/beige/

>>51241195
No he is wrong and a faggot.
I've done archery my entire life, assuming average person is 9-10 in stats as long as said ranger doesn't have shit like an 8 in str you could still draw a bow. Its true in order to pull back a heavier bow, (composites make this a lot easier, but still you can't be weak.) Dexterity matters a lot more in terms of precise aiming, which is what matter in a small company of people aiming at target. Strength only mattered more then dex in armies where your job was to volley arrow after arrow nonstop at the opposing forces ever few seconds. But that ain't what most campaign groups are unless you are playing like 1000 dudes in agincourt.

As for dex more important that str for a fighter I got a simple answer
F = ma .

>>51241195
He doesn't know a lot about RPG games.

~12 Strength is still really strong in fantasy, but still enough for a bow, and I'd expect a bow wielder to have that high of strength anyways.

A master fencer would have whatever iteration of D&D's Finesse feat where he uses Dexterity. His example depends on how well armored each combatant is and blah blah.

File: katana.jpg (71KB, 406x365px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 406x365px

>>51241195
>Is he right /tg/?
He's always right. And adorable of course.

>>51241195
So this is the autism that caused a lot of anons to yell that you never need DEX to hit something with a bow? I should finally unsubscribe, he talks only about tanks these days anyway.

>>51241195
I like you Lloyd, and you make okay videos, but please stop spamming the board.
Accept that no one cares about your opinions on d&d.
Accept that ttrp's are by necessity huge simplifications of the complex situations of real life.
Accept the sage.

>>51241195
I think he's forgetting the GAME aspect of Role Playing Games, as a lot of autists and grognards do. Is what he's suggesting accurate and realistic? Sure! But it isn't much fun at the table.

Fantasy Role Play as Simulation vs Fantasy Role Play as Game.

>>51241195
He also fails to realize that melee fighters do much more than fight with a sword, and a high STR stat is useful for using weapons like warhammers

File: 73fa871181e6df041b6672371cc2feb0.png (25KB, 420x420px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 420x420px

>>51241195
>Lindybeige
Can we stop finally doing this shit?

>>51241266
He's just regurgitating what Matt Easton from Scholagladiatoria said. You need a lot of strength to use a 80kg longbow, while you don't need much strength for using a sword or a spear. This video was made because you often see weak girls being the archer in movies.

>>51241645

A warhammer wasn't really any heavier than a sword. Shorter, because you need to pack the same weight in a thicker package, and of course that means the balance would be different, but most pre-gunpowder weapons were more or less the same weight.

That being said, you need a good deal of strength to keep going in a longer fight, as well as just to control the melee space; there's often a good deal of grappling in weapon fighting, especially if the combatants are also armored.

>>51241919
Longbow sure, but you can use a shortbow, or composite or crossbow with no where near as much strength.

>>51241195
One, there is literally a mechanic in D&D for composite bows that scales the damage to the amount of strength you have. Entire first point is invalid.

Two, a good fighter has both high dex and strength. Your false dichotomy is fake and gay.

3/10 for making me reply

>>51241579
This is quite handily exemplified by his one video about having his party hunt some giant turtle. The party basically rolled up there to go ahead and fight it, but he went "ha-HA, none of you brought any specialised anti-giant-turtle weaponry. And your swords and bows don't do anything against it!". So then the party got to eat shit and watch while some NPCs did the actual hunting. Fair point about realism, terrible GM'ing.

>>51242025
>Two, a good fighter has both high dex and strength
In which system? Even back in 2e, where wearing armor didn't actively gimp you, stacking AC was not very useful in the long term.

>>51241564
>Accept that ttrp's are by necessity huge simplifications of the complex situations of real life.

there is difference between simplification and being rather specific about something but being WRONG about it.
Like, at example, dividing general physical aptitude into 3 different stats, and then assigning them to wrong things. It isn't simplification - it is failed attempt at simulation.
Personally I'm not fan of "primary stats" at all, i would rather have my char sheet say how good is my character at swinging his sword. And leave the explanation if it is becouse he's strong or agile or anything else up to my own description, not to rigi game mechanics

>>51241919
>longbow
>archer in movies

pick one

>>51241195
The reason why Dex is used for archers and Str is used for warriors is because it's a fucking game and sometimes you just want distinction and balance over realism

>>51242174
To be fair, that's how I GM and how many old GMs used to run games, back when D&D was objective-based and characters didn't have much in the way of class features. Standing next to the big monster and throwing dice at it was either a last resort or showing off to impress a local nob.

Or getting into the hobby because of video games. God, the shaking of beards when Baldur's Gate kids started showing up at the club.

>>51242220
But d&d mechanics are no more wrong that Lindy is, here.

Now, if you make the argument that starting out with specific attributes for a character, and then letting those be deciding for his/hers skills at a bunch of specific actions is poor simulation, I am on board.
Being good at almost anything has something to do with inherent physical and mental attributes, and very much more to do with practice, practice, practice.
But that is how the d&d system works, so play another system if you hate it.

As for ranged combat (Whether with a crossbow, a thrown dagger, a bow or a bunch of other things) some strength is required, but not exceptional strength. Fine motor skills are quite important.

For melee combat, some dexterity is required, but not exceptional dexterity, however fighting fully armored, in melee with one or more opponents definitely requires strength.

There are customisation options based on melee dex, dodging and so on. You can play that, too. But a classic knight or great-axe barb deal their damage with Strength.

>>51241195
To some extent but only if you squint.

Dexterity isn't just flexibility but also precision which is most definitely required for ranged combat. There is a minimum strength requirement but that's more of a requirement to use the weapon rather than a factor in weapon performance.

Strength is less a matter of hitting an opponent and more a matter of piercing their defenses. D&D assumes that the target will automatically defend themselves and this is represented in adding your Dex to your AC. There's also the assumption that you need to pierce armor by force rather than precision which, in the case of chain mail, is mostly true.

>>51242523
>For melee combat, some dexterity is required, but not exceptional dexterity, however fighting fully armored, in melee with one or more opponents definitely requires strength.
Bullshit. In real fencing agility and dexterity is almost always more important than raw strength (of course you need to have average strength). And no full plate armour doesn't weight as much as you think, you can do a lot of agile stuff while wearing it.

Also this is not the ramblings of an autistic neckbeard but what Matt Easton says, a renown HEMA teacher.

>>51242675
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3jV93rNils

I know this is not real medieval combat, but it is probably some of the closest you'll get to a real-life melee.

Or look at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IV3yvOkooYA

Now, consider that your fighter in the game is not "scoring hits" in front of a judge, like Matt Easton probably usually is. He is attempting to inflict so much trauma on someone that they die.
Again, I am def. not saying "no dex required" - I am saying that, all in all, it is reasonable enough to have STR be the default governing characteristic. I mean, dex-builds are a thing, and they can be really effective, too.

I used to do classical fencing. Now, that is def. a dex-sports, if we are making a d&d comparison. Only speed and precision matter.

File: 1461029054979.gif (1MB, 406x449px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 406x449px

When 1st level experts are duelling, the rapier guy with 18 dex and weapon finesse beats the longsword guy with 18 strength. (on average) Both will likely oneshot the other, and the dex guy is 20% more evasive.

That's likely the only situation where rapier guy will oneshot anything. Fantasy/movie warriors need to be able to hit like a truck to so much as scratch the fantastic enemies they get thrown up against. Meanwhile, archers need to be able to pull trickshots like arrows to the eye or ranged disarms to be effective.

Has there ever been an archery style of combat, not competition, that favoured precision? It looks to me that all it matter is the mass of arrows and how many you pull. Not to mention, it seems like most archers were peasant who trained on saturdays due King's edicts.

>>51242975
In game? Rogue archers with sneak attack.
IRL? Considering the effectiveness of modern snipers, I have to assume there were historical analogues, along with trained specialists in those tactics.

>>51242850
These fights need to be considered with extreme caution, since in some ways they are almost as artificial as olympic fencing. A simple, obvious example, is that due to safety considerations, any and all thrusting is disallowed.

That severly skews the general function and purpose of the fight. Essentially, it turns into a race of who can bruise and concuss the other more quickly. I mean, just look at some of the scenes where two or more people are locked into some kind of struggle, while the bystanders just kind of repeatedly wallop them from above over the course of minutes. In reality (as supported by various treatises), those bystanders would have the opportunity of incapacitating or outright killing their opponent in a matter of seconds.

>>51242975
I would argue any kind of skirmish situation, or horse archery when they got close yes I know that they used volley fire too
>it seems like most archers were peasant who trained on saturdays due King's edicts
This would be horribly wrong. I know that this sounds kinda tumblr-like, but this is a really eurocentric view.

Once again, GURPS (and probably a lot of other RPGs better than D&D) did it right.

Bow:
Strength is for being able to use the bow, Dexterity is for aiming

Sword:
Strength is for the damage, Dexterity is for being able to hit.

I dunno why D&D insists on weapons being either STR or DEX, when all weapons are both STR and DEX.

>>51242975
>Archery
>Precision
You pick a crossbow for that. For the ability to actually take aim.

