Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mmadsen" data-source="post: 4493382" data-attributes="member: 1645">What's peculiar about D&D is that, if you go back a few editions, a huge portion of the game was coming up with "mundane" solutions to problems -- just not in combat.  Now, of course, we moved toward rolling dice to solve all problems -- searching, disabling traps, etc. -- but back in the day that part was all free form, and then combat meant dice and clear-cut rules.Even though 300 is really, really over the top, it's not at all fantastic in D&D terms -- no spells, no glowing magic weapons, no magic at all, really, a few almost real monsters.(Speaking of Spartans, I remember realizing that by the 3E rules a Spartan couldn't wield his spear one-handed.  How can you write a combat system where spear + shield isn't valid?)No, a fight against 3:1 odds is not a guaranteed loss, not when you have the initiative and your troops are vastly superior to the enemy's.At Agincourt, to name just one example, the English were outnumbered 10 to 1.  It turned out all right for them.It's not utterly fantastic and unrealistic for some fighters to be dramatically more effective than others; it's just that D&D chooses fantastic and unrealistic methods for making some fighters more effective than others.</blockquote>