Myths you hate about d&d

>>53131675
longswords and broadswords were basically blunt weapons, nobles rarely if ever performed routine maintenance on their swords because they were hardly ever expected to see battle.

Many of them were never sharpened at all past the initial forging process, they simply sat in their sheath for years on end, only brought out when training and dueling.

Nobility would rather surrender at the end of a fight and be taking captive and held for ransom than they would take their chances fighting after their rear guard had fallen.

Fighting with sword and shield is a form of dual-wielding, dipshit.

Also, confirmed for never having seen a pollax, if you think polearms are too long to use in single combat.

>>53131800
>>53131675

Also missed
>even awkwardly gripping a polearm by the haft
where the fuck would you grab it, then, by the fucking head?

>>53131675
Yeah let's just put a dystentery modifier in our campaigns too because realism is so much fun

File: 36e9f6dfbb8381037d4ac092610373d1.jpg (56KB, 631x841px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 631x841px

>>53131675
Studded leather.
Somehow little knobs of metal are supposed to make a piece of armour more effective.

>>53131675
>You can use polearms in melee combat.

But a poleaxe is literally meant to be used in a melee.

>>53131833
Games don't have to be hyper realistic, but they could at least try to make some fucking sense.

>>53131675
The sword is a sidearm.

>>53131675
There is literally no reason not to dual wield if you have two hands.

>all this shit about war
It's a good thing D&D almost never involves mass combat

>>53131675
>op actually knowing his history

>>53131675
I dunno, its just when I was a kid, I thought the longsword was like the best sword evah cause it was listed as doing a d8 (second only to the katana)

It turns out people don't even use that kind of shit, its balance it shitty, it doesn't have any kind of heft or weight to it and it can't carry an edge. Why we waste the finest steel on the shittiest weapons I'll never know.

(Ah hell, its probably nickel plated, for all we know)

>>53131861
a short sword is a sidearm.
a long sword is an awkwardly weighted stick.

>>53131675
You're wrong about literally all of these. At least with the last one, you're only wrong in the specific complaint since the overall notion is accurate, but D&D actually accounts for this one. But the rest are both wrong and stupid all the way through.

>>53131675
>no citations
fuck off, cunt

Did you know that basically every weapon was never used by anyone? All historical combat was logically done at length using bows, crossbows, various siege weapons, spears, and of course, based polearms. Maces, axes, and especially swords, never once saw a single usage in an actual battle, it's all for show in paintings and tapestries. Apply yourselves.

I mean, I'm sure you could think of some special snowflake circumstance in which a broadsword isn't used like a divine rod with which to beat sinners and vagabonds, but I can't think of any.

Axe is a much better weapon, all around, better balance, better heft, weighted properly and with a proper swing it will go straight through a helmet, cut through your clavicle, maim and almost sever an arm, slice those thick rubbery arteries in you're neck, but you've got to get the leverage for a good strike.

A hammer is even better, because combat is more about beating down your foe until he falls and is unable to strike back, but it can't be weighted like a sledgehammer, its got to have a bald, rounded point to increase the weight of impact. Its got to have a pinion, and possibly a hook, on the other end of it, to truly be effective.

Hammers were fucking brutal, but traditionally only sergeants would use them.

>>53131675
is this copypasta?

>>53131675

The number 1 myth I hate- That any of that niggling bullshit actually matters in a game full of wizards and dragons.

>>53131994
How long are you defining as long, here? How short are you calling short? The sword that D&D calls a longsword is a pretty standard arming sword, which is a sidearm. A longsword like the kind used by landsnechts to reave pikes, or by knights to hammer through armor, those aren't sidearms, and could arguably be said to function more like polearms, but they had their role.

>>53131675
>1) The longsword was used in war
>a: Neither the English, the French, or the Germans ever used long swords in battle. The longswords and broadswords were only carried by high nobility and their bodyguards. They were incredibly shitty weapons.
Bullshit

File: tg the image.png (70KB, 2024x1432px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 2024x1432px

ITT

>>53132082
the thing about hammers is that they would get stuck. the hook on the back would get embedded in someone and you'd have to yank it out, leaving yourself exposed if you lowered your shield arm.

ask me later about /k storytime, I'll tell you the story of how my uncle field tested the use of these experimental mortar rounds filled flachettes called 'beehives' and how he used to use gouks ears to confirm his kills to earn the motor pool to see who killed the most in his platoon.

>>53131835
I always thought the studs were bolting thin metal plates to the inside of the armor.

>>53132082
Hammers were specifically designed to pierce plate. Against a man in maile, you might as well just break him with a mace. Without armor, a sword is best. And a sword is still relatively high tier against armor too.

>>53132159
don't listen to lindybeige, hes a twat, and a ninny, and most importantly, a sissy. I don't trust anything that girly wristed ponce has to say about warfare, he dresses like Jhon Denver for fucks sake.

>>53131978
>why waste steel

Because nobles like showing off and it is STILL terrifying as all hell.

>be commoner who got levied into the king's army
>FUCK
>at best I get a short sword with a wooden shield and some light chain mail and a thick cloth coat
>At worst I get a somewhat long stick with a burnt pointy tip with a thick cloth coat
>Just get the stick with the burnt pointy stick
>FUCK
>some noble twat is telling us commoners to line up
>we line up
>we're facing off with some rich looking shits with big swords
>OH FUCK they're running at us with those big fucking sword nope nope nope

>>53131675
>4) You can use polearms in melee combat.
>d: Even awkwardly gripping a polearm by the haft, polearms are extremely awkward to use outside of rank and file combat. After the initial charge, people would often drop their polearm weapon and draw another.
You know there are numerous fighting techniques throughout the world that make use of long sticks right?

>>53131835

The studs would have been angled and designed to deflect arrows. Famously used to protect the English archer line in the battle of Crecy

File: IMG_20170425_161704.jpg (2MB, 2688x1512px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2688x1512px

>>53131675
>English, the French, or the Germans
>d&d

????-???-????

File: 1409318367638.jpg (39KB, 478x373px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 478x373px

>>53131675
this is either very sophisticated bait, or you are the dumbest person I've encountered in the last week.