>>51241195
Stupid argument. Dexterity helps aim the bow so str wouldn't improve to hit and would maybe improve damage. If it bothers you that much just make a minimum str requirement for using the bow like in 2nd edition.

>>51241195
You ever saw the arms of the guys shooting bows that aren't the ultralight sport or trickbows? They normally have some huge fucking muscles.

Out of all the things Lindybeige has said about tabletop games, the ones I liked most of all are the one about the Half-Elves and the one about the specialized weapons armies would use against monsters in a fantasy world.

Sometimes he has good ideas.

But he really should stop talking about tanks, his ignorance of the subject is showing.

>>51242975
>Not to mention, it seems like most archers were peasant who trained on saturdays due King's edicts.
That extremely varies by time and era. If you look over to, say, Japan or Persia, you'll find that the bow was also often the preferred weapon of the nobility. Horse archery in particular tended to favour fairly precise target shooting, since it's more focused on skirmishing in loose order.

And in a way, even battlefield archers trained for precision. Not in the way of "I can hit a single running man at a hundred yars", but in the sense of "I can make my arrow land at any distance I want ninety times out of a hundred.". After all, especially if your unit of archers was several ranks deep, you couldn't rely on each of them actually seeing and individually aiming at the opponent. You'd have a foreman call out the range, and then the archers would attempt to hit that range based on muscle memory. Not much good to have a huge arrow output if most of them land in front of or behind the enemy unit.

>>51243093
Not every bow used in war was some giant 180 pounds monstrosity. You can get both decent accuracy as well as power out of relatively lighter bows in the 100-120 range.

>>51243201
No anon, the english longbow is the only bow that ever existed and was used to kill hundreds of french knights with one shot, single-handedly winning the Hundred Years War.

>>51243158
Basically Lindy's problem is that he doesn't know when to stop. Often he starts out with a fair observation, and draws a reasonable conclusion from it. But then he extrapolates based on that conclusion and makes another one based off of it, and then another, and so on and on without ever really stopping and checking whether those steps along the way are supported or contradicted by existing evidence. And that's how you end up with pacifist pikemen who don't try to stab their enemies because that would be scary.

>>51241195
1. Aim is everything when you're an adventurer, as an adventurer you have like 4 friends, not 100 backing your misses up.
2. Assuming D&D, composite bows, you need Str if you want to deal damage, your longbow in d8 unless composite is just like 15 lb bow nomatter how long it's. So in the end you need both.
3. Kinda agree on melee fighters, pick armor and have lots on Str and you're done, Dex is almost a dump stat.
4. But this is a game, and forcing MAD characters isn't a great idea.

>>51241195
>Longbow faggot
Kek, Japanese archers penetrate as much as your deformed British with 10% of Str.

>>51243258
>pacifist pikemen who don't try to stab their enemies because that would be scary
Wat?

>>51243253
This is English yew, folded ovel one thousand times! It can shoot light thlough youl infeliol steel almol!

>>51241195
>"Now about melee fighters while Strength is important for grappling, dexterity and agility are far more significant. A master fencer was someone who was moving around very fast, ready to attack and then quickly recover and defend. All these skills and abilities that a good melee fighter needs are part of Dexterity. If there's a fight between two warriors, one very agile and of average strength and the other extremely strong but of average agility and all it takes to kill a man is a trust in the neck, who do you think is going to win? Of course it's the agile warrior."

What are "Finesse weapons", Alex? I'll take Unresearched complaints for $400. It's the Daily Double. The answer is "Dex vs Str in melee." What is "The Mountain vs the Red Viper?", Alex.

>>51243412
Not the other anon, but Lindy is currently doing the "modern people are pussies and they can't fight each other" mashed up with "people don't like killing each other, because they are scared of getting hurt" bullshit.
It's literally his best way of doing clickbati ever since, because unlike that fucking cavalry video, it takes zero effort, but still gives clicks and views.

Fuck that guy.

>>51243106
>Dexterity helps aim the bow so str wouldn't improve to hit and would maybe improve damage
the problem with "improve to hit" is that bypassing armor requires to-hit, and bypassing armor with a ranged weapon absolutely 100% requires strength, you're not going to pull off the melee trick of being able to hem in your opponent and target weak spots, if you hit your target it's almost certainly going to be in the armored bits and either you have the draw strength to pierce through and deal damage or you don't
I understand why armor is mapped onto AC and not a damage reduction system, it's a reasonable simplification, but once you've made that simplication you NEED to remap ALL accuracy effects onto strength or else you get this system of perverse incentives where complete lightweight archers are peppering through dragonhide and knightly plate like it's nothing

File: No doubt about it.jpg (7KB, 600x504px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 600x504px

>2017
>There are people who make Lindybeige-backed threads
>There are people who think bows are cool and awesome
>There are people still buying the game-balance based Dex-vs-Str bullshit

>>51243599
Except that in this case the DEX is used to hit weak-spots.

>>51243412
IIRC, he basically argued that if two pikeblocks were to meet each other, they'd just end up kind of forcing each other's pike in the air by mutual consent. Because the alternative would be being pushed into the enemy's pike-points by the press of the dudes behind you.

But that's pretty much bullshit. For one, though it is called "push of pike", there's no actual pushing going on within the formation. In fact, the average pike block was a surprisingly loose/open formation, since they actually needed the space to maneuver quickly and properly (and later on to let the gunmen pass through). And secondly, there are a whole number of historical accounts of pikes pretty much walking up to each other and then doing their damned best to stab the shit out of each other.

>>51241463
>He's always right.
Not about machineguns he isn't.

>>51243599
>I understand why armor is mapped onto AC and not a damage reduction system, it's a reasonable simplification
Oh, really?

>>51241195
>Is he right /tg/?
No, he fucking wrong like always. Unless you have superhuman reflexes then Dexterity is worthless for melee fighting, the stronger guy will win 99% of the time.

>>51243703
>Not getting the sarcasm
This might shock you, but he's almost always wrong or picks a right conclusion and then dry-humps it until it's wrong too.

>>51243736
That's not how it works in modern combat sports, at least. Strength matters, but so do reflexes and coordination.

>>51243738
meh

File: e4e.png (124KB, 619x562px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 619x562px

>>51243736

>>51243685
And it's completely absurd for a ranged character shooting at a moving target to be able to target weak spots, compared to someone in close range who can dynamically adjust the path of the melee weapon based on incoming stimulI
Which beings us again to the point that archery should be strength-based and only melee should be allowed to use dexterity to hit

>>51243804
>archery should be strength-based
This is more retarded than an archer deliberately aiming at a dragons eye for reasons already explained in this thread.

>>51243804
>And it's completely absurd for a ranged character shooting at a moving target to be able to target weak spots
What's wrong with that in heroic game? Paris killed Achilles with an arrow (guided by god but still) to the heel. PCs should be able to do that depending on the style of campaign and system you play.

>>51243736
>the stronger guy will win 99% of the time.
Sure
One of the great advantages of being strong (english definition) is that you can more quickly maneuver with the slab of metal in your hands because it's a routine task for your muscles. But in RPG systems quick maneuvering goes into Dexterity and not Strength.

>>51243086
All true, and it's also worth noting that the participants in these fights wear a lot more padding under their armor than historical warriors would have, which impairs their mobility, further devaluing precision as a viable option.

And then there's considerations like the fact that most of these fights have the weapons and shields locked into the hand holding them, so the fighters can't use any techniques that involve adjusting one's grip and turns close-quarters engagement into a mess of flailing.

File: 12439434_10105069525582572_1785968033060052140_n.jpg (29KB, 397x407px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 397x407px

>>51241195
>I'll quote Lloyd saying it instead of Matt, then /tg/ will confirm my bias because they hate him!

>>51241195
>Is [Lindybeige] right /tg/?

1. Does the question relate to Ancient or Medieval Warfare?
Yes ---> Go to 2
No ---> He's wrong

2. Does the question somehow involve the French?
Yes ---> He's wrong
No ---> There's a 50/50 chance he's wrong

>>51243997
Even if it's someone more reasonable saying this, then
>Dexterity for archers
Combat archers maybe. D&D archers are solitary bowmen in a group of 3-6 others trying to pick off individual targets. You can bet your ass dexterity is important to them. As for wartime situations, I think Complete Warrior (which is 3.5e admittedly) does have different rules for volleys, which if I remember correctly either require only 13 DEX or don't factor in DEX at all. D&D archers shoot individual targets, not masses.

>Strength for fighters
Shield bashing/ramming, heavier weapons and the like probably emphasize strength more. That said, there is such a thing as finesse weapons (and in 5e they don't even require a feat). Also strength and dex don't exclude eachother, ideally you want both (much like in real life).

