"Thats not how people actually fought in the middle ages"

>"Thats not how people actually fought in the middle ages"

You would know, you were there.

No, but it's how they fought in the Renaissance, and based on the GMs description of that last city we're closer to that period. Now grab that pike and stop whining.

>Media depict heroes using fancy moves and feints in combat
>Actual medieval sword combat resembles football hooligans brawling

>A real katana would bisect that armored knight in one blow!

Well, he does smell like an unwashed peasant.

>Tough shit. Do you want to play or not?

There is a time and place for fancy moves and feints, and it's not in the middle of dozens of other fighting dudes.

I wonder what this guy feels about his picture being the go-to for neckbeard autist. Do you think he visits Veeky Forums?

>Making fancy moves and feints
>Without a live audience in close proximity
It's like you don't want to inspire the men to victory or something.

Nothing wrong with striving for historical realism. The only real problem occurs when it impacts upon gameplay to an insufferable degree

>This thing is okay up to the point where it is not okay
Bold stance, my dude.

>historical accuracy
>he says, while the wizard is wiggling his fingers to char the enemies with his spells
Why do you hate martials so much, Veeky Forums?

We don't hate martials. We just don't buy into this whole "wizards exist so everything else should be freeform as well" malarkey.

Options field, mate.

>Nothing wrong with striving for historical realism.
There is when it undermines the entire premise of the entire fucking game.
>Martial needs to be as accurate as possible while wielding weapons and armors that a) didn't exist at the time or b) are wholly impractical by default.
>Mages though? Oh let those fuckers do fucking anything, up to and including bending the campaign over a barrel while the DM tears his notes in rage.
Then exercise more than 5% of that brain and be upfront with the fact that they aren't meant to be in the same group.

>"Thats not how people actually played dungeons & dragons"

>Then exercise more than 5% of that brain and be upfront with the fact that they aren't meant to be in the same group.
That's just personal preference.

There's nothing wrong with balanced magic users that are more or less on par with mundane characters.

I'm going to hate saying this since it's turned into a meme, but it actually applies to historical realism.
Depends on the setting.

>There's nothing wrong with balanced magic users that are more or less on par with mundane characters.
They aren't though.

Even when martials have access to magic, they're still inherently shittier than a mage who has access to a full spell list.

Again, that's personal preference. It depends entirely on what magic actually does and involves in your game or story.

>There's nothing wrong with balanced magic users that are more or less on par with mundane characters.
I like how Symbaroum manages this. Leagues ahead better than any D&D edition.

Good thing the game is not set in the actual Middle Ages then
Now, for the fifth time, you're not part of the group so go away or shut up

Not every game that has wizards is a broken mess like D&D.

Honestly, if I'm trying to jack up the historical realism rather than going with fast and loose pulp, it's probably because magic doesn't play a role in the game and I want the players to have choices and options that replace magic. Focusing in more on the nitty gritty of melee combat in something like Mythras, for instance.

Oh yeah? Pack your shit and go to the middle ages you autistic fucklord.

>full spell list.
Depends on the spell list. If the spell list is too powerful, then no, mundanes will never be on the same level as magic users. This also means that the spell list is unbalanced and therefore shit.

>Actually women would make for better soldiers than men.

I like to imagine he changed his life. Started working out and became a normie.

>Martials have to act this way because we actually have a frame of reference as to how they acted
>We don't have a frame of reference as to how magic users act so play them how you want
I really don't understand why people get so butthurt over people asking for martials to act with some realism. We know how they worked and are only willing to give the benefit of the doubt to magic users because they don't actually exist. Instead of getting assravaged over this just give casters some sort of restriction or actually enjoy the increased difficulty of playing a martial.

This is the first time I've laughed at forcedmeme elf.

yes

doubt it

But there are loads of myths about martial characters doing quite frankly ridiculous feats, why can't we accomplish such character archetypes in fantasy games?
Why must we be restricted to realistic depictions when the game is about playing fantasy/mythic heroes?
A game could easily fit both, you could have the more realistic types be at low levels and the mythic types at high levels. Much like how Gandalf would at best be a low level wizard but Merlin or Dr. Strange would be high level. And then have level caps or require divine boos for more 'realistic' games.

