Rant away, it's always fun to see other peoples views on the rules.
My problem with it isn't the fact that the backpack can fit everything. It's the fact that, if we take Folki for the example, an adventurer can travel, fight, manoeuvre, climb through crevasses all with a 240lb bag on their back without even noticing! That's nearly the equivalent to having a Giant Panda strapped to your back! I really notice it if I go hiking with more than 30lb!
I am more than happy to put the extra work in as the DM to organise a cart inventory etc. if it means I can get a semi-realistic depiction of carrying stuff and travel. I just think it really adds to the tension and immersion of the roleplaying if, for instance, you have to pick certain tools to take with you into a dungeon that you think you might need, rather than pulling out a shovel, crowbar, 50kg of cheese and a grand piano you just happen to have in your bag from three weeks ago. It's also a point that because I never have to worry about what I'm carrying, I never remember what I have so end up not using any of the many small items that are picked up, instead relying on the same things every time.
I am also planning to use the 'money weighs' rule and incorporate a bank system into the world, very similar to the original one set up by the Templars. You deposit your 5000gp in a bank in one city and get a get a token/contract/cheque that you can redeem for 5000gp at a bank in any other city. The real life reason for this was to prevent pilgrims being robbed for their cash on the road, I think it would be quite cool to put an equivalent thing into my world :)
(Just a little response to the resurrection discussion :D )
In my world, magic is just beginning to be understood. It's only been around for 3 centuries and the vast majority are too scared of it to trust it never mind study it. There are people who use it, but no-one of the equivalent of Lvl12ish above (not sure yet), but they just see it as magic and have no idea what it is and how it works. "I have this thing, point it at that, concentrate on a fireball, and woosh" (OK not that simple XD ). I plan for much of the campaign to follow the theme of discovering about magic and what it does (hence no magic weapons lying around or for sale) and any magic user in the party will likely be the first person in the history of this world to do anything like Lvl8 or Lvl9 spells.
summon an elemental is going to be awesome, magic comes from giant burning rifts (portals) between the planes. "dude.... we were fighting with these guys.... and one of them RIPPED THE SKY IN HALF AND FLAME CREATURES CAME POURING OUT!!"
There was a campaign like that on here that I was going to join but had too much going on, not sure how they ended up doing it but maybe have a look for it?
Would it be with monsters etc? If so, I would have it that you need to use silvered blades on them, no guns. Though tbf they already have guns on here
What was the campaign about? I might have been a part of it and I know how that went. It wasn't at all helpful.
The problem is: I think in a modern setting, everyone would use guns regardless of there being monsters or not. If everyone uses guns, then what will STR do and what would melee combat even look like?
As far as I could tell it was a Shadowhunters esque world: hidden magical world that only some people know with a supernatural police force that keeps it from spilling out.
On the guns front, use the supernatural angle. There must be a magical reason that can be come up with that dictates that monsters can't be hurt by supersonic lead abjects rather than silvered blades.
Nope that's not the campaign I was thinking of. Should probably try and look for it.
I think that idea could work but what do we do if someone wants to play a ranged fighter or something similar? Then wouldn't the problem just get flipped where instead of melee characters becoming less viable than ranged characters, we have ranged characters less viable than melee characters.
What about doing something video-gamey where, things like pistols, handguns and shotguns and Semi-automatics replace melee and reach weapons and things like LMGs, HMGs and sniper rifles replace ranged weapons. The problem with this is that it's a purely mechanics based ruling.
Another thing could be to give every kind of weapon and armor a STR requirement to use and then not have melee weapons other than for situations where the enemy is too close or when you run out of ammo. Maybe you need more than just an action to reload?
Or should we just say "**** it" and have both swords and guns even though there are no logical narrative reasons why swords are still used. They have balanced mechanics and they just exist.
I would just go the route of Shadowhunters. Weapons need to be specially crafted/enchanted to hurt monsters. This is fine for swords, arrows,maces etc as they are multi use. Bullets would require the same amount effort for each round but is useless after its fired
Yeah, I think this is the best idea we have so far. I wonder how Shadowrun handles it. I should go read the rule books and see if that gives me any ideas.
