D&D 5E What if 5e had 2 types of roles

[mneme]

Given equal skill, and the presumed relatively light armor worn by both participants wielding those weapons, the rapier user will be at a disadvantage. And not because of any katana being some kind of inherently superior sword nonsense, either. All else being equal, if you are capable of using a longer blade with two hands, and the opponent is stuck with only using one hand, you have an advantage.

Yep. Rapier and gloved empty hand is an effective form, but worse than rapier + buckler or rapier + dagger--or even cloak. (also, rapiers were mostly developed after firearms and social change made armor much less common). Arming sword vs Katana is a better comparison, if a silly one.

But mainly, it would be about using whatever you had, with whatever mental aspects you could bring to it, to adjust.

Indeed. Probably the fencing match I was in that most pointed out the use of intelligence in the form was when a very unconventional, but skilled fencer came to my classical salle's our first tournament. He went untouched throughout his first few matches, as his style wasn't one we were trained to deal with and was throwing people off--including people substantially better than I was. But I watched his form and got something of the pattern of it, so in our first exchange I was able to step in, catch his coupe with a parry-riposte and score the first touch against him in the tournament (he -was- better than I was, though, so he scored the next 4 against me, but that doesn't invalidate the point).

But I rather wonder if you read my post to the end, given that I already addressed the sports fencing versus real combat discrepancy. The more options you have, the more important the other pieces become. That is, if Int is useful in a 1 on 1, regulated sparring bout, it is even more important in a 1 on 1 deadly combat.

Well, mostly. Perception (Wis) becomes more important with more participants -- but so does group strategy (which comes down to Int again).

I think what throws people off is how much this doesn't apply to relatively green participants. The high school fencers with only a few years training are analogous to green troops.

Yes, this is key.

For background, here -- I fenced in the SCA for about 13 years, and for three of them, also studied classical (foil and sabre) and historical (rapier, smallsword) weapons in a private salle with Ramon Martinez, classical fencing master of arms. So I've got a smattering of experience across western forms, significant experience of melee from the sca, and some deep (though not as much as I'd like) training with someone who really knows what he's doing.

One of the big difference between Maestro Ramon's teaching and what you get in a high school is that the olympic style, because of the timeframe in question, concentrates on athleticism first [note that here I act on what I've read; I've never been in a modern fencing environment for enough time to absorb information], deeper understanding of the art at best second; the point is to train students to win tournaments, not to start training that will produce effective fencers in 10 years and (maybe) masters in 25.

I can get behind speed being strength (though I'd think of it as a cross between strength and dexterity). However, in D&D terms I'd put it with Dex -- given the split between athletics (running speed, climbing) and acrobatics (quick but still full body movement), I'd say it's more acrobatic speed than athletic, even though the distinction is artificial.

Precision is clearly dex. Well, Dex and perception (but mostly wisdom). OTOH, really it's mostly training. Train well enough and it's just not that hard to get very precise.

Now, regarding timing -- if anyting, I'd put it somewhere in the wisdom/Intelligence spectrum (consider the math/music connection), but yeah, it's hard to categorize. It's by far the most important thing in 1v1 melee fighting, and really the best correlation one can do to D&D is level.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

One of the big difference between Maestro Ramon's teaching and what you get in a high school is that the olympic style, because of the timeframe in question, concentrates on athleticism first [note that here I act on what I've read; I've never been in a modern fencing environment for enough time to absorb information], deeper understanding of the art at best second; the point is to train students to win tournaments, not to start training that will produce effective fencers in 10 years and (maybe) masters in 25.

My training comes mainly out of the Italian school, with certain strength and conditioning aspects modified from Russian, Hungarian, but primarily Polish conditioning and exercises (and a slight change with Polish footwork on the lunge, which really does seem to make a difference even with those straight out of novice training). And having started relatively late, I understand a lot of this far better than I can do it. I'm rather clumsy and not at all athletic (though very quick). I mainly teach beginners now to give the real coaches more time with those that can benefit most.

But mainly that is relevant because this teaching style makes a point to teach the difference between what is done classically, why it matters for defense, versus what you do purely for sport purposes. (For example, you trade touches because it is a sport, and sometimes it is worth it. You learn that this is a conscious decision, because often trading touches in a real fight is not worth it.) My observation is that the mainly athletic, train to win instead of art, versions produce some decent C fencers. Then they hit the wall. They fence Olympic style, but they are never a threat to make the Olympics. The A and B fencers mainly go somewhere to get more comprehensive training.

