Can we please fix equipment this edition?

Simply put, the DnD equipment list is a joke to anyone who knows anything about medieval weapons and armor. Can we please try to fix it this time, and stop the misconceptions it gives new players? This isn't just me being pedantic; by making this part of the game more realistic, it's much more immersive to those of us who actually know what we're talking about.

First and foremost, studded leather doesn't exist, and never existed. What people thought was studded leather was actually people misinterpreting period drawings of brigandine, where metal plates were riveted to the inside of a cloth or leather jacket. Just putting rivets into leather isn't going to protect you! Rivets are tiny, the whole idea is nonsensical.

Secondly, the naming scheme for weapons is off. What DnD calls "longswords" were actually called "arming swords", "short swords", or just "swords"; the historical longsword is what DnD refers to as the Bastard Sword, since it was longer than the typical one-handed sword. The term "great sword" is a modern invention; "zweihander", "two-handed sword", or "claymore" would be more accurate. Similarly, like I said, "short sword" historically referred to one-handed swords in general (as opposed to two-handed longswords); what DnD calls "short swords" were more accurately called "long knives", and included such weapons as the gladius and seax. Greataxes, similarly, should probably be called "pollaxes", since it's basically the most accurate name for them that still has "axe" in it; the line between a two-handed axe and a polearm is pretty fine, anyway. Throwing hammers should probably be called "throwing sticks", since as far as I know, noone ever made metal versions of them, unless you count things like some varieties of shuriken.

Thirdly, everything weighs too much. It's closer to being accurate than it was in previous editions, but there's still some work to do here. Most egregious are the assorted two-handed weapons; even things like tetsubos, known for being heavy, hard-to-control weapons, were only around 4-11 pounds (depending on whether their shafts were wooden or solid iron), according to Google. Additionally, on the topic of two-handed weapons, could we please have some realism on the depictions of two-handed axes and warhammers? Double-bitted waraxes did not exist; warhammers weren't giant metal bricks on the end of a sticks, but actually looked more like this.

Finally, the spiked chain is a total invention, though historical weapons like the rope dart and meteor hammer fill the same basic role that it's usually depicted in (long-ranged, flexible weapon), and are cooler looking as well, in my opinion.

I agree about encumbrance, the weights are really off and forces non martial characters to invest in strength when it's not really congruous.


As far as weapon and armour names go... meh. I could see an optional ruleset but part of speaking a living language means that terms change their meaning over time. What they called it 700 years ago might be the same one but it's likely it won't. If a subculture calls a steak & cheese sub a "steak bomb" or a "number 9" or a "blamagam" it doesn't matter what it was originally called in the slightest because language is about making the sounds that produce the appropriate response.


Therefore, I don't think there is any need to change the terms in D&D because we've been using them for decades and everybody knows what to expect from those names.


I also see no harm in producing a more historically accurate list, perhaps in a supplement about historical campaign settings. That would be a cool resource to have.

I agree with Kadim im afraid. Many of the items are just too iconic to dismiss because of a little thing like real world accuracy, its not a simulation its a game. Its an easy enough thing to change yourself however.

Most players I know, have enough knowledge of history to enjoy the game and havent met any with enough to ruin a session with issues like this.

In the end, to keep your OCD demons in check your trying to take away many things people like, when having them in and removing them yourself is the easiest option. I have no problem with your request, I just request that you keep it away from my table and the standard core.

 
As far as weapon and armour names go... meh. I could see an optional ruleset but part of speaking a living language means that terms change their meaning over time. What they called it 700 years ago might be the same one but it's likely it won't. If a subculture calls a steak & cheese sub a "steak bomb" or a "number 9" or a "blamagam" it doesn't matter what it was originally called in the slightest because language is about making the sounds that produce the appropriate response.


Except that it's not a living language, because it's referring to historical items that aren't being produced anymore, and some of this stuff like the way spiked chains are usually depicted and studded leather are just plain stupid! ..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
I agree with Kadim im afraid. Many of the items are just too iconic to dismiss because of a little thing like real world accuracy, its not a simulation its a game. Its an easy enough thing to change yourself however.


Except that it's only iconic among people who have played DnD! If you're playing a game pretending to be a knight, then hearing people use the wrong terms for things when their characters should know the correct terms for them breaks suspension of disbelief. If you're playing a knight, you should talk like a knight, and that should include using the correct jargon that the knight would use.
Simply put, the DnD equipment list is a joke to anyone who knows anything about medieval weapons and armor.




D&D is not a historical simulation, nor is it intended to be.

