Myths you hate about d&d

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

>op actually knowing his history

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)

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

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.

>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.

is this copypasta?

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

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.

>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

ITT

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.

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

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.

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.

>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

>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?

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

>Banded Mail was a thing
The Roman Empire disagrees

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

kekekekekekekeke

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

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

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

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.

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?"

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

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.

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

...

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.

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.

>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...

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

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.

>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.

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.

>the claymore is a long short
>long short

Well which one is it m8?

This is what I get for phone posting.

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

Oh, and I'll also mix fabrics.

Sounds retarded.

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.

That's nice user. Once you're done having your extra special sperg adventures, don't forget to tell your guardian about it. They'll love to hear about it. Ask them for a nice cup of hot chocolate before bed time so you'll sleep tight, because you gotta be fit for tomorrow so you can go to your therapy session after school.

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

See 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.

>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.

>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.

>Using the existence of magic as an excuse for anything else not making sense
user 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.

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.

You mean like how rifles run out of bullets.

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

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.

This is my favourite peice of fantasy vs reality comic material

>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.

What?

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

>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

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

Wow, you're shit at describing action.

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?

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).

>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.

p. sure this is all bullshit

That made perfect sense, you nerd

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

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.

The studs are there to hold the leather together.

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.

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.

>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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

>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.

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.

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.

Agreed.

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

>minor shit

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

...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

Yeah, if only.

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

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'.

/thread

>/thread

You know this never works, right?