AoE is another subject that might ideally be revisited. Many forms of AoE come from sprays or explosions against which shields might be effective, There's certainly an argument that a shield might be a better defence against a fireball than a dexterous within the envelopment attempt to dodge.
Same goes for burning hands...
There are a variety of threats in D&D, but there can also be options for house or optional rules to permit variation on how they may be faced.
“D&D is not designed for realism; it is a game designed for interchangeability, with a core element of gameplay design being mechanics that are easy to access, so complexity comes from encounter design not the system itself.”
A lot of realism is considered. Rapiers are considered to have finesse. Axes, not so much.
Which is highly unrealistic. Axes, with their relatively small striking area, needed considerably more precision to wield effectively than swords did.
' if not using physical miniatures or a snap to grid).
If there are game practicalities that work against the ideas mentioned then they should also be considered, If systems such as using tokens are in operation maybe realities could fit in more readily,
Not without bogging combat down considerably. Archery for example, should have minimum strength score requirements if we wanted it to be realistic. Drawing a heavy bow required considerable muscle power- the wimpy strength 8 elven waif of a rogue isn't going to ever manage to draw a longbow (or tumble around all acrobatically, for that matter). They're not even going to do much with a short bow. What they'd really need to hit things at range is a crossbow. And enjoy your crossbow's historically accurate one attack every 4 rounds.
There are legitimate gameplay complaints to make about tanking in 5e - 4e, for example, went out of its way to make taunts and tanking viable from a mechanical perspective in a way 5e does not.
I'm with you on this, Taunting can be, well, taunting. I'm in a TOR 2e game at the moment with an armoured khazd (dwarf) in Khazad Dum (Moria) and taunting via RP can be a fun and creative addition to the game.
The former is a discussion on D&D; the latter is an argument about trying to make D&D something it intentionally is not - a realistic simulation.
And yet D&D has (some) aspects of realism.
D&D has a veneer of realism slapped on top of game mechanics that are wildly unrealistic because it's more fun to be able to attack every round, to play a character who is totally lacking in upper body strength yet isn't useless in a fight, or to be able to tank a bunch of hits from an enemy and not have it affect your ability to hit back or require weeks of intensive care to recover.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Archery for example, should have minimum strength score requirements if we wanted it to be realistic. Drawing a heavy bow required considerable muscle power- the wimpy strength 8 elven waif of a rogue isn't going to ever manage to draw a longbow (or tumble around all acrobatically, for that matter). They're not even going to do much with a short bow. What they'd really need to hit things at range is a crossbow. And enjoy your crossbow's historically accurate one attack every 4 rounds.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is your argument here whataboutism?
You seem to be saying that some things in Dungeons and Dragons (a game with dragons) aren't realistic, so other things can't be either. Is that right?
A quick check with ai gives a first item indication of a crossbow having a rate of ~10–20 seconds per shot (experienced user), but whatever the rate, games are to an extent balanced. If bows took a while, perhaps spell sppeds would fit this less frenetic pattern, which would fit the pattern presented in a lot of folklore..
... because it's more fun to be able to attack every round, to play a character who is totally lacking in upper body strength yet isn't useless in a fight, or to be able to tank a bunch of hits from an enemy and not have it affect your ability to hit back or require weeks of intensive care to recover.
I think you are wrong about the crossbows, but players can choose their weapons depending on what's available, A sword has a range of a few feet ans it could take considerable time for its wielder to get to a location that a crossbow bolt could reach more quickly.
Why is it fun having a character with no upperbody strength going into physical fights? For me I have a hexblade warlock with 8 strength and a polearm planned. Personally I think that's fun because it leans into the mechanic of charisma based pact magic allowing it to work. Sure players can go with their 8 str rogue but this may be the fun of rigging the stats.
Why is it fun only to take "hits from an enemy and not have it affect your ability"?
In the TOR 2e system characters have endurance which at my characters max is around twice his level of load, the way the system works is that if injuries bring endurance so that it would be below load, the character becomes wearied, The options are to drop items if possible or to have a situation where your 1, 2, or 3 scores on your six-sided dice count as zeroes. You still have the potential to hit as well as you ever did, but you're facing rational consequences. It's a game of ever increasing stakes, not zero consequences til you reach zero hp.
D&D is also fun, but discounting the fun (and tensions) of other systems is wildly unfair.