In other words, nobody cares because it isn't remotely important.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Simply put, the DnD equipment list is a joke to anyone who knows anything about medieval weapons and armor.




D&D is not a historical simulation, nor is it intended to be.

In other words, nobody cares because it isn't remotely important.


*looks at all the artwork of knights with swords, and the entire Fighter class*

Yeah, I've got to disagree with you there.
Simply put, the DnD equipment list is a joke to anyone who knows anything about medieval weapons and armor.




D&D is not a historical simulation, nor is it intended to be.

In other words, nobody cares because it isn't remotely important.


*looks at all the artwork of knights with swords, and the entire Fighter class*

Yeah, I've got to disagree with you there.



*looks at all the artwork of people casting spells, elves, and monsters and the entire wizard class*

Yep, that's completely historically accurate.  I don't know what I was thinking.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Battleaxe and sling? You mean a dwarven sword and a halfling bow?

Yeah the weights are a bit off but meh to the names.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

 
Except that it's only iconic among people who have played DnD! If you're playing a game pretending to be a knight, then hearing people use the wrong terms for things when their characters should know the correct terms for them breaks suspension of disbelief. If you're playing a knight, you should talk like a knight, and that should include using the correct jargon that the knight would use.



Its not only iconic to D&D players, its iconic to geeks en masse.

Computer games, stories, movies.
Its an inaccuracy that spans a lot of media.

And why not just use it in your games to your advantage so you can play as a pretencious knight who goes round telling everyone they are wrong. It would probably end up making an interesting character (and causing a lot of problems). 
 
Except that it's only iconic among people who have played DnD! If you're playing a game pretending to be a knight, then hearing people use the wrong terms for things when their characters should know the correct terms for them breaks suspension of disbelief. If you're playing a knight, you should talk like a knight, and that should include using the correct jargon that the knight would use.



Its not only iconic to D&D players, its iconic to geeks en masse.


Because of DnD getting it wrong, and perpetuating those errors. This is a new edition, it's an opportunity to fix those errors and help to undo the misconceptions of decades of errors upon errors. They shouldn't be perpetuated because they're "iconic"!

Also, because I forgot, when I was writing the OP: "Mail" (more typically spelled maille) refers exclusively to chainmail; everything else should probably be called "armor" instead, e.g. "scale armor" instead of "scale mail", since scale armor is just overlapping plates, without any maille being involved.
They shouldnt be thrown away because they arent historically accurate

Its the age old case of something very obscure affecting somebodys game, you are one in a very small minority that it bothers and more often than not that small minority will get overlooked. Its not a good thing but its the way it works. Its made even worse because your complaining about things with bigger problems than names at the minute too.

I have never seen the names of gear being an issue before, and I doubt I will again. I'm sorry it botheres you but you have shown that YOU have the knowledge to fix it for your games. Go for it. 
As far as weapon and armour names go... meh. I could see an optional ruleset but part of speaking a living language means that terms change their meaning over time. What they called it 700 years ago might be the same one but it's likely it won't. If a subculture calls a steak & cheese sub a "steak bomb" or a "number 9" or a "blamagam" it doesn't matter what it was originally called in the slightest because language is about making the sounds that produce the appropriate response.


Except that it's not a living language, because it's referring to historical items that aren't being produced anymore, and some of this stuff like the way spiked chains are usually depicted and studded leather are just plain stupid!



The terms for these weapons is still part of a living language and that means it's subject to the population speaking that language's whims. If the wider population decides to change, add or remove terms or even combine terms under one larger term, such as longsword, then there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it except to point it out as you have.


You have to be prepared for the wider population to reject your objection. It's like the pluralisation of the word octopus. Oct is a greek root, which means the commonly used "octopi" is incorrect becuase -i is a latin pluralisation. Gramatically, you can't employ latin constructions to greek roots and vice versa. Which means that really, the plural of octopus is "octopus" or "octopuses", with the term "octopa" referring to multiple species of octopus.


However, "octopi" has taken over and in recent years it's been added to the dictionary as an accepted pluralisation of the word octopus.


Is it stupid? It is to me. Oct- is greek, -i is latin. I choose not to use the term "octopi" or any other construction where a greek root is having a latin suffix and vice versa because I think it's "just plain stupid". I'm weird like that, and it's important to me. But if someone else does it I'm not going to correct them either. It is accepted grammar now, just like the term "arming sword" has fallen into disuse and "longsword" has taken its place.


We speak a living language. The majority of the speakers decide what is a word and what that word means. I don't have to like it, but I do have to communicate with these people and if my sensibilities of what is the right and wrong words gets in the way of communicating then I have no choice but to give in to what I think is stupid if I'm to be understood. The names present in D&D reflect that fact.


You don't have to like it, but you do have to live with it. Be consoled by the fact that a supplement on historical campaigns is totally an awesome resource and lists of historically and geographically appropriate weapon and armour names can and should be part of that supplement.


In the meantime, you're prefectly free to use whatever term you choose at your table.

Octopodes is also acceptable.

*source, Stephen Fry* 
Octopodes is also acceptable.


Awesome, I'll have to remember that.
They shouldnt be thrown away because they arent historically accurate

Its the age old case of something very obscure affecting somebodys game, you are one in a very small minority that it bothers and more often than not that small minority will get overlooked. Its not a good thing but its the way it works. Its made even worse because your complaining about things with bigger problems than names at the minute too.

I have never seen the names of gear being an issue before, and I doubt I will again. I'm sorry it botheres you but you have shown that YOU have the knowledge to fix it for your games. Go for it. 


Except that it's not obscure, it's obvious to everyone whose knowledge of the middle ages and their equipment doesn't come from DnD and the fantasy literature that sprung up from around it! Medieval historians, medieval recreationists like ARMA or HEMA, or anyone who puts any serious research into the subject will find that much of the stuff in DnD's equipment section is full of neologisms and outright fabrications and errors.
"anyone who puts any serious research into the subject"




That one line ... right there...

Nigh on nobody will, and those who do mostly overlook inaccuracies in games. I'm not trying to fight or cause arguments, I'm just pointing out that of all the problems with D&D, this is right near the bottom and changing it would cause more arguments, complaints and anger than leaving it alone. 
My whole gaming group comprises armour and weapons geeks -- I won't say experts, but we do make our own armour, and know several armour- and weaponsmiths, so the experts are represented. So yeah, we wince at the names and descriptions of the armour and weapons. However, I realise the "weight" of the previous versions, and while I would LOVE for WotC to fix the names, weights, etc. of them, even to the point of having sent them links to books and websites to consult, I will understand if they choose not to do so.

But one of the first things we'll do when we buy the book is to replace the armour and weapon tables with our own.

In memory of wrecan and his Unearthed Wrecana.

Names are easily done for individual groups (and in the grand scheme dont matter)

I am with Faer however when it comes to weight, that is way out. Most groups dont track weight which I find to be a shame, it opens up a lot of choices for characters and becomes another handy gold sink for pack mules and the sort.

Any chance you could post one of your tables Steele? The current weapon and armour tables are... well... pants. 
"anyone who puts any serious research into the subject"




That one line ... right there...

Nigh on nobody will, and those who do mostly overlook inaccuracies in games. I'm not trying to fight or cause arguments, I'm just pointing out that of all the problems with D&D, this is right near the bottom and changing it would cause more arguments, complaints and anger than leaving it alone. 


Yes, unfortunately, that is the case. This is why fixing it going forward is even more important, since it will stop DnD from poisoning their understanding of medieval weapons with neologisms, errors, and outright fabrications.

And if it causes arguments with the grognards who can't handle being wrong? So be it, it's worth it. Because they're objectively wrong, and they have the perpetuation of errors from previous DnD editions to blame for this.
Any chance you could post one of your tables Steele? The current weapon and armour tables are... well... pants. 

Pants is right! I don't think we'd have a problem with sharing our tables, sure. 'Course, we'll wait until the final product to do that, unless one of our playtest sessions devolves into equipment discussions. heh heh

In memory of wrecan and his Unearthed Wrecana.

Nigh on nobody will, and those who do mostly overlook inaccuracies in games. I'm not trying to fight or cause arguments, I'm just pointing out that of all the problems with D&D, this is right near the bottom and changing it would cause more arguments, complaints and anger than leaving it alone.



Pretty much my sentiment as well. It's so low priority it's not even funny, and the other thing about people doing serious research is you end up quibbling over the list anyway because thus-and-such a weapon didn't show up until that-other-one fell into disuse 50 years before. The argument over weapon names will not be solved by a better educated crowd 'cause D&D is much larger in scope than one specific era of history or one geographical location.


You have got to draw a line somewhere.


My whole gaming group comprises armour and weapons geeks -- I won't say experts, but we do make our own armour, and know several armour- and weaponsmiths, so the experts are represented. So yeah, we wince at the names and descriptions of the armour and weapons. However, I realise the "weight" of the previous versions, and while I would LOVE for WotC to fix the names, weights, etc. of them, even to the point of having sent them links to books and websites to consult, I will understand if they choose not to do so.