>>53132166
In the historical examples, this is true, but a lot of people look at the pictures and think they're just studs, especially because "studded leather" is a thing in D&D. Of course, the idea of leather armor in the first place is a bit sketch. There's cuir bolli, but it's sort of a rare niche thing, like laminated cloth armor.

>>53131926
You can literally attack twice as fast duel wielding. And you can use them to deflect swords and arrows. Strictly superior to a shield with skill and training.

File: 013c394e11b5fd2fd8e349e82313ca2f.jpg (36KB, 558x568px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 558x568px

>>53131675
>Banded Mail was a thing
The Roman Empire disagrees

>>53132215
Lindybeige should be taken with a carton of salt, but he's still way better than OP.

File: Bea_Arthur_Pearl_Necklaces.jpg (58KB, 300x626px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 300x626px

>>53132270
kekekekekekekeke

>>53132079
hey, you had to do something once you drove your spear into a mans gut!

File: 1371595699345.jpg (39KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 640x480px

>>53131675
>Nobody used Swords, Hammers, Axes, Poleaxes, Halberds, or spears in combat.
So everyone ran around with daggers shivving each other in the dicks eh?

File: Rake no 2.jpg (3MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3840x2160px

>>53131675
>4) You can use polearms in melee combat.
>700 years later and Austrians are still this butt-pierced

>>53132351

Yeah, basically, but that's on top of them using swords, hammers, etc.

iirc, a long sword is a sword designed for use with two hands, a short sword is designed for one hand, and a bastard sword (or half hand) is meant for either.

The D&D longsword is a short sword, the claymore is a long short. This bothers me more than it should.

>>53131860
I will tell you what I tell my players:
"How much realism do you want in a game where your character who can talk to animals can shoot lightning from his fingers at a giant fire breathing flying lizard living in the arctic?"

File: nick-young-confused-face.png (74KB, 300x256px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 300x256px

>>53131675
Those aren't myths about d&d those are myths about real life

>>53133211
Magic being a thing does not stop things from working as you might expect them to work. You can have dragons and lightning spells while still having the local kingdoms use the appropriate weapons and the party catch a disease for wading through a sewer.

No need for hyperrealism or absolute lack of magic, but a bit of verisimilitude never hurts and allows the suspension of disbelief to not be harmed so easily.

>>53131860
If a knight wielding a two handed hammer is the point you can't get past while you watch players roll saves for turning into stone, you might just be a big fat sperg

File: ultrabait.gif (571KB, 199x199px) Image search: [Google]

571KB, 199x199px

>>53131675

>>53131675
I think you're close on a lot of these but not quite. Broadswords/swords in general were sidearms used in battle only after polearms were lost/broken. Banded mail is a strange interpretation of the roman Lorica Segmentata and in that case it did exist but the typical dnd interpretation not so much. Mounted knights did not use two handed weapons but infantry with poleaxes and long hammers did use them. Polearms in melee were the reason why swords exist. And yeah outside of dueling with dagger and straight sword dual wielding muh axes and muh longswords is just dumb. Though like I said you're pretty much right on all points and my nit picking is just my opinion from things I've read in HEMA and old texts.

>>53131831
Maybe. Maybe the shaft is real pointy, you ever think of that? No, you didn't, and that's why you won't see the first poke coming. You won't see the second poke coming either, but that's for different reasons.

>>53131675
>To the tune of "Fox on the Run"

~Nooooo fun allowed
~You can't have fuuuun when I'm around
~I can't suspeeeeend my disblief
~I won't even try....
~There's no fun allowed

~I'm singing
~Nooooo fun allowed
~You can't have fuuuun...

>>53131675
>You can use polearms in melee combat.
Finally someone understands. Am I the only one who thought of sniping people with my spear?

>>53131675
1. I'm pretty sure the DnD "longsword" is just an arming sword, maybe a bit longer than average for the sake of imagery. Meanwhile the "greatsword" is what we'd call a longsword, albeit perhaps a bit longer and thicker again for the sake of imagery.

2. Correct, it probably wasn't real. Same deal as studded leather.

3 & 4. These weapons existed and had some sort of theoretical use, albeit perhaps not in the hands of the average rank and file soldier. DnD isn't really about army combat, though, and things that aren't practical on the battlefield aren't necessarily impractical in the duels or small scale brawls that DnD parties usually find themselves in.

Plus DnD has different demands as compared to the real world. If you're fighting, say, a stone golem, then all those blades and shit that are good for stabbing and cutting people suddenly aren't very useful. You'd want a sledgehammer or a pick axe instead, right?

5. I don't think this is DnD per se, so much as just the general aesthetic. Dual wielding looks cool, even if it isn't effective.

File: 1492383240134.png (187KB, 400x750px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 400x750px

>You HAVE to wear a silly costume to play
>"IT NEVER ENDS UNTIL YOU DIE!"

I remember a sitcom from the early 90s that made those two claims.

>>53133862
Going by Baldur's Gate as probably a good source for what D&D thinks of as each weapon:

Longsword
>These swords are usually referred to as double-edged swords, war swords, or military swords. In many cases, the long sword has a single-edged blade. There is no single version of the long sword; the design and length vary from culture to culture and may vary within the same culture depending on the era. Among the most common characteristics of all long swords is their length, which ranges from thirty-five inches to forty-seven inches. In the latter case, the blade is known to take up forty inches of the total length. Most long swords have a double-edged blade and a sharp point at the tip. Despite the tip, the long sword is designed for slashing, not thrusting.

Greatsword/Two-Handed Sword
>The two-handed sword is a derivative of the long sword. Weaponsmiths have always looked for ways to improve existing weapons. In an effort to improve the long sword, the blade was lengthened. Eventually, the handle had to be extended and two hands became necessary to properly swing the sword. The primary function of two-handed swords is cleaving mounted knights and breaking up pike formations.

>>53133089
>the claymore is a long short
>long short

Well which one is it m8?

>>53134028
This is what I get for phone posting.

>>53133300
Sounds boring. I'll keep dual wielding halberds and wading through sewers in a chainmail loincloth.

File: FUCK OFF YHVH.png (291KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 500x375px

>>53134233
Oh, and I'll also mix fabrics.

>>53134233
Sounds retarded.