That said, this is less true every decade. It will probably not be true in another couple of generations. I'm only getting it because the founder of our Salle is relatively old, and learned young in New Jersey by people in a strong Italian fencing tradition who still remembered when the occasional (illegal) real duel was fought. Fencing continues to move away from its roots, and barring some serious changes in attitude and insurance premiums, probably can't help but do so.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

And that last bit is the entre to why all this cogitation is largely irrelevant. Here's a picture of what happens in a swordfight between 5 skilled warriors and their 5 orc opponents. The 2 sides decide to fight. Within 3 seconds they are engaged in a furious all out life-and-death struggle ranging across some sort of terrain. The orcs, strong and aggressive charge with their large axes (compare to the axes of the Varangian Guard, which are described as 'two handed and capable of cutting through shield, arm, and helm in one blow'). There follows a grand total of 30 seconds of brutal combat, filled with the screams and stink of eviscerated dying people, over a floor slippery with blood, in uncertain light, and with whatever mystical forces each side is unleashing going off left and right. In the time it just took you to read this paragraph you died.

Forget thinking. Forget anything but the most obvious and elementary tactics. Sure, speed, timing, etc will now and then take precedence over rote training, seizing the initiative and going in swinging, or blind luck. Not often though. The bolder, luckier, faster, stronger, and better equipped force will win, and it will happen so fast the other side won't even realize it is happening until it is over.

That's what a swordfight is like. All our fencing and SCA sparring experience means squat to that. There's a reason why a Roman legion kicked ass. Because they knew exactly what to do and how to do it, by rote and training, and had the best equipment, and that's a lot closer to what is going on in a D&D fight (on a smaller scale) than any kind of mocked-up fight.

Sure, intelligence is a great advantage, BEFORE swords are crossed mostly, and maybe if you're lucky once or twice in the middle you might, if you're well enough trained spot an opening and outsmart someone (that's the warlord or bard doing their thing).

 

[Crazy Jerome]

And that last bit is the entre to why all this cogitation is largely irrelevant.

No, it is why it is highly limited, if you stop there. See what I said about chaos and melee in posts #57 and #60.

Since none of us have been involved in life and death melee with swords, axe-wielding orcs, and fireballs, we have to extrapolate from what we know, and apply that to heroic fantasy characters of extremely significant competence. That last bit is why starting from fencing is one very limited but still relevant point of discussion.

In its own way, the Roman legion is just as limited but still relevant as an example. The Romans trained their legions that way, in part, because it was a very effective way of building on their own strength while compensating for their weaknesses. It started as a largely agrarian militia. Close order formation, drill, discipline, a large shield, a simple throwing spear, and a short blade used entirely for thrusting--that trumps even the phalanx for their purpose. But even the Roman soliders on the wings often used different weapons--that is, the highly trained veterans that had time to develop other useful skills.

The other problem--everything you said about Int in that fight can be said almost equally about raw Str or Dex. To the extent that raw Int and Wis is almost entirely trumped by training, luck, etc. in such a brutal melee, then physical stats are too. In fact, they are trumped more here than anywhere. 30 seconds isn't long enough for even me to get winded in a crisis, and I'm a middle-aged, average height, average strength guy lugging around 30 extra pounds. OTOH, to the extent that one can bring to bear raw superior capabilities, then "keeping your head" while everyone around you is not, is of immense value.

 

[KarinsDad]

The thing is, -some- people's combat ability boils down to Int (mine does).

So is it your contention that if you are dazed, that you should lose your Int bonus to combat?

 

[KarinsDad]

That's what a swordfight is like. All our fencing and SCA sparring experience means squat to that. There's a reason why a Roman legion kicked ass. Because they knew exactly what to do and how to do it, by rote and training, and had the best equipment, and that's a lot closer to what is going on in a D&D fight (on a smaller scale) than any kind of mocked-up fight.

Yup. I watched a TKD black belt test once and the tester was given two opponents at the same time. He quickly jumped back and forth from one to the other to try to beat them and I thought, that's a stupid way to fight.

A few moments later, one of the masters stopped it, walked over, explained to him that in order to fight effectively, he had to stop fighting both and start fighting one while keeping the one he was fighting between himself and the other opponent. Although very skilled, this person had never been trained to fight against multiple simultaneous foes.

Sure, intelligence is a great advantage, BEFORE swords are crossed mostly, and maybe if you're lucky once or twice in the middle you might, if you're well enough trained spot an opening and outsmart someone (that's the warlord or bard doing their thing).

Yes. Intelligence means that I do not get into a fight in the first place.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

No, it is why it is highly limited, if you stop there. See what I said about chaos and melee in posts #57 and #60.

Since none of us have been involved in life and death melee with swords, axe-wielding orcs, and fireballs, we have to extrapolate from what we know, and apply that to heroic fantasy characters of extremely significant competence. That last bit is why starting from fencing is one very limited but still relevant point of discussion.