>>51243894
Well, sure, any given game can use whatever mechanics they like and have fun with the narrative accordingly, but it's a problem when these relationships are enshrined in rules that people will use as defaults
Like, for instance, suppose there's a campaign with a lot of dragons, and the party meets a regional anti-dragon regiment. Not the kinds of heroes that go out toe-to-toe with dragons, not the ballista corps, but the best archers slingers and crossbowmen that the villages and towns of the region have produced, tasked to meaningfully provoke dragons and bait them into range of ballistic fire.
Who are these people? What do they look like? Are they dextrous types, able to split an arrow at however many paces, ttying to pepper every exposed inch between a dragon's scales? Or are they more burly, trying to send a projectile flying through the air and into dragonflesh with enough force to dig deep and hurt? What does this imply for what the region is like, what the military culture is like, how these things are perceived? Thsee are the kinds of questions that will end up being answered automatically by the game rules, and why realism and reflecting the substantial strength demands of combat archery do matter

>>51244170
You forgot the 3rd one. Or rather - the 1st one:
1. Does the question relate to English or British?
Yes --> He's wrong
No --> Go to 2

Which by itself makes 3/4 of his stuff wrong and you don't even need to bother checking why exactly.

>>51241266
>being average
wow, do you even lift?

Dex for bows makes sense because you need the precision to hit the target.
Str for swords makes sense because a high strength score equates to more force applied and ease of swinging around twenty pound greatswords.

File: bait-1.png (42KB, 500x501px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 500x501px

>>51244329
>twenty pound greatswords.

>>51244262
>>51244170
>50% of her claims on Japanese medieval stuff are wrong
>Taking into account he always say they're shit and are bad that implies 50% of the time they aren't shit and are good

>>51244351
>He doesn't know how much a greatsword weighs in D&D

Just so you know a Katana weighs 6 lbs, srly who made this shit?

>>51243302
>Kek, Japanese archers penetrate as much as your deformed British with 10% of Str.
>British
You got something to say about broad Welsh chests, squinty?

File: AHpQMhu.jpg (244KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 1280x720px

>>51244170
I'm not even saying he's right--as you sad, it's more complicated than that and there's really no right answer--just that OP is a faggot transparently trying to play to /tg/'s biases to confirm his own.

>>51242225
Little john usualy uses a longbow

>>51244388
That you work out too much to accomplish the same result as the slanted eyes, that's ineffective.

You kill one Jap archer and nothing on value was lost.
You kill one Welsh longbowmen and you lost 10 year invesment.

>>51244443
What are you on about? Jap archers were higher class people while longbowmen were peasants.

File: 1484222699871.png (44KB, 841x398px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 841x398px

>>51244262
Of course, how could I forget that?
>British officers don't duck
>Only cowardly Frenchmen do that
>British officers deflect bullets with their stiff upper lips and inspire their men

>>51241195
>Is he right /tg/?
No, he isn't because his autistic mind cannot comprehend the concept of abstraction that is required for a game that is governed by numbers arbitrary stats and numbers. This is practically his problem every time he talks about RPGs in his videos.

>>51242675
In "real fencing", you just have to touch a dude with a silly bit of floppy wire to score a point.

>>51243093
Are you literally implying that it is impossible to not volley fire a bow?

>>51244627
To be fair, D&D's abstraction is terrible, pretty much every other RPG out there does it better.

>>51244702
>To be fair, D&D's abstraction is terrible
Bruh, the guy complained about initiative. He also complained about chase scene rules even though D&D (at least 3.5e and probably later editions too) actually have rules for this that use CON checks to see who tires first (and therefore who gains on whom or who loses whom). He also hammered on the whole "+5 Sword of Dragonslaying" concept and made his own party feel unimportant by having an entire army flip a giant turtle on its back or something (which was Lindybeige effectively saying "Oh, look how smart I am! I bet you didn't think of that yourself now did you?!" while forgetting that this is neither a method a party can use nor that making the party irrelevant is the point of an RPG).

Some D&D abstractions are retarded, but those aren't the ones he's complaining about. He's practically complaining about the very ideas behind an RPG. It's like he doesn't understand how it works. I wouldn't want to play with him because he's the embodiment of That DM.

>>51241195
>Hey /tg/! I made a new video, but rather than link to it directly or out myself as directly shilling my own video I'll make another fucking topic about it where I ask whether I was "right"
>This totally isn't shilling!
>Remember to like and subscribe

>>51244675
That's sport fencing, dingus. Real fencing is literally just sword fighting.

>>51243032

Snipers irl also do a bit of math in their brains. Having butterfingers and twitchiness is your mainstay but not being able to calculate wind distance and drop means those rounds dont land where you want it even if the dot is lined up.

"I always hit the gophers out in the woods, but then again the gophers didnt shoot back"

File: dcc33a72635a991670ee070181355e83.png (104KB, 600x387px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 600x387px

>>51244675
Real fencing as in historical fencing, not sport fencing.

>>51244738
Those abstractions are also pretty bad, dude. Although some of my bias against D&D and everything it stands for is creeping in when I say that, just like your bias against him is creeping into your post.

Anyway, dude should play GURPS or a similar system, he'd fit right in. It's clear that D&D isn't for him and GURPS actually has rules for all the things he's been complaining about.

>>51244702
Well, D&D is kind of terrible in a whole number of ways. But it's still "the" system, so everybody and their mother brings it up time and time again.

>>51244702
>D&D's abstraction is terrible
Absolutely

>pretty much every other RPG out there does it better.
Oh fuck no. Different from "bad" does not necessarily mean good; it can just as well be another fresh hell of badness. And it certainly absolutely is almost all of the time in this case.

No , they're pretty much all terrible. The vast majority of them rip off D&D almost wholesale, and the rest are roughly just as stupid and limiting to the point of being horribly unhelpful.
The ones that try hardest to be their own thing invariably end up being absurd wank based in avant garde moon logic. The ones that try to strike a balance are usually just bland and restrictive.
And regardless, they're all extremely lazily balanced. Usually even worse than D&D is.

Who cares about making options fun, different, and reasonably balanced. Who cares about removing trap options and fake choices where one thing to do is always strictly-worse even in best case scenario; excel sheets are too much hard work for TTRPG game devs after all.

>>51244842
>Those abstractions are also pretty bad, dude.
Really?
>Initiative
How else are you going to determine turn order? In the end it always comes down to "the guy with the higher number goes first" or "the guy with the higher roll goes first" or a combination of both (ignoring special situations like an ambush). Lindy's proposed alternative was just going freeform.

>Bonuses against certain enemies
Explain what's wrong with this. Why is it beyond imagination that in a world of might and magic, some people would create magical swords that are exceptionally good against dragons? Or what's wrong with the idea that a fighter would carry around multiple swords when items such as the Handy Haversack faciliate this?

>Long distance chases comparing the CON scores (ie. endurance) of the two characters through rolls
Once again, explain why this is a bad abstraction.

>The whole giant turtle debacle
1. Do you honestly believe this was good DMing? Having an entire army come by and solve the situation in a way that would be entirely impossible to solve for 4 PCs, making their entire presence irrelevant?
2. Do you really believe that PCs shouldn't be able to defeat a giant turtle just by overcoming his AC score (or whatever defensive stat your system uses)?

>Anyway, dude should play GURPS or a similar system
I'm willing to bet he'd find some flaw to make an entire video about, which he'd hammer on to the point of defeating the point of playing a TTRPG.

It's not bias, Lindybeige is shit whenever he talks about shit he isn't qualified to talk about (or it somehow relates to the British and/or French). I'll freely acknowledge when he isn't shitting out of his mouth, but he shits out of his mouth a lot.

>>51244930
>"the guy with the higher number goes first"
This is way better than initiative in an important number of ways.

About the giant turtle and the chases, you missed his point in both those videos because you were too busy picking on his particular examples, which are kinda irrelevant to his whole point.

Specifically on the giant turtle:
>1. Do you honestly believe this was good DMing?
That entirely depends on the situation, specifically how long it dragged on and how important it was. If it dragged on for an entire session or if it was an important quest for the PCs, then yes, it's bad DMing. If it was a short aside to show the way to deal with unusual enemies and to establish the mood for the campaign, then it's fine.

2. Do you really believe that PCs shouldn't be able to defeat a giant turtle just by overcoming his AC score (or whatever defensive stat your system uses)?
More likely, the PCs wouldn't be able to overcome the turtle's defensive stat in whatever system I choose to run such an encounter. And yes, I believe you shouldn't be able to defeat a giant monster just by hacking at its ankles with your sword, come up with a fucking plan (even if it's sticking your sword in its eye or whatever).

To be honest dude, you don't seem any better than him. If I had to chose between a game run by you and a game run by Lindybeige, I wouldn't choose either. But if pressed, I'd go with Lindy and try to convince him to run Savage Worlds or something.

>>51245132
>This is way better than initiative in an important number of ways.
It is the exact same as initiative. 1d20 + Dex + potential other modifiers (like improved initiative). The only thing you're proposing here is removing the d20.

>About the giant turtle and the chases, you missed his point in both those videos
Please, enlighten me.

>More likely, the PCs wouldn't be able to overcome the turtle's defensive stat in whatever system I choose to run such an encounter.
It's not about you, it's about LindyBeige and he was running D&D. The only way they'd be unable to overcome this monsters AC is because either they're total fucking scrubs who actively tried to gimp themselves, AC gave them an encounter with a way too high CR (which isn't a bad thing per se if you expect the PCs to run away) or simply pulled a monster out of his ass [notice how he never names the monster, this makes me suspect it's the latter].