>>53132116
This, holy shit.
Not only are you 'realist' autists flat off wrong about half the shit you complain about, but the fact that you even complain about the slightest 'inaccuracies' of archaic battle conventions in settings that focus on combatants literally able to emit lightning bolts from their hands is absolutely pants on head retarded.

>>53133628
>>53134356
>Using the existence of magic as an excuse for anything else not making sense

See >>53133300

I mean I'm not sperging for total accuracy of everything but this is always a stupid comparison to make. Mere existence of magic doesn't equate to throwing all logic to the wind.

>>53131833

>not throwing in disease, plagues, and random magic illnesses to the civilian population and tracking them via charts and daily tallies

It's like you're having wrongfun.

>>53134356
>Magic exists in the setting
>"I found 2 gold pieces, therefore we now own 2million gold pieces."
>"wtf are you talking about, that doesn't even make sense?"
>"Fuck you, this is a game where people cam shoot lightning out of their buttocks. Why can't 0 + 2 equal 2m then?"

this is essentially what you're advocating, you fucking prick.

>>53134393
>Using the existence of magic as an excuse for anything else not making sense
Anon the point I'm making is that in any setting where magic is exist, you will never make melee combat a feasibly realistic option. Because lighting hands are going to beat rock every fucking time.

>>53134473
Well, you only get to throw lightning hands around a couple times a day and you're otherwise fragile and can't wear armor. Meanwhile, the fighter will never run out of sword.

Unless you're playing D&D 3e or later I guess.

>>53134495
You mean like how rifles run out of bullets.

>>53134473

The more annoying parts are that we don't pay attention to other possibilities. Using magic, poisoning, otherwise murdering those fireflinging fuckbois.

>>53134541
Sure, if the mere firing of the rifle took you six seconds or longer, and you had about five bullets for a day but got more after every good night's rest.

On the other hand, some of those bullets explode.

>>53131835
This is my favourite peice of fantasy vs reality comic material

File: 1458954797654.png (52KB, 203x209px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 203x209px

>>53131926
>shank two niggas at once
>shank one nigga twice

Maybe the studs in the leather act as a faraday cage to protect you from lightning damage.

>>53132231
What?

Thicker boiled plain leather would do better against arrows than flexible leather with a few studs.

>>53131675
>how weapons were or were not used in the battlefield

>relevant in any way to 4-6 dudes awkwardly standing still full-attacking a dragon in the shins until it runs out of hp

>>53134736
>4-6 dudes awkwardly standing still full-attacking a dragon

Wow, you're shit at describing action.

>>53134464
No it's fucking not.
In a world with wizards who fling fire and lightning, magic swords that can cut a hill in half, armors made of solidified soul-matter and monsters who can only be harmed by silver or nails from a coffin, who the fuck is going to care that ackshually longswords are irrealistic?

>>53134473

Unless you're somehow pressganging mages into war, you'll always have it cheaper just hiring mercenaries or outfitting warriors to fight other warriors.

Magic is a different battlefield level. Black Company handles this issue well... the Company has between 2-5 magicians of middling skill available at any time, and they can cause a lot of havoc but are best used at squad level, making magic fuckyous, or countering the issues that the Company has like dental decay, footsoreness, or bad water. With a long, arduous amount of focus they can do some amazing stuff, but not on the fly.

Then there are the Taken. The Taken are high level PC casters. They have large amounts of resources to throw around, lay down crazy spells that wreck plans, and have alternate means of transport. They're hard as fuck to kill without extreme research, rituals, planning, and skullduggery. And even then they have contingencies, lichdom, and other fallback plans. They spec out in different disciplines, from polymorphing to shadow summoning magic to just fuck off big evocations, and if all else fails they buff themselves up to godlike levels and just murder with their fists and weapons. But they're super rare (10 Taken, a few other on-par mages throughout the series).

>>53134824
>who the fuck is going to care that ackshually longswords are irrealistic?

I don't know.

If you were to really get into it and write it into the setting and put some backstory and depth in the world technology levels and military, you could create a whole lot of depth to the setting.

Don't just dismiss stuff outright because of the presence of dragons and vampires and shit.

>>53131675
p. sure this is all bullshit

>>53134823
That made perfect sense, you nerd

>>53134823
That's what happens in the rules. However you describe it is up to you. Either way doesn't change the main point.

>>53132275
The Roman Empire was never an actual thing. It was just something Carthaginian traders made up to justify slow sales.

Also, despite their names, the Civil War wasn't actually that polite, and knights mostly rode around during the day.

>>53131835
The studs are there to hold the leather together.

>>53131835
Well, it may be different in later editions, but in the one I play (AD&D 2e) studded leather wasn't quite that style. According to the Arms and Equipment Guide, leather armor was not the soft leather coats, it was a hard leather shell to act almost like a breast plate, and studded leather was described as, and I quote: "While leather armor is a hardened shell, studded leather armor is soft and supple with hundreds of metal rivets affixed. The rivets are so close together that they form a flexible coating of hard metal that turns aside slashing and cutting attacks. The soft leather backing is little more than a means of securing the rivets in place."

So it was a lot less like a leather jacket with a few studs and more akin to ringmail, in that it was a flexible layer of metal armor. As for arrows, as said earlier, you're still pretty fucked, but for slashes and cuts, you're pretty well protected.

>>53134823
I feel like we're talking about 3.X here, where combat does come down to 4-6 dudes awkwardly standing still full-attacking a dragon. You can describe it fancy like but you're still largely sitting in your 5ft square except for a step here or there to open up space for other people.

System just ain't very conductive of cool combat.

>>53131675
>Dual Wielding is much less effective than fighting with a shield.
My ranger was a master swordsman who dual wielded swords.
He had incredible skill and anytime anyone would compliment him as a warrior, he would correct them:
>I am a swordmaster. If I were a warrior, I would carry a shield like any sensible soldier does.

>>53134851
And then you have big players like The Lady and even she is outclassed by her ex-hubby, The Dominator. Then there is the implication that there have been nastier dark lords in the past.

File: thesorryone.jpg (709KB, 1224x1632px) Image search: [Google]

709KB, 1224x1632px

>>53134942
Not exactly. On that picture, most of the studs don't serve much of a purpose, they don't keep anything together.

