This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

The fighter image I wish 5e would embrace

Started by danbuter, March 15, 2012, 10:07:13 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4
User actions

RPGPundit

#30
March 17, 2012, 02:57:01 PM
I'd rather it was this:



RPGPundit
LION & DRAGON: Medieval-Authentic OSR Roleplaying is available now! You only THINK you\'ve played \'medieval fantasy\' until you play L&D.


My Blog:  http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/
The most famous uruguayan gaming blog on the planet!

NEW!
Check out my short OSR supplements series; The RPGPundit Presents!


Dark Albion: The Rose War! The OSR fantasy setting of the history that inspired Shakespeare and Martin alike.
Also available in Variant Cover form!
Also, now with the CULTS OF CHAOS cult-generation sourcebook

ARROWS OF INDRA
Arrows of Indra: The Old-School Epic Indian RPG!
NOW AVAILABLE: AoI in print form

LORDS OF OLYMPUS
The new Diceless RPG of multiversal power, adventure and intrigue, now available.

greylond

#31
March 17, 2012, 03:07:08 PM
Looks like a 10th Level(or higher) HackMaster Fighter or Knight to me... ;)

Rincewind1

#32
March 17, 2012, 06:45:42 PM
The problem is that this is actually late 15 - early 16th century (Milanese if I am not mistaken). Part of why those armours look like this, is the development of gunpowder and pole weaponry, causing raise of effectiveness of infantry.

So not really the period that DnD, at least 1e, going by the rules, supports too well, IMO.
Furthermore, I consider that  This is Why We Don\'t Like You thread should be closed

Bedrockbrendan

#33
March 18, 2012, 05:10:13 AM
Quote from: Rincewind1;522094The problem is that this is actually late 15 - early 16th century (Milanese if I am not mistaken). Part of why those armours look like this, is the development of gunpowder and pole weaponry, causing raise of effectiveness of infantry.

So not really the period that DnD, at least 1e, going by the rules, supports too well, IMO.

For a game like D&D, being a bit anachronistic doesn't bother me much. At the same time, having gunpowder available in the setting has never been much of an issue for me either.

Rincewind1

#34
March 18, 2012, 06:11:47 AM
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;522154For a game like D&D, being a bit anachronistic doesn't bother me much. At the same time, having gunpowder available in the setting has never been much of an issue for me either.

I don't say it's bad - it's just that I don't think DnD ever tackled gunpowder weaponry well.
Furthermore, I consider that  This is Why We Don\'t Like You thread should be closed

Bedrockbrendan

#35
March 18, 2012, 06:27:37 AM
Quote from: Rincewind1;522162I don't say it's bad - it's just that I don't think DnD ever tackled gunpowder weaponry well.

I cant say their gunpowder rules made much of an impression on me one way or the other. I recall an exploding d10 but cant recall which edition it was for. Mighty fortress had some interesting options i believe. The one time their gunpowder rules impressed me was in Masque of the Red Death. But that rules system had other issues and it was designed more for revolvers and rifles than stuff like the blunderbus.

LordVreeg

#36
March 18, 2012, 10:43:37 AM
Quote from: Rincewind1;522094The problem is that this is actually late 15 - early 16th century (Milanese if I am not mistaken). Part of why those armours look like this, is the development of gunpowder and pole weaponry, causing raise of effectiveness of infantry.

So not really the period that DnD, at least 1e, going by the rules, supports too well, IMO.

And please, even if the game does not include firearms, one might expect the inclusion of certain pyrotechnical magics to create the same armor developments as the black powder?
Currently running 1 live groups and two online group in my 30+ year old campaign setting.  
http://celtricia.pbworks.com/
Setting of the Year, 08 Campaign Builders Guild awards.
\'Orbis non sufficit\'

My current Collegium Arcana online game, a test for any ruleset.

Acta Est Fabula

#37
March 18, 2012, 01:50:32 PM
I didn't appreciate it enough at the time, but looking back, I really liked how Jim Holloway represented characters.  It was a lot more realistic.
 

Benoist

#38
March 18, 2012, 01:59:32 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;522040I'd rather it was this:



RPGPundit
Ahhh here we are. Excellent.

Philotomy Jurament

#39
March 18, 2012, 04:42:51 PM
In D&D terms, I'd call that Field Plate (AC2, or AC1 if a shield is employed).  My games don't usually feature Field Plate or Full Plate; Plate Mail is typically the most advanced form of armor in my campaigns.
The problem is not that power corrupts, but that the corruptible are irresistibly drawn to the pursuit of power. Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito.

Rincewind1

#40
March 18, 2012, 04:45:58 PM Last Edit: March 18, 2012, 04:53:55 PM by Rincewind1
Quote from: LordVreeg;522183And please, even if the game does not include firearms, one might expect the inclusion of certain pyrotechnical magics to create the same armor developments as the black powder?

Sure, but...last time I checked, DnD armour helped nothing against fireball ;p. Not to mention - at the same time, development of firearms, forced the full plate to be dropped, as it's easier to just try to dodge/little point in wearing armour, since bullets/fireballs will just pass through it anyway. At some point the armour developed against early firearms, crossbows and polearms, but at some point it also started to be forsaken.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;522239In D&D terms, I'd call that Field  Plate (AC2, or AC1 if a shield is employed).  My games don't usually  feature Field Plate or Full Plate; Plate Mail is typically the most  advanced form of armor in my campaigns.

That's pretty much classic full plate, tbh. The only armour tougher would be jousting armour.
Furthermore, I consider that  This is Why We Don\'t Like You thread should be closed

Philotomy Jurament

#41
March 18, 2012, 04:54:34 PM
Quote from: LordVreeg;522183And please, even if the game does not include firearms, one might expect the inclusion of certain pyrotechnical magics to create the same armor developments as the black powder?
That would depend on how common such magic is on the battlefield.  In my games, for example, battlefield magic isn't terribly common.  Also even when magic is present on the battlefield, consider the effect of armor vs. magic missile, or fireball, or lightning bolt, or sleep.
The problem is not that power corrupts, but that the corruptible are irresistibly drawn to the pursuit of power. Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito.

Benoist

#42
March 18, 2012, 04:55:09 PM
It'd be uncommon amongst mundane, non-magical armors to me, and thereby relatively rare for NPCs to wear unless they're specifically fighters of some skill or experience. Of course, for PCs, if you start paying attention to the NOISE a guy in field plate does while walking in a dark dungeon full of mortal enemies able to hear from a distance, the field plate might not be the optimal gear for a delving fighter...

Philotomy Jurament

#43
March 18, 2012, 04:58:30 PM
Quote from: Rincewind1;522241That's pretty much classic full plate, tbh.
Could be; I don't recall the exact game distinction between field plate and full plate without looking it up.
The problem is not that power corrupts, but that the corruptible are irresistibly drawn to the pursuit of power. Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito.

Planet Algol

#44
March 18, 2012, 05:14:49 PM
I guess it's too much to hope for a well integrated Weapon vs. Armor Type system in 5e...
Yeah, but who gives a fuck? You? Jibba?

Well congrats. No one else gives a shit, so your arguments are a waste of breath.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4
User actions