Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Trying to make 5e more oldish and want some people's opinions
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dessert Nomad" data-source="post: 7534343" data-attributes="member: 6976536"><p>I don't like it, and more importantly I don't think there's anything realistic about the kind of narrow weapon proficiencies that 1e and 2e had. People who were competent, experienced melee fighters didn't need large amounts of training to switch from a sword to a spear to an axe, or worse from a sword to a slightly smaller sword or from a poleaxe to a poleaxe with a spike on the back. I mean, can anyone find a historical source that troops switching from one style of polearm to another needed months or years of training to learn the new one? </p><p></p><p>Tiny numbers of weapon proficiencies just isn't realistic. If it floats your boat go for it, but don't do it in the name of realism.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Right, the fact that initiative is about who will strike faster is why the sword should have a HUGE initiative bonus compared to a dagger. The quarter-second of 'wind up' isn't significant, what is significant is that the sword wielder can hit effectively while the dagger user isn't even in range. The idea that someone holding a dagger can get off multiple moves in the fraction of a second it takes for 'wind up' with a sword simply doesn't match reality - the dagger user has to wait for the sword user to attack first to have any real chance of hitting without getting killed himself. </p><p></p><p>In sparring and fencing situations the dagger fares somewhat better than it would in real life with full-strength swings and a person not concerned about the dagger-wielder's safety, you can certainly find videos of dagger vs sword where dagger wins. But the more realistic they make the situation (using full speed blows, for example), the harder of a time the dagger user has. And even in cases where you watch video of someone using daggers to win against someone with a sword, you will almost NEVER see the dagger user able to strike first - successful dagger users wait for the sword user to swing, then exploit the sword user being off balance to attack. If you always have to wait for your opponent to swing before you do anything, you certainly do NOT have the initiative in the fight.</p><p></p><p>I don't have a problem with letting dagger wielders be effective melee combatants in the game, but it's not actually realistic, and giving them an initiative bonus is anti-realistic, since in reality they will almost never strike first.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>In real life, the chance of seriously injuring yourself goes WAY down with increased skill; stabbing yourself in the leg was incredibly rare on the battlefield. In game terms, most critical fail systems have the chance of seriously injuring yourself go WAY up with increased skill. A 1st level fighter might get a critical fumble (roll a 1) in 1 of 5 fights, a 20th level fighter will typically get multiple critical fumbles per fight because he'll be doing more than 20 attack rolls in the same time span.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Mistakes per line types is not a good comparison, those are more akin to a regular 'miss'. How often do you injure your finger or knock the keyboard off the desk while typing? Critical failures are just not a routine part of a highly skilled task, but critical failure tables make them into one.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dessert Nomad, post: 7534343, member: 6976536"] I don't like it, and more importantly I don't think there's anything realistic about the kind of narrow weapon proficiencies that 1e and 2e had. People who were competent, experienced melee fighters didn't need large amounts of training to switch from a sword to a spear to an axe, or worse from a sword to a slightly smaller sword or from a poleaxe to a poleaxe with a spike on the back. I mean, can anyone find a historical source that troops switching from one style of polearm to another needed months or years of training to learn the new one? Tiny numbers of weapon proficiencies just isn't realistic. If it floats your boat go for it, but don't do it in the name of realism. Right, the fact that initiative is about who will strike faster is why the sword should have a HUGE initiative bonus compared to a dagger. The quarter-second of 'wind up' isn't significant, what is significant is that the sword wielder can hit effectively while the dagger user isn't even in range. The idea that someone holding a dagger can get off multiple moves in the fraction of a second it takes for 'wind up' with a sword simply doesn't match reality - the dagger user has to wait for the sword user to attack first to have any real chance of hitting without getting killed himself. In sparring and fencing situations the dagger fares somewhat better than it would in real life with full-strength swings and a person not concerned about the dagger-wielder's safety, you can certainly find videos of dagger vs sword where dagger wins. But the more realistic they make the situation (using full speed blows, for example), the harder of a time the dagger user has. And even in cases where you watch video of someone using daggers to win against someone with a sword, you will almost NEVER see the dagger user able to strike first - successful dagger users wait for the sword user to swing, then exploit the sword user being off balance to attack. If you always have to wait for your opponent to swing before you do anything, you certainly do NOT have the initiative in the fight. I don't have a problem with letting dagger wielders be effective melee combatants in the game, but it's not actually realistic, and giving them an initiative bonus is anti-realistic, since in reality they will almost never strike first. In real life, the chance of seriously injuring yourself goes WAY down with increased skill; stabbing yourself in the leg was incredibly rare on the battlefield. In game terms, most critical fail systems have the chance of seriously injuring yourself go WAY up with increased skill. A 1st level fighter might get a critical fumble (roll a 1) in 1 of 5 fights, a 20th level fighter will typically get multiple critical fumbles per fight because he'll be doing more than 20 attack rolls in the same time span. Mistakes per line types is not a good comparison, those are more akin to a regular 'miss'. How often do you injure your finger or knock the keyboard off the desk while typing? Critical failures are just not a routine part of a highly skilled task, but critical failure tables make them into one. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Trying to make 5e more oldish and want some people's opinions
Top