...

>He has a nuanced opinion! Laugh at him!
You are the cancer killing these threads.

Fat shaming never really works, just sends people into a depression-binge-eating spiral.

That's.... thats pretty sad.

Moderation is the key.

I don't get settings where martial date strictly inferior in straight combat AND magic is teachable. Why wouldn't governments teach their soldiers magic instead of training them in mundane warfare?

>"Thats not how people actually fought in the middle ages"
[citation needed]

Especially in regards to nobles who have the resources to get an education.
Generally, if a setting actually addresses this problem it's to say that commonfolk are suspicious of magic and while they'll tolerate a mage adviser they would revolt against a mage ruler. But that has implications for how they treat mage PCs that DM's and players might not want to explore.

I figure it for the same reason that everybody nowadays doesn't use guns or knives.

It's expensive, possibly dangerous to the user if they're stupid, and not everyone has the aptitude for it.

>Revolting against a mage ruler.
>When a group of three house cats can annihilate a village on their own.
Y'know what we call villages that revolted against the mage? Craters!

The thing is, I can walk into my kitchen and arm myself with a steak knife if need be and you can purchase a hunting rifle at most Walmarts.
>not everyone has the aptitude for it.
Oh yeah, because pointing a gun at bad men is so fucking difficult.

...

Go visit /k/ and try spewing this prattle, I dare you.

Why would I?

They're the better ones to foolishly prattle at about guns and knives.

As if anyone would know.

I know you're proud you know the word prattle because you think it's a big grown up word, but he's right. Guns are easily acquired and any schmuck can be easily trained to proficiency with them. Yeah, you'll get some moron who manages to ND and kill himself, but you'll also find morons who can stab their own eyes out with scissors.

Besides, the original post was about why armies and soldiers trained in martial combat if magic was easily learnable. You have probably noticed by now that every single army on earth primarily uses firearms, despite the fact that not literally every single person on earth is capable of using them. The same holds true for magic in Bog Standard D&D settings like this. Even if you were right and only something like a quarter of the population were intelligent enough to use magic, even if only a tenth of them, it would be better to train them rather than bothering with martials. The army doesn't field an endless horde armed with clubs for a good reason.

Magic can be teachable, but only a very small minority of people have a real aptitude with it. Learning magic may also be an incredibly intensive and expensive process, so that any person that wishes to become a mage will have to dedicate their entire life to that and the government would need to make sure they are 100% loyal, and it won't be possible to easily mass produce mages.

Maybe magic is also how the rulers maintain their position (both in terms of maintaining coercive power in their hands and in ideological terms), and the government doesn't want every son of a shepherd to know and teach magic to others in fear of a possible insurrection. Use of magic may also have diminishing return or hard limits on what you can do with it - a small group of mages may be able to fuck shit up immensely, and adding more mages to that group won't really increase much how much you can fuck shit up, and you also need a large amount of soldiers who can carry out all other mundane tasks of conquering (establishing the new government, maintaining supply-chains, looting, protecting the mages themselves, etc).

Aren't you the one who brought up guns and knives in the first place? I mean, don't bring up a point and then backpedal once you realize that you fucked up.

...

>Being this triggered by realism

This is true.

It applies inversely when someone turns up to your westeros setting wanting a chainmail bikini.

Campaigns and settings are different, shit can be unrealistic or shit can be fantastic and both are fine if done well. What's important is internal consistency.

>Being this triggered by fantasy

>being this triggered by tabletop roleplaying games

I mean I'm just shit posting but to be honest Veeky Forums has a knee jerk distaste of realism and while I won't complain about how unrealistic the GM's setting is (as long as it doesn't claim to be realistic) I definitely prefer realism in my settings

How do people come to the idea that this is a good look to have? Does nobody tell them that they look stupid or do they wake up one day and decide that they want to look as repulsive as possible?

I figure it's just the natural product of not shaving and not cutting your hair

>Gandalf
>low Level

The better solution is to not use play DnD

>Pasty white skin, not in a good kind of way.
>No really, shit makes you look like a salmon.
>Neckbeard. It's hideous to look at, hence why they became a meme.
>Greased up shirt with stain, stinking arm pits, cargo that you're pretty sure he hasn't changed in a month.
>Extraordinarily bad taste in headwear.
>All this with a strangely egotistical personality, a bizarre obsession with sex, and a refusal to... Well, do anything worthwhile.
I hate who I was at 17-21, anons. My recovery began when I threw away the fedora and once I did, everything changed.

