One of the things I like to do is speculate on the "real" of fantasy adventuring. i.e., what would this lifestyle/profession look like, shorn of the requirements of genre convention and game rules. Adventuring, --especially dungeon-crawling-- is very different from anything a medieval soldier would be expected to do, and would have different requirements. Part of the reason I enjoy the Goblin Slayer manga is that it explores this. I'll stress that this has to be a largely speculative conversation, because it relies on considering factors that would be unwieldy to try to simulate in game rules. It's just to get your noggin' joggin'.

For example, in another thread, Steven Mitchell mentioned that in his rules you can strap a buckler to your arm and have it always ready. My initial reaction was that's not how a buckler works. The medieval buckler is AFAIK universally a center-gripped shield, and is used by presenting it at arm's length towards the enemy. This is important because it needs to defend your weapon arm, and geometrically the closer a shield is to an opponent, the more of your body it covers from their attacks. Strapping a buckler to your arm would hugely reduce it's value as a shield.

But then I got to thinking about it a bit more. The Scottish targe shield isn't much larger than many kinds of buckler and is worn strapped to the forearm, often with a dagger held in the shield hand. Based on my limited sparring experience, the medieval buckler is the superior shield in single combat (the targe is possibly better against missile fire). However, I could easily see an adventurer choosing to make that trade off in exchange for being able to hold something like a torch in their off hand.

On the subject, the targe is designed to be used with a basket-hilted sword. A basket-hilt makes a sword much better for parrying and reduces the need to have a shield cover your weapon hand. I could see adventurers developing complex hilt guards much earlier than they were in the real world, especially since they need to do lots of fiddly tasks with their hands that would preclude wearing gauntlets.

Looking at weapons more broadly, an adventurer has pretty specific requirements. They need something which is handy in the close quarters of a dungeon and capable of wounding creatures that are more resistant to physical trauma than humans. Given that, I don't think you'd see cut-and-thrust swords of the kind that were near universal in medieval and renaissance Europe. I imagine you'd see a bias toward either short chopping weapons like messers, cutlasses and one-handed axes, or reinforced dedicated piercing weapons like estocs, reinforced boar spears and Ahlspiess. Maybe if you know you're going up against giant crabs or insects you employ two man teams: one with a big boar spear or trident to pin the creature and another with a sledgehammer to crack the shell.

And of course you can take this out of the realm of weapons. Adventurers need to travel over rough terrain in their combat gear, so full heavy armor is probably out. I think you'd see combination gear, with plate over vital areas and mail or textile over others. Adventurers also do an awful lot of rock climbing. Would they invent climbing boots centuries early, or should we imagine them going around with crampons and climbing harnesses on? Would they develop specialist clothes or backpacks? You generally don't want to be wearing a cloak in a fight, but an adventurer doesn't always have the luxury of leaving their cold weather gear in camp. Would they invent the overcoat, or maybe a particular cut of cloak that is less obstructive in battle? There's an illustration in the Hyperborea PHB of a ranger wearing inuit-style snow goggles. That makes a lot of sense to me. Lanterns? Hats? When someone has an extremely dangerous job, you'd expect them to optimize every piece of their equipment for it.

I find this kind of thing interesting to think about. Don't know if anyone else does.

Quote from: ForgottenF on July 16, 2024, 10:39:18 AMOne of the things I like to do is speculate on the "real" of fantasy adventuring. i.e., what would this lifestyle/profession look like, shorn of the requirements of genre convention and game rules. Adventuring, --especially dungeon-crawling-- is very different from anything a medieval soldier would be expected to do, and would have different requirements. Part of the reason I enjoy the Goblin Slayer manga is that it explores this. I'll stress that this has to be a largely speculative conversation, because it relies on considering factors that would be unwieldy to try to simulate in game rules. It's just to get your noggin' joggin'.

For example, in another thread, Steven Mitchell mentioned that in his rules you can strap a buckler to your arm and have it always ready. My initial reaction was that's not how a buckler works. The medieval buckler is AFAIK universally a center-gripped shield, and is used by presenting it at arm's length towards the enemy. This is important because it needs to defend your weapon arm, and geometrically the closer a shield is to an opponent, the more of your body it covers from their attacks. Strapping a buckler to your arm would hugely reduce it's value as a shield.