D&D requires weeks to make magic items and to fulfil other tasks, and achieving these accomplishments can be fun.
But I think that your argument here is that some things in 5e aren't realistic, so otherthings can't be made to be more realistic.
“D&D is not designed for realism; it is a game designed for interchangeability, with a core element of gameplay design being mechanics that are easy to access, so complexity comes from encounter design not the system itself.”
A lot of realism is considered. Rapiers are considered to have finesse. Axes, not so much.
Which is highly unrealistic. Axes, with their relatively small striking area, needed considerably more precision to wield effectively than swords did.
' if not using physical miniatures or a snap to grid).
If there are game practicalities that work against the ideas mentioned then they should also be considered, If systems such as using tokens are in operation maybe realities could fit in more readily,
Not without bogging combat down considerably. Archery for example, should have minimum strength score requirements if we wanted it to be realistic. Drawing a heavy bow required considerable muscle power- the wimpy strength 8 elven waif of a rogue isn't going to ever manage to draw a longbow (or tumble around all acrobatically, for that matter). They're not even going to do much with a short bow. What they'd really need to hit things at range is a crossbow. And enjoy your crossbow's historically accurate one attack every 4 rounds.
There are legitimate gameplay complaints to make about tanking in 5e - 4e, for example, went out of its way to make taunts and tanking viable from a mechanical perspective in a way 5e does not.
I'm with you on this, Taunting can be, well, taunting. I'm in a TOR 2e game at the moment with an armoured khazd (dwarf) in Khazad Dum (Moria) and taunting via RP can be a fun and creative addition to the game.
The former is a discussion on D&D; the latter is an argument about trying to make D&D something it intentionally is not - a realistic simulation.
And yet D&D has (some) aspects of realism.
D&D has a veneer of realism slapped on top of game mechanics that are wildly unrealistic because it's more fun to be able to attack every round, to play a character who is totally lacking in upper body strength yet isn't useless in a fight, or to be able to tank a bunch of hits from an enemy and not have it affect your ability to hit back or require weeks of intensive care to recover.
Axes, with their relatively small striking area, needed considerably more precision to wield effectively than swords did.
Agreed, but for game balancing considerations, swords would be considered "simple weapons". They seem a lot more intuitive than scickels for instance.
Swords are very much not simple weapons. It takes a lot of training before you can use one and present a bigger threat to your opponent than to yourself. Sickles really shouldn't be weapons at all, they're terrible for the role, but someone apparently wanted to have them available to druids.
Archery for example, should have minimum strength score requirements if we wanted it to be realistic. Drawing a heavy bow required considerable muscle power- the wimpy strength 8 elven waif of a rogue isn't going to ever manage to draw a longbow (or tumble around all acrobatically, for that matter). They're not even going to do much with a short bow. What they'd really need to hit things at range is a crossbow. And enjoy your crossbow's historically accurate one attack every 4 rounds.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is your argument here whataboutism?
You seem to be saying that some things in Dungeons and Dragons (a game with dragons) aren't realistic, so other things can't be either. Is that right?
A quick check with ai gives a first item indication of a crossbow having a rate of ~10–20 seconds per shot (experienced user), but whatever the rate, games are to an extent balanced. If bows took a while, perhaps spell sppeds would fit this less frenetic pattern, which would fit the pattern presented in a lot of folklore..
And there's your problem. You're relying on AI (which doesn't actually know anything). All it does is generate things that sound coherent, but it is not a database that actually understands your question or is capable of giving you an accurate answer because it doesn't know what those are, it just knows that it's seen some words in association with other words and goes from there. Historically, getting three shots per minute was a very high rate of fire for crossbows. A D&D combat round is six seconds, so one shot every four rounds is a pretty realistic number. One shot every ten seconds isn't achievable without a modern crossbow.
... because it's more fun to be able to attack every round, to play a character who is totally lacking in upper body strength yet isn't useless in a fight, or to be able to tank a bunch of hits from an enemy and not have it affect your ability to hit back or require weeks of intensive care to recover.
I think you are wrong about the crossbows, but players can choose their weapons depending on what's available, A sword has a range of a few feet ans it could take considerable time for its wielder to get to a location that a crossbow bolt could reach more quickly.
Why is it fun having a character with no upperbody strength going into physical fights?
