I would love to see Spencer do an impression of a Robyn song with D&D lyrics. She has the haircut for it. "I'm in the woods now watching you crit her oohoohooh. I'm far away **misty steps** yet so near. I keep stealthing on my own."
One thing! Just one thing! Please tell IT to me: WHY tf do I have so many fans even though no RUclipsr is unprettier than I am? WORLDWIDE!!!! WHY??? Tell me, dear sov
Ender Wiggin: The enemy’s gate is down. Give them no body to target. D&D DM: Okay, all enemies have Disadvantage to hit you, and your bent legs count as half cover. This channel: “It’s just as easy!” _Miss_
Him swinging 8 times in a row just to have every single one of them blocked by a stationary arm is exactly why it takes a level 20 Fighter to actually have any chance to hit all of them.
It problably wouldn't be hard to block a sword of a new person with a shield if they don't know what they are doing. Or if you are experienced, parrying a sword from an inexperienced person.
@@kyle18934 You simply kill an inexperienced person as an experienced sword fighter. This idea of block and attack as disrinct separate actions is an games idea.
*About to drop a fond mockery of two DnD experts demonstrating their martial prowess.* - "Oh - there is my favorite movie fight analyst appreciating it too :D."
To be honest, I don't really like that rule. The video would suggest it makes sense, but if we assume the ranged attacker is well-trained with their weapon, it just stops making sense at all. Yes, the area that can be targeted is smaller when the guy lies on the floor. But he can no longer defend himself, he can no longer move or use a shield to block them. Then, we need to take into account, that in a fantasy RPG like DnD, there are a lot more creatures to fight, not just humans and other humanoids. And if we look at bigger creatures like giants, dragons or even just dire wolves or owlbears, if they are prone, they still provide a bigger area to target than a standing human - who, again, can limit the areas he truly is vulnerable to arrows even more by using a shield. And then there are creatures which basicially always are the same regardless of whether they are subject to the prone condition or not, such as snakes and snake-like monsters. Knocking them prone doesn't make it more difficult to hit them. And then there is the Sharpshooter feat. A longbow-wielding archer with Sharpshooter can accurately snipe a gnat behind three-quarters cover from 600 feet away, so they should be competent enough to not have disadvantage on attacking a prone creature - basicially the only thing prone does to a ranged attacker is providing them a smaller area to target.
@@arthilas_ Disadvantage on average is a -3 to hit (Based on devs). So you are absolutely right, a well trained archer should still hit despite the person being prone. As for the monsters, remember this is a game. The devs were trying to streamline a lot to make D&D more accessible. So yeah, there are some oddities. Talk to your DM, a reasonable one should be like "Yeah, the behir is prone. but it is still a fair shot due to it's size". And no, a Dex 20 with sharp shooter cannot hit a gnat from 600ft. It would have a +20 to ac due to it's size and random movement, especially at 600ft. A reasonable DM would be like, "by the time your arrow reaches the gnat, at 600ft out, its erratic movement made it leave your arrows destination" (btw, it takes several second for an arrow to cover that distance.
"So another one people don't understand you have disadvantage when you're right here-" *Lifts gun from 5ft only to have sword smack his hand away* "Oh that's a valid point."
Especially if you have to nock and fire an arrow while having it out in front of you. It seems easy enough to push it aside or seems difficult to aim at a slightly mobile target when you're possibly 2 feet from somebody. Then there are guns...
Well... you'd expect someone trained with guns... to keep the gun next to their body... not stretched out in front of it. (when you see cops on TV, sneak around with a gun out, they usually are doing it wrong - holding it out in front of them, making disarming easier and aiming slower)
@@cyryl3827 don't you have to take a proper stance to shoot, I heard that shooting a gun close to your body might end up hurting you cus of the knock back?
@@Entropy67 You keep it at your side. Yes, if you know there isn't anyone who could take it out of your hands nearby, you will want to extend them forward, since your aim will be better... but when there are hostiles nearby, or you are in an area where hostiles could be around the corner, you keep the gun at your side. Or that's what a military dude at the shooting range explained to me at least. (one of the instructors)
They are holding two toys. In the hands of a trained sword fighters these toys would be a weapon. You have to have the muscle reflexes and actual training to use it.
Yeah, you could even tell that he (despite not being a trained fighter) was still able to use the one weapon much more effectively than he could 2 weapons. Your skill gets better as a trained fighter, but the two weapons are still harder to use as effectively as just one. That's why people who are actually trained in weapon fighting and demonstrate it, will still just use one weapon.
Yeah. I've seen too many dumb dual-wielding sword videos in the past where the user hurts themselves because they didn't realize how difficult it is to constant keep track of 2 blades at once, let alone even one. There's a reason why anyone with even a passing knowledge of sword fighting puts their free hand behind their back or on their hip when using one sword, and it isn't entirely so the other person can't hit them.
Using two swords effectively is extremely challenging indeed. However it pales in comparison to other options. Option 1, wielding 2 weapons of different types. At least in this configuration you have 2 weapons that perform distinct tasks. The most common combo is spear and shield (yes the shield is a WEAPON) you can block offensive options from your opponent, conceal your strikes (given the right type of shield), bash and throat chop anyone foolish enough to get too close and much more. Another option is fighting with sword and dagger. Because the dagger is way shorter than the sword you don't have the issue of both your weapons getting caught on each other. The dagger can act as a blocking tool, but obviously the shield is a more effective option. The one thing it excels at is if you grapple and wrest an armored foe the ground you can use the dagger to stab at the weak points on the design, such as the under arms and between the plates. Half swording gets a similar result but the dagger is nice to have at hand. Of course the penultimate option was just 2 handing a longsword in full plate armor. Due to its defensive ability 2 handing a long sword or equivalent gives you significantly more leverage and power. Ofc why use a longsword when you could use the superior reach and versitility of a polearm. By this point I hope you can see that while dual wielding swords seems flashy and cool it's infinitely worse than other, far more practical options. Options I should mind you that are way more effective and versatile and much easier to be effective with. Hypothetically you'd need 20 times the skill to be proficient with dual blades as to using a polearm for a fraction of the utility, reach and power you get from the polearm. And that's assuming both users have no armor. Put armor in the mix and the dual swordsman's only hope is to get his opponent on the ground to stab them in the weak points. All their dual blade techniques aren't worth squat against full plate, or even chainmail or heck even against the humble gambeson. And no, you don't "get more attacks" with 2 swords. A single blade can be deftly command to deliver a bevy of swift, precise strikes. Many of which you can't perform effectively unless you have both hands on the sword.