Because you have disadvantage to attacks with a bow when within 5 feet of an enemy.
But in all seriousness, IIRC it's mainly the bow was used in conjunction with a melee weapon to be able to fight in close and long range. The tactic was having a spear and a bow, and you would plant your spear and arrows in the ground in front of you, shooting at your opponent, and when they got closer, you can just discard your bow and pull the spear out of the ground.
Added an IRL thing. Bowmen were historically a major change in the paradigm of warfare and battles. 100 archers could easily decimate 500 troopers before they get close. Also using things like forests to create choke points and just fill them with arrows would also be a valid tactic.
- archery takes a lot of training. Not only do you have to build up the specific muscular strength to pull the string back, you also have to spend years developing a sense of aim. Bows don't have sights, it's not like a gun but more like throwing a ball; over years your body and mind just know how to hit the thing you're aiming at
- secondly most bows have been very bad against armour and shields. It takes a hell of a lot of power to speed the projectile up to enough speed to pierce even chainmail, plate is a whole other thing. This is why the longbow was such a lethal weapon
- as much as pokes point was a joke, it's true. Archers are extremely vulnerable to melee. It took a professional archer around ten seconds between arrows. In this time a cavalry charge could decimate all of them.
- as much as popular culture wants you to believe so, medieval and ancient warfare was not all about killing as many people as possible. If you did that you would end up with most of you're own men dead. What you wanted to do was kill enough/lower the enemies morale/flank/get the upper hand so that you're opponents fled or surrender, all the while preventing your own men dieing. The easiest way to do this is melee. Archers can only kill (any hit would probably result in death due to infection etc). A battle between two purely archer armies would result in them loosing volley after volley until vast majority were dead
- a continuation of that point: ransoms. Medieval warfare was built around capturing rich and noble opposition who's families would pay you to release them. You can not do this with archers
- chivalry. In the middle ages it was considered cowardly and not honourable to fight in anyway other than melee on horse back .
For the vast majority of history archers have been used to suppress and harass the enemy. Shoot a cloud of arrows at the enemy and they have to stay still crouched beneath their shields, unable to manoeuvre as you're cavalry run behind them to crash into their rear ranks. Pelt the cavalry charge coming toward you, cutting their horses out from underneath them and forcing them to walk, the barage of projectiles hitting their armor exhausting them before they even reach your lines.
If you want to look at two of the most archer heavy military forces, look into the Mongol horde and the 14th century English army. Both were around 70% archers but nearly all the casualties they caused were from their melee units (Mongols not so much). The key point is that both these forces came from countries were archery was in their culture, people trained with bows since they could walk. In England it was LAW that every man must practice with a longbow for an hour EVERY day. This is why no other country in Europe could copy their longbow tactics, they were two centuries too late to start. And why the crossbow was so popular, very little training involved
Poke: do you have a certain period/place/people that did the spear and bow thing. I'm just asking because I've never heard of that and interested to see where it's from
I read once this article that said that the introducing of the longbow in the medieval warfare was even more game changing that the nuclear weapons... So...
longbows have been around since 700AD, it took 600 years for a culture to develop that could use them effectively in warfare. It was generations of archery essentially being a hobby for the entire country that let it be so effective.
And ******* effective it was. It allowed English armies of around 4000 men (vast majority peasants with big sticks with string on them) to completely defeat armies three times their size (vast majority nobles with full plate armour, expensive weapons and fine bred horses), while only suffering 100 casualties. Don't believe me, go read up about agincourt, crecy and Poitiers.
(Just read that back and sounded very aggressiv, sorry. I'm agreeing with you Val, but not to the same level)
Rant away, it's always fun to see other peoples views on the rules.
My problem with it isn't the fact that the backpack can fit everything. It's the fact that, if we take Folki for the example, an adventurer can travel, fight, manoeuvre, climb through crevasses all with a 240lb bag on their back without even noticing! That's nearly the equivalent to having a Giant Panda strapped to your back! I really notice it if I go hiking with more than 30lb!
