Real world archery is badass, sword fappers can suck it

[mlangsdorf]

I don't actually know much about the actual history of medieval warfare; that said, I was under the impression that the Battle of Agincourt was dominated by the English Longbow because charging into a bunch of archers standing behind wooden spikes was decidedly super-unpleasant for French cavalry (esp. largely unarmored horses). Was this the exception that proved the rule, or was something else going on?

The general understanding is that the English archers slaughtered the horses, at which points the French knights walked through the arrow storm on foot, through the mud, etc. to the English lines. Then the French engaged the English knights in hand to hand combat while the English archers dropped their bows, picked up the mauls they'd used to hammer in their anti-cavalry defenses, surrounded the French knights, and started beating them to death with real weapons.

Archers have a place in a combined arms army, but mostly they disrupt tight formations and disperse auxiliaries and militia. Heavy infantry can simply walk up to them and force them to run away. At which point the light cavalry can overrun them.

[FatR]

I don't actually know much about the actual history of medieval warfare; that said, I was under the impression that the Battle of Agincourt was dominated by the English Longbow because charging into a bunch of archers standing behind wooden spikes was decidedly super-unpleasant for French cavalry (esp. largely unarmored horses). Was this the exception that proved the rule, or was something else going on?

Agincourt was fought almost entirely on foot by both sides. The reasons for outcome was the constricted approach across the field of deep mud that both prevented the French from leveraging their numerical superiority and exhausted them by the time they reached the enemy and general British advantage in soldier quality and discipline that is obvious from a number of engagements of the time, most obviously Verneuil. Archers were widely used by English because they were very cheap compared to men-at-arms, and English archers had excellent fighting spirit compared to non-knight French combatants (at Agincourt the latter proved to be worthless rabble, which simply left field after the attack by dismounted knights failed), but their usefulness heavily depended on whether the opposing commander was stupid/not fully in control of his vassals.

[name_here]

Tussock is wrong as usual. Arrows couldn't punch through steel plate mail, but English longbows were plenty effective against the lighter armor worn by most non-knights. And they were pretty good at killing the horses. And there are plenty of eras dominated by melee weapons which weren't pikes. Like the Roman era, wherein dudes with swords conquered the Mediterranean until guys with axes or tons of horse archers stopped them.

[souran]

Name_Here is a very good point the Roman legion's principle weapons and formations were selected in part because they were very good at killing people who were fighting in a greek style phalanx.

To pick a "single most" important weapon in warfare other than firearms is doomed to failure. Bows, swords, polearms, different kinds of formations, horses, stirrups, etc. Have all quite litterally been the invetion that has won people wars.

Most weapons are like tools they were invented to do a particular job in a particular way. They tend to be good at that job and have weaknesses when applied outside the basic purpose of the tool.

There are a lot of reasons why sword fetishism exists. However, there is plenty of markmanship/archery fetishism as well. However, to point to somebody like Lars Anderson and say "see look at this stuff" is beyond silly.

My fencing master for college NON COMPETATIVE club fencing could strike the hand of another trained fencer such that they would drop their foil/saber/epee. He could TELL YOU he was going to do this, you could try and avoid it and he could do it anyway. This was not some amazing grand master, he was just fairly well trained.

There is shit like this for EVERYTHING. There are people who can do things that Grogs would declare totally impossible with their bodies, with swords, with bows, with guns on horseback etc.

The fundamental premise is flawed. The problem in games is not "to much" sword wankery. The problem is that most people are not familiar enough with what these weapons to even know what is possible and what isn't.

[RadiantPhoenix]

Which is why we should mostly throw out "possible" and go with "cool", "works as a game mechanic", "fun to play", and "doesn't create 'trap options'"

[Username17]

The underlying point is that every "weapon specialist" character is deeply absurd. Even characters who are well known for having a very specific magic weapon also use other things at various times. King Arthur does other things with his life than just swing a sword around all the time, even though the sword he happens to have is wicked sweet. Having only a single kind of weapon you use, whether it's a sword, a bow, a halberd, or a chainsaw, makes you totally out of genre for Sword & Sorcery.

Catering to sword fetishists is a very strange thing to do. People only use one weapon all the time if it's part of their Super Hero Uniform. Outside of video games and four color comics, that is not a thing that exists. Getting bent out of shape because someone with nothing but a sword can't threaten a flying firebreathing lizard is not only ridiculous on first principles, it's absurd on 2nd and 3rd principles as well.