But then I got to thinking about it a bit more. The Scottish targe shield isn't much larger than many kinds of buckler and is worn strapped to the forearm, often with a dagger held in the shield hand. Based on my limited sparring experience, the medieval buckler is the superior shield in single combat (the targe is possibly better against missile fire). However, I could easily see an adventurer choosing to make that trade off in exchange for being able to hold something like a torch in their off hand.

On the subject, the targe is designed to be used with a basket-hilted sword. A basket-hilt makes a sword much better for parrying and reduces the need to have a shield cover your weapon hand. I could see adventurers developing complex hilt guards much earlier than they were in the real world, especially since they need to do lots of fiddly tasks with their hands that would preclude wearing gauntlets.

Looking at weapons more broadly, an adventurer has pretty specific requirements. They need something which is handy in the close quarters of a dungeon and capable of wounding creatures that are more resistant to physical trauma than humans. Given that, I don't think you'd see cut-and-thrust swords of the kind that were near universal in medieval and renaissance Europe. I imagine you'd see a bias toward either short chopping weapons like messers, cutlasses and one-handed axes, or reinforced dedicated piercing weapons like estocs, reinforced boar spears and Ahlspiess. Maybe if you know you're going up against giant crabs or insects you employ two man teams: one with a big boar spear or trident to pin the creature and another with a sledgehammer to crack the shell.

And of course you can take this out of the realm of weapons. Adventurers need to travel over rough terrain in their combat gear, so full heavy armor is probably out. I think you'd see combination gear, with plate over vital areas and mail or textile over others. Adventurers also do an awful lot of rock climbing. Would they invent climbing boots centuries early, or should we imagine them going around with crampons and climbing harnesses on? Would they develop specialist clothes or backpacks? You generally don't want to be wearing a cloak in a fight, but an adventurer doesn't always have the luxury of leaving their cold weather gear in camp. Would they invent the overcoat, or maybe a particular cut of cloak that is less obstructive in battle? There's an illustration in the Hyperborea PHB of a ranger wearing inuit-style snow goggles. That makes a lot of sense to me. Lanterns? Hats? When someone has an extremely dangerous job, you'd expect them to optimize every piece of their equipment for it.

I find this kind of thing interesting to think about. Don't know if anyone else does.

Great points ideas on all of it, but I highlighted the buckler v the target (and dirk in hand, but I really like your point on torch too and have never thought of that so bonus point on that!)  because I have had that exact debate myself and have taken both sides of the argument myself.

I LOVE trying to keep equipment (and buildings etc etc etc) as historically realistic as possible. Of course, in high magic settings that will change technology significantly, but I tend to lean to lower magic setting sunless running / playing Forgotten Realms. So I tend to limit equipment etc available. However, as you point out an adventurer uses different skills than a common soldier, so they will have different equipment needs. Also, a soldier is paid what a silver a day, so there is limited money in making specific better equipment. On the other hand, an adventure walks into town with bags of gold jewels and loot to spend. So, there will be a financial reason people develop the more adventurer specialized equipment like you mention. (My swashbuckler would argue that it is beneficial to have a cloak in a fight though. you can use it to block entangle a weapon etc throw it over an opponent and run away or punch them as they try to pull it off their face as you prefer etc ... I miss playing that character. He was SO much fun ...) So, that would give better more advanced equipment than was there historically.

I like your point on giant crabs, and that is a great example on needing to have/use good tactics along with good equipment. Sadly, most of the time I don't see people using great tactics like that. Some times the rules just are not set up to handle good tactics (no or very limited benefit for holding the line and acting defensively to give cover to the other guy behind your shoulder doing the actual important attack). But that would be an argument separate from this thread.

To clarify, I was glossing over the details on the buckler/small shield for brevity.  I'm envisioning a small shield much like a target shield.  In my system, the hand is still required to use buckler/small shield for its defensive value, but it takes negligible time to ready it, because the shield is "worn" on the forearm.  Maybe a better way to say it is that is stowed there?

To your larger point, yeah, I like thinking about those kind of things too.  However, I'm usually approaching it from a perspective of game play first, meaningful player decisions second, and pseudo realism third (with an eye towards verisimilitude as well as at least a nod to what might work).

I do include, anachronistically for a mostly dark age game with magic, the option to have basket hilts on certain blades, for exactly the reason you lay out.  I treat a basket hilt as functionally the same as a buckler (no ranged defense), with the trade-off that it's a weapon that you can use as a buckler but also need to ready.  Not quite realistic if you want to be strict about it, but another meaningful player choice.