In its own way, the Roman legion is just as limited but still relevant as an example. The Romans trained their legions that way, in part, because it was a very effective way of building on their own strength while compensating for their weaknesses. It started as a largely agrarian militia. Close order formation, drill, discipline, a large shield, a simple throwing spear, and a short blade used entirely for thrusting--that trumps even the phalanx for their purpose. But even the Roman soliders on the wings often used different weapons--that is, the highly trained veterans that had time to develop other useful skills.

The other problem--everything you said about Int in that fight can be said almost equally about raw Str or Dex. To the extent that raw Int and Wis is almost entirely trumped by training, luck, etc. in such a brutal melee, then physical stats are too. In fact, they are trumped more here than anywhere. 30 seconds isn't long enough for even me to get winded in a crisis, and I'm a middle-aged, average height, average strength guy lugging around 30 extra pounds. OTOH, to the extent that one can bring to bear raw superior capabilities, then "keeping your head" while everyone around you is not, is of immense value.

Sure, and that is LEVEL. Pure and simple a couple levels trumps a good bit of STR or DEX or whatever other attack stat. If I'm 4th level and you're 1st level I have a +2 WRT to you, all other things being equal. You may be stronger, but your 18 STR is still counterbalanced by my 14 STR and 3 level advantage. And because I'll have more hit points chances are I'll win a statistically significant fraction of the time (obviously I'm the more experience guy here .

As for what I said trumping STR or DEX, no, it won't. STR and DEX (after experience) will likely be the most important things, because the whole 30 second fight is going to go by real fast and basically you're going to be hitting harder and dodging better (etc) than the other guys in the fight. You just don't have time to strategize and outthink the other guy once ranks close and the melee is on.

This is also why the Roman Legion worked. Yes, it had to do with being a militia, but the same thing can be seen in martial arts training. You study things like kata (terminology differs but the concept is always the same). The idea is to be able to function when you have no time to think, when stopping to think for a split second is the difference between life and death. Same with the Legion, make it all instinct. Make it all so ingrained that even in the midst of the most horrifying and terrible experience imaginable to man some part of your brain has it burned in som deep you just do it. The US Army (and every other army in history that was ever successful) did the same thing. I remember an observation made by Napoleon about the Prussians when he beat them. He said he looked out across the field of battle and there was some Prussian rifle battalion, each man dead in ranks, and he could see 3 or 4 men still standing in their place in line, loading and firing their muskets in perfect drill. Without that level of discipline you simply can't conquer the chaos of battle.

The whole D&D conceit of the party members coming up with strategies and trying different things and cooperating to carry off fancy tactics is just largely pure fantasy. This is part of why you can't really say this stat or that stat does this or that, you're just not looking at a situation that relates to the real world. PCs are so supernaturally cool and collected and their approach to a fight is so vastly more cerebral than anything in real life that it really can't be related.

So, I think my point is that basing melee effectiveness largely on the most clearly salient stats, STR and DEX mostly, does make sense in the context of the kind of action that is attempting to be depicted. The fitter and more experienced and maybe better equipped group will mostly succeed, assuming they don't make some massive fundamental mistake right off the bat, but that's really what TPKs are made of

On a more practical level I think it is just too obscure and complex to try to factor in 27 different subtle attributes of success. Using STR for heavy weapons and DEX for light ones gives a good feel, is manageable, and is sensible to the average player. It isn't meant to be super accurate. It is meant to be fun and playable. Allowing players to use their weapon choice as a way to determine what stat they use, so they can get some build flexibility, seems like a pretty decent way to go to me.

 

[Ryujin]

Given equal skill, and the presumed relatively light armor worn by both participants wielding those weapons, the rapier user will be at a disadvantage. And not because of any katana being some kind of inherently superior sword nonsense, either. All else being equal, if you are capable of using a longer blade with two hands, and the opponent is stuck with only using one hand, you have an advantage. This would make speed relatively less important, precision about equal, though probably slightly less, and timing even more important. But mainly, it would be about using whatever you had, with whatever mental aspects you could bring to it, to adjust.

Of course, if we presume reasonable intelligence on the part of both, then the katana guy is starting the fight with a wakizasha (sp?), naginata and Japanese longbow, while the rapier guy definitely has a buckler, dagger, and crossbow. They may end up facing each other down to nothing but the one main blade each, but you can obviously imagine a 1,000 different outcomes from those starts. And that doesn't even take into account any armor or firearms options that both might pursue.