Here's an example of something that does actually use studs - it's a busted up, old, somewhat poor make, but it's tried and tested and gets the job done. Leather vest with metal plates under it, doesn't weigh much, easy to put on over chainmail and provides valuable extra protection at a low cost. Could be classified as a brigandine or coat of plates.

>>53135003

Yeah. Lady, Dominator, Kina, etc. are the top top tier. They can be defeated but it takes even more craziness. Shit, to take down Lady they needed to have a wizard who hadn't spoken a word in decades 'powering up' a spell through that personal sacrifice, a walking Antimagic Shell, two talented battlefield level casters, and a Taken hammering the bitch to the point of unwinding the power and even then the first shot failed because she had destroyed all knowledge of her name outside of Silent's head in the entire empire and taken the identity of her dead sister. And she STILL found a way back to power.

And then there's the Barrowland and the Silver Spike and... goddamn was that a great series. Last few books flagged.

>>53135071
I'm working my way through the second book, and I want to know (unless it's a spoiler), how did those get so powerful? Could any wizard theoretically become that power given age, practice, finding right lore, and keeping their name a secret, or is it a "you got it, or you don't".

>>53133628
>If a knight wielding a two handed hammer is the point you can't get past while you watch players roll saves for turning into stone, you might just be a big fat sperg
Foxworthy here is the closest without going over.
He wins.

Anyone riled up over historically inaccurate usage of weapons, armor, or potatoes in a fictional fantasy setting is a witless sperg.
The end.

Anyone using the argument that "If there are wizards and dragons, nothing needs to make sense or be internally consistent!" needs to have their face set on fire and put out with a metal rake.
The end.

>>53135144

The books are rarely written from the mind of a caster and the mundanes don't seem to ask many questions. I think it's part genetic but it seems like Taken can be made from any skilled caster, turns them into a more powerful caster. But the big bads are just damn talented and live longer and longer.

>>53135003
Wasn't even an implication. They flat out stated that the tree in the middle of the desert was specifically there to prevent the rise of some evil power.

>>53135071
Agreed.

>>53135144
Think warlock rather than wizard and you'll be somewhat on the right path. Magic was never really explained in-depth. It seems to be either
A) Born with the power, but anyone can cast any spell if given enough time
B) Dark pacts of one sort or another

>>53131675
>minor shit

You bitch about all that crap yet say nothing when retardation like the Spiked Chain and Double Swords exists.

>>53132231
...No. That is idiotic.

Take an arrowhead. See how narrow the point is? Now look at one of those studs. See how far apart they are? How small they are?
If - IF - an arrow DID manage to somehow hit one of those studs, it is entirely possible that it would deflect the arrow. Slightly to the side, where it would then hit the leather.

Further: the British won in 1346, but it was not because of their armor. They had 10,000 longbows against 8,000 mounted knights and 4,000 CROSSBOWS. You remember crossbows? Really good against armor? Slower to fire than longbows?

test

>>53131933

Yeah, if only.

And that should have been obvious by his unspecific use of the term "broadsword".

>>53134873

Because at that point you've accepted realism isn't important, strong and consistent themes are.

I don't have people swinging longswords because it's realistic, historically authentic. I have them swinging longswords because it's cool and in theme with the rest of the world.

I will use this to justify archaic weapons, strange weapons, a ridiculous variety of armour and anything else I think is cool and adds to the world and story.

Because basing a setting on theme, on genre conventions and such is still internally consistent and has its own logic, entirely independent of what might be considered 'realistic'.

>>53135542
/thread

>>53135585
>/thread

You know this never works, right?

>>53135741
Eh. Whatevs.

>>53135542
He can still expect that his internal consistency include a type of realism in choice of arms. The thematic consistency can include that swords are bad weapons.

What you've written isn't a defence for the retards in this thread suggesting that dragons and magic toss realism out the window

>>53135841

Only if you assume there is only one right way to be internally consistent. Which is, y'know, false.

In a setting which fully embraces high fantasy thematics, quibbling over realism is pointless and ridiculous. By the very premise of the setting, it has been declared irrelevant.

>>53135860

Verisimilitude is what you're looking for. Honestly I think both come together to make a better product, but if you're not going for realism verisimilitude and consistency is necessary.

>>53135927

Why?

If I'm in a game where I want heroes with swords to fight dragons, why should I come up with a convoluted reason why the dragon bothers to land within the heroes reach, and the hero's sword actually is capable of hurting it?

I mean, I could. It would probably be overly complex, rather arbitrary and full of holes that some fucker would end up exploiting and driving his GM to tears.

Or... I could say that's how the setting works. The dragon will land and fight the hero, and the sword will be a useful tool in the battle.

This isn't based on any physical law or principle or argument. It's simply saying that the game, and the setting, is focused on those themes.

It's something that always annoys me when people start arguing about realism in mecha threads.

Mecha are unrealistic. If you are creating a setting with mechs in it, you've left realism at the door. If you want to technobabble a reason why they're fine? Cool, go for it. But I don't think there's any reason to. The premise of the setting is that mechs work. So they do. The internal consistency and logic of the setting includes that premise as a hard, inviolate fact. If realism says it's wrong, then realism isn't being helpful and should get out of the way of the giant robots punching each other.

>>53135998
>why the dragon bothers to land within the heroes reach, and the hero's sword actually is capable of hurting it?

But really, why -would- the dragon land? It makes no sense.

And wouldn't it be so much cooler to have the fighter instead ride a griffin or something to face the dragon in the air?

>>53136092

It makes perfect sense in the setting. Because that is what Dragons do. There might be a reason for it, but that's a question for philosophers and scholars because at the moment you might be asking it a fucking dragon landed in front of you and is about to breathe fire on your pondering ass.

That's kinda what I'm saying. You don't need to explain it if you write it into the very premise of the setting. This is a world where those thematic fantasy things happen, where things operate according to the rules of novels and films rather than trying to cling to realism while being forced to justify all the things which Aren't realistic. It's just a complete waste of effort.

>And wouldn't it be so much cooler to have the fighter instead ride a griffin or something to face the dragon in the air?

Thematically? Sure. But you try and write up some decent aerial combat rules for an RPG. It's a fucking nightmare.

>>53131835
/tg/ trigger equipment: Studded leather armor, horned helmet, a forearm-mounted buckler, and a double-edged greataxe. Anything else?