-Username17

[Josh_Kablack]

People only use one weapon all the time if it's part of their Super Hero Uniform

Even that much is a stretch.

Captain America uses firearms as well as his shield; Iron Man totally kitbashes odds and ends into new configurations and has been known to get dragged into scraps without his armor; Wonder Woman isn't just limited to her magic lasso, but also at times uses sword, shield and javelin.

Pretty much the Green Arrow / Hawkeye / Captain Boomerang archetype where you are named after your weapon's form factor but then have a million impossible varieties of trick ammo with it are the is the only superheroic archetype that goes past using the same weapon more than like 90% of the time.

[Darth Rabbitt]

D&D is just really weird about weapons though. It makes you try to care a ridiculous amount about slightly different kinds of swords (or polearms, or whatever) and then greatly encourages specialization with one of these kinds of swords (I mean Weapon Focus/Specialization was a fucking class feature for an edition or two). And then it also makes what weapons characters actually find subject to the RNG (or DM pity). These are kind of incompatible with each other.

Honestly, making magic weapons something other than a "you must be this tall to ride" seems like the best solution, especially since the +2 sword is incredibly boring. It also encourages martial characters and whatnot to get superpowers at a certain point (since magic weapons can't just solve the problem of big numbers anymore), which is what I think is what we're aiming for anyways. Once a dashing swordsman type turns into Vergil, let alone (Tartakofsky Clone Wars) Mace Windu or Trunks, carrying a sword stops being the most interesting part of their character's abilities anyways, and increasingly becomes flavor text.

And frankly I think a high-level character is allowed the flavor text of "likes to carry a specific weapon" in the same way they are allowed the flavor text of "likes wearing their favorite color." Getting rid of those kinds of flavor things makes TTRPGs lose the biggest draw they have compared to video games: having your character's appearance and personality only be limited by your imagination.

That's my two cents on the matter. Now I'm washing my hands clean of this thread, since this is basically another Mistborn thread bitching about melee fighters existing and I feel dirty for responding a second time.

[Ice9]

And frankly I think a high-level character is allowed the flavor text of "likes to carry a specific weapon" in the same way they are allowed the flavor text of "likes wearing their favorite color." Getting rid of those kinds of flavor things makes TTRPGs lose the biggest draw they have compared to video games: having your character's appearance and personality only be limited by your imagination.

To an extent. If someone wants to say "Fuck switching between swords and hammers and daggers and polearms, I'm going to use a sword for everything!" that's fine. And even if they want to say "Fuck using a bow, I'll be able to fly or make long-range shockwaves from my sword instead!" that's probably fine too. But if they're saying "I don't want to use a bow, so nobody should be able to fly." ... then they can fuck off.

The game shouldn't push that on people though. 3E has several things where being "sword only guy" is the better option, and I'm not in favor of that.

[tussock]

Tussock is wrong as usual. Arrows couldn't punch through steel plate mail, but English longbows were plenty effective against the lighter armor worn by most non-knights. And they were pretty good at killing the horses. And there are plenty of eras dominated by melee weapons which weren't pikes. Like the Roman era, wherein dudes with swords conquered the Mediterranean until guys with axes or tons of horse archers stopped them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt

"John Keegan argues that the longbows' main influence on the battle at this point was injuries to horses: armoured only on the head, many horses would have become dangerously out of control when struck in the back or flank from the high-elevation long range shots used as the charge started. The mounted charge and subsequent retreat churned up the already muddy terrain between the French and the English."

So they spooked some horses. That's genuinely useful, but what scares the enemy cav away there is the idea of getting stuck between their infantry and your infantry with no way out. That would be a nightmare.


Romans also used a fuck-tonne of long spears for most of their history, though they did indeed defeat Greek pike squares with flanking by sword and shield, after their numerical superiority in lance-armed cavalry drove off the support troops. The Greeks would have done well to form a square, but such skill was beyond them by the 3rd century. Shows how superior training, fitness, tactics, and numbers can overcome having an inferior weapon like the gladius. Because smashing into the side of a stationary phalanx with long spears, or anything with a big handle on it, works even better.


But full support for 30lb hobbits using short swords in D&D, because D&D. Like the monk can punch big old dragons to death (or should be able to, at least). As bows in melee are stupid because if they're not allowed then you can justify making them decent weapons at range. So that there's interesting choices to be had. Because it's a game.

[Silent Wayfarer]

The gladius wasn't even an inferior weapon for its sweet spot, which was short range stabbing. And the Romans could force their opponents to fight in the gladius' sweet spot.