@@theanomaly3463 I wouldn't know, I rarely delve into Skall comment sections, but I do like Skall's chill, (and sarcastic) manner. Same goes to Metatron's and Matt Easton's channels. Shad is way too prone to AngryJoe rants for me to enjoy his content anymore, which is a damn shame, because I really used to like his videos. I'm sure it drives engagement and memes, but it's just not for me anymore.
I honestly can't tell if this is meant to be comedy skits to prove a point or if Jacob is just discovering martial combat and it's fine details for the first time.
Yea. As someone who's done historical martial arts for a while, people would be surprised just how much of a fight takes place at a reasonable distance. It's not like movies where people are just rushing and hacking at each other.
@@thothamon9046 you mean rolling dice isn't directly equivalent to stabbing some in the jugular?! What insightful commentary you have given us that comes from the first few pages of the source books. In all seriousness, most people know HP =\= meat points and that the death of the situational modifier in 5e are abstractions used to create simplicity.
@@MrGenerichead that was one of my first thoughts. The action isn't called a "strike," it's an attack, which could involve a variety of movements before making a connection.
@@Halomanx540 it also helps your digestive system to digest if you eat earlier because if you eat later then go to lay down an hour later you’re still digesting which makes it harder for your body to digest and go to sleep at the same time.
"How does the grass taste little man?" - look it up if you have not seen that larp clip, dude had to have given the other guy a concussion, he got dropped like a sack of potatoes in a single shield bash. Shield bash is broken IRL.
There's a reason the shield bash exists. The shield is as much a weapon as it is armor. Blunt force was usually a better option against armored opponents than blades.
The way I always pictured melee combat in D&D, you're actually fighting at roughly the same speed at all levels, but the more skilled your character is, the better they are at creating and spotting opennings in their opponent's defence. So each of your attacks represents an opportunity to land a hit on the enemy in continuous combat.
exactly. its not about getting one attack at first leve, but one attack that even has chance, whereas the level 20 fighter has a bunch of more attacks in the same time that will go through.
Yes! You are constantly moving, lunging and dodging. And the more skilled you are and more used to combat the easier it is to create openings to attack and predict enemies movement. So yes I agree 100%
I always pictured it as just real sword fighting tbh. You attack WITHIN 5 not AT 5 feet, giving you the proper room to preform foot work. A beginner might only know how to only make a proper swing once, but when getting into advanced techniques you learn how to combine attacks together fluently just like in HEMA for example. If you "miss" with a role you probably didn't miss but rather your attack was parried, which shifts the flow of combat to the enemy, (AKA it's there turn now.) I think it all flows pretty good when you sit and think about it, super interesting.
He, next time you're playing with fantasy or Sci-Fi painted minis, think about the power, fatigue and skill a "real" hero would need to make incredible feats! ^^ Or attack the villain with an airbrush, it's quick, surprising and efficient ;-)
The one attack per 6 seconds is the idea that you’re parrying and looking for an opportunity constantly, but you only get one good attack about every 6 seconds on average, but some well trained characters of certain classes can find more opportunities.
Yes, thank you for this, some people just don't get it. My DM in a game similar to DnD told me how they actually measured the time it takes you to swing a sword and that you should manage much more often in a round. So bizarre...
Getting just about 225K views in about a day! I don't think they really care how goofy they are as long as they get the clicks! Also NEVER CHANGE JACOB WE LOVE THE GOOFY!!!
Gonna be honest, that would make larping more appealing to me. I think. Maybe, dunno never have been, probably never will. RL fire emblem sounds fun though.
*In D&D combat I always imagined that the 5FT range was a way to keep melee ranges consistent between different length weapons for simplicity but also because people don't stand and swing in real battles. You step towards what you want to hit and swing and then back away to safety.*
I mean you pretty much got the idea. As you can see in those adjacent 5 foot squares both people are within measure(can hit each other). But at the back of the squares neither person is in real measure of one another. In real combat of course there will be quite the dance of one person aggressing, and the other retreating out of measure and back and forth. But on the whole they should more or less be roughly within the 10 total feet of each other during the skirmish.
@@chrisallen9638 I didn't think of it in-depth either. I just thought of it as" Ok, this is the rule". And Im sure close to nobody fires within 5ft without the crossbow expert feat. Sometimes you just don't think about why things are the way that they are until you see them demonstrated or explained. Blindly following a rule is just a common thing in the civilized world, funny enough. This kind of reminding me how people forget about component pouches despite how amazing they are. Instance of people thinking mechanically and not descriptively ig?
If anything, DnD undersells ranged disadvantage. Real-life policing (at least in the States) always teaches something called the "21-Foot Rule" - if an assailant is charging you with a weapon, they can close a distance of up to 21 feet and attack you in the time it takes you to draw a firearm and get off an accurate shot. And that's with a handgun that's pre-loaded, and can be drawn and aimed in one motion. It would only be more extreme with something like a bow, where you need to get an arrow, nock it on the string and pull back, all in sequence. Doing any of that is made even more challenging when a dude is already in swordin' range of you, ready to run you through the moment you reach for the quiver.
It is pretty close honestly. The issue stems from people thinking someone stands static in the middle of their given 5 feet. I would say if you stood static you lose AC value for being a moron.
1. That’s actually an appropriate sword-fighting range. Far enough to avoid attacks, close enough to step in for your own. 2. 6 seconds is the entire round of combat, not each individual turn. That means defending from attacks and using your reaction are also things you do in that time frame.
1. They stood at the furthest points, this makes them technically 10ft apart, or on the border of it. You can't possibly be at the opposite corner of your square from every enemy you're engaged to. When it comes to 5 feet it generally assumes you're at the "center", if they stand at that distance it's much too close for realistic swordplay. But I digress, tis'but a game and I suppose they're aiming for simplicity and ease of access not realism (D&D has magic after all). 2. 6 seconds is an agonizingly long amount of time, especially for what should be essentially super hero level people. Given their prowess with weaponry and magic they should be able to accomplish far more in a mere 6 second interval. But again, ease of access vs realism. Personally I don't like D&D, but that's mainly because it focuses on combat so hard. I prefer survival games where resources are scarce, half your inventory is crap you made, where you die to mortal wounds quickly (if I get smashed over the head with a sledgehammer, fall hundreds of feet or feet disemboweled I should die on the spot) and I prefer roleplay and problem solving over sitting on a grid trading blows as the main mechanic and form of conflict. It's fun one or twice, but it gets stale pretty quick for me. I need a little more substance to the game to have prolonged enjoyment. But hey that's just my 2 cents and a rant.