>>53136169

Because it's completely impossible I understood you but continued to disagree, right?

It's always funny when people fall back on that in lieu of an actual point or argument.

>>53131675
>1) The longsword was used in war
>a: Neither the English, the French, or the Germans ever used long swords in battle. The longswords and broadswords were only carried by high nobility and their bodyguards. They were incredibly shitty weapons

>My historical accuracy!

Right? Totally the wrong weapon with-which to slay a dragon while your wizard casts a fireball at it, after your cleric has blessed you and your thief zapped it with a wand.

>2) Banded Mail was a thing
>b: Banded mail left you vulnerable by stabbing through the bands and up towards the chest.

>My historical accuracy!

Right? Totally the wrong armor with-which to deflect the blow of a an orc wielding a dragon-bone longsword.

>3) Knights used two handed Hammers, Swords and Axes.

>My historical accuracy!

Right? Super relevant to the divine Paladins of Tor who can lay hands to magically heal the wounded through the divine power gifted them by their god, as long as they retain their lawful-good alignment.

>4) You can use polearms in melee combat.

>My historical accuracy!

Right? Utterly impractical when fighting the independently-attacking tentacles of a displacer-beast--never mind an eight-eyed beholder.

PS: Stop playing D&D and stick to the hobbies you are good at. Like guzzling buckets full of semen.

>>53136229
>The things that you say are stupid
>Lol salt spergy autism I was trolling the whole time!

>>53136212

If you really believe I missed out on some subtle detail or nuance, then you could expand upon it? Presuming, y'know, it actually exists.

Then again, given that you're falling back on insults I suppose that might be too much to ask.

>>53136169
No, I think what they said went over your head.

>>53136169
>>53136212
Nice projecting.

>>53136291
>boohoo don't express counter opinions to mine on a forum that exists for us to express our opinions on or I will call you names!

You are ridiculous and dumb. It's not that important whether you are also OP.

>>53136229
>>53136291
Next-level stupidity right here.

>>53136291

>Oh no, I was called on to articulate a defence of my baseless assertions!
>I know, I'll just call them all autistic!
>Genius!

>>53136335
Yes, because calling everyone you disagree with a sperg is such an intellectual argument.

>>53131675
>teaching kids to fight
D&D teaching kids to fight?

>>53136384
Um, duh?

Check for traps, open the door, order 30 guard-dogs to attack, then throw war darts at it.

How did you survive highschool, seriously.

>>53136411
I just threw a fireball.

>>53136465
>Hit level 5 before adulthood
Your allowance must have included a lot more gold pieces than mine did.

>>53136497
I also killed a lot of animals.

>>53131675
>b: Banded mail left you vulnerable by stabbing through the bands and up towards the chest.
It was still a thing

>3) Knights used two handed Hammers, Swords and Axes.
Knights didn't really use them but Zweihanders, Claymores, Jians, and Odachis were all weapons that saw some degree of use. While generally not practical for battlefield usage they still make perfect sense for an adventurer.

>I don't so much hate this one for its style so much as it is teaching kids to fight like ninnies. Dual Wielding is much less effective than fighting with a shield.
Well it depends on what you mean by dual wielding. If you mean two similar weapons than you are right but using a parrying dagger in your off hand for a dual makes sense since it offers a degree of versatility beyond a simple shield (stabbing between plates, catching the blade).

>>53135860
>Only if you assume there is only one right way to be internally consistent.
What does this mean? There can be only one internal consistency per setting.

>>53131675
>longsword
There are historical records that longswords were situationally used by English knights in the fourteenth century when they dismounted in order to protect archers

>banded mail
some sort of misunderstanding of the principles of lorica and brigandines lies behind both D&D leather armor and banded mail

>polearms
What melee are you referring to here?

Half pike was called the best weapon for 1-on-1 combat by some experts for whom this was relevent. Historical sources describe even fourteen foot pike as being an excellent weapon in duels combat.
pollax is designed for the chaos of melee
In badwar anyone who drops pike is almost completely useless

The only poleweapons I have read any sources stateing they were dropped are lances, and that's because lances are very easily wrecked

>Duel wielding
Duel wielding was incredibly niche, but parrying daggers are even easier to carry than bucklers

>>53137084
>Duel wielding was incredibly niche, but parrying daggers are even easier to carry than bucklers
Think about all the jerking off you have to do, to build the wrist-strength to use one.

>>53136148
A bowl of potato-and-maize soup

File: moro armor.jpg (66KB, 512x774px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 512x774px

>>53137084
Dual wielding is extremely niche, but it was used a lot more often by people that didn't wear much armor

I know the Philippines had Arnis, which uses a bunch of different weapons in various combinations, including two sticks/machetes

File: images-AA024_1_l.jpg (54KB, 817x389px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 817x389px

>>53131675
3) Knights used two handed Hammers, Swords and Axes.

Starting there is a issue with that. One Knights did use two handed axes. Two In the 15th century two handed swords were popular in parts of Europe. Three knights rarely used two handed hammers called mauls, because mauls were a cheap option for anti-plate work. Maul were a weapon mostly of the lower class.

>4) You can use polearms in melee combat.

>d: Even awkwardly gripping a polearm by the haft, polearms are extremely awkward to use outside of rank and file combat. After the initial charge, people would often drop their polearm weapon and draw another.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdVYW9r2G3U

If we are talking halberds or the like then you are right that it rarely happened. If we are talking about its shorter brother the poleaxe then you are wrong. In the 15th century short polearms were very popular and came in more favors then Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream.

>>53137368
>>53136148
Shit, have a girl with that gear, sitting down eating that soup while not using a coaster for her drink and you've got it in one.

>>53137130
About 20% of that of the average 4chan user?

>>53135326
You've been taken for a ride

>>53137600
>Dual wielding is extremely niche, but it was used a lot more often by people that didn't wear much armor

It was somewhat common in south east Asia.

File: 1484436383335.jpg (21KB, 480x484px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 480x484px

>>53131675
>No Fun Allowed: The Post

You are of the opinion that a halberd or greatsword is some sort of ranged weapon?

>>53131675
Jesus, is this what /tg/ has become?

>>53131675
>Myths you hate about d&d
>English, the French, or the Germans
I've never seen d&d played in a historical our-Earth context.