Actually just failed to remove it from name aftering saging a previous thread. Sage goes in all fields, but I'm dumb for forgetting that names are auto filled and options aren't.

>historical documents don't exist

>don't ever analyze or discuss anything in a negative way or you are a whiny faggot
butthurt levels off the charts

Both moderation, and... When I left the realms of neckbeardry, I came to realize that I hung out with a pack of losers all through High School, College, virtually my entire late teens. These guys would go out of their way to put me down, never hung out with me (or each other, for that matter), and if we ever got bullied we'd gleefully turn on one another. Like the nerds from a bad sitcom.

Killed my confidence and I hid. At twenty-one after getting away from those losers, I realized I was happier without them. Got my first job at Subway, realized that the underclass sucked dick, and started working on improving my life. Now at 24, I've held several dumb jobs, traveled to Oceania, somehow got a 4.0 for the summer semester (fucking revitalized my sagging GPA like CPR), and am charting just how in the hell I'm going to make it through CC and then into Uni.

All I had to do was leave those losers in the dust. And they're still a bunch of worthless deadbeats. My 'best friend' from elementary and middle school now deals cocaine out of the back of a red pick up truck, that fat nerd who used to make fun of me televised his engagement on flakebook, the 'Star Captain' guy ended up living in the ghetto... The SJW went bumming, said he was trans, and now just lives off welfare... I'm doing so much better without them.

Negative influences, man. They can screw you over.

Imagine getting btfo and being so embarrassed that you have to intentionally misconstrue a point publically to regain some sense of confidence.

Imagine doing that on an anonymous imageboard where you could have just carried on as normal.

Imagine being that insecure.

butthurt weeb detected, your anime girlfriend sucks kid

>intentionally misconstrue a point publically
imagine being such a faggot that you type this on Veeky Forums and think it's an insult

You did miss the point though or at least didn't address it, not that I mind, Veeky Forums these days has an autistic fear of realism and that needs to be rectified

Except the whiny faggotry is the norm. It's not new or bold it's on par with every panel having a "Women in Comics" panel run by some pasty white nerds that all read bullet points from other people's work and add nothing new to the table.

"Culture critics" are the new TGWTG critics and every nerd and their dog wants in on that shit so they can live off of nerd welfare aka patreon.

*every convention

>missing Charlotte's character's point this hard
jesus fuck

Veeky Forums by default is opposed to realism, that and popular culture only cares about realism when it involves the representation of women, of course you seem more upset by the politics and that's another discussion but the reason why people were complaining wasn't because of feminism but because they felt the armor wasn't realistic and you missed that

>of course you seem more upset by the politics

I'm not. I'm pointing out the fact that the new critic archetype is the culture critic.

We've had Yahtzee wannabes, Nostalgia Critic wannabes, AVGN wannabes, Jontron wannabes and so on and so forth so these people are nothing new trying to be like that Anita lady or whoever the fuck. The point of contention is that they're beyond over-saturated the same way TGWTG was years ago and they're almost all saying the same things we've all heard a million times before.

Nerds desperately want to be critics for some reason but almost all of them fall flat on their face because they don't know what a good critic is. They all quote Roger Ebert but barely know a thing about the man. A lot of them think he only gave good reviews to the artiest of art films when he'd give a good review to a good movie if it was good for it's genre and what it was. The man defended the Beavis and Butthead movie from his co-host for fucks sake. Meanwhile pale scrawny nerds can't replicate this behavior and attitude toward critiquing anything. To them something is either The Citizen Kane of X or it's a big diarhea caca dookie poopity doopity or whatever the youngins are saying these days.

TL;DR Nerds ain't shit and make the most boring of critics.

Bullshit. The face hairs are shaved and the neck hairs left with a distinct line following the jaw bone.

That requires more effort than just scraping that shit off altogether.

wow its Critikal.

I guarantee you've never shot someone in your life, especially not either point blank or at a significant distance.

...