Because 5E's rules mean that you can have a perfectly viable melee character who uses strength as their dump stat. Rogues, Rangers, Monks, Bards, Bladesinger Wizards, Armorer and Battle Smith Artificers...
For me I have a hexblade warlock with 8 strength and a polearm planned. Personally I think that's fun because it leans into the mechanic of charisma based pact magic allowing it to work. Sure players can go with their 8 str rogue but this may be the fun of rigging the stats.
Why is it fun only to take "hits from an enemy and not have it affect your ability"?
In the TOR 2e system characters have endurance which at my characters max is around twice his level of load, the way the system works is that if injuries bring endurance so that it would be below load, the character becomes wearied, The options are to drop items if possible or to have a situation where your 1, 2, or 3 scores on your six-sided dice count as zeroes. You still have the potential to hit as well as you ever did, but you're facing rational consequences. It's a game of ever increasing stakes, not zero consequences til you reach zero hp.
D&D is also fun, but discounting the fun (and tensions) of other systems is wildly unfair.
D&D requires weeks to make magic items and to fulfil other tasks, and achieving these accomplishments can be fun.
But I think that your argument here is that some things in 5e aren't realistic, so otherthings can't be made to be more realistic.
No, my argument is that your complaint about one particular aspect of combat in D&D being unrealistic fails because the whole combat system isn't and never was designed to be a realistic simulation of how fighting works. That's what everyone who's been arguing with you has been saying this whole time. The system is unrealistic by design.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Axes, with their relatively small striking area, needed considerably more precision to wield effectively than swords did.
Agreed, but for game balancing considerations, swords would be considered "simple weapons". They seem a lot more intuitive than scickels for instance.
This really illustrates a big part of the problem in this conversation.
This is not game balance. You are describing your opinions about how easy or difficult a weapon might be to wield in real life. Game balance has nothing to do with that. Game balance is a combination of the size of the damage die, if a weapon uses one or two hands, and what other properties (finesse, heavy, thrown, etc) and masteries (nick, sap, topple) a weapon may have on them. Those are the things that matter in-game and are therefore important to balance against each other in-game.
How intuitive it would be for a person to wield a weapon is not a game balance factor. After all, the weapons aren't actually weapons, they're a package of game statistics that have the name of a familiar weapon hung on them as a shorthand.
You would have better luck with a system/edition designed for this level of (imo) pedantic detail.
What game? Please give suggestions and your reasons why you think that they would be more suitable.
There probably have been games with this level of detail, but they are footnotes in the history of RPGs. Even games generally considered to be "more realistic", like GURPS, generally still keep things more abstract.than you're talking about. The closest I can think of is a game called Phoenix Command, that was designed to be as realistic as possible in its simulation of gun combat and the effects of bullets. (As I understand it, there were a lot of tables.)
There have probably been games that tried to do small-unit medieval weapon combat with high levels of accuracy, though perhaps less than Phoenix Command, but they are obscure. (Harnmaster might fit the bill, but I know even less of it than I do Phoenix Command, and it was better known for the associated setting.) The more realistic you try to make a game system, the more moving parts you have, and the more handling time you need for every action. And that turns a game into a slog. These days, with ubiquitous portable computing devices, we could automate all that handling time away, but I think it's telling that it has not led to a wave of more-realistic computer-intermediated RPG systems.
That said, there's another approach besides hyper-realism -- more abstraction. There are lots of systems out there where the mechanics don't enforce a level of detail that makes the narrative of combat inherently unrealistic. For instance, when the positioning rules are highly abstract, you can just narrate that the rogues are fighting shoulder-to-shoulder. Depending on the system, you may even be able to establish a mechanical advantage for doing so. (FATE is my go-to example of that sort of system, but there are many, catering to many different styles of play.)
Axes, with their relatively small striking area, needed considerably more precision to wield effectively than swords did.
Agreed, but for game balancing considerations, swords would be considered "simple weapons". They seem a lot more intuitive than scickels for instance.
This really illustrates a big part of the problem in this conversation.
This is not game balance. You are describing your opinions about how easy or difficult a weapon might be to wield in real life. Game balance has nothing to do with that. Game balance is a combination of the size of the damage die, if a weapon uses one or two hands, and what other properties (finesse, heavy, thrown, etc) and masteries (nick, sap, topple) a weapon may have on them. Those are the things that matter in-game and are therefore important to balance against each other in-game.