>But if pressed, I'd go with Lindy and try to convince him to run Savage Worlds or something.
Then I hope for your sake he actually follows the rules and doesn't complain that turn-based games shouldn't be turn-based.

>>51245281
>Please, enlighten me.
The point of his turtle video was about GMs introducing encounters that required critical thinking instead of "I hit it until it dies" that's so prevalent in TTRPGs. It also had a point about worldbuilding more realistic worlds, in a world with giant turtles, it's very likely that people would come up with special weapons to kill said giant turtles, since a sword will likely not be enough. He is right on that point.

The point of his chase video was about using chases as another form of combat instead of reducing it to a dice roll. Add another element to the game, if you will.

The central ideas themselves are good. The examples he presented and his implementation was either sub-par or downright bad, depending on how he actually handled it in-game. It's entirely possible that he spent an entire session on that turtle thing, which would be terrible.

But in the end, that doesn't detract from the core idea he presented.

>>51245430
>The point of his turtle video was about GMs introducing encounters that required critical thinking instead of "I hit it until it dies" that's so prevalent in TTRPGs.
No shit, but that brings us back to my problem: that means you're not playing the system. Also, it's a pretty shitty example considering Lindy offered a solution a party of 3-6 cannot hope to mimic. Wanting some critical thinking challenges is fine, but then the solution is to not play D&D.

>The point of his chase video was about using chases as another form of combat instead of reducing it to a dice roll.
>another form of combat
>instead of [...] a dice roll
But combat IS rolling dice.

>The examples he presented and his implementation was either sub-par or downright bad, depending on how he actually handled it in-game.
Well, I can agree with you on that. At least as far as the turtle challenge goes. His complaints about chases were about as retarded as his complaints about not being able to act on another player's (or the DM's) turn.

>>51241195
Fuck off Lindybeige

>>51245732
>the solution is to not play D&D.
Thank you, that's what I've been saying all along.

>But combat IS rolling dice.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? Combat is about choosing your actions and reacting then rolling dice to see if they succeed, instead of a simple contest of constitution to see who can run farther.

>complaints about not being able to act on another player's (or the DM's) turn.
There are systems that let you do that, usually through a wait mechanic. Once again the solution is not to play D&D.

>>51245802
>Thank you, that's what I've been saying all along.
The problem is that Lindy insists on not playing D&D when the rest of the party is playing D&D. That makes him a bad DM.

>Are you being deliberately obtuse? Combat is about choosing your actions and reacting then rolling dice to see if they succeed, instead of a simple contest of constitution to see who can run farther.
That's already in the rules, you just have to read between the lines a bit. Caltrops exist, can be dropped and lower movement. Difficult terrain and spells that counteract/trivialize difficult terrain exists. You can do stealth checks, climb over obstacles (even straight up buildings if you have the right spells, feats and/or rolls) etc. It may not be perfectly executed (as to be expected of a game that emphasizes combat over all else) but it is already in there.

>There are systems that let you do that
Not D&D. Which Lindy is running. Even though he desperately tries to not run it.

You may have some beef with D&D, but it should go without saying that if the entire group (including the DM) agrees to play a system you play that fucking system. You don't fiat shit up the wazoo where it becomes a chimera of D&D, some homebrewed system and freeform.

>>51241195
>About bows:
No. You don't need above-average strength to use a bow, it's mostly muscle memory.

>About melee
Depends on the character and the weapon. A renowned Knight who wields a Sword with masterful grace should have to skill Strength and Dex both. A graceful rapier user should primarily focus on dex and a peasant who basically just thrusts forward with a spear or a barbarian who flails things into a fleshy pulp can disregard dex completely.

reminder that Lindybeige claims:

>no one used swords, axes
>no one used horses
>no one used throwing knives
>no one used double strap arm shields
>no one used scythes
>no one used mail coifs
>no one used torches
>Pikemen didn't fight each other
>no one spoke French during the French revolution
>no one spoke Latin during the Roman Republic
>battle of Zama didn't happen
>Romans carried one pilum
>Vikings weren't real
>berserkers weren't real
>climate change isn't real
>stagnant social mobility isn't real
>castles were defended by three soldiers
>butted mail is better than riveted mail
>operation market garden was a success
>Napoleon was literally Hitler
>The Churchill was the best tank in WWII
>The English won the Hundreds Years' War

>>51245888
>>climate change isn't real
That's true, though, but I think he was denying man-made climate change.

>>51242975
The pre-warring states samurai trained for precision over speed. Many horse archer cultures trained for precision over speed because they either used smaller bows and had to actually aim for vital areas, or they were simply limited in how many arrows they could carry, so they had to make each shot count.

>>51243091
Fucking this and I've never played GURPS. Any game that doesn't do something like this either doesn't have any equivalent skills or is a worthless piece of shit.

>>51245888
>no one used horses
He didn't say this, he just had an incredibly clickbaity title.

>no one spoke French during the French revolution
Only 25% of France spoke the Parisian dialect we today know as French though, and Napoleon spoke it with an accent

>no one spoke Latin during the Roman Republic
Not outside of Italia anyway, hence why the Byzantine Empire spoke Greek despite being a direct continuation of the Roman Empire.

>berserkers weren't real
He said that Berserkers were simply elite warriors and not the psychos pop culture depicts them as. This is one of those rare cases where he actually cites his sources, citing a French source of a Nordic saga in which the word berserkr is translated as champion.

He does say a lot of stupid shit, but there's quite a few half truths in that list.

>>51246001
>He didn't say this, he just had an incredibly clickbaity title.


Not him, but I did watch the horses video, and his criticism of cavalry as distinct from chaiotry is based on some really stupid shit.

>If you're the only guy on your horse, you'll hit the enemy line way before your buddies on foot!

>>51245873
>The problem is that Lindy insists
Does he? Do you know for a fact that he introduces all his crazy ideas straight into D&D? Or does he just complain about it and wish it wasn't so shit?

>You don't fiat shit up the wazoo where it becomes a chimera of D&D, some homebrewed system and freeform.
If all the players and the GM agree to do that, then I don't see a problem. I might not be the best of ideas, when other systems exist, but if you don't want to play another system for whatever reason, nothing's stopping you from rule zeroing the shit out of it.

As for whether Lindy is a bad GM or not, I have no idea. I've never met or heard from anyone from his group and there's nothing in his videos to indicate one way or another.

My only point is that he has good ideas, but he sometimes runs them into the ground while discussing implementation.

>>51246022
>Do you know for a fact that he introduces all his crazy ideas straight into D&D?

He literally made a video about it.

>there's nothing in his videos to indicate one way or another.

He literally made a video about the campaign where he forced his players to do jack fucking shit and watch his NPC army fight all the monsters because his players didn't know of or have access to the specialized spiked telephone poles he made because of course an adventurer can't damage a monster with a regular spear, that's silly.

>>51246322
Well now we're just going in circles.

>>51246322
>He literally made a video about the campaign where he forced his players to do jack fucking shit and watch his NPC army fight all the monsters because his players didn't know of or have access to the specialized spiked telephone poles he made because of course an adventurer can't damage a monster with a regular spear, that's silly.

How is that silly? It's actually great, it makes the game much more interesting and encourages the players to be more creative. It's not just go to the monster and kill it.

>>51242010

And it would be useless at anything other than hunting.

File: 208575aef9c1fefe303bef41bf0df6d7.png (499KB, 667x889px) Image search: [Google]

499KB, 667x889px

>>51241266
>I've done archery my entire life

Are you trying to say you are some modern mercenary who uses a bow in combat?

Seriously, power is all that matters in a combat bow. Your 40lbs sports bow won't even pierce a crappy Gambeson and even lowest soldiers should have those.

People with little strength would do much better using a crossbow than a weak bow.

>>51244700
>Volley
>Precision
Son... I've got bad news for you - you might be retarded.
But just for the record - the entire fucking POINT of volley is to fire enough shots that at least few of them will hit something or someone.

>>51244356
But that's precisely how it works - if he's not outright wrong, because this somehow unrelated with Brits AND at least early modern period, it still leaves a 50% chance he's wrong.
Given the sheer quantity of stuff he does on post-medieval aspects and how often he uses England and GB as an example, that really narrows thing down.

I can literally list his quality videos on my fingers. And I mean actual fingers, no toe bullshit.

>>51243093

Crossbows are more accurate than bows at short range and in the hands of badly trained soldiers.

Bows are much better at long range and in the hands of a skilled archer they are just as accurate as crossbows at short range.

Bow is generally a far superior weapon. But it needs training and strength.

>>51246523
I've got bad news for you—you're fucking illiterate. Go back and graduate elementary school; then re-read his post.

File: apply.jpg (22KB, 493x335px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 493x335px

>>51244624
>That fucking burn
Shit man, it's always great ripping Brits about how the Hundred Years War went for them, but this is some premium stuff.

>>51246570
Crossbows allow to fucking aim, because you can withold your shot until it's the fucking moment. It has nothing to do with short or long-range accuracy. You can AIM that shit at all.

And if you are unironically calling a bow superior weapon, I will have to assume that either you are English OR, which is even worse (somehow) you are yewaboo.

>>51246579
Does it really count as a burn when it's a retarded child walking into a burning building? You can't really burn someone who outright denies historic facts out of ultra-nationalism.