File: 1454016618070.png (262KB, 609x664px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 609x664px

>>53131675
You're completely wrong on each point, and you know it.

File: 1490656108789.jpg (56KB, 549x604px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 549x604px

>>53131675

>>53133916
>You HAVE to wear a silly costume to play
This one is true, actually. If you don't, you're going to jail eventually.

File: halfsword.jpg (646KB, 640x1190px) Image search: [Google]

646KB, 640x1190px

>>53139701

>>53136139
Why does a dragon land?

Well for this dragon he's an arrogant prick. Yeah he could stay in the air and burn you but he WANTS to show these mortals that thry can do diddly squat even if they could reach him. To him, they're like ants trying to hurt a human, WHY wouldn't a sadistic cunt of a dragon show off how invincible?

Suspension of disbelief is good and necessary to get the most out of a setting, but sometimes just a little thought into something makes for a more interesting setting.

File: monkey.jpg (3MB, 4048x3036px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4048x3036px

>>53134929
I jizzed instead of laughing but it was worth it

>>53131675
>5) Dual Wielding is a thing.
For starters it's called duel wielding, and yes they used two weapons in duels, namely rapier and main gauche. I hate retards who call it dual wielding because they don't know what they're talking about.

>>53131745
Even if you did sharpen them, you kept the lower end blunt (for easy gripping) and only got the top as sharp as it needed to be (to reduce the risk in fucking up gripping).

File: Ewart Oakeshott - EU Wpns & Armor.jpg (30KB, 350x463px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 350x463px

>>53131675
On the off chance this isn't trolling I want to help you. You are wrong about all of these.

Read a fucking book. Doesn't have to be pic related, just read something that is based on actual archaeological and written evidence rather than making up your own half-baked theories based on random snippets gleamed from self-proclaimed internet experts and your own untested rationalizations.

>>53132215
>>53132215
>don't listen to lindybeige because how he looks
>no proof of why you disagree
you must be retarded

>>53131675
>polearms are extremely awkward to use outside of rank and file combat
I shouldn't comment, but I'm going to anyway,
You do realize that halberds are polearms and pretty much can't be used in tight formations due to needing a good amount of space to be wielded properly.

actually, I'm fairly certain that the ONLY polearm your statement is actually true of is the pike, it's only effective when clustered together in tight formations to repel cavalry charges. but in loose formations the pike is too long and unwieldy to be anything but a liability, you could cut it down to make it more manageable, but then it ceases to be a pike and instead becomes a spear, a weapon that has been in use for thousands of years, far longer than massed formations have been a thing.

I think the rest of the replies are true, you have to either be a really clever troll, or not terribly educated.

>>53131675
Whoa. Shut the fuck up.

ITT armchair historians

>>53131675
Itt. OP spreads his own misconceptions on top of other misconceptions.

File: not even bait.jpg (31KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 625x626px

>>53140481

>>53131926
You aren't an Elf and thus are not ambidextrous.

So instead of shanking a nigga twice you'll be awkwardly dancing arround trying to avoid cutting your self.

>>53131675
>a: Neither the English, the French, or the Germans ever used long swords in battle. The longswords and broadswords were only carried by high nobility and their bodyguards. They were incredibly shitty weapons.

The swiss carried them. So did other Southern Germans, I would presume. We see them on Durer-paintings as well.

How did op's bait get so many responses?

>>53131745
King Richard the Lionheart was well known to use a large longsword which was described as incredibly heavy by one of his scribes. While making a drawing of it for a book, the scribe had difficulty lifting it onto the table and had to be assisted by one of the kings guards.

King Richards armor was also notoriously heavy. He had to be assisted onto his horse with a winch and pulley system.

But he also was famous for leading the charge through infantry, so he needed a well armored horse and any heavy weapon he could basically drag across enemies below him.

In reality, while none of this seems very practical to us, for him it probably invoke fear in his enemies and he probably had enough skill to do this all well since he literally rode into battle with his knights.

>>53141007
It's the internet. People like to complain on the internet. It's how we have fun.

>>53131675
Actually there were supposed ancient books that talked about using a sword and dagger, using the dagger (with guard) to block and control the enemies blade while using the sword up close.
I always liked the idea of dual wielding, it's just when you start dual wielding longswords where it begins to fall flat due to how tactically awful it is to defend or attack.
I just wish paladins got the ability to get dual wield style...

>>53141160
>I just wish paladins got the ability to get dual wield style...
>Houserule: Parrying Daggers are off-hand weapon that can be used as a shield
Or
>Houserule: This Parrying Dagger use the Spiked Shield statblock
Now they can.

Axe and shield master race!

File: IMG_1047.jpg (299KB, 708x826px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 708x826px

>>53131675
The real challenge is figuring out who in this thread is actually a moron and who's just trying to start something like OP.

>>53141637
... and then you meet the guy with sword and shield and he fucks you up

>>53131675
Arming swords (dnd longswords) were often carried by archers, and eventually pikemen, as a backup weapon. Pre-arming swords were often used in conjunction with shields by Vikings. What exactly are you talking about?

>Dual wielding
But rapier and dagger is useful because carrying a shield all the time in civilian life is super inconvenient!

Here's one though:
>Studded leather.
Garbage
>inch thick Gambesons are worse than 3mm tanned leather garments with nothing but regular clothes under them.
Garbage.

>>53132256
Buff coat?

>>53132328
End him rightly!

>>53132166

Brigandine

It's a heavy armor type that has little or nothing to do with leather armor at all. But from a blurry page in a history book, it looks like light armor with fashionable spikes.

>tfw no badass brigandine in most RPGs

>>53134972
>studded leather armor is soft and supple with hundreds of metal rivets affixed
Sounds like a good way to ensure that once the armor was damaged a few times it would become useless and impossible to repair.

File: DSC06820.jpg (339KB, 1536x1152px) Image search: [Google]

339KB, 1536x1152px

The fuck is wrong with you all, from where do you learn history, youtubers?
>>53132256
Eh,depends of the culture, FLips, Japs, Siberian used hide/leather lamellar armor, and the Spaniards used all leather armor to fight amerindians because it was enough to stop they weapons. Buff coats were expensive in europe but were quite priced too.