I am more than happy to put the extra work in as the DM to organise a cart inventory etc. if it means I can get a semi-realistic depiction of carrying stuff and travel. I just think it really adds to the tension and immersion of the roleplaying if, for instance, you have to pick certain tools to take with you into a dungeon that you think you might need, rather than pulling out a shovel, crowbar, 50kg of cheese and a grand piano you just happen to have in your bag from three weeks ago. It's also a point that because I never have to worry about what I'm carrying, I never remember what I have so end up not using any of the many small items that are picked up, instead relying on the same things every time.
I am also planning to use the 'money weighs' rule and incorporate a bank system into the world, very similar to the original one set up by the Templars. You deposit your 5000gp in a bank in one city and get a get a token/contract/cheque that you can redeem for 5000gp at a bank in any other city. The real life reason for this was to prevent pilgrims being robbed for their cash on the road, I think it would be quite cool to put an equivalent thing into my world :)
(Credit to this website for helping me put my point into words: http://myanimalweight.com/ :D )
(Just a little response to the resurrection discussion :D )
In my world, magic is just beginning to be understood. It's only been around for 3 centuries and the vast majority are too scared of it to trust it never mind study it. There are people who use it, but no-one of the equivalent of Lvl12ish above (not sure yet), but they just see it as magic and have no idea what it is and how it works. "I have this thing, point it at that, concentrate on a fireball, and woosh" (OK not that simple XD ). I plan for much of the campaign to follow the theme of discovering about magic and what it does (hence no magic weapons lying around or for sale) and any magic user in the party will likely be the first person in the history of this world to do anything like Lvl8 or Lvl9 spells.
Then I think that you’ve wrapped up a nice system to keep things interesting!
Can’t stop imagine the faces... whe they cast things like lightings or summons an elemental XD
PbP Character: A few ;)
summon an elemental is going to be awesome, magic comes from giant burning rifts (portals) between the planes. "dude.... we were fighting with these guys.... and one of them RIPPED THE SKY IN HALF AND FLAME CREATURES CAME POURING OUT!!"
A question:
If you wanted to run a DnD 5e campaign in a modern setting, how would equipment, skills and other mechanics work?
There was a campaign like that on here that I was going to join but had too much going on, not sure how they ended up doing it but maybe have a look for it?
Would it be with monsters etc? If so, I would have it that you need to use silvered blades on them, no guns. Though tbf they already have guns on here
What was the campaign about? I might have been a part of it and I know how that went. It wasn't at all helpful.
The problem is: I think in a modern setting, everyone would use guns regardless of there being monsters or not. If everyone uses guns, then what will STR do and what would melee combat even look like?
As far as I could tell it was a Shadowhunters esque world: hidden magical world that only some people know with a supernatural police force that keeps it from spilling out.
On the guns front, use the supernatural angle. There must be a magical reason that can be come up with that dictates that monsters can't be hurt by supersonic lead abjects rather than silvered blades.
Nope that's not the campaign I was thinking of. Should probably try and look for it.
I think that idea could work but what do we do if someone wants to play a ranged fighter or something similar? Then wouldn't the problem just get flipped where instead of melee characters becoming less viable than ranged characters, we have ranged characters less viable than melee characters.
What about doing something video-gamey where, things like pistols, handguns and shotguns and Semi-automatics replace melee and reach weapons and things like LMGs, HMGs and sniper rifles replace ranged weapons. The problem with this is that it's a purely mechanics based ruling.
Another thing could be to give every kind of weapon and armor a STR requirement to use and then not have melee weapons other than for situations where the enemy is too close or when you run out of ammo. Maybe you need more than just an action to reload?
Or should we just say "**** it" and have both swords and guns even though there are no logical narrative reasons why swords are still used. They have balanced mechanics and they just exist.
I would just go the route of Shadowhunters. Weapons need to be specially crafted/enchanted to hurt monsters. This is fine for swords, arrows,maces etc as they are multi use. Bullets would require the same amount effort for each round but is useless after its fired
Yeah, I think this is the best idea we have so far. I wonder how Shadowrun handles it. I should go read the rule books and see if that gives me any ideas.
