D&D 5E (+)What Ubiquitous DnD Tropes Get It Totally Wrong?

[Derren]

These arent DnD tropes though, theyre tropes across ALL fiction

Atlantis was a fallen advanced society, Indiana Jones and Tarzan were exploring all kinds of lost dungeons and well Fairytales are all set in the same “Once upon a time in a land far far away”.

And Dungeons in DnD worlds actually do make a kind of sense - commoners arent going to be keen to strip building materials from a haunted ruin when theres a real chance of being killed or eaten by monsters.

Unless you mean the video game at no point was the ancient civilization more advanced in Indiana Jones than the current one. Neither is this a usual theme in fairy tales. The only other fiction where this is a common theme is SciFi with precursor civilizations. And at least in most SciFi there you do not have static societies which stayed the same for centuries without any technological progession unless it is the central theme of said fiction.
In D&D nothing ever progresses period, just because they wan't to keep everything at pseudo medieval level but also have centuries of history.

 

[Tonguez]

Unless you mean the video game at no point was the ancient civilization more advanced in Indiana Jones than the current one. Neither is this a usual theme in fairy tales. The only other fiction where this is a common theme is SciFi with precursor civilizations.

Um Kingdom of the Crystal Skull? even Raiders of the Lost Ark had the Ark being an ancient reactor.

and many Fairytales do refer to a former ‘golden age’, before the bad thing happened. Think Sleeping Beauty and her 100 year sleep (okay 100 years isnt exactly ancient but it is ‘precusor era’)

 

[Hussar]

Fair enough, although, 100 years, for most of human history, isn't really all that long for massive technological changes.

The problem is, though, that D&D worlds are set at a point where massive change is virtually inevitable. If you have X, Y and Z, then the development of the next steps becomes very hard to ignore. If you have the wherewithal, to use naval examples, to build a clinker built ship of the line (think 18th century sailing ship), then you have the technological knowhow to start building really complex architecture, that is far, far more advanced than some 11th century motte and bailey style castle.

To put it another way, if you had the technology to build that ship, then mechanical siege weapons like catapults and ballistae are obsolete. These ships could take direct hits from trebuchet and it might dent the paint. Nothing you could mount on a ship could possible hurt another ship - you just can't make the siege weapons strong enough. Your castles would be virtually impregnable to anything non-magical by that point because construction techniques and materials had advanced beyond the point of siege weaponry.

Think of something like the Martello Tower - these things could take sustained cannon fire for hours or even days without so much as a scratch. A catapult wouldn't so much as scratch these things. And, the original Martello towers were build in the 16th century.

And, of course, that's ignoring the point that you have these cultures like elves and dwarves, which stretch back thousands of years, yet making virtually no technological advancement. Never minding the impact of fantasy creatures on culture and technology. Why on earth wouldn't every D&D fantasy world have trained hippogriffs? Even if they can't be domesticated, they can be trained. This would massively change societies.

This is really one of the biggest D&D Tropes that get it totally wrong. The notion that a D&D world, filled with all the goodies from the Monster Manual, would look just like fantasy medieval Europe with a thin patina of fantasy layered on top.

 

[Lanefan]

The problem is, though, that D&D worlds are set at a point where massive change is virtually inevitable. If you have X, Y and Z, then the development of the next steps becomes very hard to ignore. If you have the wherewithal, to use naval examples, to build a clinker built ship of the line (think 18th century sailing ship), then you have the technological knowhow to start building really complex architecture, that is far, far more advanced than some 11th century motte and bailey style castle.

Absolutely correct.

That said, most depictions of fantasy castles tend more toward Sleeping Beauty's castle than a simple motte-and-bailey; and Sleeping Beauty's castle would take a bit more knowhow to build.

To put it another way, if you had the technology to build that ship, then mechanical siege weapons like catapults and ballistae are obsolete. These ships could take direct hits from trebuchet and it might dent the paint. Nothing you could mount on a ship could possible hurt another ship - you just can't make the siege weapons strong enough.

If you insist on shooting at the other ship's hull, this is more or less correct.

So, you go for the rigging, or the masts, or the helm, or the people. Scattershot from a trebuchet, given enough velocity behind it, is going to hurt people on deck and - more important - play hell with the sails. Some sort of MIRVing ballista bolt could have similar effects. And getting anything over there that's on fire when it lands - even a trebuchet full of burning coals - is massive, if risky.

 

[Charlaquin]

My own solution to fantasy stasis and the bizarre mishmash of technology typical of D&D is to say that the world has been through many cycles of development, collapse, and recovery. Anachronisms can be written off as the rediscovery of a small piece of some past civilization’s technology, not yet well-understood enough to spark a technological revolution.

 

[Hussar]

Absolutely correct.

That said, most depictions of fantasy castles tend more toward Sleeping Beauty's castle than a simple motte-and-bailey; and Sleeping Beauty's castle would take a bit more knowhow to build.

If you insist on shooting at the other ship's hull, this is more or less correct.

So, you go for the rigging, or the masts, or the helm, or the people. Scattershot from a trebuchet, given enough velocity behind it, is going to hurt people on deck and - more important - play hell with the sails. Some sort of MIRVing ballista bolt could have similar effects. And getting anything over there that's on fire when it lands - even a trebuchet full of burning coals - is massive, if risky.

But, see, here's the thing. Hitting a moving target with a catapult, never minding firing one from a moving deck, is really, really hard. Particularly at any sort of range. And, anything smaller than a trebuchet, well, you might as well use harsh language. And no one is suicidal enough to load a trebuchet with burning pitch while on a ship.

Would it be dangerous to be under fire? Sure. But, the gunnels on the ship would stop ballista bolts. Heck, they'd stop most catapult shot as well.

IOW, a mechanical (as in non-gunpower) siege weapon vs anything produced from about 17th century onward would be very, very ineffective. On the flip side, your static emplacements, castles, towers, etc, would also be pretty much impervious to mechanical siege weapons.

 

[Charlaquin]

Frankly, I don’t understand why people are so opposed to gunpowder in D&D.

 

[Coroc]

By 'double headed axe' are you referring to something with a separate blade on each end of the pole?

Or are you referring to a labrys, which has two blades (one each 'side') on one end of the pole and very much did exist?

I meant the weapon with two blades on each side, which if it existed I am not aware of. I have to look up the labrys.

 

[Coroc]

Estoc is a intermediate of longsword(historical 2Handed sword) and rapier

Estoc has a square or triangular blade and is a pure stabbing sword specialized to puncture plate.

Some are used one handed some two handed.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Y’all, howzabout we table the discussion about RW racism, at least for now.