of sight able to see into other
ranges of the spectrum. These can be included, if the DM
desires. However, before adding these to his game, the
DM had best have a firm grasp of the rules and, maybe, of
physics.
For example, just what would a character or creature with
ultravision (the ability to see into the ultraviolet spectrum)
see? Our eyes see objects because of visible light that is
reflected off objects (except for a few objects, such as the
sun, light bulbs, fires, etc., that emit enough visible light for us
to see them). Infravision utilizes heat (infrared) energy emit-
ted by objects, since almost everything emits infrared energy.
The problem with infravision is that many objects, such as
normal weapons and rocks, without internal heat sources, are
at or very near the temperature of their surrounding and thus
are nearly indistinguishable from those surroundings when
using infravision. Ultravision (and vision utilizing x-rays,
gamma rays, or radio waves) is useless since only stars and a
few other celestial objects emit significant amounts of energy
in these regions of the electromagnetic spectrum. All would
appear uniformly black with these forms of vision, except for
a few objects in the sky.
Darkness bSooner or later characters wind up

lundering around in the dark. Normally
they try to avoid this, but clever DMs
and foolish players generally manage to bring it about. Per-
haps the kobolds captured the player characters and
stripped them of all their gear; perhaps the characters for-
got to bring enough torches. Whatever the reason, those
without infravision suffer both physical and psychological
effects in the dark.
For the purposes of this discussion, “darkness’’ means any
time the characters suffer from limited visibility. Thus, the
rules given here apply equally well when the characters are
affected by a darkness spell, blundering about in pea-soup
fog, out on a moonless night, or even blindfolded.
Since one can’t see anything in the dark, the safe move-
ment rate of blinded characters is immediately slowed by 1⁄3
the normal amount. Faster movement requires a Dexterity
check (see Chapter 14: Time and Movement). Characters
also suffer a –4 penalty to attack rolls and saving throws. Their
Armor Class is four worse than normal (to a limit of 10).
Sight-related damage bonuses (backstabbing, etc.) are
negated. However, darkness is not always absolute, and those
DMs who wish to make distinctions between various levels of
darkness can use Table 72.
The blindfighting proficiency can lessen the effects of fight-
ing in darkness as explained in the proficiency description in
the Player’s Handbook.
And the PHB said
="2ePHB155"]
Infravision Some characters and monsters have the

power of infravision. This can mean one
of two things, depending on whether the
standard or the optional rule is used (this is discussed in detail
in the Dungeon Master's Guide). The choice is left to the DM and
he must tell the players how he wants infravision to work.
Regardless of how the power functions, the range of infravision
is at most 60 feet unless otherwise noted.
Also remember that 60 feet is half the move speed of an elf half elf & human or equal to that of the slow dwarf/gnome/halfling.
From that a player with infravision who was told "its dark" could be 100% sure that they needed a light source. Either the heat wasn't useful for sewing in some way or there simply was not enough light of suitable spectrum to amplify.

Now in 5e you can read just fine on a moonless cloudy foggy night in a locked chest sealed in a closet of a dark room with curtains drawn unless you are reading a coloring book. That's far too generous for the beowulf story to support a dungeon crawl & it gets worse when nearly every pc race has dark vision



Not in the context of classic D&D, it's not, because it's not a resource that's consumed.
Yes it helped reduce the number of torches carried, but the pounds were quickly filled by other gear and coins. carrying capacities were a meaningful thing back then. A priest got second level spells at level 3, which took 3000xp

† good discussion here
‡PHB157
⸶This race had infravision but also had attribute requirements to even be one.
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
Epic
I get more accused of adversarial DMing when old-fashioned torches are involved. I have a problem with selective versimiltude and the tropes of torches in medieval and fantasy movies and games bug me. Magical flashlights? Cool. 🤷‍♂️
I think for me it depended on how I used them, but "It's dark, y'alll need some torches or something that makes light" & "you can't really make it out in the dark that far out" was never really an issue. Now with VTTs covering light/darkvision automatically it really shows just how extreme the darkvision & devil's sight ranges are in 5e
 

Remove ads

Top