@@asthmeresivolisk3129 I mean yes for general purposes at any given point it’s assumed you’re in the center of the square. But it’s quite explicitly stated you’re allowed to exist anywhere within that square. Otherwise you’d have to constantly bend at the hip and lean over to interact with anything on the edges of your square which would be stupid. And you’d never be allowed to walk up next to a wall. I feel like you’re being a bit overly pedantic on the assumption you’re ALWAYS in the center of the square. They have full freedom during that round to move around the square as need be. Which would include stepping into and out of measure of their opponent as would take place in an actual sword fight.
@@noobgoestrapping5084 I wasn't saying you're always at the center, but I can understand why you'd think that since I'm not the best at explaining. What i was trying to get across is, say you are being attacked by opponents from all 4 adjacent squares (north, south, east and west for simplicity sake we'll leave out the diagonal ones). Now let's say you are standing at the corner furthest from the foe in the square to your north and they in turn are standing in the corner of their square first from you. Alright, more you have the situation in the video, but now let's look at the person to your south, by design you're standing in the corner closest to theirs, so even if they stand in the furthest corner from you, you'll both be at the same range as if you were both standing at the centers of your respective squares. With East and west your opponents are also at varying distances. I felt the video was a bit disingenuous with the assertion you'd always be that far from the opponent, or that such a positioning would be normal. Likewise, I also wanted to point out that in a fight, you're constantly in motion. Perhaps when holding a defensive stance slowly circling your opponent looking for an opening and anticipating an initial attack you'll likely be holding a static distance from your opponent, if you're lucky enough not to be in a skirmish. But in the throes of an engagement things get quite hectic, so you'd be all over the place in your square, thus if we took an average of you position in the square you occupy over the duration of the conflict, you're average position would likely be around the center. That's all i'm trying to say o3o
@@asthmeresivolisk3129 I mean the only issue I took with it is that you seem to be under the impression this was done in poor taste or attempted to demonstrate more realism than it was. It was purely an attempt to show that DND rules do have a more or less realistic background to them that on average makes sense. 10’ squared is a perfectly reasonable sized expected area of combat between two people. And 5’ squared is typically what an average person can “control” in their immediate area. And yes, if you’re surrounded on all sides you’re clearly going to be closer. But let’s extend that. If you were facing off vs multiple opponents in real life, and they had you surrounded…you’re equally as fucked. Cause in game people behind you get backstabs, attacks of opportunity, etc. it’s accounted for generally speaking. So the spacing still maintains realistic sense on the whole. And no, it’s not as realistic as literal real life combat. But it has enough to be reasonable with regards to distance. Yes, IRL you’re likely circling each other, backpedaling and advancing forward. But you regardless you’ll stay in that general 10’ area. The 10’ area will move around a bit, but that’s *usually* irrelevant. My only point is that there’s clearly no attempt to be disingenuous here, and even the rules themselves, as fanciful as they might be, hold a surprising amount of real world realism to them. Despite the obvious many flaws.
@@noobgoestrapping5084 I agree with your assertions. I was a little too zealous in my approach. You are correct, D&D is just trying its best to emulate real life combat using the tools it has chosen for the task. And while not perfect, honestly that'd be impossible anyways, its rules reflect a level of realism that shows the effort and knowledge of its creators. I just get overly upset when I see misconceptions in popular media, like people thinking that shields aren't weapons, or that swords are heavy or that swords have any effect on someone in plate armor or... well you get the point lol. Perhaps I should tune down my indignation and chillax.
The end had the vibe of two kids hitting each other and constantly saying "you punched me way harder then I punched you. This is how hard you punched me"
Have you seen some the antics that Sam does on Critical Role for THEIR sponsors?! This is TAME!!! Let me clarify though that I am NOT saying either is a better thing than the other, both are GREAT!!!
Among many other reasons. Not injuring yourself or others on accident is another good reason. But yes spinning, outside of video games where you can spin at the speed of light which also grant i-frames and hitstun, is a very not good idea. I don't think most people would like the additional debuffs granted by hitstun in real life, like bleeding out, infection and burning pain. Another problem with spinning is you take your eyes off your opponent for a brief moment when doing so. With your eyes off your opponent 2 issues arise. 1 you can't tell what they're doing, and many actions with a weapon can be performed in mere milliseconds, so it's not exactly a good thing. But not only have you lost track of your opponent's actions, but you also can't aim your spinning attack because they're out of view until you turn back around and by that point you're basically just about to land the hit. Unfortunately you have too little time to react to the visual information you are now recieving and will likely either whiff entirely, hit an armored part of your opponent, swing at an angle that lacks edge alignment so your attack glances harmlessly of instead of hitting or you freak out and lose your balance. If you manage to get the luck of the gods you will land a hit with massive centripetal force, but swords are more about drawing a cut than chopping. You want to chop into someone, then use an axe, but good luck landing a spin attack with a dammed axe, you have even less range than a sword and if you miss you have even more inertia to fight due to the weighted head. BUT DAMN IF IT AIN'T FLASHY!
@@drsunshineaod2023 you'd probably make yourself dizzy, and your opponent would think you've lost your mind. But, you have to admit, at least you got to be a human beyblade.
I think the reason you can only make one attack per 6 seconds as a level one is because readying for an attack can leave your guard open. It takes a skilled combatant to be able to attack multiple times without worrying about a counterattack.
I always thought of it as the characters are constantly going back and forth, however every 6 seconds a more decisive or "purposeful" blow is struck if that makes sense? Which is why if you aren't defending yourself (running away, trying to grab, picking something up) people get to stab you for free. Because you aren't blocking.
@@Max_G4 I think I already explained it. I haven’t seen nor participated in a game of D&D. So, what he is referencing is stuff for which I lack a point of reference, therefore I am not all that sure what he is talking about. All the same, I really enjoyed it.
It wasn't until I actually started participating in the SCA until I understood exactly how hard it was to swing at someone more than once in 6 seconds. Yeah you can just wave the stick and hope but you'll lose almost every time. Landing 2 hits accurately and effectively in a short span of time is hard. Honestly there's been lots of good videos where people break down combat and how it would translate front the table top and this is just a few guys in their backyard with little practical experience taking guesses.
Excuses?! I am a grown ass man, and no longer require excuses to have fun. Yeah, these are my G.I. Joes what of it? Shouldn't play with them because I am 30? NONSENSE.
Having actually used two weapons during LARPs, I will say it's really difficult as you have to keep aware of both hands at the same time, generally one is facing the ground in order to block, and the other is used to attack.
so today we learned that dnd rules makes sense and Jacob has to read again the basic rules of attacking(6 seconds are not expended in one sword swing, but in battle that results in an attack contested by the targets AC)
also, 1 players turn isnt 6 seconds, the whole round is also also, 2 people CAN move at the same time, the whole round happens within 6 seconds, so everyones actions play out at the same time, its just that, its a game, with turns, and rules and shit. the mechanics arent a 1 to 1 representation of whats happening, suspension of disbelief.
@@thisscreensucks The movement does not happen at the same time in D&D, due to it being turn based. It should be abstracted as such but in certain situations, that is impossible. Let's say you walk to someone 30ft away and hit them with a sword. In the same turn they disengage and move 30ft away. If movement happened at the same time though, by the time you moved 30ft, they would have moved 30ft as well. As they wouldn't have needed to disengage, they would dash, so you would never reach them.
That and the swings he did to show a fighter swinging 8 times and saying its easy were really off, a fake plastic sword, each swing was swung with zero force which is why its impressive to swing 8 times in a round because swinging a heavy sword with enough strength to deal damage 8 times in 6 seconds is impressive.
The 5ft square, according to 3.5e isn't how much space a creature takes up, but rather how much they can easily control. I think you both demonstrated that pretty well, as well as showing how your characters are actually meant to be moving about in that 5ft square in order to get better positioning to dodge and attack.
Immediately when I saw this video I was thinking “yeah, this is just another excuse for Jacob to play with plastic swords with his friends” and I was so excited!
I like to believe that the reason you get so few attacks isn’t that that’s how many times you swing your weapon, but rather how many times you get an opening between parried blows.
You're also not just attacking, you're also moving, using bonus actions, and casually taking in your surroundings. And keep in mind, it's not your turn that is 6 seconds, it's the entire round... each turn doesn't start at the same time, those with higher initiative literally start sooner. That's not to say that an initiative with 6 combatants results in each combatant's turn being 1 second long... rather, some of your turn will happen concurrently with others, even if they didn't announce their actions until after you made your decisions.
Up to, I think, 3e, this was much more explicit. Rolling for an attack wasn't swinging your weapon once, it represented 6 seconds of swordplay, and whether you came out of it on top. No one really treated it like that though, so it's gotten a bit handwavier in the last decade.
@atombrain111 Every game system is flawed in some way. Dungeon World is heavily dependent upon the GM and players being great at improvisation, and most people are not very good at it. That causes the game to stall while the player/GM tries to figure out how to react to whatever just happened or decide what is going to happen next. Dungeon World is a game for story-tellers, and sadly, most D&D players aren't.
I always pictured combat as fluid and continuous, you making the attack action is your character seeing an opportunity during the constant fighting to land a blow and taking it, higher levels fighters get more because they're more skilled at melee combat and as such, they create more openings.
That is pretty accurate to one on one dueling. Lots of fencing and positioning, then step in and make an intentional strike, possible block, parry, dodge, counterstrike, then back to fencing. Intentional combination strikes (extra attack) take training
My friends and I had the same questions in the late 90s and early 2000s when we started playing D&D. RUclips wasn't around, so we went outside and did this exact same thing.
The thing I hear a lot of people asking "why do I have to be 5 feet away from my ally, why can't we willingly share a 5 foot square?" You see Jacob singing that sword around? Imagine he's 2 foot taller and the sword is Jacob sized... You wanna get within 5 feet of your own ally?! Fucker probably doesn't even realise you're there! (what with trying to fight for their life and all)
Yeah, people asking this question often don't realise an "occupied space" doesn't mean the creature fill the whole cube and there's no room, it means this space is dangerous to stay in, or teleport into, during combat because *someone is currently doing combat maneuvers* in there. You don't want to be in that area and they don't want to have their movements impaired by you. Also, because if you share a space, that makes it more likely for one of you to take an enemy blade swung in that general area. Whenever someone really wants to share a space with an ally, instead of forbidding it I just rule that both players will have disadvantage on attacks, and any attack missing one creature in that space will be then roll to see if it hits the other. They stop trying that shit very quickly.
@@bouboulroz hope you take size difference into account. I'd let a dex based small humanoid and a large humanoid occupy semi-freely. Probably lock their "orientation" though
@@NoConsequenc3 Why would I ? If the opponent sees two target next to each other, they will obviously take advantage on the limited space the two targets have to share. And combat maneuvers aren't something you can do that easily in such a tight space without each person limiting their range of movement, at least not in a real combat situation. Besides, I'm already allowing something I don't have to. People shouldn't see this as an oportunity to ask for more. When I give you a hand, I have no intention of letting you take the whole arm.
@@bouboulroz because if I have to swing *up* at the guy who's eight feet tall, that attack has no chance of hitting the guy *below me* who's only 3 feet tall.
@@nicholascarter9158 You have to move your legs accordingly to make such a swing. You also limit yourself to horizontal strikes, meaning your opponent has an easier time to read your moves. If your opponent parry your blade downward, you can still hurt your friend. This isn't as easy as you make it sound.
As someone who spent a few hours of my adolescence contemplating how DnD combat translated into something realistic, I concluded that much of what occurs in melee is feints, dodges, parries etc, and in any given turn only one real serious attack move. I also concluded that in stylized fantasy melee combat, some hit point losses would be attributed to fatigue and exhaustion of fending off aggravated attacks rather than an actual strike landed on a character's person. A 20th level fighter will be slain by a stab in the belly, or a hammer blow to the head as quickly as a zero level NPC. However the 20th level fighter has plenty of ways to neutralise plenty of attacks, but expends hit points fending off some of the better ones that don't strike their intended blow. When you visualise it this way, its a lot less stupid.