>>53140860
He has a point about not listening to lindybeige though.

>>53133089

You really need to learn.

All these categories were after-the-fact. Let's get that out of the way. Swords were individually crafted and they all fall on a spectrum.

The basic sword is an arming sword. Sometimes called a broadsword by later historians due to their smallsword fetish. Cut-and thrust weapons with a double edged straight blade.

Two-handed swords were specialized weapons. 5lbs at most unless the weapon was intended to be ceremonial. Dopplesword is a synonym. Longsword/bastard swords are in-between weapons used by knights in plate who didn't use shields; they could be used one-handed but more often weren't.

Many swords were single edged and curved. At the time, these were called "swords" but saber and other terms can be used. Some are more optimized for cutting than others, but most could thrust as well. Katanas fit in here, as do backswords.

The whole short sword vs long knife thing is blurry, especially since legally a peasant could get away with carrying a sword if he could squeeze it into the legal definition of a knife.

Eventually, swords optimized mostly for thrusting (some could ONLY thrust) appeared. These long narrow blades were called rapiers. They got longer and longer, until a very fast short variety appeared that was optimized for daily wear which we call a smallsword.

Hand protection was minimal while people wore heavy armor and carried shields. Once armor started going away, built-in hand protection became a priority and fighting styles changed.

Also, go watch Matt Easton.

>>53137832
Her armour must also not provide adequate coverage, instead showing off her curves, don't forget!

File: 1469787854478.jpg (11KB, 297x275px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 297x275px

>>53134929

>>53131675
>5) Dual Wielding is a thing.
But it is a thing I do Filipino martial arts

>>53142895
Perhaps completely normal armor with an inexplicably bars midriff and boon window?
Are we forgetting anything?

>>53132215
Not that anon and I've never seen the oft posted and oft reviled Lindy, but check this out:

>Don't listen to lindybeige, hes a twat, and a ninny, and most importantly, a sissy. I don't trust anything that girly wristed ponce has to say about warfare, he dresses like Jhon Denver for fucks sake.
>twat
Insults character, not what he looks like
>ninny
Insults intelligence, not what he looks like
> sissy; ponce
Insults "Manliness" of how he acts, not what he looks like
>don't trust anything that girly wristed ponce has to say about warfare
Outright states they don't trust his opinion on stated subject, nothing to do with how he looks.

>dresses like Jhon Denver for fucks sake.
While a criticism of his appearance, this is also a criticism of his decision making in how he chooses to dress, as opposed to his bone structure, complexion, body mass, etc.

>>53140860
>>don't listen to lindybeige because how he looks
No, you must be retarded.

I have no opinion on Lindy, and could care less.
I'm just pointing out a retarded post.
Party on.

>>53136148
Armoured g-string

>>53131675
D&D never involved mass formation combat anyway ya ignorant fucknugget.
You HAVE played it right? It's all brief skirmish combat shit.

>>53143579

No helmet. Steampunk goggles. High heels for infantry.

Spiked armor, maybe? I mean big spikes that inhibit movement.

Or maybe dual wielded double edged greataxes.

Put a spellbook on her hip and a bow and quiver on her back.

>>53131675

>Myths you hate about D&D

Are you seriously complaining about myths in a FICTIONAL GAME THAT HAS NO BEARING ON REAL WORLD HISTORY AND REAL HISTORICAL EVENTS?

>>53141095
Yeah but King Richard was notable enough for it to be specifically recorded. Probably not common. Plus, as you said, it was probably used more for shock and fear than it was for actual combat effectiveness, and to foster a sense of camaraderie between him and his men.

File: 1408391643288.jpg (12KB, 224x225px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 224x225px

>>53131675
I can't believe people falled for this bait

>>53131675
These myths aren't about d&d.

>>53142785
Oh I absolutely agree as he is not an expert but they failed to mention even that. I was pointing out that the argument presented was so stupid.

>>53143713
Thank you for that and you are absolutely right I guess I wrote the response too quickly.
My biggest gripe with >>53132215 is they didn't say anything regarding his sources and such but insults his character, intelligence, and manliness as you eloquently put it.

>>53131675
6) OP played it, forever tainting a perfectly good hobby with his encyclopedia-fed smarm

>>53149235

Right? Let's get some myths about D&D into this thread.

Here's one that bugs me: "In OD&D, elf was a class."

Not true, if you take "OD&D" to mean the only LBBs or LBBs + supplements. In the LBBs, an elf had to choose at the start of each adventure whether he would act as a fighter or a magic-user, and could only use equipment appropriate to that class during the adventure. In other words, if your elf buckled on armor and grabbed a sword, you were a fighter that day; but if you put on robes and a pointy hat and carried a dagger, you were a mage that day.

Now, if you take "OD&D" in the broad (pre-Dragonsfoot and K&K) sense to mean the LBBs, Basic, Expert, the later boxed sets, the Rules Cyclopedia, etc., (this usage is out of fashion in a post-www world, but it was current in the old bulletin-board days), then, yes, technically after 1981, Moldvay's "revision" to OD&D made elf a class in the Basic Set, but even this was somewhat mitigated later on, as the Mystara Gazetteers and the PC ("Creature Crucible" series) added AD&D style class and multi-class advancement to lots of OD&D races.

>>53141095

This isn't too surprising, since greatswords clock in at 20kg or more.

>>53131675
long swords were used in battle, they were used on horseback and they were about the length of a man.

Knights used many different weapons and often carried many weapons into combat, sometimes as much as seven.

Polearms are designed to be used in melee combat and were effective weapons.

There are effective dual wielding fighting styles, Filipino martial arts are a good example.

>>53151600
Were fighters really called "fighting men" and mages "magic users"?

How much of a martial magic gap is really there if the GM knows the magic-restrictive rules and plays the world well?

Is it better to make a target roll saves or to roll against a target number yourself? (I don't understand this one in the least)

How often to DMs really fudge and by how much?

Are elves taller or shorter than humans?

>>53154148
>Were fighters really called "fighting men" and mages "magic users"?
Yep.

>How much of a martial magic gap is really there if the GM knows the magic-restrictive rules and plays the world well?
Giant fucking gap out of combat, fairly pronounced in combat but magic users tended to die like flies.