How intuitive it would be for a person to wield a weapon is not a game balance factor. After all, the weapons aren't actually weapons, they're a package of game statistics that have the name of a familiar weapon hung on them as a shorthand.
So you're agreeing with me. If weapons like axes (and sickles...), which are relatively difficult weapon to wield as per the stated claim, were in game given a higher requirement for gaining weapon proficiency, and if intuitive weapons like swards were given a lower requirement to gain weapon proficiency, characters would be even less likely to fight with axes and sickles...
You are exactly right about game balance. All the same there are some weapons that are generally better than others even with an extent of balance being applied.
A specialized solder who works best with a group of similarly trained solders.
But not a player character. An NPC city guard, army solder instead.
Things would have to be worked over for a low lever character to have enough skills and feats to make this idea workable as a player character.
Shields could also be changed as armor. Bring back the idea of small, medium(normal), and large shield. Better coverage for the larger shields, Almost giving them ability of "cover".
Shields could be considered weapons in specially trained hands. Thus they could be used as a second punch or shove attack for those who could make two attacks.
All I'm saying is that in a game with tokens instead of miniatures, if a player wants to make a case for a character remaining in a shared space with another willing character, then the DM can adjudicate on whether this would be feasible and whether the characters would be able to perform whatever actions in the context of that shared space.
If, on a character's turn, the DM decides that they can't perform a certain action within that situation, the character can move. It's no biggie.
Why can't two mages share the same space. A door is 2.5 foot wide. Double doors are 5 foot wide. How much space is taken up by two conference chairs, They could easily fit in 5 feet. It's really easy for two people to occupy this kind of large space. People do it all the time.
All I'm saying is that in a game with tokens instead of miniatures, if a player wants to make a case for a character remaining in a shared space with another willing character, then the DM can adjudicate on whether this would be feasible and whether the characters would be able to perform whatever actions in the context of that shared space.
If, on a character's turn, the DM decides that they can't perform a certain action within that situation, the character can move. It's no biggie.
Why can't two mages share the same space. A door is 2.5 foot wide. Double doors are 5 foot wide. How much space is taken up by two conference chairs, They could easily fit in 5 feet. It's really easy for two people to occupy this kind of large space. People do it all the time.
Yes. When they're sitting or standing passively. It's not so easy to do so when they're both actively moving around engaged in vigorous physical activity. Especially if they're trying to avoid hitting each other or get in each other's way. That sort of coordination is difficult. And has already been stated, the decision to use five foot increments was just done because it makes the math more intuitive for most people.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
they're trying to avoid hitting each other or get in each other's way. ... it makes the math more intuitive for most people.
It amazes me that people see a problem with coordinated shield buddies in phalanx type formation when thrusting forward with spear or sword but don't see a problem with someone waving a two-handed sword in a corridor or, bonus action, making a melee attack with the opposite end of a reach weapon without swiping into allies.
A specialized solder who works best with a group of similarly trained solders.
But not a player character. An NPC city guard, army solder instead.
Things would have to be worked over for a low lever character to have enough skills and feats to make this idea workable as a player character.
Shields could also be changed as armor. Bring back the idea of small, medium(normal), and large shield. Better coverage for the larger shields, Almost giving them ability of "cover".
Shields could be considered weapons in specially trained hands. Thus they could be used as a second punch or shove attack for those who could make two attacks.
Maybe a fighter style could accomodate a shield wall option. It could give something like +1 to AC on condition of both wielding a shield and being next to an ally who is also wielding a shield. This style could allow two such martial characters to share a space on condition that spaces to their sides aren't doubly occupied. It would just ne a variation of the defence fighting style but with different requirements and benefits. Why don't barbarians have fighting styles? A shield and spear/weapon archetype could suit a band of unarmoured or less armoured warriors in a hot climate.
Question: If a player was to take two characters instead of one, at what lower proportion of experience should those characters have in comparison to the single characters of other players. Especially in a world of magic and sorcery I can imagine that pairings (or groupings) of warriors might work together to watch each other's backs and I'm sure that magicians and sorcerers might well want to associate with people like this. I mean, If you want to have a tank facility, why not have it with double shielding..?