Hell, even ultra-nationalists wouldn't go to the retarded extents of Lindybeige as evidenced by Churchill openly denying any parallels between Hitler and Napoleon.

>>51246570
>in the hands of a skilled archer
And in the hands of skilled crossbowmen crossbows are just better than bows. So what kind of bullshit is that, each and every single fucking time.
Seriously, all those bowfaggots always bring "but if you train them". Who fucking cares? It takes roughtly a DECADE to get a half-decent archer. And you still use them for volley fire anyway. And it takes a MONTH to train a crossbowmen into full competence.

Just for the record - that's 30 days vs 3652 days. To get the exact same result. And that's without all the bullshit you need to do to get the bow, since crossbows are also cheaper to make.
Were you saying something about superior bows? I can't hear you about getting obsolete by fucking 1400s.

What next? Lithuanian/Ottoman Tatar auxiliaries on horseback?

>>51246601

Medieval crossbows had incredibly short power stroke. They had ridiculous draw weight but most of that was wasted thanks to pathetic power stroke.

And being able to aim means shit when projectile is light, short and unstable in flight. As medieval bolts were.

While trained archers can shoot incredibly accurately.

Go ahead and try to do this with a medieval crossbow replica with it's horrible trigger system:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8Yp9SjCU5E

>>51246640
Nah, it's always good to remain both Lindy AND his public that he's full of shit. Pointing it exactly when and with what. In short - castrating his videos.
Plus his subscribing pool is shrinking, so either people get bored with him or realised how full of bull he's.
Or both.

Either way - a win.

>>51244624
He is actually right that British Officers will often not duck in combat, but only because it's true of the officers of pretty much any military that's not shit. American, French, German, and Russian officers don't tend to duck either, because morale still matters and the men will be fight harder if they see their leaders are not afraid.

>>51246665
>Plus his subscribing pool is shrinking
Seriously? Proofs?

>>51246674
Just to play devils advocate here: Did he pull the statistic of english officers dying more often because of that out of his ass?

>>51246645
>To get the exact same result

Except no. Results are not even close. Bows were much better at range and just as good up close.

Crossbows were only better at extremely short ranges.

>>51246657
>with it's horrible trigger system
>Crossbow
It's literally a winch you press to release the nut holding the string. How autistic you gonna be with this?

What I seriously hate about fa/tg/uys talking about weapons is how they are using as a point of reference games and/or fictional characters. Not sad and grey reality, because that would require doing some fucking research, but escapist characters. And it just happens one of the stamples of fantasy is Not!Legolas, the impossibly cool archer, that bears so little with how god-awful a bow is, not to mention how much training and money it cost to deliver both a bow and a bowmen it's just absurd.

And then there are Brits, who by sheer virtue of being English (so not exactly Brits, just the England) are taught from fucking infancy how cool bows are. That totally explains why they never actually achieved with those and when their precious archers were mowed down, they couldn't replace them.

And this is Thread No. 51241194 discussing bows and getting the same arguments, the same shit and the same bullshit all over fucking again.
To have the final conclusion of "idiots are still gonna make thread No. 51241196 to pretend the last gorillion of threads didn't happen".

>>51246657
>While trained archers can shoot incredibly accurately.
So can a crossbowman.
And it takes 30 days, not 10 years, to train one.

>>51246707
Keep trying, boyo. Maybe you will even finally have some arguments or proofs, rather than claims

>>51246736
>What I seriously hate about fa/tg/uys talking about weapons is how they are using as a point of reference games and/or fictional characters

Not in this case.

Go ask Todeschini for example. Guy knows more about medieval crossbows than pretty much anyone. And he will tell you the exactly same thing.

>>51246679
He was around 450k subscribers last Christmas. Now it's barely above 400k.

So no matter the reason, he lost 1/9th of all his followers within the last year.

>>51246761
>No real argument or rebuttal
>Just ignoring it
>Still trying

Typical yewaboo

>>51246769
Go read a book.
Or start practicing archery.
Preferably both.

Then tell me about your favourite internet expert.

>>51246749
>So can a crossbowman.

Up to 15m. Bolts tumble in the air because they are light and short. Bow arrows don't.

Medieval crossbows were nothing like modern ones.

>>51246674

True for the early years of WWI as well. They stopped doing that shit once they adopted fire-and-maneuver tactics based around platoons rather than companies and battalions.

>>51246787
>Or start practicing archery.

Yes, because fucking Scorpyd is the same as XIV century crossbows.

Jesus Christ, just stop.

I'm 100% sure you never used a replica of a real medieval bow or crossbow. Or even saw one up close.

>>51246787
>>Go read a book.
>>Or start practicing archery.

You've just outed yourself because you ran out of steam and couldn't keep up any more. Congrats, you rused people into taking you seriously for a few posts, but the jig's up now.

>>51246787
>internet expert

So you don't even know the #1 maker of historical crossbow replicas in Europe and you tell others to read a book.

To be fair, France IS pretty shit.

File: 01.png (67KB, 919x653px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 919x653px

>>51246770
Fuck off

>>51246859
Fuck off Lindybeige.

File: 1432396417016.jpg (26KB, 400x462px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 400x462px

>"fire an arrow"
It's shoot an arrow you fucking morons.

>>51242975
Any peoples that actually used the bow to hunt had to know how to aim with relative precision.

>>51246799
>I never saw a crossbow: The Post
>Not even a replica one: The Post
Son, you are so fucking stupid and picking numbers so much out of your ass it's amazing.

Are you at least aware there are regular target shooting by fucking amateurs on recreation sites (I'm not talking LARP or that shit American ren-fair bullshit, real, serious reeactment) and fucking tourist are able to hit a fucking target shield at 50 meters with a crossbow replica?

Oh, right, but those doesn't count, right? Because that's not what some neckbearder on youtube told you.

Fucking 15 meters... Jesus... Son, do you even know what 15 meters is? That's 16.5 yards in retarded, so your mind can grasp how fucking stupid number you've just pulled out

And for the record - arrows, by sheer virtue of being longer, also twitch in air, and much more, because the elastic force propelling them is also affecting the shaft, which bends the fuck out of it.
That's why modern practice shooting is done with bows that have a shitload of pretty new gadgets, like release rings, counter-weights, rollers allowing to keep your aim for more than two seconds and let's not forget about aiming rings, alighed with the bow.

But sure, let's ask Mr Random Nobody From Youtube.

>>51246894
Sure, but you need to load your bow first.

File: 1477512720998.jpg (81KB, 343x489px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 343x489px

>>51246894
Considering English didn't even exist at the time, 'tirer un flêche' is more accurate.

>>51246902
>fucking tourist are able to hit a fucking target shield at 50 meters with a crossbow replica?

Amazing. So 80 lbs chinese crossbow "replicas" for tourists are the same as 950 lbs real war crossbows.

Do you even know that a 110 lbs longbow has more power than a 1000 lbs medieval crossbow just because of much longer power stroke?

>>51246454
No it wouldn't.

Lindymeme is just going off of british longbows though, and those required a lot of strength but were incredibly inefficient in terms of how much power actually gets transferred to the arrow, a weaker person person could fire a composite bow just as effectively.

>>51246970
>When out of argument, try to discredit the other side, rather than facing them or countering
>Because maybe some stupid asshole won't notice
Not even him, bud, but that's like Eristics: 101

>>51246902
>And for the record - arrows, by sheer virtue of being longer, also twitch in air

Properly made arrows won't tumble same way as crossbow bolts. They make a snake like motion in flight. And they are much more stable and keep energy many times better than light and short bolts.

You obviously have no idea how bolts react after being pushed by a real crossbow with historical draw strengths.

>>51246454
>composite bow
>useless for anything except hunting
Bro do you even form the largest empire the world would ever see until the development of modern gunpowder weapons and doctrines?

>2017
>People still don't filter threads containing "Lindybeige", "Lindy" and "beige"
Seriously?

>>51247021

Composite bows used in wars had anywhere between 80-120 lbs of draw strength.

This is not even similar to modern 30-40 lbs sports bows. Those bows can kill animals or unarmored humans perfectly fine. But even crappiest armor would make them useless.

>>51246887
You don't have to be him to hate France, anon.

>>51246949
>Considering English didn't even exist at the time
English has existed in some form ever since a Germanic set foot in England.

>>51247247
Fuck off Lindybeige

>>51247259
Mad Frenchman. Take your courtly love and shove it up your ass along with your word vomit language.

>>51247292
You're stubborn, aren't you?
Fuck off Lindybeige.

>>51247362
Words of banishment only work on their intended target, anon.

>>51243091
Because 1) OD&D didn't have ability modifiers, 2) Armor directly affects your survivalibity by making you "harder to hit" via improving your armor class, 3) armor IRL protects your meats primarily through absorption of the blows, 4) you can defeat armor by hitting harder or getting all stabby stab with spears and shit and trying to do the poky in the joints, 5) D&Ds are not granular enough to satify your grogging

>>51247019
>Literally quoting Lindybeige on this
Are you at least semi-aware that video was fucking wrong in every single aspect?

