/beige/

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.

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.

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

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

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.

>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.

>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

>longbow
>archer in movies

pick one

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

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.

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.

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.

>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.

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:
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

>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.

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.

No user, 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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

>"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.

Not the other user, 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.

>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

>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

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

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.

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

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

>Is he right Veeky Forums?
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.

>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.

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

meh

...

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

>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.

>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.

>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.

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.

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

>Is [Lindybeige] right Veeky Forums?

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

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).

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

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.

>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.

>twenty pound greatswords.

>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

>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?

>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?

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 Veeky Forums's biases to confirm his own.

Little john usualy uses a longbow

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.

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

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

>Is he right Veeky Forums?
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.

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

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

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

>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.

>Hey Veeky Forums! 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

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

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"

Real fencing as in historical fencing, not sport fencing.

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.

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.

>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.

>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.

>"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.

>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.

>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.

>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.

Fuck off Lindybeige

>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.

>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.

>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

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

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.

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.