But I rather wonder if you read my post to the end, given that I already addressed the sports fencing versus real combat discrepancy. The more options you have, the more important the other pieces become. That is, if Int is useful in a 1 on 1, regulated sparring bout, it is even more important in a 1 on 1 deadly combat.

I think what throws people off is how much this doesn't apply to relatively green participants. The high school fencers with only a few years training are analogous to green troops. For those, some simple basic training that concentrates mainly on their athletic ability (and heightened physical and mental conditioning) is designed to get them through those first fights with some chance of success. Partly this is because this is the only effective way to train masses quickly, but this is also because mass anything is a chaotic mess where luck is also a huge factor. (Our Salle experimented a few times with picking teams of fencers and fencing in a line, where you could hit anyone, just to see what we would happen. The overwhelming consensus was that this basically nullified most skill, once a person got to the point where they could do basic attacks and parries.)

That is, the fact that is sports fencing for points instead of a duel to the death with mixed weapons is less telling than changing from a duel to a melee.

I felt that it bore stating, because combat and sport are really nothing alike. Sport fencing is highly stylized, by comparison, and doesn't translate to real life combat very well. You don't cut hamstrings or femoral arteries, to hobble your opponent and insure his death. You don't stab out eyes. You don't throw in an elbow or knee, when the opportunity presents.

We can talk about what 'attributes' are used in sport, 'til the cows come home, but it really means little in practical terms,

To illustrate, two guys get into it at a bar. The first strikes a pose and says, "Steven Right, 5th dan Karate." The second snaps into action, punching the first in the throat, then says, "Bobby Brown. Brooklyn."

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I felt that it bore stating, because combat and sport are really nothing alike. Sport fencing is highly stylized, by comparison, and doesn't translate to real life combat very well. You don't cut hamstrings or femoral arteries, to hobble your opponent and insure his death. You don't stab out eyes. You don't throw in an elbow or knee, when the opportunity presents.

We can talk about what 'attributes' are used in sport, 'til the cows come home, but it really means little in practical terms,

To illustrate, two guys get into it at a bar. The first strikes a pose and says, "Steven Right, 5th dan Karate." The second snaps into action, punching the first in the throat, then says, "Bobby Brown. Brooklyn."

And my contention is that real life equally doesn't translate to heroic fantasy combat very well. Steven and Bobby shake hands, have a few beers, and then one of them makes a wise guy comment to Conan at the end of the bar. Guess what?

So everyone gets that skill matters--when it is relevant. The argument is over what is relevant in the game. We've had all of recorded military history (not to mention personal defense manuals written in the 16th and 17th centuries and later by people who practiced it), emphasizing this point over and over. And I agree that in D&D, this is mainly level.

If the object is to go get a bunch of guys out of Brooklyn and the eastern Tennessee hills and California karata schools, and whip them into a cohesive force relatively rapidly, and then send them back in time into, say, pre-Imperial Persia or right as the Aztecs are first getting cranked up, and then have them be effective ... then I'm right with you guys. Yep, Roman legion all the way, with a few similar things thrown in for good measure. Among other reasons, these guys have to be able to pass on the skills to recruits in the new timeline.

But if we want to determine exactly what superlative skill means in terms of those high levels, for Conan or the Gray Mouser or Gimli or any number of such examples, then you'll have to extrapolate somewhat from other sources. One of the lessons of things like fencing is that a wider range of factors matter far more than people think they do. Even in the real world, fencing instructors 400 years ago were smacking students in the head for relying on speed too much, because if they went into a dark alley, got jumped, and drew, they'd end up dead. Sufficiently drunk and outnumbered, they'd probably end up dead anyway, but the idea was to get whatever edge you could get. Or if the other guy had a big axe, run.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

As I said before though, the whole exercise of playing out combat on a grid in an RPG is so vastly foreign to the significant considerations in a RL fight that it is practically pointless to even worry about it. 99% of all fights in the real world last exactly one blow to start with. All the notions of big heroes and blah blah blah is mostly just bunk. You hit someone, they're done. Not always, and maybe if you didn't hit them hard enough or in the right place they might even get up and come back for more, but if the attacker is competent and means business the real world doesn't have 'hit points'. You fail to block the other guy's attack and the sword you get in the gut is the end of your story. Skill and experience are important when you're dealing with a situation where everyone is all organized to fight and ready to go at it. Reality is nobody can avoid getting jumped forever, and if you're a bad-ass that's exactly what will happen too.

D&D is purely a fantasy. Basically nothing in it translates for kaka from reality. It is designed to be a highly artificial wish-fulfillment game with JUST enough veneer of authenticity to it that you can relate to the characters and the story. Trying to draw anymore much more from it is just going too far and is fairly pointless. It will get in the way of the fun of the game and yield nothing in return.