>>51241195
It doesn't matter if you can send an arrow with enough force to cut a man in half if you can't actually hit shit.

>>51247416

LE PHUCK LE OFF LE LINDY LE BEIGE!!! XDDDD LOL I SED IT AGAIN, AM I COOL YET? XDDDDDD

>>51247458
So in short - that's because 0DD was badly designed 40 yeaes ago and over last four decades nobody fixed that?
Wow, great to never play D&D other than 0DD, which I did pretty much for "some oldschool stuff"

>>51247593

...And your can't keep a bow steady without being strong enough to draw it and hold it.

Drawing a longbow and firing it accurately is a much greater test of strength than wielding any kind melee weapon for a similar amount of time.

File: 1420415479381.png (62KB, 652x477px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 652x477px

>>51241195
Hey guys, Matt Easton here. Why are you watching inferior youtube channels?

>>51246769
Why don't you go ask Todeschini? Here is him saying that crossbows are more accurate, shoot a bit farther, and are easier to use than a longbow capable of launching projectiles with similar energy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiXHImU4Yk

You fucks are unbelievable. Hear something as basic as "energy depends on draw length as well as draw weight" and then go chimp out about it for the next 5 year like you have a fucking clue. Protip: there are good reasons to keep a short draw length, which is why they didn't just stick longbows on a stock and call it a day.

>>51247639
Or you could end playing one the many other games that go "armor reduces damage and your dexterity is a god stat and the only one that actually matters and I am a big manchild that want muh realizm"

>>51247677
>Matt will never be your uncle who got you into swordplay (no homo)

>>51247772
Son, did you just run so much out of arguments that you attacked every single fucking game in the industry just to pretend D&D is not fucked up and simply outdated piece of shit?

>>51246703
British junior officers probably had higher casualty rates than their men, but the same would be true of basically every military. As i recall the officer corps that got hit the hardest in both World Wars was the German one.

>>51241195
both archers and swordsmen should be 14/14/10/12/12/8

>>51247056
you're mixing up composite bows and compound bows. Compound bows (modern bows with the pulley system) can have exceptionally high strength and still be easy to draw. Bow hunting is done with 45+ #strength bows too, less is inhumane and retarded to boot.

>>51241195
One thing to realize is that the Strength / Dexterity split is artificial. In order to have a good dexterity, you need significant muscle power. Dexterity increases your armor class because you have boosted reflexes and can dodge out of the way. Well guess what? In order to move quickly and with coordination, you need to be strong enough to quickly accelerate your body mass.

So Strength, as a stat, represents a particular type of muscle power, but it doesn't represent the sum totality of it. And, in fact, Dexterity doesn't represent the sum totality of your coordination, as athletics and melee attacks fall under Strength. In a more realistic system, Strength and Dexterity would be at least somewhat linked, as would Strength and Constitution. If you roll scores, maybe they should have two dice in common.

As it is though, I really think that you need to accept the names of the attributes: Strength, Dexterity, etc. as titles that are then defined in mechanical terms rather than as pure interpretations of the dictionary definitions of those words. Think of them as field-specific jargon. They share some commonality with the general terms, but are not strictly defined by them, and take on meanings of their own.

>>51246994
this

what are steppe riders

I like that his only contact with anima is bpointing the obcious about the wacky magic swords when lowlevel anima is very much more realistic than post 3.0 D&D :^)

>>51253974
Poiting out the obvious*

>>51245888
>I know his content only via assmad /tg/ posters

>>51241195
Remember when this retard said warhorses were a shit idea and made no sense, because apparently he thought cavemen would catch wild horses and ride them straight into battle?

>>51243158
>and the one about the specialized weapons armies would use against monsters in a fantasy world.

The was the most insufferable thing he's done.

"Haha you guys are idiots, here let my cool, professional, badass NPCs solve the problem with because I can hand unto them my godlike knowledge of the setting!"

Like jesus, he talked about how his special NPCs had to trot out a literal army to do stuff like use dozens of two manned pikes and hooks as well as entire cavalry units to drag traps and shit.

And here he is, going "AH HA" at his group of probably 4 or 5 people playing his stupid game.

>>51253974

I still love that the single best magic sword in Anima...is a simple straight blade with little decoration. The elves mage it for stabbing things. It doesn't do anything but stab things but it's the best at stabbing things (Every hit provokes a crit roll and it ignores all armour)

In comparison the biggest, silliest blade in anima is expressly listed as made by a fantastic enchanter...with zero idea of swordplay. It's -10 swords that also acts as a titanic spellcasting focus.

>Guy makes video talking about the virtues of physical traits in real medieval combat
>Every on in the thread is arguing about D&D mechanics

ok guys

>>51243690
Just ask the spanish tercios and everyone of that time if "pike his head off" and "walk under pikes to shiv them with roperas" isnt a thing.

>>51241266
Had you done archery with a sport bow or a war bow, anon? Sure i's not as taxing to fire with a sports or hunting bow, but it ain't gonna kill anyone on thee battlefield.

>>51241266
>F = ma
How about E=mv2/2

>>51252848
>In order to move quickly and with coordination, you need to be strong enough to quickly accelerate your body mass.
So this guy would be one of the fastest and most agile swordsman?

Yes you need to be strong enough, but that only means being of average strength, no need for exceptional strength. And it doesn't matter how hard you can hit with a melee weapon because again an average thrust or slash will suffice, using excessive force is impractical. Historical fencers train to hit fast and with good techniques not with large amounts of power.

File: GrzegorzSzymanski5.jpg (672KB, 1548x2067px) Image search: [Google]

672KB, 1548x2067px

>>51254823
forgot pic

>>51254697
Hi lindyspergy.

All of his spergstreaks on games are 3.0/3.5 based as real simulationist games (ie rolemaster/gurps/ridle of steel) use dex to aim and str to calculate distance thrown.

>>51254697
I was sat here like, they do know he's on about real life right?

>>51254823
>using excessive force is impractical
Using excessive force is way worse then impractical. It's how you get yourself killed.

>>51245888
I feel like watching his vids, just to see if even half of that is anywhere close to what he said.

But then I remember that he's only slightly more rhetorically gifted than Trump.

>>51254861
>>51254823
Real life has no quantifiable "dexterity" or "strength", all sports requiere you to be agile, strong and dexterous aka have "physical prowess" some requiere more (ie strongman) but normally a mix is used and encompased under the magical "physical prowess". His argument is null and he is still a sperg. And wrong as usual.

>>51254861
this isn't /his/ or /k/

>>51241195

I think if you want to get nitpicky you'd have to say that you can't really be a good fighter, or adventurer in general, without having both. A super agile but weak swordsman might be effective at sticking with the pointy end, but generally bad at any other aspect of fighting. And of course, being buff isn't any good if you can't hit anything because you dumped the accuracy stat. An adventurer needs to be fit.

And again nitpickily speaking, you can't get strength without getting agility and vice versa. Physical activity does not have hard distinctions with activities requiring either brute force or adept handling; most adventuring activities would involve a bit of both, and most adventurers would develop certain skills, not certain ability scores.

It actually doesn't even much match with how DnD says its abilities work, because it puts hand-eye coordination under Dex but lets most weapons use Str as the to-hit stat. It doesn't make any sense that swinging harder makes you more accurate, being more accurate should make you more accurate.

>>51254920
>trump
>not absurdically rhetorically gifted

Anon... he is, that is why he talks so weird, anyone understands him. That is the idea behind "[text] SAD!"

>>51242174
>>51244738
>>51244930

>"The anecdote about the turtle does make the scenario seem a bit dull - with the PCs turned into mere spectators, but it wasn't as bad as it might sound. The players just heard a quick description of the army's methods, and were of course free to try to intervene (they didn't, much), and most of the scenario dealt with other things. The scenario was not actually about the turtle, but about another mission to sabotage the efforts of the occupying forces. The turtle incident was just a little warm-up to show that the local Empire troops were well-organised and capable of making the PCs look silly. It was to guide the PCs into thinking a bit harder about the main mission."

Maybe you should read the description before acting like retards.

>>51245430
>The point of his turtle video was about GMs introducing encounters that required critical thinking instead of "I hit it until it dies" that's so prevalent in TTRPGs
Translated to the game, that just means you ignore the entire system of the game that everything is built around and solve the problems using arbitrary reasoning that outside the scope of the game.

It's like you are playing a game of poker to get money with normal cards but then when see you are loosing you suddenly you have a better idea and pull out a gus and start to threaten the other players with said gun to give you the winnings. At that point you are no longer playing the original game anymore, you are simply sidestepping the rules of agreement.

This doesn't mean you are a smart person it only means you are cheating.

>>51255037
We aren't talking about video games, where hitting stuff and pressing F to show respect are the only ways to interact with the game world.

>>51255057

Mind you, the example he used of it was really kinda dicky.

D&D adventurers fight 'Big thing' all the time and turtles have squishy parts. It's sorta a perfect example of a high AC monster, as it's tricky to hit the squishy parts but not impossible.