I've always admired the intent of "default" weapons in GURPS and the way weapon groups stack in Hero System, as a way to show that it is actually very hard to learn certain weapons without picking up a few useful things about related weapons.  However, mechanically I find both options a bit clunky in practice. YMMV.  One of my intents with the design was to open up that gap for adventurers using non-standard things as a reasonable choice without making it entirely free.  Without going into details, I ended up with something a bit clunky in character design to streamline the results in play, which is multiple, overlapping, orthogonal weapon training choices.  This avoids the uber specialist who won't use any other weapon because they've invested all their picks in one thing, but does allow some specialization for the weapon master to have a niche in the party.  (I didn't want to just have everything require detailed specialties and then toss a ton of picks into the game, because that interferes with the limited but useful weapon ability of the non-specialists.)

In short, it's impossible to max out the training for any weapon without picking up significant skill in several other weapons--including some deliberately chosen to be the kinds of things a person would likely use on a battlefield or in a tunnel or in town or even impromptu. So your swashbuckler with the cloak might very well drop it on a battlefield and pick up a bigger sword or shield or even a polearm.  While your dedicated knight on an adventure can consider something less unwieldy when it matters.

Caribbean pirates are an informative example.  Firearms make a difference of course, but they engaged in melee on complex ship decks, under the decks in close quarters, and sometimes whilst on a variety of ropes.  For boarding actions they jumped, swung, climbed, or ran on planks to get to the enemy ship.  Their weapon of choice was generally the cutlass

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 16, 2024, 12:06:07 PMI've always admired the intent of "default" weapons in GURPS and the way weapon groups stack in Hero System, as a way to show that it is actually very hard to learn certain weapons without picking up a few useful things about related weapons.  However, mechanically I find both options a bit clunky in practice. YMMV.  One of my intents with the design was to open up that gap for adventurers using non-standard things as a reasonable choice without making it entirely free.  Without going into details, I ended up with something a bit clunky in character design to streamline the results in play, which is multiple, overlapping, orthogonal weapon training choices.  This avoids the uber specialist who won't use any other weapon because they've invested all their picks in one thing, but does allow some specialization for the weapon master to have a niche in the party.  (I didn't want to just have everything require detailed specialties and then toss a ton of picks into the game, because that interferes with the limited but useful weapon ability of the non-specialists.)

I've never found a way to do that that is both simple to use and works the way I would like.  In a previous game I used tight weapon groups that give a large bonus to closely related weapons, loose weapon groups that give a bonus to marginally related weapons and tweaked progression so that at certain points it was optimal to take a related weapon rather than the weapon of choice.  It worked but was too complex.  In my current game I've used "attack" as an ability score that adds to all physical attacks (essentially a talent for killing) and kept the weapon categories large, frex long sword, short sword, rapier, sabre are all just "sword" mechanically.  It fits very well for my design intent but wouldn't be so good for someone who wants more detailed combat.

For me, the key issue is going to be ease of carry/access.

Armies can get away with carrying a lot of special use or harder to carry items via its support train and the expectation that overland travel through generally friendly terrain (a group of bandits or hungry wolves isn't going to attack a column of a hundred or men) didn't require the men to be combat ready for much of it.

Adventurers travel in smaller numbers through more generally hostile areas and with much less of a logistics train (or none at all once you get outside of TSR-style D&D) so they need to be much more self-sufficient and combat ready even when traveling.

For me that means gambesons, helmets and brigandine (which can be donned by the wearer instead of needing assistance) are going to be the norm with shields being common for warriors (when you can't wear full armor, having a mobile piece of armor to cover vulnerabilities becomes more critical).

I've also seen video of how a medium shield (think Viking round or stereotypical knight's heater) worn with a strap over the shoulder could be grabbed and pulled into a ready position in a matter of a second or two while being out of the way for regular activities. This puts it up with the helmet and gambeson (which is ridiculously more protective than any version of D&D has ever depicted) as the primary adventurer's defensive kit.

Similarly, for ease of carry, swords and knives will likely be the norm. You don't want to have to travel, including possibly climbs, with one hand constantly full... it's tiresome. It also gets in the way when you have to do something else requiring both hands.

A Messer is probably a good choice (particularly in certain societies where sword-use had social class restrictions as the full-tang and single edge meant it was classed as a knife which meant you weren't claiming equal status with nobles by carrying one), but a good arming or longsword isn't a bad choice either if you have the training to use it's full potential via half-swording and blade gripping for hammer-like blows with the cross guard.

