Link to an excerpt from Reclaiming the Blade.
I want to see things like the murder-stroke, parries, ripostes, etc. One can only hope.
I want to see things like the murder-stroke, parries, ripostes, etc. One can only hope.
D&D 5E If 5e does maneuvers right, it will add authentic medieval maneuvers
- Thread starter B.T.
- Start date
trancejeremy
Adventurer
I'd rather have an abstract and quick system that assumes that sort of thing is going on, but doesn't specifically try to model it.
Or in other words, simply rolling to hit and then rolling damage.
Neonchameleon
Legend
Six second combat rounds. Or one minute turns. A parry makes sense in GURPS with its one second rounds but that's zooming in far more than ever before.
mach1.9pants
Hero
Balesir
Adventurer
"If 5e does maneuvers right, it will add authentic medieval maneuvers"
...to go with the authentic medieval hit points, character classes and levels, no doubt.
This is not the game you're looking for; D&D is so far removed from "authentic" anything that trying to add "authenticity" is just daft, as far as I can see.
I don't see that as a bad thing, though. There is definitely a place for a trope-rich fantasy game, and D&D has been the "poster child" for that game for years.
There's room for "authentic" games, too - and they already exist. Try The Riddle of Steel, GURPS (to an extent) and the like.
...to go with the authentic medieval hit points, character classes and levels, no doubt.
This is not the game you're looking for; D&D is so far removed from "authentic" anything that trying to add "authenticity" is just daft, as far as I can see.
I don't see that as a bad thing, though. There is definitely a place for a trope-rich fantasy game, and D&D has been the "poster child" for that game for years.
There's room for "authentic" games, too - and they already exist. Try The Riddle of Steel, GURPS (to an extent) and the like.
Serendipity
Explorer
I'd be okay with a rules module that broke the combat round down into one or two second segments to allow for that kind of granularity, but as a core system I just don't think it would fit what we know of the next D&D edition.
As an aside, in general when I want that kind of granularity, I play Runequest.
As an aside, in general when I want that kind of granularity, I play Runequest.
Halivar
First Post
If the authenticity is question is fun and/or awesome, then I don't see it as daft. Put this on a dial and let people choose.
Nah. There is plenty of room for authenticity in D&D. We use it all the time for our wilderness travel, ecology, economic models, etc.
Just because D&D has hit points as an abstract concept doesn't mean there shouldn't be rules for portraying authentic styles of fighting or even stuff based on Appendix N fiction that is "authentically Conan" or something.
Then, we can layer the wondrous and magical over that. It provides context and makes that stuff really exciting.
TwinBahamut
First Post
I'm not too interested in seeing D&D try to turn itself into a simulator of "authentic" medieval combat. It's a fantasy game defined by wizards and, well, dungeons and dragons, not 15th Century Europe: The Game. It would have to have guns in the core rules to be authentic in that way, anyways, yet no one seems to want that (even though it would be fun).
I'd much rather have crazy fantasy combat that, you know, factors in the idea that the PCs are great heroes with mythic abilities that use magic and pretty much super-human physical power to defeat terrible monsters that couldn't exist in the real world. It's pretty much impossible to do that if the combat system is designed to be a simulation of how real-world humans crudely hacked away at other real-world humans. Real world battle is nothing but suffering, brutality, misery, and gore. I see no reason to even attempt to bring that into a game of all things.
I'd much rather have crazy fantasy combat that, you know, factors in the idea that the PCs are great heroes with mythic abilities that use magic and pretty much super-human physical power to defeat terrible monsters that couldn't exist in the real world. It's pretty much impossible to do that if the combat system is designed to be a simulation of how real-world humans crudely hacked away at other real-world humans. Real world battle is nothing but suffering, brutality, misery, and gore. I see no reason to even attempt to bring that into a game of all things.
SageMinerve
Explorer
There ARE guns in the core rules: they're called magic.
"Realistically" speaking (and I use the term VERY loosely), a fantasy world in which access to magic is so easy (as most D&D worlds are) would see most everyone ditch heavy armor for essentially the same reasons it was ditched in Europe's Renaissance: heavy armor doesn't protect you against magic AND it impedes on your mobility and agility.
But then again, when you have a system in which the heavier the armor, the better the defense, the point is rather moot...
Bah, i've never seen anything I could call historically authentic in any tabletop RPG I have ever played or read, be it rulebook or setting. What D&D calls "medieval fantasy" is all one big horrible mish-mash of poorly understood medieval trappings pasted onto a non-sensical, anachronistic framework of modern nation-states, pseudo-greco-roman polytheism, and a shocking amount of eurocentrism, all held together by the most tenuous of logic.
If there is not even the smallest iota of medieval authenticity in D&D, why the heck should we be expected to have authentic medival combat maneuvers? Particularly when none of those maneuvers were designed to fight dragons! Trying to pretend that D&D settings are anything but pure fantasy is rather silly.
If there is not even the smallest iota of medieval authenticity in D&D, why the heck should we be expected to have authentic medival combat maneuvers? Particularly when none of those maneuvers were designed to fight dragons! Trying to pretend that D&D settings are anything but pure fantasy is rather silly.
Dour-n-Taciturn
Explorer
HARN is probably the most "authentic" I've seen, but even that has some degree of abstraction. True realism is nigh impossible to achieve without a bulky, awkward system that in the end would probably not be that fun to play.
HARN was tedious, thanks to many items of book keeping to constantly adjust skill values (in percentiles), and some 20 hit locations.
HARN was tedious, thanks to many items of book keeping to constantly adjust skill values (in percentiles), and some 20 hit locations.
...
Did they not say that AC would benefit you vs magic in D&D Next? i.e. instead of of saves, you need to get hit by a magic attack vs your AC (except Magic Missile, obviously)
Did they not say that AC would benefit you vs magic in D&D Next? i.e. instead of of saves, you need to get hit by a magic attack vs your AC (except Magic Missile, obviously)
Mishihari Lord
First Post
That would be really cool. Realistic maneuvers could lead to less abstracted combat than previous iterations of D&D, but it doesn't have to.
I think something like this could work:
I think this would be mainly a fighter schtick, and higher level fighters could get access to more advanced maneuvers, improvements to base maneuvers, or multiple maneuvers per round.
I do see two difficulties with such a system.
First, available maneuvers should vary significantly by weapon type. I wouldn't really expect to parry with a bow unless I'm playing Legolas. It would be a lot of work to come up with all of the maneuver charts.
Second, some maneuvers wouldn't make sense in all situations. Frex, if a giant swings a club at you, a human just doesn't have the mass to go corps-a-corp. Many real life maneuvers are specifically for blade to blade combat, which is only a part of D&D combat. There would have to be some pretty extensive rules to disallow silly results.
I've also seen a combat system I liked where there was a kind of maneuver map. What maneuvers were available in a current round depended on which ones you had performed last round, and there were a bunch of different trees for different fighting styles.
Last edited:
