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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
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.