If you're going to forego a shield, the longsword is probably your best choice for its extra reach. If you're using a shield than a messer or arming sword is likely your go to.

On the theory that an adventurer is a specialized field that has different training than a soldier I'm going to make the argument that the ideal ranged weapon for an adventuring warrior is going to be the sling. Easy to carry, quick to draw (a bow can be damaged by leaving it strung so realistically you would carry it unstrung), as deadly and accurate as an arrow if you're actually trained with it, and requiring less maintenance, the sling is an ideal weapon when every pound counts.

Beyond that; a backpack, water-resistant bedroll, an oiled cloak, a good knife, hatchet, silk rope, firestarter, oil flasks and cloth strips (for making torches on-site... why carry sticks when you don't have to?), waterskin, and smoked/salted meats are going to be an adventurer's best friends.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 16, 2024, 12:06:07 PM've always admired the intent of "default" weapons in GURPS and the way weapon groups stack in Hero System, as a way to show that it is actually very hard to learn certain weapons without picking up a few useful things about related weapons.  However, mechanically I find both options a bit clunky in practice. YMMV. 

Yeah I mean cross-weapon training is one of those things that makes massive headaches if you try to replicate it. In principle I like the Runequest idea of "fighting styles", so training in like "spear and shield" or "single sword" or something like that, but even then the skills should be cross applicable for other things and it all gets very complicated. Credit to you for trying to make it work. I mostly just give up and go with a generic "weapon skill" rating.

Quote from: Lurker on July 16, 2024, 11:23:24 AMAlso, a soldier is paid what a silver a day, so there is limited money in making specific better equipment. On the other hand, an adventure walks into town with bags of gold jewels and loot to spend. So, there will be a financial reason people develop the more adventurer specialized equipment like you mention

I think this is a critical point here. Adventures don't just have cash. In most games they have the kind of cash that can drive innovation.

Quote from: Lurker on July 16, 2024, 11:23:24 AM(My swashbuckler would argue that it is beneficial to have a cloak in a fight though. you can use it to block entangle a weapon etc throw it over an opponent and run away or punch them as they try to pull it off their face as you prefer etc ... I miss playing that character. He was SO much fun ...)

The sword and cloak style is a bit of a historical oddity. We know it's real, as we have period sources for it, but we don't know how common it is. What I would say is that 1) it relies on you having time and free hands to take your cloak off and roll it up. 2) It probably only existed as a civilian self-defense tool. I.e., you're wearing a cloak anyway, so if you get attacked you might as well be able to use it. I don't think many people would opt for a cloak in their off hand if they could have a shield instead.

The rapier is a weapon I'm torn on in this context. It is phenomenally deadly, and I often argue that it gets unfairly shafted in RPG rules. However, it's a very long blade that presumably needs a good amount of space to employ effectively. If you look at rapier treatises like Capoferro the illustrations show rapier fencers squaring up at distances of up to 10' away from each other. That may pose an issue in the confines of a dungeon. I'm not too sure about that though, because we know the rapier was quite popular as a military sidearm, and extremely popular as a streetfighting weapon, so it must be pretty good in a brawl.

What is better confirmed about rapiers is that they're a big hassle to carry. The long blade means you have to wear the weapon low down on your hip, which means it swings around more than a sword worn closer to the belt, and would be more of an obstacle when climbing, running, squeezing through narrow spaces, etc. I've read period accounts of people complaining about sheathed rapiers tripping people behind the wearer, chatching on the environment and just generally being a nuisance. Apparently this was a big part of why they went out of fashion in favor of smallswords. I could see a professional dungeoneer developing something of a hybrid weapon, with the blade length and handiness of a smallsword, combined with the hand-guard and relative beefiness of a rapier.

Anyway, I think I've cracked the cloak question. Adventurers would wear a poncho! Most of the benefits of a cloak, but leaves your arms free and doesn't drag or snag. The Mexican orcs had it right all along!