There's no math for "people find working of increments of 5 easier than increments of 3", so maybe you misunderstood what was being said? Let try and demonstrate:
Here are the first ten increments of 3:
3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 40
And here are the first ten increments of 5:
5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50
You must be able to see that increments of 5 has a much more overt and obvious pattern that would be easier to intuit than increments of 3, right? I'm not trying to be condescending, although I can understand how it'd seem that way—you seem incredulous that 5 is easier to work with math-wise than 3, and the only way to take that as a good faith position is to provide such a basic and borderline patronising explanation.
Question: If a player was to take two characters instead of one, at what lower proportion of experience should those characters have in comparison to the single characters of other players. Especially in a world of magic and sorcery I can imagine that pairings (or groupings) of warriors might work together to watch each other's backs and I'm sure that magicians and sorcerers might well want to associate with people like this. I mean, If you want to have a tank facility, why not have it with double shielding..?
This presupposes the average DM would allow this, which I suspect many wouldn't. And even if they did, reducing XP doesn't make any sense because that again makes the flawed assumption that two level X characters are equal to one level 2X character. Scaling in the game doesn't work like that and that's why the game (and most DMs) avoid variable XP across the party. It seems like a moot point because there's no functional difference between 1 player controlling two characters and 2 players controlling one character each.
I see what you mean about minis but would argue that they are mainly representative. I was looking for a way in which minis might still be consistently used, though it might alternatly be possible to keep a 5' grid but consider that two sword and board fighters could operate in the same area. Several games I've known use tokens anyway so this might not be a great issue. It's not like characters would be forced to occuply a smaller area though I;s argue that rogues with knives and various others could choose to do so.
I'd also say that a spear can be considered as a reach weapon when thtust one-handed and that a staff can also be used at reach when used as a long club which could be used two-handed.
It could just be an optional rule. It could be greatly advantageous with choke points while increasing vulnerabiity to AoE.
AoE is another subject that might ideally be revisited. Many forms of AoE come from sprays or explosions against which shields might be effective, There's certainly an argument that a shield might be a better defence against a fireball than a dexterous within the envelopment attempt to dodge.
And maybe you failed to take in my previous responses to you:
I'd just say that if players wanted to they could make a case for why characters could remain active while sharing the same space. ...e. 5e can operate with a grid system, and it is one that can easily be adapted in the moderate ways I've suggested
My idea is simple. Players, should they wish to, can make a case and a DM can make a decision.
It amazes me that people see a problem with coordinated shield buddies in phalanx type formation when thrusting forward with spear or sword but don't see a problem with someone waving a two-handed sword in a corridor or, bonus action, making a melee attack with the opposite end of a reach weapon without swiping into allies.
It amazes me that people see a problem with coordinated shield buddies in phalanx type formation when thrusting forward with spear or sword but don't see a problem with someone waving a two-handed sword in a corridor or, bonus action, making a melee attack with the opposite end of a reach weapon without swiping into allies.
There's no math for that? There was no math claim made about that.
I think you're misunderstanding what was said in the final sentence:
And has already been stated, the decision to use five foot increments was just done because it makes the math more intuitive for most people.
This is a separate proposition unrelated to the one you're quoting. It's just saying "working in 5s is easier than working in 3s"
The shield master feat exists.
Thanks. 2024 seems to have developed that well.
Which is highly unrealistic. Axes, with their relatively small striking area, needed considerably more precision to wield effectively than swords did.
Not without bogging combat down considerably. Archery for example, should have minimum strength score requirements if we wanted it to be realistic. Drawing a heavy bow required considerable muscle power- the wimpy strength 8 elven waif of a rogue isn't going to ever manage to draw a longbow (or tumble around all acrobatically, for that matter). They're not even going to do much with a short bow. What they'd really need to hit things at range is a crossbow. And enjoy your crossbow's historically accurate one attack every 4 rounds.
D&D has a veneer of realism slapped on top of game mechanics that are wildly unrealistic because it's more fun to be able to attack every round, to play a character who is totally lacking in upper body strength yet isn't useless in a fight, or to be able to tank a bunch of hits from an enemy and not have it affect your ability to hit back or require weeks of intensive care to recover.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Agreed, but for game balancing considerations, swords would be considered "simple weapons". They seem a lot more intuitive than scickels for instance.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is your argument here whataboutism?
You seem to be saying that some things in Dungeons and Dragons (a game with dragons) aren't realistic, so other things can't be either. Is that right?