I believe it's canon that hp is a measurement of exhaustion, ability to fight and tiny injuries wearing a combatant down, rather than just how durable their body is.
As a HEMA nerd, that is how I envision it as well. It's a combination of endurance, subconscious reaction time, and dumb luck. Plenty of time in sparring I'll parry or divert something without any conscious action or plan. Several years of training makes that automatic, but rely on that too long and it will fail you. Every time I fail to see an attack coming and my sword just happens to be in the way, that's just luck, and eventually luck runs out. HP = luck points plus stamina in my book.
@@isaacmiller3386 this would be a great way to explain why charactes dont just die when their hp reaches 0, they arent dead, they are incapacitated and cant fight anymore
@@timothym9398 the pain of feeling you are doing quite well then sudenly you feel your head being pushed nack by the nearly invisible thrust to your face the mask plus the thin profile of the blades makes it trully hard to see thrusts coming
I imagine the 1 attack per round as the one option you get to actually break through someone's defense. The whole six seconds you're moving, making lunges, feints, dodges, but mostly you'll get blocked or parried, or you'll be kinda busy not to get hit. More skilled you get, more attacks have chance to go through, even though you're probably making the same ammount of strikes
To be fair, an "attack" action doesn't mean "one strike." I usually flavor even single attacks as multiple hits or maneuvers. Even if it's only one hit, you can flavour it as a clash of swords and have only one of your swings make contact.
yeah, I tend to flavor AC as attacks being 'ineffective' rather than misses. So If you hit a person with heavy armor, you do hit them but it bounces off.
The best explaination of what's happening during combat is actually in the old AD&D (1e) DMG on page 61. "During a ... melee round many attacks are made, but some are mere feints, while some are blocked or parried. One, or possibly several, have the chance to actually score damage. For such chances, the dice are rolled, and if the"to hit" number is equalled or exceeded, the attack was successful, but otherwise it too was avoided, blocked, parried, or whatever." Basicially, the idea is that the whole 6 seconds is not one swing then wait. Instead, it's dueling, dancing around, cut and thrust, parry and riposte etc. During all of that, a 1st level can spot 1 opening in the enemy's defenses to attempt to land the hit. A high level fighter is much better at finding or creating a momentary break in the defense and has more than one opportunity to try for a hit. Watch an olympic fencing match and you will see a lot of action between hits.
Colton’s out here making videos too, go check out his channel: ruclips.net/video/y95V6-rztuM/видео.html
Are you using the shove action to move us towards his channel?
Watch shadiversity's dnd combat video
Thanks for the reminder, I wanted to check out his channel already 👍
I would love to see Spencer do an impression of a Robyn song with D&D lyrics. She has the haircut for it.
"I'm in the woods now watching you crit her oohoohooh. I'm far away **misty steps** yet so near. I keep stealthing on my own."
Jacob, i Hope you are alright and whatever crunched your voice was worth it. Get better soon, Love your Vids. Stay healthy!! Greetings From Germany
His vocal cords are making death saving throws.
Yeah, hope he's alright.
Don't you mean "failing"? lol
He's failed 2 of them
Hit finally hit puberty
Must have played as his wizard the day before.
Mom, come pick me up, please. Jacob and Colton are arguing over DnD again and they're shoving each other in the yard.
this is the funniest comment on this video, hands down.
One thing! Just one thing! Please tell IT to me: WHY tf do I have so many fans even though no RUclipsr is unprettier than I am? WORLDWIDE!!!! WHY??? Tell me, dear sov
gave me a hard chuckle there ngl 🤣
Um, sorry hun, Mommy needs her... courage potion.... *glugs on Hennessy*
I read this after they did that and I lightly exhaled, good joke
I like jacob has moments in this were he genuinely realizes why something is the way it is.
If he’d backed up a little more he would have seen why ranged attacks are at disadvantage against a prone opponent
@@DanKaschel The funny thing is he didn't even need to do that! XD
It's only because he's not trained combatant, what a lvl1 fighter should be
He's a hands-on learner
1:28 😲 _Ooooooooh!_
"Why am I at disadvantage? This is just as easy." "You missed." "SHUT UP!"
We get a real life example of a ranged attack roll at disadvantage!
I mean.... attacks at adv can still miss
Ender Wiggin: The enemy’s gate is down. Give them no body to target.
D&D DM: Okay, all enemies have Disadvantage to hit you, and your bent legs count as half cover.
This channel: “It’s just as easy!” _Miss_
Him swinging 8 times in a row just to have every single one of them blocked by a stationary arm is exactly why it takes a level 20 Fighter to actually have any chance to hit all of them.
It problably wouldn't be hard to block a sword of a new person with a shield if they don't know what they are doing. Or if you are experienced, parrying a sword from an inexperienced person.
@@kyle18934 that's where the proficiency bonus comes in with high levels
@@nyanbrox5418 yeah, I wouldn't want to play wack'o mole with a person experienced with a sword lol.
Who said anything about successfully hitting? You can't even try!
@@kyle18934 You simply kill an inexperienced person as an experienced sword fighter. This idea of block and attack as disrinct separate actions is an games idea.
Headcannon: They didn't record more because they didn't wanna measure out the squares again
Thats probably right
Lol
100%
I was just thinking that, hard agree
That checks out. Soon as I saw one of the pieces of tape stuck to Jacob's shoe, I was like, "Oh, it's over. They're just gonna close out shoving."
"You missed"
"Shut up!"
Yeah, I also think that Vicious Mockery is the better choice there.
this comment made me lose it
@@sunnyextraordinaire5065 I hope it wasn't anything important. I'll help you find it!
@@janelantestaverde2018 you're killing me
@@YooranKujara oh please, don't be a baby. Words aren't capable of killing healthy adult humans...
@@YooranKujara Well, I guess you failed your wisdom save then.
Wow d&d got so popular that they turned weapons into a real thing
ikr
And this is the greatest comment
Thank you for this comment xD
Holy shit, this comment is gold hahahah
Next thing you know they'll invent horses
I will always appreciate people demonstrating things in their gardens.
The 'oh THAT'S why I have disadvantage' moments were great :D
Oh, hi Jill 👋
*About to drop a fond mockery of two DnD experts demonstrating their martial prowess.* - "Oh - there is my favorite movie fight analyst appreciating it too :D."