Quote from: Mishihari on July 16, 2024, 12:14:01 PMCaribbean pirates are an informative example.  Firearms make a difference of course, but they engaged in melee on complex ship decks, under the decks in close quarters, and sometimes whilst on a variety of ropes.  For boarding actions they jumped, swung, climbed, or ran on planks to get to the enemy ship.  Their weapon of choice was generally the cutlass

I also often use pirates as a model for this kind of thinking, particularly if I'm considering a fantasy setting that does have firearms. The fact of being on land instead of at sea probably changes the game in terms of armor, but I do think shipboard combat has a lot of analogues to dungeon combat. Apparently the word "cutlass" did not exist in the golden age of piracy, but it does appear they often used ancestors of the same weapon, so the difference is largely semantic. Short-ish chopping swords are pretty universally popular for light-armored skirmishing or small-unit actions across world history.

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 16, 2024, 03:47:03 PMFor me, the key issue is going to be ease of carry/access.

ABSOLUTELY. The one thing RPG rules never model is comfort and convenience, but it's often the overriding design concern of any kind of equipment.

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 16, 2024, 03:47:03 PMFor me that means gambesons, helmets and brigandine (which can be donned by the wearer instead of needing assistance) are going to be the norm with shields being common for warriors (when you can't wear full armor, having a mobile piece of armor to cover vulnerabilities becomes more critical).

Again, totally agree. Though I think you might also see wealthier adventurers wearing the kind of Almain rivet/arsenal plate you see in early modern armies (picture a renaissance pikeman or a conquistador). I don't think any adventurer would wear armor that requires another person to help them put it on. I watched few videos earlier today talking about jack chains, which is a kind of metal reinforcement worn over or sewn into a gambeson, and a kind of armor I don't think I've ever even seen listed in an RPG.

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 16, 2024, 03:47:03 PMSimilarly, for ease of carry, swords and knives will likely be the norm. You don't want to have to travel, including possibly climbs, with one hand constantly full... it's tiresome. It also gets in the way when you have to do something else requiring both hands.

A Messer is probably a good choice (particularly in certain societies where sword-use had social class restrictions as the full-tang and single edge meant it was classed as a knife which meant you weren't claiming equal status with nobles by carrying one), but a good arming or longsword isn't a bad choice either if you have the training to use it's full potential via half-swording and blade gripping for hammer-like blows with the cross guard.

Longswords I think might run into the problem I outlined above for rapiers, with them being difficult to wear if you need to do any strenuous athletic activity. The reason I don't think you'd see the standard arming sword much for adventurers is that it's a compromise design, intended to be pretty good at both cutting and piercing, but not brilliant at either. I think if you were planning to fight monsters, you'd be very concerned about maximizing damage and that would naturally push you towards a dedicated cutting or thrusting weapon.
 

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 16, 2024, 03:47:03 PMOn the theory that an adventurer is a specialized field that has different training than a soldier I'm going to make the argument that the ideal ranged weapon for an adventuring warrior is going to be the sling. Easy to carry, quick to draw (a bow can be damaged by leaving it strung so realistically you would carry it unstrung), as deadly and accurate as an arrow if you're actually trained with it, and requiring less maintenance, the sling is an ideal weapon when every pound counts.

I think crossbows would also be more popular than RPG rules make them. They can be carried strung and sometimes even loaded, and they can be shot kneeling or in a cramped space. Also, quarrels take up less space to carry than arrows. Most importantly, a dungeoneering adventurer wouldn't be expecting to get into prolonged firefights. One volley before closing to melee is probably as much as they're going to get off, so rate of fire isn't that important.

Well, if it's almost all dungeon delve, that's one thing.  However, if it's a mix of dungeons, ruins, wilderness (of various types), villages, and towns--and then the occasional ship, is where I think the argument for generalist training by default comes into play.

I would think dungeon delvers would have a front line of big shield and spear (to block enemies in doors and hallways) with a second row of axes or something really damaging (spells) in case the front line is broken.

Quote from: Ruprecht on July 16, 2024, 07:27:50 PMI would think dungeon delvers would have a front line of big shield and spear (to block enemies in doors and hallways) with a second row of axes or something really damaging (spells) in case the front line is broken.

I don't think these kind of formation tactics work unless you have a certain number of people and/or can reliably cover your flanks. It's difficult to test this, but the sense I get from reading HEMA and military history is that unless you have enough people to go several ranks deep and cover the battlefield end to end, your formation is easily either broken or surrounded. These kind of formations definitely don't work on broken ground. So I think this kind of approach would only be adopted in what you might call a "graph paper" dungeon: a series of small rooms with level floors and minimal clutter, and reliable door sizes. In a natural cave or a ruin, I would expect it to break down quick.