A quick check with ai gives a first item indication of a crossbow having a rate of ~10–20 seconds per shot (experienced user), but whatever the rate, games are to an extent balanced. If bows took a while, perhaps spell sppeds would fit this less frenetic pattern, which would fit the pattern presented in a lot of folklore..
there's some truth here.
I think you are wrong about the crossbows, but players can choose their weapons depending on what's available, A sword has a range of a few feet ans it could take considerable time for its wielder to get to a location that a crossbow bolt could reach more quickly.
Why is it fun having a character with no upperbody strength going into physical fights?
For me I have a hexblade warlock with 8 strength and a polearm planned. Personally I think that's fun because it leans into the mechanic of charisma based pact magic allowing it to work. Sure players can go with their 8 str rogue but this may be the fun of rigging the stats.
Why is it fun only to take "hits from an enemy and not have it affect your ability"?
In the TOR 2e system characters have endurance which at my characters max is around twice his level of load, the way the system works is that if injuries bring endurance so that it would be below load, the character becomes wearied, The options are to drop items if possible or to have a situation where your 1, 2, or 3 scores on your six-sided dice count as zeroes. You still have the potential to hit as well as you ever did, but you're facing rational consequences. It's a game of ever increasing stakes, not zero consequences til you reach zero hp.
D&D is also fun, but discounting the fun (and tensions) of other systems is wildly unfair.
D&D requires weeks to make magic items and to fulfil other tasks, and achieving these accomplishments can be fun.
But I think that your argument here is that some things in 5e aren't realistic, so otherthings can't be made to be more realistic.
Swords are very much not simple weapons. It takes a lot of training before you can use one and present a bigger threat to your opponent than to yourself. Sickles really shouldn't be weapons at all, they're terrible for the role, but someone apparently wanted to have them available to druids.And there's your problem. You're relying on AI (which doesn't actually know anything). All it does is generate things that sound coherent, but it is not a database that actually understands your question or is capable of giving you an accurate answer because it doesn't know what those are, it just knows that it's seen some words in association with other words and goes from there. Historically, getting three shots per minute was a very high rate of fire for crossbows. A D&D combat round is six seconds, so one shot every four rounds is a pretty realistic number. One shot every ten seconds isn't achievable without a modern crossbow.
Because 5E's rules mean that you can have a perfectly viable melee character who uses strength as their dump stat. Rogues, Rangers, Monks, Bards, Bladesinger Wizards, Armorer and Battle Smith Artificers...
No, my argument is that your complaint about one particular aspect of combat in D&D being unrealistic fails because the whole combat system isn't and never was designed to be a realistic simulation of how fighting works. That's what everyone who's been arguing with you has been saying this whole time. The system is unrealistic by design.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
This really illustrates a big part of the problem in this conversation.
This is not game balance. You are describing your opinions about how easy or difficult a weapon might be to wield in real life. Game balance has nothing to do with that. Game balance is a combination of the size of the damage die, if a weapon uses one or two hands, and what other properties (finesse, heavy, thrown, etc) and masteries (nick, sap, topple) a weapon may have on them. Those are the things that matter in-game and are therefore important to balance against each other in-game.
How intuitive it would be for a person to wield a weapon is not a game balance factor. After all, the weapons aren't actually weapons, they're a package of game statistics that have the name of a familiar weapon hung on them as a shorthand.
There probably have been games with this level of detail, but they are footnotes in the history of RPGs. Even games generally considered to be "more realistic", like GURPS, generally still keep things more abstract.than you're talking about. The closest I can think of is a game called Phoenix Command, that was designed to be as realistic as possible in its simulation of gun combat and the effects of bullets. (As I understand it, there were a lot of tables.)
There have probably been games that tried to do small-unit medieval weapon combat with high levels of accuracy, though perhaps less than Phoenix Command, but they are obscure. (Harnmaster might fit the bill, but I know even less of it than I do Phoenix Command, and it was better known for the associated setting.) The more realistic you try to make a game system, the more moving parts you have, and the more handling time you need for every action. And that turns a game into a slog. These days, with ubiquitous portable computing devices, we could automate all that handling time away, but I think it's telling that it has not led to a wave of more-realistic computer-intermediated RPG systems.