Love your channel Jill.
Jill! Pleased to see you here.
Their swordsmanship might need work, but they've got the spirit!
So this is how I found Jill. I blame Jacob.
I like how the "disengage" is literally that. Just bolting mid fight
“Disengage”, also known as “Noping the fuck outta there” 🤣
NIGERUNDAYO!!!
Ah yes, the ancient Joestar technique
Mom: "That's enough D&D, go do something outside."
XP to Level 3:
Facts
One of my friends and I used to do this kind of stuff outside when the weather allowed for it!
Player: Can we have D&D in real life?
DM: You can have D&D at home.
XP to Level 3:
"How is this disadvataged?"
Shoots
"You missed"
"Shut up!"
"... I never claimed to have a *good* attack bonus"
To be honest, I don't really like that rule. The video would suggest it makes sense, but if we assume the ranged attacker is well-trained with their weapon, it just stops making sense at all. Yes, the area that can be targeted is smaller when the guy lies on the floor. But he can no longer defend himself, he can no longer move or use a shield to block them.
Then, we need to take into account, that in a fantasy RPG like DnD, there are a lot more creatures to fight, not just humans and other humanoids. And if we look at bigger creatures like giants, dragons or even just dire wolves or owlbears, if they are prone, they still provide a bigger area to target than a standing human - who, again, can limit the areas he truly is vulnerable to arrows even more by using a shield.
And then there are creatures which basicially always are the same regardless of whether they are subject to the prone condition or not, such as snakes and snake-like monsters. Knocking them prone doesn't make it more difficult to hit them.
And then there is the Sharpshooter feat. A longbow-wielding archer with Sharpshooter can accurately snipe a gnat behind three-quarters cover from 600 feet away, so they should be competent enough to not have disadvantage on attacking a prone creature - basicially the only thing prone does to a ranged attacker is providing them a smaller area to target.
@@arthilas_
Disadvantage on average is a -3 to hit (Based on devs). So you are absolutely right, a well trained archer should still hit despite the person being prone.
As for the monsters, remember this is a game. The devs were trying to streamline a lot to make D&D more accessible. So yeah, there are some oddities. Talk to your DM, a reasonable one should be like "Yeah, the behir is prone. but it is still a fair shot due to it's size".
And no, a Dex 20 with sharp shooter cannot hit a gnat from 600ft. It would have a +20 to ac due to it's size and random movement, especially at 600ft. A reasonable DM would be like, "by the time your arrow reaches the gnat, at 600ft out, its erratic movement made it leave your arrows destination" (btw, it takes several second for an arrow to cover that distance.
I... think he missed on purpose... he raised the gun in the last second...
@@Tatsuyagold
Or doesn't know how to shoot a gun. Missed that he did that. XD
"So another one people don't understand you have disadvantage when you're right here-"
*Lifts gun from 5ft only to have sword smack his hand away*
"Oh that's a valid point."
Especially if you have to nock and fire an arrow while having it out in front of you. It seems easy enough to push it aside or seems difficult to aim at a slightly mobile target when you're possibly 2 feet from somebody. Then there are guns...
Well... you'd expect someone trained with guns... to keep the gun next to their body... not stretched out in front of it.
(when you see cops on TV, sneak around with a gun out, they usually are doing it wrong - holding it out in front of them, making disarming easier and aiming slower)
@@cyryl3827 don't you have to take a proper stance to shoot, I heard that shooting a gun close to your body might end up hurting you cus of the knock back?
@@cyryl3827 recoil
@@Entropy67 You keep it at your side. Yes, if you know there isn't anyone who could take it out of your hands nearby, you will want to extend them forward, since your aim will be better... but when there are hostiles nearby, or you are in an area where hostiles could be around the corner, you keep the gun at your side.
Or that's what a military dude at the shooting range explained to me at least. (one of the instructors)
This makes me wish that "Mythbusters" had done a Dungeons and Dragons episode.
That woukdve been the mast amazing thing! Aw man, I miss that show, Netflix has a season of White rabbit but I don't thing it'll be continued
@@acorneroftheinternet4179 probably not since grant died :(
"Coming up...
Were testing which problems can ACTUALLY be fixed... with Fireball!"
@@WillTBear1 Adam: ALL OF THEM
will eating alien plants kill you in 1d4 minutes?!?>!?!?
Anyone can use two weapons, but using two weapons EFFECTIVELY is another thing entirely
They are holding two toys. In the hands of a trained sword fighters these toys would be a weapon. You have to have the muscle reflexes and actual training to use it.
Yeah, you could even tell that he (despite not being a trained fighter) was still able to use the one weapon much more effectively than he could 2 weapons. Your skill gets better as a trained fighter, but the two weapons are still harder to use as effectively as just one. That's why people who are actually trained in weapon fighting and demonstrate it, will still just use one weapon.
Yeah. I've seen too many dumb dual-wielding sword videos in the past where the user hurts themselves because they didn't realize how difficult it is to constant keep track of 2 blades at once, let alone even one.
There's a reason why anyone with even a passing knowledge of sword fighting puts their free hand behind their back or on their hip when using one sword, and it isn't entirely so the other person can't hit them.
Using two swords effectively is extremely challenging indeed. However it pales in comparison to other options.
Option 1, wielding 2 weapons of different types. At least in this configuration you have 2 weapons that perform distinct tasks. The most common combo is spear and shield (yes the shield is a WEAPON) you can block offensive options from your opponent, conceal your strikes (given the right type of shield), bash and throat chop anyone foolish enough to get too close and much more.
Another option is fighting with sword and dagger. Because the dagger is way shorter than the sword you don't have the issue of both your weapons getting caught on each other. The dagger can act as a blocking tool, but obviously the shield is a more effective option. The one thing it excels at is if you grapple and wrest an armored foe the ground you can use the dagger to stab at the weak points on the design, such as the under arms and between the plates. Half swording gets a similar result but the dagger is nice to have at hand.