But one of the first things we'll do when we buy the book is to replace the armour and weapon tables with our own.


Fair play to you. This should be the way everyone goes about this, I think.
Any chance you could post one of your tables Steele? The current weapon and armour tables are... well... pants. 

Pants is right! I don't think we'd have a problem with sharing our tables, sure. 'Course, we'll wait until the final product to do that, unless one of our playtest sessions devolves into equipment discussions. heh heh


I'd be really interested in seeing them as well.
If there's enough interest, I could probably talk the group into making the tables sooner than later. We're going to try to break classes this Saturday, but maybe over the winter holidays we'll have some time to hammer them out.

In memory of wrecan and his Unearthed Wrecana.

At first. II thought the thread was going to be about how broken equipment is mechanically. I see now that you're talking about history. I could go for taking out studded leather, but the other things I could ca less about. I'd prefer them actually fixing mechanics.
Simply put, the DnD equipment list is a joke to anyone who knows anything about medieval weapons and armor.




D&D is not a historical simulation, nor is it intended to be.

In other words, nobody cares because it isn't remotely important.



Correction, it is not remotely important to YOU.

For those that care about the spreading of misconceptions it is quite important.  Carl Sagan said popular culture should aim to teach where it can.  This is one area where the misconceptions can be fixed.







CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production. D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
 
Except that it's only iconic among people who have played DnD! If you're playing a game pretending to be a knight, then hearing people use the wrong terms for things when their characters should know the correct terms for them breaks suspension of disbelief. If you're playing a knight, you should talk like a knight, and that should include using the correct jargon that the knight would use.



Its not only iconic to D&D players, its iconic to geeks en masse.


Because of DnD getting it wrong, and perpetuating those errors. This is a new edition, it's an opportunity to fix those errors and help to undo the misconceptions of decades of errors upon errors. They shouldn't be perpetuated because they're "iconic"!

Also, because I forgot, when I was writing the OP: "Mail" (more typically spelled maille) refers exclusively to chainmail; everything else should probably be called "armor" instead, e.g. "scale armor" instead of "scale mail", since scale armor is just overlapping plates, without any maille being involved.



Its not just D&D!

In skyrim the two handed weapons annoy me because they are WAY slower than they would ever be. 

I have had the chance to use 12th century Claymore's in re-enactment.  They are much faster than depicted.  If they were as slow as Skyrim makes them seem no one would have used them.

CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production. D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
I'm not seeing the problem with the inaccuracies in the names of weapons and armor. First off its a game. Secondly, I've played with plenty of people that actually know this stuff over the many, many years I've been playing this game and none have ever complained nor corrected the terminology. I have enough working knowledge of this stuff, love history, and it doesn't bother me either.
It doesn't have enough of an outcry to warrant changes in the names. Weights, yeah that's building outcry.
There are bigger issues that still need work before they get do doing any major reassessment to the equipment lists.
This may fall into a historical supplement  which is likely as WotC is a company and needs to be profitable.  
It is a shame that its not likely to happen, but that is going to be the way it is, most likely.

Also, would like to see the list your group comes up with SteeleButterfly. 
I'm not seeing the problem with the inaccuracies in the names of weapons and armor. First off its a game. Secondly, I've played with plenty of people that actually know this stuff over the many, many years I've been playing this game and none have ever complained nor corrected the terminology. I have enough working knowledge of this stuff, love history, and it doesn't bother me either.
It doesn't have enough of an outcry to warrant changes in the names. Weights, yeah that's building outcry.
There are bigger issues that still need work before they get do doing any major reassessment to the equipment lists.
This may fall into a historical supplement  which is likely as WotC is a company and needs to be profitable.  
It is a shame that its not likely to happen, but that is going to be the way it is, most likely.

Also, would like to see the list your group comes up with SteeleButterfly. 



I have never changed the terminology even though my group is active in the SCA.

If anything it gives a little laugh.  The weights of the weapons are something I would like to see fixed.  Most people have no idea how tiring waving around a 5 pound sword would be.

Still avoiding misconceptions when one can is a good thing.

D&D 1st edition rules did the most damage to people's conception of how effective weapons actuallly were. 

Still in any area where misconceptions can be

CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production. D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
My whole gaming group comprises armour and weapons geeks -- I won't say experts, but we do make our own armour, and know several armour- and weaponsmiths, so the experts are represented. So yeah, we wince at the names and descriptions of the armour and weapons. However, I realise the "weight" of the previous versions, and while I would LOVE for WotC to fix the names, weights, etc. of them, even to the point of having sent them links to books and websites to consult, I will understand if they choose not to do so.

But one of the first things we'll do when we buy the book is to replace the armour and weapon tables with our own.




I am in the same boat.

Any medieval enthusiast that studies history, makes armour and practices swordplay will wince at the terrible naming and most of all weight.

For instance, a Bastard Sword. They usually weigh around 2-3 lb. (maybe a bit more). And they are made to be used either one handed or two handed (that's why its called 'bastard'). In the current rules, its a two-handed 10 lb. sword LOL. The notion of any weapon being that heavy is an absurd. The only weapons that ever reached that sort of weight were very long polearms (especially Pikes).


Scimitars as a finesse weapon? 25 lb. maul? lol I mean I could go on



So yeah, seeing those weights and names like 'studded leather' (Brigandine armor??) and 'banded' (lorica segmentata??) and Splint (I don't think there ever existed suits of splint irl, only used in small pieces like bracers) and worst yet scalemail (nuf said)... it drives me crazy.

The funny thing is, its D&D that started this entire misconception of armor and weapons. I do think this is a good opportunity to fix the decades of error but I doubt it will happen.

How many groups actually keep a detailed count of encumbrance? The only times I have seen groups care about it is when checking how problematic carrying their petrified companions is or how much of the dragon's hoard fits in the bag of holding ;) In any event, it has been argued the numbers are not just actual weight, but also volume and hence represents how much efford has to be made to carry it. Personally I have never looked at the weight of individual weapons.

As for history accuracy, first of all, the game has a cinematic aspect to it, so whether or not chain weapons are depicted correctly (assuming they existed at all) is not overly important for most people. It looks cool, so who cares whether it ever looked like that? The same is even more true for an item like studded leather, which also fullfills a game mechanical balance in regards to armor, and for most people whether you call it soft and hard leather armor or leather and studded leather hardly matters. The same is true for weapons as well, even more so because considering some of the debates I have seen here about how to call a particular weapon historically (worsened by the fact that the English at that time did not like the current English and each region had its own name for a slightly different version of the weapon) I doubt it is nearly as dry cut as the OP makes it out to be. Not to mention that there is nothing remotely historically accurate about even the combination of weapons and armor at the same time ;) I am just glad that such things are not overly important to me, certainly makes watching movies like Gladiator and the Thirteenth Warrior easier ;)

And finally, in regards to slow 2-handers, there are downsides to 2-handers since otherwise they would have been a lot more prevelant in RL. Since it can be rather complicated to deal with Strength, over extending and all kinds of minute details that make one weapon better than the other based on skill, armor and the like, why not simplify it by making one a bit slower than the other?


Simply put, the DnD equipment list is a joke to anyone who knows anything about medieval weapons and armor. Can we please try to fix it this time, and stop the misconceptions it gives new players? This isn't just me being pedantic; by making this part of the game more realistic, it's much more immersive to those of us who actually know what we're talking about.

I would like to see some of the more egress mistakes of the D&D equipment cleaned up. Take out some of the historically bogus stuff like studded leather and cleaning up the weights would be nice. Changing these things is not going to mess up the people who don't care, but it will be nice for those of us that do.

It isn't worth obsessing over the little details though, there are a lot of problems that make total historical accuracy somewhere between very hard and impossible. Names change over time, and many things are not referred to using the names they originally had. Some weapon and armor names are modern inventions, but even in the middle ages names drifted over time and place. Armor and weapon names are not entirely consistent in historical records, so a designer is always going to have to make some choices about what to call things. Some things, particularly weapons, had different names for dozens of trivial variations of a design. There are also situations where something didn't have a historical name, plate mail probably being the best example. Armor made out of a mix of plate and chain mail (itself a modern term) was among the most widely used in some period, but historically never had a single name.

it's referring to historical items that aren't being produced anymore


No it isn't, it's referring to fantasy items produced in a fantasy world.  And fantasy people can name them whatever they want, because D&D isn't the real world.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I would prefer some more historical accuracy as far as weights and item names (brigadine instead of studded leather, it sounds cooler). I'd want to keep some of the fantasy weapons like the spiked chain though, because they're awesome. On the other hand the game's got so many mechanical issues to work out right now that it's kind fo a low priority thing, at the same time it would be easier to fix than most of the mechanical issues.
My take on weapon names:

I believe the genericization of weapon names in DnD is somewhat intentional. Its so that it can encompass a wider range of similar, specific weapons. As an example, the OP said it himself:

The term "great sword" is a modern invention; "zweihander", "two-handed sword", or "claymore" would be more accurate.