That said, there's another approach besides hyper-realism -- more abstraction. There are lots of systems out there where the mechanics don't enforce a level of detail that makes the narrative of combat inherently unrealistic. For instance, when the positioning rules are highly abstract, you can just narrate that the rogues are fighting shoulder-to-shoulder. Depending on the system, you may even be able to establish a mechanical advantage for doing so. (FATE is my go-to example of that sort of system, but there are many, catering to many different styles of play.)
So you're agreeing with me. If weapons like axes (and sickles...), which are relatively difficult weapon to wield as per the stated claim, were in game given a higher requirement for gaining weapon proficiency, and if intuitive weapons like swards were given a lower requirement to gain weapon proficiency, characters would be even less likely to fight with axes and sickles...
You are exactly right about game balance. All the same there are some weapons that are generally better than others even with an extent of balance being applied.
Shield skills and feats would help fill in.
A specialized solder who works best with a group of similarly trained solders.
But not a player character. An NPC city guard, army solder instead.
Things would have to be worked over for a low lever character to have enough skills and feats to make this idea workable as a player character.
Shields could also be changed as armor. Bring back the idea of small, medium(normal), and large shield. Better coverage for the larger shields, Almost giving them ability of "cover".
Shields could be considered weapons in specially trained hands. Thus they could be used as a second punch or shove attack for those who could make two attacks.
What level of detail?
All I'm saying is that in a game with tokens instead of miniatures, if a player wants to make a case for a character remaining in a shared space with another willing character, then the DM can adjudicate on whether this would be feasible and whether the characters would be able to perform whatever actions in the context of that shared space.
If, on a character's turn, the DM decides that they can't perform a certain action within that situation, the character can move. It's no biggie.
Why can't two mages share the same space. A door is 2.5 foot wide. Double doors are 5 foot wide. How much space is taken up by two conference chairs, They could easily fit in 5 feet. It's really easy for two people to occupy this kind of large space. People do it all the time.
Yes. When they're sitting or standing passively. It's not so easy to do so when they're both actively moving around engaged in vigorous physical activity. Especially if they're trying to avoid hitting each other or get in each other's way. That sort of coordination is difficult. And has already been stated, the decision to use five foot increments was just done because it makes the math more intuitive for most people.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
It amazes me that people see a problem with coordinated shield buddies in phalanx type formation when thrusting forward with spear or sword but don't see a problem with someone waving a two-handed sword in a corridor or, bonus action, making a melee attack with the opposite end of a reach weapon without swiping into allies.
I'd appreciate seeing your math for this
Maybe a fighter style could accomodate a shield wall option. It could give something like +1 to AC on condition of both wielding a shield and being next to an ally who is also wielding a shield. This style could allow two such martial characters to share a space on condition that spaces to their sides aren't doubly occupied.
It would just ne a variation of the defence fighting style but with different requirements and benefits.
Why don't barbarians have fighting styles? A shield and spear/weapon archetype could suit a band of unarmoured or less armoured warriors in a hot climate.
Does anyone have thoughts on this:
There's no math for "people find working of increments of 5 easier than increments of 3", so maybe you misunderstood what was being said? Let try and demonstrate:
Here are the first ten increments of 3:
3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 40
And here are the first ten increments of 5:
5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50
You must be able to see that increments of 5 has a much more overt and obvious pattern that would be easier to intuit than increments of 3, right? I'm not trying to be condescending, although I can understand how it'd seem that way—you seem incredulous that 5 is easier to work with math-wise than 3, and the only way to take that as a good faith position is to provide such a basic and borderline patronising explanation.
This presupposes the average DM would allow this, which I suspect many wouldn't. And even if they did, reducing XP doesn't make any sense because that again makes the flawed assumption that two level X characters are equal to one level 2X character. Scaling in the game doesn't work like that and that's why the game (and most DMs) avoid variable XP across the party. It seems like a moot point because there's no functional difference between 1 player controlling two characters and 2 players controlling one character each.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Maybe you failed to take in my previous genuine responses to the helpful replies to others in this thread
And maybe you failed to take in my previous responses to you:
I'd still appreciate the math for this:
There's no math for that? There was no math claim made about that.
I think you're misunderstanding what was said in the final sentence:
This is a separate proposition unrelated to the one you're quoting. It's just saying "working in 5s is easier than working in 3s"
Find my D&D Beyond articles here