Of course the penultimate option was just 2 handing a longsword in full plate armor. Due to its defensive ability 2 handing a long sword or equivalent gives you significantly more leverage and power. Ofc why use a longsword when you could use the superior reach and versitility of a polearm. By this point I hope you can see that while dual wielding swords seems flashy and cool it's infinitely worse than other, far more practical options. Options I should mind you that are way more effective and versatile and much easier to be effective with. Hypothetically you'd need 20 times the skill to be proficient with dual blades as to using a polearm for a fraction of the utility, reach and power you get from the polearm. And that's assuming both users have no armor. Put armor in the mix and the dual swordsman's only hope is to get his opponent on the ground to stab them in the weak points. All their dual blade techniques aren't worth squat against full plate, or even chainmail or heck even against the humble gambeson.
And no, you don't "get more attacks" with 2 swords. A single blade can be deftly command to deliver a bevy of swift, precise strikes. Many of which you can't perform effectively unless you have both hands on the sword.
I think real life dualwielding was more of a rapier + dagger technique not 2 swords that are the same haha.
This was just an excuse to have two grown men play fight in the backyard
Heck yeah it was!
Like they needed an excuse.
where were the grown men?
A better excuse: just join a LARP group. It is legit so much fun.
yes indeed
and it was beawtyfull
We must show this to shadiversity or skallagrim to give the PAIN
You read my exacts thoughts
Please don't show this to Shad, he'll make a 30 minute rant about REALISM again. Skall is fair game, he's chill.
@@Mongward Id say Skall (or actually his fans) are much worse.
@@Mongward I'd love 30 mins of shad or skall talkong about it
@@theanomaly3463 I wouldn't know, I rarely delve into Skall comment sections, but I do like Skall's chill, (and sarcastic) manner. Same goes to Metatron's and Matt Easton's channels.
Shad is way too prone to AngryJoe rants for me to enjoy his content anymore, which is a damn shame, because I really used to like his videos. I'm sure it drives engagement and memes, but it's just not for me anymore.
Mythbusters new Season looking real nice
Great Value Adam and Tori energy
my first impressions honestly
Even with the budget cuts
Was very satisfying to see 999 go up to 1k likes
Call it DiceBusters
Colton: You shove like this!
Jacob: No! You shove like this!
Grim Hollow: Money well spent.
hahhh
I honestly can't tell if this is meant to be comedy skits to prove a point or if Jacob is just discovering martial combat and it's fine details for the first time.
For real. It really does read as someone not knowing what the hell they're talking about though, that's for sure.
I think it's just kinda fun for its own sake.
Like: maybe someone will learn something.
Maybe.
Yea. As someone who's done historical martial arts for a while, people would be surprised just how much of a fight takes place at a reasonable distance. It's not like movies where people are just rushing and hacking at each other.
The rules are purposefully abstracted. One attack dosent equal one literal swing. An attack is the "telling blow"
@@thothamon9046 you mean rolling dice isn't directly equivalent to stabbing some in the jugular?! What insightful commentary you have given us that comes from the first few pages of the source books. In all seriousness, most people know HP =\= meat points and that the death of the situational modifier in 5e are abstractions used to create simplicity.
This video is 3 minutes of Jacob rapidly realizing why the rules are the way they are
This was already playtested in 2014 at Chris Perkins's backyard.
@@commandercaptain4664 is there a Sause or are you saying this was as they were making the game?
This video was 3 minutes of me realizing why I need cardio in my life.
Except he didn’t seem to realize the rules are abstractions. Of course an attack isn’t just one strike. Maybe its a combo of attacks.
@@MrGenerichead that was one of my first thoughts. The action isn't called a "strike," it's an attack, which could involve a variety of movements before making a connection.
This is the most "hi, I'm 13, and I'm just hanging with the boys after school while waiting for 5pm dinner" energy I have seen in so long.
People eat dinner at 5pm?
Damn I really do eat late, my dinner is usually at 8-9pm.
@@Halomanx540 its mostly for going to sleep at 8 and waking up at 4..😐😣
Kind of miss playing out in the back garden like that. Where's the energy gone? The imagination? Getting older is shit.
@@Halomanx540 more so you did this back then and not now lmao
@@Halomanx540 it also helps your digestive system to digest if you eat earlier because if you eat later then go to lay down an hour later you’re still digesting which makes it harder for your body to digest and go to sleep at the same time.
"And then there's the shove action that you can do with a shield"
**immediately shield bashes skull open**
"How does the grass taste little man?" - look it up if you have not seen that larp clip, dude had to have given the other guy a concussion, he got dropped like a sack of potatoes in a single shield bash. Shield bash is broken IRL.
There's a reason the shield bash exists. The shield is as much a weapon as it is armor. Blunt force was usually a better option against armored opponents than blades.
John Walker?
The way I always pictured melee combat in D&D, you're actually fighting at roughly the same speed at all levels, but the more skilled your character is, the better they are at creating and spotting opennings in their opponent's defence. So each of your attacks represents an opportunity to land a hit on the enemy in continuous combat.
exactly. its not about getting one attack at first leve, but one attack that even has chance, whereas the level 20 fighter has a bunch of more attacks in the same time that will go through.
Yes! You are constantly moving, lunging and dodging. And the more skilled you are and more used to combat the easier it is to create openings to attack and predict enemies movement. So yes I agree 100%
I always pictured it as just real sword fighting tbh. You attack WITHIN 5 not AT 5 feet, giving you the proper room to preform foot work. A beginner might only know how to only make a proper swing once, but when getting into advanced techniques you learn how to combine attacks together fluently just like in HEMA for example. If you "miss" with a role you probably didn't miss but rather your attack was parried, which shifts the flow of combat to the enemy, (AKA it's there turn now.) I think it all flows pretty good when you sit and think about it, super interesting.
Same for me.
Not at all accurate
I learned a lot, thank you for this.
He, next time you're playing with fantasy or Sci-Fi painted minis, think about the power, fatigue and skill a "real" hero would need to make incredible feats! ^^
Or attack the villain with an airbrush, it's quick, surprising and efficient ;-)
I heard this.
I reccomend you check out hema to get an idea of engagement distances
The crossover I never knew I needed!
You really do if you step back. Makes it easier in my head to play out our groups encounters! Plus he's funny af 🥰🥳
The "that's a fair point"s killed me.
I had to pause to laugh for a good minute xD
Mythbusters just got real.
The one attack per 6 seconds is the idea that you’re parrying and looking for an opportunity constantly, but you only get one good attack about every 6 seconds on average, but some well trained characters of certain classes can find more opportunities.
