The Tyranny of the Sword

[Dausuul]

You see, there is a problem with melee combat that is best known from the real world adage: “Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.” What it basically boils down to, is that the sword isn't the ideal weapon to use in most situations, but it is at it's most glaring when you look at other options with a range and/or power (or perhaps even ease of use) advantage over the sword. This problem was addressed in real life, by the eventual phasing out of the sword from modern conflict.

The sword didn't get phased out until well into the age of gunpowder. They were still using bayonets and cavalry sabers in the American Civil War. In a world where you don't have accurate, reliable, quick-loading firearms, melee weapons are extremely useful.

Certainly in the medieval era, nobody would have suggested that all the knights throw away their swords and lances to pick up bows! Archers were an essential component of medieval armies, to be sure, but so were infantry and heavy cavalry. With the exception of a few cases where the terrain was heavily in their favor (e.g., Agincourt), archers on their own would have been slaughtered.

Most players want their swordsman to be just as cool as everyone else (at least). This has lead to the balancing trends that you see in games, and especially in modern games, as most things build somewhat off of those things that have come before.

Okay, so if I get you, the point of this is to ask how D&D should go about balancing the advantages of ranged weapons (specifically, the ability to hit people from far away) against melee. In general, when addressing questions like this, I like to start with real life. Real medieval armies didn't consist entirely of archers; why not? If the answer translates well into D&D rulespeak, we get verisimilitude and game balance in one neat little package.

If you've got a bow, and there's a guy with a sword in your face, you're pretty well screwed. So make it difficult or impossible to make ranged attacks when being attacked in melee. Also, arrows were generally less accurate than swords. This would logically translate into a higher attack bonus for the swordsman; however, I find that keeping track of multiple attack bonuses is a pain, so a smaller damage die could provide a similar effect. And in fact, these are the solutions D&D has historically used. I see no reason to abandon them.

 

[Ariosto]

With something like the Welsh longbow, you can pretty nearly have defense from fire alone versus massed formations. It takes a lot of specialized training and physical development, but of course one expects that of hero-class figures.

On the other hand, heroes and monsters in the RPG context are not typically clomping about in phalanxes. Nor, I think, is a longbow's performance in the same league as late 19th century rifles.

At least in most dungeons, etc., neither are people typically crossing 200 to 300 yards of clear and well lit killing ground.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

The sword didn't get phased out until well into the age of gunpowder. They were still using bayonets and cavalry sabers in the American Civil War. In a world where you don't have accurate, reliable, quick-loading firearms, melee weapons are extremely useful.

Civil War? Soldiers in various armies were still using swords and sabers in World War II! And the spear is still around today, in the form of the Bayonet (there's a UK soldier who got a medal for valor for bayoneting an opponent in Afghanistan).

The sword more or less is the mundane uber-weapon historically, minus pikes and other long-pokey-things -- D&D has had to artificially enhance the other mundane weapons like axes and hammers to compete!

I prefer my magic to be balanced by a bit of mundane risk -- the wizard tires easily, or spells can be interrupted, or similar things, which explains why wizards still want to be guarded by men in iron suits.

 

[Sunseeker]

70% T2, 30% T1. Classes should be balanced(relatively, at all levels) and the sword is here to stay. But I really don't think the majority of D&D exists in a time when the sword is useless.

The dagger requires careful positioning and sneakiness because on it's own it doesn't do much damage.
The bow/crossbow requires reloading(which is easy, but still) and high precision(usually in the form of a feat tax).
Magic requires time and practice, it's high-investment, high-reward, if you do the time you'll get the goods, but you really gotta work for it.
The sword is still your general go-to weapon, it doesn't need high precision, it doesn't need careful positioning, and any idiot with an arm can probably figure out how to wield one.

I think on the whole D&D likes to live on that cusp where the sword is still useful, even if there are more powerful alternatives, they are more situational. The sword should be valuable because it's always useful in one way or another.

 

[BobTheNob]

Im More T1, but I like my RPG's more identifiable. For instance, I have never played an Eastern style CRPG, yet name the Western oriented CRPG and I have played every single (decent) one that has come out. Generally what that comes back to is Eastern RPG's are more oriented around the spectacular (wuxia) where even the lowest level characters create effects which make the world shake, whereas the western ideal is a bit more grounded.

I guess thats what I like. When playing RPG's I need to be able to loose myself in the setting, to envisage what is going on. I find that immersion easier when things fall into the realm of believe-ability, so I find T1 the more preferable approach.

The other part is the type of hero I like. John Mcclain is one of my all time favorite movie heroes. Did he fly? No. Was he Bulletproof? No. Could he slow time around himself or create illusions? No. Could he run up walls and fight while upside down? So What the hell good was he?

...guts. He was just the guy who didnt give up. That no matter how much was thrown at him, he just kept coming. After recently watching "Hero" with Jet Li, which had incredible UNBELIEVABLE wuxia, I have to say that I found John Mcclain to still be a far greater hero than the semi-magical warriors from the wuxia genre.

To me, it all comes back to what you consider a hero to be.

 

[RangerWickett]

If you put a teensy bit of complexity into the rules, you could do this:

Assuming low-level PCs vs. low-level monsters....

A sword can kill you in one blow if it hits. But you have to be in melee.

A bow can kill you in one blow if it hits. But you have to have clear line of sight.

A spell cannot kill you in one blow, but it can do more interesting things.

(Higher-level characters and monsters can take more punishment.)

Let every character have access to the "take cover" reaction once per round. This lets you double your cover bonus to AC against a single ranged attack, so even a tree you can duck behind becomes very useful.

And let a shield count as 'cover.' It provides some AC bonus all the time (useful in melee), but it's great for saving you from arrows.

 

[JonWake]

The reason that swords are the best weapon up close is because for most of the past 4000 years, the swords were the best tool for killing other people up close. A bow isn't that accurate. Axes are heavy and unbalanced. A mace is good if you need to pop some knight's helm off. Spears come pretty close, but those are only effective in tight formations.

The sword is the most technologically advanced item a Medieval person would ever see.

 

[billd91]

There is a problem in your analogy. In the star wars universe - jedi aren't the fighters. The stormtroopers are.

Troopers, or to a lesser extent anyone with a blaster, are the one tricky pony of the star wars universe. They have a gun, they can fire it and then when that doesn't work they can fire it again.
I'm not saying this is a bad thing. I AM saying that making all fighters jedi isn't the solution.

Jedi are pretty much wizards of the star wars universe. If they resort to using a lightsaber against every enemy then they have done something wrong.

I think you're hitting onto a certain tangent of the main thrust of the topic. Yes, Jedi have wizardly abilities and various editions of Star Wars games have worked to control that. But they're also the up-close and personal fighters as well - and that's the focus of the OP, games promoting melee combat when the progress of warfare and technology (including magic if we look at it that way) is away from melee.

Frankly, if a stormtrooper or soldier of any stripe in Star Wars focuses on melee combat, he's looking for pain. They usually better off with a blaster, blaster rifle, or grenades, putting them more in the archer or blasting wizard category than meleeing fighter.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Taking a look into what almost every army in every culture there was in the world, it's almost always spears/polearms, bows and some variant of a sword. I'd say especially with swords, it's because the sword has been a fairly versatile weapon.

As for abilities of Fighters and another class such as Monks, the line should be drawn at "that's conceivably possible in physics" for Fighters and "that's really mystical" for Monks, Swordmages and so on.

 

[GreyICE]

As long as that doesn't become a ball and chain to tie down every single ability of a fighter so that it has to be an obvious effect of his direct action, and not an abstraction of what's happening during a 6 second combat round.