That and the solution being 'Hey, have these specialist tools and way more people than you could actually ever have in your party' is kinda a dicky solution. It's one thing to say 'There is another solution to this that you can use'. It's another to say 'There is only one solution but not one that your party could ever take advantage of'

>>51254929
Rereading what I said I noticed I under explained, he's referring to the concept that Archers need Dex and Warriors need Strength when their IRL equivalents need both in similar amounts

>>51255093
>That and the solution being 'Hey, have these specialist tools and way more people than you could actually ever have in your party' is kinda a dicky solution

Nah, it just means that his players need to level some more and actually use the retainers and followers they'll be getting per the rules.

Folks tend to forget that D&D is basically a fantasy Conquistadores-simulator...

>>51255133

Not all editions of D&D give that. It also runs into the fact that well...high level adventurers are kinda superhuman. A 20 str guy with a magic sword can carve through stuff that other people would glance off even in numbers.

>getting to stab vulnerable pots like the neck quickly is the most important thing in melee
>but lol ignore that for bows, being precise doesn't matter you have to shoot through everything
Even assuming he's right about one point, makes him sound stupid as fuck in the other point. Of course he's wrong.

>>51241195
Strength and dexterity are the same thing. Go look at a gymnast some time.

>>51241489
Yeah, I'm really tired of le tanks and machine guns. I miss the videos about bronze age stuff.

>>51247717

Crossbows are easier to aim and more accurate at short range. Bows are more accurate at long ranges.

And yes, there are reasons to use metal prods and short draw length. Like being able to use crossbows in tight formations or shoot from small windows. Or the fact that metal prods are easier to maintain.

But the fact remains that short draw length wastes most of the energy crossbow generates. Longbows, composite bows and yumis were just as powerful as 1000-1200 lbs crossbows. While having 3-4 times better rate of fire. The problem is they required much more strength and training to use.

>>51241195
He's like the lost fifth chaos god of autism.

>>51255093

I'm pretty sure the entire point of that turtle video was that in some cases adventurers should plan, set traps and use specialized equipment instead of the typical D&D mentality of "let's go to the monster and hit it with swords and magic until it dies".

>>51255351

Yeah but it's a VERY poor example to get them to do so. As it doesn't really do anything to indicate that it's not a 'Go hit it' problem. 'Giant Animal' is a very long standing generic 'Stab it in the face' problem and turtles are not an animal that's armoured all over.

>>51242010
composite bows had an even higher draw weight than longbows retard.

File: ballet dancer.png (431KB, 756x476px) Image search: [Google]

431KB, 756x476px

>>51254832
Maybe more like this.

>>51255369
>"The scenario was not actually about the turtle, but about another mission to sabotage the efforts of the occupying forces."

>"The turtle incident was just a little warm-up to show that the local Empire troops were well-organised and capable of making the PCs look silly. It was to guide the PCs into thinking a bit harder about the main mission."

>>51255909

Yay for a glorified cutscene that doesn't honestly make much sense.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=XtoBFXSvD6Y
Is he right /v/?

>>51255926
>"The anecdote about the turtle does make the scenario seem a bit dull - with the PCs turned into mere spectators, but it wasn't as bad as it might sound. The players just heard a quick description of the army's methods, and were of course free to try to intervene (they didn't, much), and most of the scenario dealt with other things."

>>51255994

So yes. Exactly what I said. A glorified 'Look, the usual rules don't apply any more' cutscene to make the PCs look bad for doing what the game otherwise supports doing.

>>51255387
There is nothing inherent to composite bows or longbows that gives them a fixed draw weight. This is actually true for all bows types. You could have a "shortbow" with a 1000 lb draw and a "longbow" with a 1 lb draw. There is no way to argue the point you are trying to make.

>>51255327
>But the fact remains that short draw length wastes most of the energy crossbow generates.
That is not how it works.

Short draw lengths require more force to produce the same energy because they accelerate for less distance, not because energy is being lost. Furthermore, draw weight and draw length can only give an approximate energy since you actually need the integral of the force vs distance curve to know how much energy is will be stored in the bow. You also need to know the mass of the projectile and limbs to know how the energy is shared within the system during launch. More stored energy during the draw and less moving mass in the bow are why compound bows are more effective at accelerating arrows compared to traditional bows of similar draw. This is also ignoring that kinetic energy is not a particularly meaningful metric of effect on a target.

>>51247896
Anon, most people that actually play pnp games know and accept that D&D does not, nor tries to, model real life conventions, especially combat.
It is a list of abstractions designed to simulate an official end result.

File: bullshit2.jpg (49KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 640x480px

>>51241195

I've watched all his videos about rpgs, and I don't recall him ever saying this.

I'm pretty sure we've had a 200+ post thread about bullshit OP made up, and literally nobody even questioned it.

>>51256157
You weren't paying attention then.

>>51256180

I just got here, but I searched the thread for links to a video where he said this.
There were none.
And I noticed a lot of debate on it, so people clearly took it seriously.

Also, please avoid making such unhelpful and vague posts in the future.
Thanks.

>>51244702
>>51244842
>>51244882
>>51244738
> D&D's abstraction is terrible

I think people do forget how truly garbage it is.

Some games aim for high realism and logical complexity, others are designed for balance gameplay or simple ease of play in mind.

D&D has nothing really going for it at all a part from brand recognition

>>51256250
>others are designed for balance gameplay or simple ease of play in mind.

I believe we call that 'D&D 4e'

>>51243302
Japanese archers literally never had to penetrate european plate. By the time the Portuguese got there their cannon were the deciding weapon.

>>51256157
He tends to sidetrack a lot so he probably said that in a video unrelated to rpgs. I mean he has 20 minute videos and the main point he wants to talk about only takes about five minutes, the rest is him talking about other semi related subjects.

>>51256329

I can't say I've watched every one of his videos, but I've definitely watched the vast majority.
I'm not saying its impossible that he said this, but since nobody has provided a link, and OP likely knew what a juicy bait thread this would be...
I'm skeptical.

>>51244624
>I can't understand sarcasm
Don't be that guy.

>>51244624
Have you ever read on the fabled "Charge of the Light Brigade", more specifically what said charge actually was? An entire brigade, soldiers and officers both, undertook a mission tantamount to suicide because of a single misinterpreted order. Military academies of the time were about 80% "how to fight and die honorably" and 20% actual tactics, at least 15% of which tainted by the same "honorable" mindset. A (presumably noble) officer of the time not taking cover would be par for the course. That's pretty much how Wellington died.

>>51256423

>That's pretty much how Wellington died.
Who?

>>51256329
>I mean he has 20 minute videos and the main point he wants to talk about only takes about five minutes, the rest is him talking about other semi related subjects.

Right. This is the main problem the man has.

>>51256504
He kinda gets a pass because he is quite charismatic. Honestly just watch his videos and think of them as the autistic ramblings a britbong.

>>51241195
He's oversimplifying a complex problem, providing an opinion worded as fact (something he's admitted to doing regularly, not that it forgives anything), and not solving anything.

IF we were trying to reflect these stats there's a way to do it. Let's take the Warhammer and 40k RPG rules in for a second. Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill represent your ability with melee and ranged weapons, independent of Strength or Agility. This makes characters with 23 S and 26 Ag but 50 WS weird, sure, but let's suggest an additive: weapon stat requirements. Let's say your basic Hand Weapon requires S 30, Ag 30, and the rule is for requirements that you take a penalty based on the difference between your stat and the required stat. So Mr. 50 WS picks up a simple longsword and takes a cumulative -11 penalty to his attacks, dropping his effective WS to 39; his knowledge of stances, being able to read his opponent and ability to put his body through all the motions checks out, but his puny muscles and unresponsive reflexes bring him down a couple pegs. Heavier weapons like the more powerful bows and larger swords might have a higher S requirement, while knives, rapiers, spears, and the like would require more Ag. Your skill with the weapon would be influenced by your abilities, but be separate from them.

Now honestly I don't give a shit, games are kind of boring for me when you bog them down. Str for melee Dex for ranged is simple and iconic and if you wanna be an archer who's huge Str makes him able to shoot huge bows most GMs in most games are willing to make reasonable concession to make it work even if it means tweaking mechanics a bit.

>>51255993
Wasn't it just longbows? What is there to tell Ygritte was using her full strength on that pull?

>>51243091

You should also have to use WIS to know when/where to strike.

INT should inform your technique.

CHA also modifies your confidence/calm in the stressful chaos of battle.

>>51256604
It's bullshit, most people would be able to hold a bow like that for 30 seconds at full draw. It's not a fucking longbow.

>>51256250
>D&D has nothing really going for it at all a part from brand recognition

Honestly, that's all it can do. Any attempt to actually improve in any meaningful ways (4e) would "damage" the brand by making it "Not D&D", which is all D&D really has going for it at this point.

>>51256562
>He kinda gets a pass because he is quite charismatic.

You guys are really fricking thirsty.

>>51256423
By having a stroke at 83?

The charge of the light brigade is also legendary, and was legendary even in its time. It wasn't considered normal at all.
Also, the idea that a british army, operating 40 years after britain curbstomped Napoleon was really not at all good at tactics is fucking laughable. The charge of the light brigade more or less happened at the very height of the british empires military might, even if it was a colossal fuckup.