Hey, I just thought of something. When Bows and arrows became a thing, why didn't melee weapons stop being used in real world history?
Because you have disadvantage to attacks with a bow when within 5 feet of an enemy.
But in all seriousness, IIRC it's mainly the bow was used in conjunction with a melee weapon to be able to fight in close and long range. The tactic was having a spear and a bow, and you would plant your spear and arrows in the ground in front of you, shooting at your opponent, and when they got closer, you can just discard your bow and pull the spear out of the ground.
In real-life?
Added an IRL thing. Bowmen were historically a major change in the paradigm of warfare and battles. 100 archers could easily decimate 500 troopers before they get close. Also using things like forests to create choke points and just fill them with arrows would also be a valid tactic.
Few a number of reasons:
- archery takes a lot of training. Not only do you have to build up the specific muscular strength to pull the string back, you also have to spend years developing a sense of aim. Bows don't have sights, it's not like a gun but more like throwing a ball; over years your body and mind just know how to hit the thing you're aiming at
- secondly most bows have been very bad against armour and shields. It takes a hell of a lot of power to speed the projectile up to enough speed to pierce even chainmail, plate is a whole other thing. This is why the longbow was such a lethal weapon
- as much as pokes point was a joke, it's true. Archers are extremely vulnerable to melee. It took a professional archer around ten seconds between arrows. In this time a cavalry charge could decimate all of them.
- as much as popular culture wants you to believe so, medieval and ancient warfare was not all about killing as many people as possible. If you did that you would end up with most of you're own men dead. What you wanted to do was kill enough/lower the enemies morale/flank/get the upper hand so that you're opponents fled or surrender, all the while preventing your own men dieing. The easiest way to do this is melee. Archers can only kill (any hit would probably result in death due to infection etc). A battle between two purely archer armies would result in them loosing volley after volley until vast majority were dead
- a continuation of that point: ransoms. Medieval warfare was built around capturing rich and noble opposition who's families would pay you to release them. You can not do this with archers
- chivalry. In the middle ages it was considered cowardly and not honourable to fight in anyway other than melee on horse back .
For the vast majority of history archers have been used to suppress and harass the enemy. Shoot a cloud of arrows at the enemy and they have to stay still crouched beneath their shields, unable to manoeuvre as you're cavalry run behind them to crash into their rear ranks. Pelt the cavalry charge coming toward you, cutting their horses out from underneath them and forcing them to walk, the barage of projectiles hitting their armor exhausting them before they even reach your lines.
If you want to look at two of the most archer heavy military forces, look into the Mongol horde and the 14th century English army. Both were around 70% archers but nearly all the casualties they caused were from their melee units (Mongols not so much). The key point is that both these forces came from countries were archery was in their culture, people trained with bows since they could walk. In England it was LAW that every man must practice with a longbow for an hour EVERY day. This is why no other country in Europe could copy their longbow tactics, they were two centuries too late to start. And why the crossbow was so popular, very little training involved
Sorry that was so much longer than originally thought
Poke: do you have a certain period/place/people that did the spear and bow thing. I'm just asking because I've never heard of that and interested to see where it's from
I read once this article that said that the introducing of the longbow in the medieval warfare was even more game changing that the nuclear weapons... So...
PbP Character: A few ;)
I don't know if I would go that far
longbows have been around since 700AD, it took 600 years for a culture to develop that could use them effectively in warfare. It was generations of archery essentially being a hobby for the entire country that let it be so effective.
And ******* effective it was. It allowed English armies of around 4000 men (vast majority peasants with big sticks with string on them) to completely defeat armies three times their size (vast majority nobles with full plate armour, expensive weapons and fine bred horses), while only suffering 100 casualties. Don't believe me, go read up about agincourt, crecy and Poitiers.
(Just read that back and sounded very aggressiv, sorry. I'm agreeing with you Val, but not to the same level)