[Dean]

The D&D conceit where it's optimal to carry 4 or 5 different weapons at first level but more optimal as you level to specialize in one or (at most) two weapons is pretty decent. Conan needs to carry a bow to be relevant because he's low level and owning that bow is the only way for him to kill Harpies. Nameless (Jet Li from Hero) can just have a katana if he feels like because he can fly at those Harpies on his own but it would still probably be a good idea to have a bow. Thor only needs Mjolnir because there's nothing a bow can do that he can't do with it already.

The idea that equipment matters a lot at the bottom and little at the top has some genre support.

[Mistborn]

The D&D conceit where it's optimal to carry 4 or 5 different weapons at first level but more optimal as you level to specialize in one or (at most) two weapons is pretty decent.

I'd have to disagree one of the classic marks of being truly good at weapons is being able to hold ones own with anything potentially including things that aren't technically weapons. If characters are associated with a single weapon it's usually because that weapon is magical or something. Thor isn't a "hammer guy" he's an "artifact weapon guy" if Mjolnir is unavailable that sucks be he's not going to go out of his way to get another hammer so he can still use his feats because that's stupid.

Mistborn, did you really start another thread because ISP has all but admitted he's a troll wants there to be conflict?

Pretty much.

[infected slut princess]

Look, Ryu Hyabusa fights with a sword, twf swords, a giant sword, a staff, a bow, shuriken, a scythe, tonfa, a spear gun, a kusari-gama, a flail, nunchucks, claw/talon things. He is the most bad ass dude in history so people who want to be fighting weapon dudes should be like him. He also uses ninja spells. Fapping over weapon specialization is really unhealthy. In fact, in a recent dragon killing adventure I put a mighty dragon-killing artifact spear in a treasure pile that was way better than anything else in the adventure, way better than any weapon the characters had, but no one would use it because they were all Liike 'dude I only fights with katanas!' Or 'dude I am an axe dude ONLY.' FUCKKKKK

[name_here]

Yes, the longbows at Agiencourt didn't work too well on the knights in steel plate mail. There was never a time when everyone on the battlefield had steel plate mail. Modern tests and historical accounts indicate they could punch through other armor even at long range.

Now, Rome did have the Triarii fight in phalanx formation for most of their history. However, it was not actually unusual for battles to be decided without committing the Triarii. The thing with the phalanx is that it's only virtually invincible to frontal attacks when it's actually coherent. When disrupted by terrain or enemy fire it stops working. Since battles aren't always fought on perfectly level terrain and the Romans had lots and lots of javelins and auxiliary archers, that happened a lot. And losing hard to flanking attacks is a legitimate disadvantage compared to not doing that. There's a reason the Romans rearranged their army to use the gladius primarily after their phalanxes kept losing, and a reason they beat lots and lots of people who used phalanxes.

[Dean]

Thor isn't a "hammer guy" he's an "artifact weapon guy" if Mjolnir is unavailable that sucks be he's not going to go out of his way to get another hammer so he can still use his feats because that's stupid.

Thor will still be super strong and skilled if he's holding a hammer, a bow, or a blade-whip. He will be good with all of those weapons but he will probably have abilities he can use with the hammer that he can't use with the others because he chose his abilities with the idea that he would usually have a hammer. Unless the abilities you write into the game are incredibly generic then there will be selectable abilities that work with hammers and not with bows or blade-whips. Thor may have an ability that lets him knock people back or stagger people or break their bones or throw his weapon far and some of those abilities and not others will be able to conceptually work with rapiers or darts or bows. If you write abilities that let people wrap their whips around people or make bow trick-shots or hamstring people with knives then you are writing abilities that cause weapon specialization.

By the time Thor has been allowed to choose 10 or 20 abilities he's going to become a Hammer Guy more or less. People creating an optimal weapon choice in your RPG design is gonna happen and fighting that will be more sacrifice and work than it's worth. But weapon specialization isn't the problem, weapon competence is. D&D's problem is that a Barbarian ubercharger with a Greatsword is incredible but a Barbarian ubercharger with a shortsword isn't even competent. He can't even perform. The difference between a character with the right weapon and any other weapon is the difference between mastery and incompetence. The enormous width of disparity is the cause for alarm not that a disparity exists at all. It's fine if Luke Skywalker prefers to lightsaber fight more and more as he gains levels but when he's in a blaster gunfight he shouldn't lose all his Jedi powers until he picks his sword back up.

[Sakuya Izayoi]

Often enough, the protagonist picking up whatever's at hand and using it with the utmost proficiency IS what Rule of Cool supports. Riddick killing with a teacup, Conan using whatever the situation calls for, or Caesar Zeppeli clowning on fools with soap bubbles. Weapon Virtuoso tends to be a more supported trope than hyperspecialization beyond Princess Bride tier, from what I've seen.

[Username17]

The D&D conceit where it's optimal to carry 4 or 5 different weapons at first level but more optimal as you level to specialize in one or (at most) two weapons is pretty decent. Conan needs to carry a bow to be relevant because he's low level and owning that bow is the only way for him to kill Harpies. Nameless (Jet Li from Hero) can just have a katana if he feels like because he can fly at those Harpies on his own but it would still probably be a good idea to have a bow. Thor only needs Mjolnir because there's nothing a bow can do that he can't do with it already.

The idea that equipment matters a lot at the bottom and little at the top has some genre support.

Well, you're basically talking about Comic Book Thor, which means that your example of a character who specializes in a weapon isn't actually different from the Green Arrow, Captain Boomerang type examples discussed earlier.

Thor will still be super strong and skilled if he's holding a hammer, a bow, or a blade-whip. He will be good with all of those weapons but he will probably have abilities he can use with the hammer that he can't use with the others because he chose his abilities with the idea that he would usually have a hammer. Unless the abilities you write into the game are incredibly generic then there will be selectable abilities that work with hammers and not with bows or blade-whips. Thor may have an ability that lets him knock people back or stagger people or break their bones or throw his weapon far and some of those abilities and not others will be able to conceptually work with rapiers or darts or bows.

This is simply absurd. By the time we're talking about Thor, we are well beyond the level where we should give the slightest fuck whether a character is using a bludgeoning weapon or not. There is a time for a character to have meaningfully distinct maneuvers available depending on the mundane shape of metal in their hands, and it is a lot of levels lower than where you get access to maneuvers that create a giant thunderclap that knocks all your enemies over.

-Username17

[Dean]

So does Thor's 15th level powers totally obviate all the powers he chose at 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, and 11th level or what? Does he get to rechoose them? Because if Thors ability list still has the bludgeoning powers he took over the last 14 levels then he still wants a hammer in his hands.

If your system makes the latest batch of powers obviate every ability chosen before Thor will not prefer bludgeoning weapons but that system is also lame. If the last 14 levels are still accounted for then Thor will have abilities and maneuvers that are usable with a hammer that aren't usable with a rapier or crossbow and he will prefer a hammer.

[Username17]

So does Thor's 15th level powers totally obviate all the powers he chose at 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, and 11th level or what? Does he get to rechoose them? Because if Thors ability list still has the bludgeoning powers he took over the last 14 levels then he still wants a hammer in his hands.

If your system makes the latest batch of powers obviate every ability chosen before Thor will not prefer bludgeoning weapons but that system is also lame. If the last 14 levels are still accounted for then Thor will have abilities and maneuvers that are usable with a hammer that aren't usable with a rapier or crossbow and he will prefer a hammer.

Imagine a system where a Wizard could prepare a limited number of spells each day and learned more powerful spells later in their career. I know, crazy, right? In such a system, the 15th level Wizard is going to generally speaking prepare the spells they got more recently, and the spells they learned as a 3rd or 5th level character are not going to make the cut. Therefore, whatever use restrictions or equipment requirements that their 3rd and 5th level spells have are not going to really matter when they are looking at their 15th level spells to put into their day's prepared spell list.

Is such a system "lame?"

-Username17

[Whipstitch]

Lord Mistborn:
> Lars Andersen's crazy arrow shenanigans

My RSS feeder recently spat out an article about this guy and his shenanigans.

Author was not impressed.

I'm broadly sympathetic to that article but the bit about how tabs protect your draw from the tyranny of friction ridges earned some pretty furious eye rolling on my part.

[schpeelah]

So does Thor's 15th level powers totally obviate all the powers he chose at 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, and 11th level or what? Does he get to rechoose them? Because if Thors ability list still has the bludgeoning powers he took over the last 14 levels then he still wants a hammer in his hands.

Him being 15th level makes his 5th level power irrelevant unless it scales to become a 15th level power. It is after all a power appropriate for characters so far below him he doesn't even get XP for defeating them in any number. And if his level 3 power does keep up, a sword guy and a bow guy of the same class were able to pick up an equivalent by level 9.

It's Thor we're talking about. His hammer has perfectly good ranged attack and area attack capability and gives him flight. He is in no way limited by his weapon of choice technically being a bludgeoning melee weapon.