>>51256250
Other than it having name recognition, a wide range of flavors to choose from, several flavors that allow to you start playing in <10min, and several flavors that de-emphasize the importance of stats...but sure D&D is bad and shit because you read some books on real ultimate fighting w/ swords.

>>51256445
>>51256912
Sorry, I meant Nelson. Minor brainfart.
Anyway, the problem with the light brigade was exactly that: Instead of being acknowledged and derided as the colossal fuck-up that it was, it was instead romanticised and upheld as the epitome of valour and military conduct. This hopelessly naive (to put it nicely) mindset was prevalent all the way up to WW1. The Light Brigade was an example to follow rather than to avoid.

>>51257305
People in the 19th century, much like today, were capable of complex opinions.
There was serious debate over court-martialing Lord Lucan who commanded the horse, afterwards. Meanwhile, The Earl of Cardigan, who led the charge, was propelled into the role of a hero.

It was recognized as a fuckup, I would argue. But also ultimately as an insane show of bravery and stoicism, which it also was.

You can argue that the british military's tendency towards romantic stoicism was a bad thing, in that it placed inhumane stresses on a lot of people in the service, but it was also one of the major causes of the success of, and respect for, the british military, for hundreds of years.

>>51241266
>No he is wrong and a faggot.
>I've done archery my entire life, assuming average person is 9-10 in stats as long as said ranger doesn't have shit like an 8 in str you could still draw a bow. Its true in order to pull back a heavier bow, (composites make this a lot easier, but still you can't be weak.)
Maybe some light target bow. Modern bows have draw weights around 60 lbs, they can be a bit heavier, but not much so. An English longbow used for war had a draw weight between 100 and 185 lbs, very few modern archers can actually fire bows with draw weights around 180 lbs even today.

Assuming that 10 is average firing a 180 lbs longbow would probably require around 14 or so strength as even people of above average fitness might be unable to drawn english longbows.

>As for dex more important that str for a fighter I got a simple answer
You do realize that E=(1/2)m(v^2) If you fire light arrows at a low velocity you won't do anywhere near as much damage as firing large arrows at a high velocity. Also velocity has a much much larger impact than mass.

The real reason all bows requiring dexterity is an issue is that it heavily limits strength based fighters to the point where in 5e they are almost useless. Literally the only advantage strength fighters have is being able to use great weapons effectively since rapiers are on par with longswords, meanwhile dex fighters get a better dexterity saving throw, and can use ranged weapons and melee weapons with equal effectiveness. Unless you are a retard who thinks 2D6 vs 1D8 is a huge difference when stuff like smite and sneak attack exist there isn't really a reason to choose a strength fighter.

>>51256640
>most people would be able to hold a bow like that for 30 seconds at full draw. It's not a fucking longbow.
If it's a modern bow then yes, but medieval people used bows that could actually kill.

DnD is essentially based on fiction archetypes than real life. A high dexterity person isn't like a juggler or something, it's one of those kung-fu movie heroes who can run on walls and shit. A high str person isn't an average soldier, it's fucking Hercules who wrestles lions and wins.

>>51256912
>operating 40 years after britain curbstomped Napoleon
What alternate history is this? In terms of land warfare, the British army in Spain barely managed a stalemate at the very southern tip of the peninsula against the French B team. Or are you one of those guys who believes the Coalition forces at Waterloo were majority British (with Waterloo also happening after Leipzig, where no Brits were involved)?

Also
>Shit that happened 40 years ago matters
This is why the Germans expected 1914 to be a walk in the park, and that in turn was why they expected 1940 to be long and grueling. A lot can change in 40 years. That's more than enough for an entire generation of officers to die.

>>51246444
it's not fucking interesting if you're sitting around with your thumb up your arse watching the dm jack off about how smart he is for coming up with a solution to a problem he made himself

>>51259944
They managed to fight their way to a standstill against a force vastly superior in numbers.
That standstill was untenable to the french, but good for the English.
If that isn't tactics, I don't know what is.

I'm not saying the war in Crimea was some sort of string of brilliant tactical marvel. I'm saying that the claim that mid-19th century military tactics across the board were idiotic, and honor was all they cared about is simply silly.

>>51261017
It's called strategic victory, not tactics.

And I seriously advice to read through Prussian training manuals. No honour bullshit. Just fulfilling your asignment, one way or another. Which was new back then and is still new, since barely anyone adopted objective-based orders and rather employed grand battleplan orders, with HQ taking all decisions.

It's not even about wanking about Prussian militarism (because THAT sucked), it's about them actually applying tactics, when everyone else just pretended for next century or so.

>>51256702
Any attempt to improve it would make it 'not DnD'

Yes because the whole system is in incoherent mess of oddball arbitrary rules and conflicting design goals.

>>51264348
>conflicting design goals
Objection. Ever since 4e, the goal is to "stay the same, don't touch anything, only cosmetic changes", which was also a goal between ADD to 3.X
4e was literally the only edition trying something different.

Also - sage. Let this monster thread die

Do you think the imperium has a planetary betting ring?

File: e45.jpg (54KB, 680x499px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 680x499px

>>51266016

>>51259944
>A lot can change in 40 years
D&D barely moved

I met this guy at a convention, he seems nice enough and pretty knowledgeable. He gets a lot wrong but hey, that's YouTube.

I slightly regret not challenging him on his complaints against Basic D&D, and I regret mentioning that I also liked Scholagladiatoria's videos. That was when he shirked away a bit, but maybe it was because of my crippling social awkwardness.

>>51264324
I don't even know what we are talking about at this point. What is the argument? That militaries in the 19th century did not operate with the same level of small-unit autonomy that modern militaries employ? This is true. They did not.

That doesn't mean they were idiots. No one believed the charge of the light brigade was a great idea, the men who did it realized it was tantamount to suicide while they were doing it.
The horse commanders even ignored the order, initially.
But there are lots of examples of armies at the time employing rational thinking and exploiting advantages.
Going back to the british in Spain, they utilized the fact that their rifles had far superior range to the french ones, in order to harass and defeat superior forces, particularly in hilly terrain.

Another thing that also happened at the battle of balaclave (like the charge of the light brigade) was that the 93rd Highlanders were charged, and rather than forming square, as infantry usually would, they formed lines, because their commander knew their new Minie-rifles were highly effective, and would repel the cavalry before it could close.
These are all tactical decisions.
Calling it "not tactics" because there are better tactics by other people, at other times or places is just moving the goalposts.

>>51266082
I fucked it

I like beige, he's fun to just listen to. regardless of his factuality, desu. I always get distracted by his tooth.

Think he was the bottom or the dom in his boarding school days?

>>51243690
I was... Impressed, when I saw that video. It's like the man's never heard of people going over the top during WW1. Or, hell, all the Zulus and Mahdists who would attack British rifle formations with spears and swords. People can do pretty fucking dangerous shit in war. That's why it's called war.

>>51241195
Oh it's a lindybeige thread. I bet there will be no autism in this thread.

>I was wrong? How?

>>51241395
>~12 Strength is still really strong in fantasy

It's not even one standard deviation up you stupid fucking moron.

>>51264348
>Yes because the whole system is in incoherent mess of oddball arbitrary rules and conflicting design goals.

Yes, and it's those idiosyncrasies that stick out in peoples' minds. Everyone remembers hearing about level 1-9 spells and thinking how stupid and needlessly complicated it was. But that's part of D&D.

Everyone remembers having someone explain to them that Armor Class makes you harder to hit but doesn't reduce damage and that you can get stabbed a hundred times and lose 100 Hit Points and be fine until you get to 0, at which point the last stab kills you.

Everyone remembers cursing that save or die. And encountering crazy shit like Rust Monsters, Displacer Beasts, Beholders, and shit that belonged in a bad sci-fi movie as opposed to a fantasy world.

And all that crazy shit is all wrapped up in warm fuzzy feelings they had when they were just getting started in the RPG world. Late nights spent drinking soda, eating pizza, and making the same Monty Python/Dead Alewives quotes with their fellow nerds.

That's why D&D can't change/improve. It has to remain true to that nostalgia.

Plenty of other brands/franchises work the same way. Star Wars, for example. Pokemon is a videogame version. Don't you dare fuck with people's memories of Coca Cola, McDonalds, or anything related to long running comic book characters.

>>51256157
I think he said the str/dex thing in a video about tiny female archers in movies

>>51266333
He's the kinda face that drinks out of the toilets a lot.

>>51271177
is this a stephen fry kinda meme?

>>51243508
but the viper won. how could you be stupid enough to use this as an example.

>>51244377
Rather amusing considering Zweihänders and Claymores rarely exceeded 7 lbs.

>>51243158
i took what he said about half-elves and applied it to half-orcs.

it makes a lot more sense for there to be a shit ton of half-orcs yet half-orc players are rare and DM's tend not to make them rare too.
they'd have to be a reason for that. seeing as half-orcs tend to be smarter and while not as good at batlte are far better at warfare so why wouldn't orcs breed with humans?

makes sense for them to have a reason not to.
elves already have many reasons to avoid having children with a human in a feudal setting.

>>51254671
The more absurd a weapon looks the more it is a spell stick in anima.

>jesus sword is the most absurd shit ever after anathema
>it is basically a ki user stat stick