EDIT: I realize this is unclear; what I'm really trying to say is I think fantasy adventuring would require a more tactically flexible weapon system.

It does raise an interesting question about the viability of the standard 4-6 man adventuring party. Realistically, I think we all know that's a product of the optimum number of players for a game. With all the cash adventurers throw around, they could hire a small army to clear out a dungeon for them. Are 100 poorly trained jobsworths better than six highly trained well equipped professionals when it comes to achieving RPG quest objectives? I'm actually not sure, because morale is a huge issue and RPG adventures often require specialist skills. There's probably an interesting conversation there.

EDIT: Thinking about it a bit more, I would speculate that the natural size of an adventuring party would be in the neighborhood of 10-20 people. That's enough that you wouldn't easily be surrounded in a dungeon and you could afford to task a few people as specialists of one kind or another, but still few enough you could flee a larger party in the open, as well as keep them well outfitted and trained on the profits from adventuring and maintain strong group cohesion.

This was interesting.

Magic users may have special scabbards for their wands that go on the inside of the forearm depending on how big wands are.

Could have some type of bracer for potions on the inside of arms also, so that the potion is more handy.

They could build modular equipment also for holding various things (think of the load bearing equipment that soldiers use currently).

If you want something really crazy, then you could have a potion stored inside of the helmet with a tube to your mouth that you can break open to use the potion in the middle of combat (beer hat at sports games).

Quote from: ForgottenF on July 16, 2024, 09:33:59 PMEDIT: Thinking about it a bit more, I would speculate that the natural size of an adventuring party would be in the neighborhood of 10-20 people. That's enough that you wouldn't easily be surrounded in a dungeon and you could afford to task a few people as specialists of one kind or another, but still few enough you could flee a larger party in the open, as well as keep them well outfitted and trained on the profits from adventuring and maintain strong group cohesion.

I'd lean more to the very lowest end of that. Current US military organisation uses a 9 man squad consisting of a CO and two four man teams (alpha and bravo). The SEALS use 8 man squads, 4 man fire teams, and 2 man sniper/recon teams. The Marines use 15 man squads consisting of three 4-man teams, squad leader, assistant squad leader, and systems operator. Army Special Forces ODAs (A-Teams) are twelve cross trained specialists that are sometimes organised into six man "split teams."

At 20 men, you're actually larger than a SEAL Platoon (16 men, the largest operational element used for a tactical mission... a squad or even just a single fire team is more typical for tactical missions) and half the size of an Army Rifle Platoon (40 men).

Personally, given who PCs typically are, I tend to view their ideal size in relation to the special forces and SEAL sizes... 4-12 extremely well trained individuals (with 6-8 probably being the optimal).

Basically, 4 PCs and their most trusted henchmen is what adventurers would likely build their tactics around.

Quote from: ForgottenF on July 16, 2024, 09:33:59 PMEDIT: Thinking about it a bit more, I would speculate that the natural size of an adventuring party would be in the neighborhood of 10-20 people. That's enough that you wouldn't easily be surrounded in a dungeon and you could afford to task a few people as specialists of one kind or another, but still few enough you could flee a larger party in the open, as well as keep them well outfitted and trained on the profits from adventuring and maintain strong group cohesion.

For the overall party when they leave town and head out into the wilderness, I can see that range.  That's basically the way my games often go.  However, a good chunk of those numbers is hired help that ain't going into no dungeon, much like AD&D hirelings rules.

This is a side effect of having some nod to realism about supplies, wandering monsters, dungeons more than 1 day or 2 from civilization, and so on.  At some point, it becomes very reasonable to want to set up a base camp in some secure location within several hours walk from the dungeon.  Then you need help to protect the camp, guard the supplies, look after the mounts, etc.  Then you probably to need some of your "henchman" in the camp to protect from the stronger threats.

Another thing I like about this is that it makes it a lot easier to manage the session ending in a odd spot.  Not all that implausible to have people who miss a session be hanging back at the base camp to recuperate or guard, whereas that doesn't really fly if they are a week or more from town with no base.

Quote from: ForgottenF on July 16, 2024, 09:33:59 PMSo I think this kind of approach would only be adopted in what you might call a "graph paper" dungeon: a series of small rooms with level floors and minimal clutter, and reliable door sizes.

That's what I am talking about, that's why I said Dungeon Delvers. In a dungeon your flanks are well covered and your enemies channeled. For natural caverns and ruins you don't use the formation, you fight as normal.