Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="UngainlyTitan" data-source="post: 8721108" data-attributes="member: 28487">AgreeTrue but the very structure of D&amp;D (D20 + bonus vs Defence Number) militates against any sophisticated take in armour.The other problem is that full plate and the like are battlefield armours. Generally worn by front line heavy infantry/cavalry and other kinds of troops wore lighter armour. In fact the knights and men at arms often wore the lighter brigantines (or chain in earlier periods) when their primary activity was not to stand and fight - like skirmishing, engineering.The problem with heavy armour is not that it cuts down mobility but it is exhausting to wear. People skulking around in the woods and entering ancient ruins would be wearing brigandine or chain. Which brings up another issue with D&amp;D: it takes 1,500 years or so (500 AD to 1500AD) of weapon and armour development and treats it all the same. This is now too embedded as a D&amp;Dism to remove. The longbow short bow distinction should be removed and replaced with warbow/hunting bow. High poundage &quot;shortbow&quot; exist and existed in medieval times and are almost certainly what people scavenging old ruins and dungeons would actually use as a longbow is too bloody big &lt;/end rant&gt;To be honest the Str/Dex attack distinctions is extremely silly in the first place: accuracy is a function of neither it should be really based in a weapon proficiency or perhaps weapon expertise and be class based or maybe sub class based.Agreed but it a D&amp;Dism at this point. A pretty radical change in weapon usage would have to introduced to change this. Dunno, I would have to see the actual proposals. I personally would like to see more rituals, particularly in the spells reserved for the non full casters.Also agreed. Also agreed and sorry for picking your post apart like this, but I think that it triggered something in me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="UngainlyTitan, post: 8721108, member: 28487"] Agree True but the very structure of D&D (D20 + bonus vs Defence Number) militates against any sophisticated take in armour. The other problem is that full plate and the like are battlefield armours. Generally worn by front line heavy infantry/cavalry and other kinds of troops wore lighter armour. In fact the knights and men at arms often wore the lighter brigantines (or chain in earlier periods) when their primary activity was not to stand and fight - like skirmishing, engineering. The problem with heavy armour is not that it cuts down mobility but it is exhausting to wear. People skulking around in the woods and entering ancient ruins would be wearing brigandine or chain. Which brings up another issue with D&D: it takes 1,500 years or so (500 AD to 1500AD) of weapon and armour development and treats it all the same. This is now too embedded as a D&Dism to remove. The longbow short bow distinction should be removed and replaced with warbow/hunting bow. High poundage "shortbow" exist and existed in medieval times and are almost certainly what people scavenging old ruins and dungeons would actually use as a longbow is too bloody big </end rant> To be honest the Str/Dex attack distinctions is extremely silly in the first place: accuracy is a function of neither it should be really based in a weapon proficiency or perhaps weapon expertise and be class based or maybe sub class based. Agreed but it a D&Dism at this point. A pretty radical change in weapon usage would have to introduced to change this. Dunno, I would have to see the actual proposals. I personally would like to see more rituals, particularly in the spells reserved for the non full casters. Also agreed. Also agreed and sorry for picking your post apart like this, but I think that it triggered something in me. [/QUOTE]

Verification