>Is it better to make a target roll saves or to roll against a target number yourself? (I don't understand this one in the least)
Depends on who you want rolling the dice.

>How often to DMs really fudge and by how much?
Depends on the DM.

>Are elves taller or shorter than humans?
Yes.

File: medieval_nigger.jpg (151KB, 764x1023px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 764x1023px

>>53131675

What about Morning Stars?

>>53131675
>muh dual wield
SWORD AND DAGGER, BITCH

File: 1491515210209.jpg (146KB, 686x1024px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 686x1024px

>>53131675

Where do Chain Axes fit into this scenario?

>>53154148
>Were fighters really called "fighting men" and mages "magic users"?
Yes and no. Fighting men, two words; magic-users, hyphenated.

>How much of a martial magic gap is really there if the GM knows the magic-restrictive rules and plays the world well?
None to any significant degree, because few games ever legitimately surpassed 8th or 9th level, and if they did, they went from being about dungeon-crawls and treasure-hunts to warring baronies and duchies.

>Is it better to make a target roll saves or to roll against a target number yourself? (I don't understand this one in the least)
I don't even understand what you're asking here.

>How often to DMs really fudge and by how much?
Depends. A good DM ought not to fudge unless it's necessary, but YMMV on what "necessary" means. Still other DMs (including Gygax, reportedly) just basically did whatever they felt like. And if you're good enough at that, the players would never be the wiser.

>Are elves taller or shorter than humans?
In classic D&D, shorter. In old-school AD&D, mostly shorter, except for Gray Elves.

>>53131800
>Also, confirmed for never having seen a pollax
jokes on you, I see Polacks everyday

>>53131675
>a: Neither the English, the French, or the Germans ever used long swords in battle. The longswords and broadswords were only carried by high nobility and their bodyguards. They were incredibly shitty weapons.

You don't even know what a longsword is. D&D "Longswords" are what everyone historically called an "arming sword" if that. They were also definitely, without a fucking doubt carried and used in battle not just by nobles, but by common soldiers. Swords were not actually that expensive after the 12th century, and of the many expenses a soldier faced, his sword was one of the least of them.

Secondly, actual Longswords, which is to say two handed swords of moderate length, were definitely used in battle. George Silver talked about them, alongside arming swords, in Paradoxes of Defence.

>Outside of polearms, spears, halberds and the like,
So outside of 99% of two-handed weapons.

>armies rarely ever used two handed melee weapons.
Look up the "Dane Axe" you stupid faggot.

God I hate /his/.

ITT retards who don't know anything about historical combat.

>>53131675
>1) The longsword
D&D games are about small, independent mercenaries in skirmish-level engagements, where two-handed swords were used.

>2) Banded Mail
Had to run a google search, most of the art that came up looks like fairly standard fantasy armors based loosely on lorica segmenta. the weakness you cite wouldn't be much of an issue if being attacks from above, which would be a common problem to face as infantry units in non-formation combat, especially against larger-than-human foes that adventurers often face. Even then, knowing your armor has an opening simply means you can focus your defense on countering and punishing attempts to exploit it, while letting your armor and shield do most of the work on everything else. Every armor has weaknesses and using those to your advantage is what separates an armchair historian from a competitively minded strategist.

>3) Knights and two-handed weapons
After around 1300 this became pretty common practice as your armor could take the majority of punishment for you. Historical records indicate the switch pretty clearly.

>4) You can use polearms in melee combat.
All you have to do is watch reenactors and people who go out and practice with these things to know that people figured out ways to at least properly defend yourself in close quarters, even if it's just to create an opening to put distance between you and the target before striking again.

>5) Dual Wielding
Sometimes you lose your shield. That's why you learn to use your dagger as a parrying weapon. This is more critical once again to D&D characters, who are not part of a regular army, as a shield is easily capable of being splintered or burned away, handling hazardous terrain in a dungeon environment can make bringing a shield with you impractical, and you've likely bashed the shit out of your enemy's shields so good luck replacing it.

>>53154328
It's a little unnerving that this image has the nicest proportions I've ever seen in Space Marine armor.

>>53156026

Actually, poll axes are the most popular weapons for duel wielding.

>inb4 spell check-- my spelling is fucking PERFECT, as is my historical accuracy

This may very well be the worst thread on /tg/

>>53156915
Would you expect anything else from the autistic spawn of /his/, /k/, and /tg/?

File: I dig, I die, I dig again.jpg (4MB, 3488x5380px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3488x5380px

>>53156942
Yes? That sounds fucking awesome. I want to babysit /k/ and /tg/'s kid.

>>53140098
I thought that the dragon landed because we chose a place he had to defend, but that he couldn't attack in a high altitude flyby. Or because we put a harpoon through his wing using a ballista and winched him out of the sky with a block and tackle and a team of horses. Or because we catapulted a tremendous bolo at him and wrapped a wing.

>>53140954
I'm a half-elf, making me half-ambidextrous and able to use my right and left hands.

>>53135542
It's not realism for realism sake anon, it's about immersion: giving believable imput to players strenghten the suspension of disbelif. For example, suggesting that exploring a small tunnel with a torch is not the best idea (too much smoke), even if the "torchbearer" is the default trope of dungeon crawling.

>>53131675
This is not even historicaly accurate.

>>53137791
Woo! Leeds uni represent!

All this fucking misinformation in this thread hurts. Being a fucking nerd doesn't mean you can make shit up wholesale just because the topic is also "nerdy".

>>53131675
>The longsword was used in war
>Polearms are extremely awkward to use outside of rank and file combat.
Have you ever considered that DnD is NOT a game about war, but is instead a game about single combat? Have you ever considered that everything we know about medieval combat means jack shit in the context of DnD, since medieval combat was never focussed on single combat outside of the context of jousting and other tournaments?

>>53131675
1: a: d&d is fantasy, not European history. B: they were used, and were fine weapons. You need to quit jerking off over Katanas, you fucking weeb.

>>53134674
Truth.

>>53134873
But a setting with a lot of depth where nobody used longswords or greataxes would be less cool than a setting with a lot of depth where people did use longswords and greataxes, because those things are cool, like dragons and lightning.

>>53135741
It does sometimes, and when it does, its awesome. They aspire to greatness. Doubt not.

>>53131675
Autist