You get to call what you are swinging whatever you want, specifically and stylistically. At the end of the day it uses the rules for a "great sword".

How many different kinds of "short swords" are there? Various cultures, styles, uses? I'm sure quite a few. Axes? Same thing.

Does your character walk around calling himself a "fighter"? Most don't, I'd wager. Knight. Warrior. Mercenary. Soldier. Killer. No different a situation when you separate identifying verbiage and in-game-world terms.

Don't get caught up on nomenclature. Its just a tool.

Edit: In another thread I was just explaining how, in my world, elves use "rapiers", but really, they are thin, lithe (finessable) longswords. They are just the elves' take on that particular weapon.


I think most of this is dependant on the world the DM wants to have.

People who want to present a more historical feel to their game can make these changes to their game accordingly, people who want more iconic D&D don't have to. It's not even something that needs optional rules because teh people who are into the historical feel of the weaponry and armor will already know what kind of changes they want.

Might be great for a suppliment, core d&D.... not a big deal. 

My mind is a deal-breaker.

I really wouldn't mind it if they added a bit more historical realism to the D&D equipment list.    2e did a great job of that with its Arms and Equipment guide and the green historical campaign books.     

As long as Next doesn't bake equipment into the classes those who want more historical flavour for their campaign shouldn't have an issue.  

I've been to several medieval museums and castles in Europe, and after that experience,  I really don't agree with some of the OP's assertions.  In fact, I think he would be very surprised at some of the odd and unique weapons and armor that actually existed.   For example,  I've seen several examples of children's full plate armor     

Here is what my halfling paladin would use (children's plate) 




My favorite is this a gryffin helm (front view is on my profile pics).

It looks so D&D



I'd post more but I don't have those images on hand at the moment.


I really wouldn't mind it if they added a bit more historical realism to the D&D equipment list.    2e did a great job of that with it's Arms and Equipment guide and the green historical campaign books.    ...

I've been to several medieval museums and castles in Europe ...

There's some pretty amazing stuff in museums, isn't there? My husband spent hours in museums just in the UK, taking notes on lengths (he brought a tape measure) and weights (listed on the display cards) of swords and other weapons.

There's certainly enough research material available for those who want that much realism in their games. I wouldn't mind if WotC put it in, but if they don't, we have alternatives. ;)

In memory of wrecan and his Unearthed Wrecana.

The same is even more true for an item like studded leather, which also fullfills a game mechanical balance in regards to armor



They can easily do this by picking accurate armor such as 'Bridangine' , a Mail byrnie (chirt) and Mail hauberk (long coat), a Back n Breast (or Breastplate) and Plate harness ... You don't need pretend armor like studded leather and banded to fill those mechanical gaps.

Also, for the most part I think (I could be completely wrong) that it bothers more people that its wrong that it would bother people for correcting it. So why not just correct it in a playtest packet and see what the reaction is like. If the majority of players really do prefer their 'iconic' bad-naming, we will know.
I still haven't seen a justification for why fantasy people in a fantasy world can't have fantasy names for their fantasy items, and have to use the names of historical Earth equipment.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I really wouldn't mind it if they added a bit more historical realism to the D&D equipment list.    2e did a great job of that with its Arms and Equipment guide and the green historical campaign books.     
.



I miss those Historical Reference modules... they are some of my favs.

In fact one of the best campaigns I ever played in was with the 'A Mighty Fortress' supplement.


- - - -

Regardless of the fact that D&D is (by default) High Fantasy... I think it has (and it has in the past) a place in Low Fantasy / Alternate History campaigns as well. Its a good system that shouldn't be limited to just one genre.

Conan 2nd Edition (d20 spin off) had a pretty good sense of historical accuracy and it was a great system.

So no I don't think its fair to use the excuse 'its fantasy game'.. people have different views of fantasy... Tolkien certainly had the insight of using terms like mail and hauberk for instance. I really think there needs to be (at some point) a platest packet that puts these corrections to the test.
I still haven't seen a justification for why fantasy people in a fantasy world can't have fantasy names for their fantasy items, and have to use the names of historical Earth equipment.



Well there isn't really. Its not necessary... its just a matter of preference.

Though I can't say what the masses (other then us forum speakers) think on the subject. I would gather most people just don't care.
Sign In to post comments