[hyzmarca]

Thor isn't a "hammer guy" he's an "artifact weapon guy" if Mjolnir is unavailable that sucks be he's not going to go out of his way to get another hammer so he can still use his feats because that's stupid.

Thor will still be super strong and skilled if he's holding a hammer, a bow, or a blade-whip. He will be good with all of those weapons but he will probably have abilities he can use with the hammer that he can't use with the others because he chose his abilities with the idea that he would usually have a hammer. Unless the abilities you write into the game are incredibly generic then there will be selectable abilities that work with hammers and not with bows or blade-whips. Thor may have an ability that lets him knock people back or stagger people or break their bones or throw his weapon far and some of those abilities and not others will be able to conceptually work with rapiers or darts or bows. If you write abilities that let people wrap their whips around people or make bow trick-shots or hamstring people with knives then you are writing abilities that cause weapon specialization.

By the time Thor has been allowed to choose 10 or 20 abilities he's going to become a Hammer Guy more or less. People creating an optimal weapon choice in your RPG design is gonna happen and fighting that will be more sacrifice and work than it's worth. But weapon specialization isn't the problem, weapon competence is. D&D's problem is that a Barbarian ubercharger with a Greatsword is incredible but a Barbarian ubercharger with a shortsword isn't even competent. He can't even perform. The difference between a character with the right weapon and any other weapon is the difference between mastery and incompetence. The enormous width of disparity is the cause for alarm not that a disparity exists at all. It's fine if Luke Skywalker prefers to lightsaber fight more and more as he gains levels but when he's in a blaster gunfight he shouldn't lose all his Jedi powers until he picks his sword back up.

Thor doesn't have hammer powers. He has generic weapon skills and a an extremely powerful magic hammer. His ability to fly and whatnot isn't innate to him, it's innate to that hammer. Anyone who picks it up will have the same abilities (whosoever wields this hammer, if he be worthy, shall possess the power of Thor). When he magic hammer doesn't cut the mustard, he picks up another weapon.

[Dean]

Imagine a system where a Wizard could prepare a limited number of spells each day and learned more powerful spells later in their career. I know, crazy, right? In such a system, the 15th level Wizard is going to generally speaking prepare the spells they got more recently, and the spells they learned as a 3rd or 5th level character are not going to make the cut.

Are you retarded? If a 15th level Wizard filled his spell slots with Evocation spells for the first 7 spell levels and then, at 15th level, got a badass 8th level Divination spell then that Wizard is still very much an Evocation Wizard. He is a Wizard that would use Evocation all the time and be an "Evocation Guy" except for when using his biggest move.

Using 3E Wizards as a snarky example is insane because it is exactly against your argument. If Thor has dozens of daily abilities that do depend on him having a hammer and a couple better high level abilities that don't he will still care whether or not he has that hammer. You are still in the boat of choosing whether your latest abilities obviate your earlier choices or don't and D&D Wizards don't stop using their 3rd or 5th level spell choices when they suddenly get 8th level ones. Your example Thor modeled as a D&D Wizard who can only use his early powers if he has a hammer would always fucking use a hammer and never ever use a bow.

[K]

My biggest problem with the fetishists is that it's obvious that they've never been in a fight. Their knowledge is based on a flawed understanding of action movies, centuries-old cultural or historical smack-talk that only usually only applies to large-scale battles, and the occasional youtube clip.

For example, I once had a friend show me a video of an aikido master "defeating 20 people at once" to try to convince me that aikido was the perfect martial art. I then immediately pointed out to him that this master was actually just being attacked by one student at a time in quick succession. It's not nearly as impressive to be better than every single student instead of all of them at once.

At SCA events, I've seen even the very best fighters routinely taken out by three very unskilled people coordinating attacks against them. It's actually such a fun-killer that there seems to be an unspoken honor code against it.

Hell, I once personally defeated an actual Olympic saber fencer in a 3-on-3 battle. (For the record, I don't have any depth perception and thus was a terrible saber fencer.)

That being said, I'll start trusting people's opinions about bows in particular when they've actually had arrows fired at them from 100 feet away. I've done this and found that dodging even a volley of arrows is easy enough easy to do it even accidentally at the ranges that RPGs like DnD would like you to think are effective. I mean, has no one wondered why sport archery is against either stationary or moving objects that are completely predictable?

As far as I'm concerned, Green Arrow and Legolas have magic powers that make people around them very stupid and to stand very still so that they can be shot with arrows.