That's how I made sense of it as well. Nicely put
Yes, thank you for this, some people just don't get it. My DM in a game similar to DnD told me how they actually measured the time it takes you to swing a sword and that you should manage much more often in a round. So bizarre...
Yeah I would also add that swinging an actual sword requires much more time than what's displayed in this video as well.
@@TAKLProductions Swords are not that heavy. You can search for hema if you want to see how fast attacks with a sword can be.
@@Terrkas0 well compared to two plastic play swords... bouncing off of other swords, armor, pulling it out of flesh, regaining stance etc.
Grim Hollow must be like:
“Let's see what that smart RUclipsr we're sponsoring is doing with our money."
Getting just about 225K views in about a day! I don't think they really care how goofy they are as long as they get the clicks!
Also NEVER CHANGE JACOB WE LOVE THE GOOFY!!!
That tape doesn't buy itself.
Grim Hollow: Now with tape!
Imagine LARP'ing and covering the entire ground with 5' squares.
This would quickly devolve into human chess and would STILL be a well spent afternoon.
so just
irl fire emblem
@@kcwjunior1AceAttourny FIRLmblem.
Gonna be honest, that would make larping more appealing to me. I think. Maybe, dunno never have been, probably never will.
RL fire emblem sounds fun though.
Hexes > squares
"This is just as easy"
"You missed"
That's what i call a Dunning Kruger short.
Not really, Jacob realised his error. A DKer wouldn't.
this video give off big 2009 youtube vibes
And that was awesome!
I miss it so much.
Back when RUclips didn't have to tryhard. Now everyone has paid graFX titles and ringlights.
I’m watching 2 fully grown men fight with toys in their back garden but dear god do I respect them for it o7.
Yeah, but they do it for science purposes lol
@@danielllorcaguerra5774 ofc, I have more respect for these two and their camera man than Einstein, Neuton and Nobel combined
- Professor, what would happen if we used 100% of our brain capacity?
- Well... *shows this video*
If this is 100% of brain capacity, that's fucking sad.
@@chrisallen9638 well. 'using' 100% of brain capacity is an epileptic seizure, so...
*Lucy and Tetsuo take copious notes*
The true victim of this episode was the tape squares.
Mabye the true victims where the friends we made along the way?
"oooo what cha saaaaay" 🎵
That t shirt was the true victim. Poor fella.
Yeah, rip.
*In D&D combat I always imagined that the 5FT range was a way to keep melee ranges consistent between different length weapons for simplicity but also because people don't stand and swing in real battles. You step towards what you want to hit and swing and then back away to safety.*
I mean you pretty much got the idea. As you can see in those adjacent 5 foot squares both people are within measure(can hit each other).
But at the back of the squares neither person is in real measure of one another.
In real combat of course there will be quite the dance of one person aggressing, and the other retreating out of measure and back and forth. But on the whole they should more or less be roughly within the 10 total feet of each other during the skirmish.
What a bold statement
That moment Jacob realizes why you have disadvantage in melee with a ranged weapon is so pure :)
I mean, the fact that he didn't understand it before just goes to show how much effort goes into his thinking.
@@chrisallen9638 I didn't think of it in-depth either. I just thought of it as" Ok, this is the rule". And Im sure close to nobody fires within 5ft without the crossbow expert feat. Sometimes you just don't think about why things are the way that they are until you see them demonstrated or explained. Blindly following a rule is just a common thing in the civilized world, funny enough. This kind of reminding me how people forget about component pouches despite how amazing they are. Instance of people thinking mechanically and not descriptively ig?
If anything, DnD undersells ranged disadvantage. Real-life policing (at least in the States) always teaches something called the "21-Foot Rule" - if an assailant is charging you with a weapon, they can close a distance of up to 21 feet and attack you in the time it takes you to draw a firearm and get off an accurate shot. And that's with a handgun that's pre-loaded, and can be drawn and aimed in one motion. It would only be more extreme with something like a bow, where you need to get an arrow, nock it on the string and pull back, all in sequence. Doing any of that is made even more challenging when a dude is already in swordin' range of you, ready to run you through the moment you reach for the quiver.
"You missed"
"Shut up."
I'M WHEEZING
The last example is the perfect personification of the barbarian using rage.
If anything, you’re proving DND combat is right.
It is pretty close honestly. The issue stems from people thinking someone stands static in the middle of their given 5 feet. I would say if you stood static you lose AC value for being a moron.
1. That’s actually an appropriate sword-fighting range. Far enough to avoid attacks, close enough to step in for your own.
2. 6 seconds is the entire round of combat, not each individual turn. That means defending from attacks and using your reaction are also things you do in that time frame.
1. They stood at the furthest points, this makes them technically 10ft apart, or on the border of it. You can't possibly be at the opposite corner of your square from every enemy you're engaged to. When it comes to 5 feet it generally assumes you're at the "center", if they stand at that distance it's much too close for realistic swordplay. But I digress, tis'but a game and I suppose they're aiming for simplicity and ease of access not realism (D&D has magic after all).
2. 6 seconds is an agonizingly long amount of time, especially for what should be essentially super hero level people. Given their prowess with weaponry and magic they should be able to accomplish far more in a mere 6 second interval. But again, ease of access vs realism.
Personally I don't like D&D, but that's mainly because it focuses on combat so hard. I prefer survival games where resources are scarce, half your inventory is crap you made, where you die to mortal wounds quickly (if I get smashed over the head with a sledgehammer, fall hundreds of feet or feet disemboweled I should die on the spot) and I prefer roleplay and problem solving over sitting on a grid trading blows as the main mechanic and form of conflict. It's fun one or twice, but it gets stale pretty quick for me. I need a little more substance to the game to have prolonged enjoyment. But hey that's just my 2 cents and a rant.
@@asthmeresivolisk3129 I mean yes for general purposes at any given point it’s assumed you’re in the center of the square. But it’s quite explicitly stated you’re allowed to exist anywhere within that square. Otherwise you’d have to constantly bend at the hip and lean over to interact with anything on the edges of your square which would be stupid. And you’d never be allowed to walk up next to a wall.
I feel like you’re being a bit overly pedantic on the assumption you’re ALWAYS in the center of the square. They have full freedom during that round to move around the square as need be. Which would include stepping into and out of measure of their opponent as would take place in an actual sword fight.
@@noobgoestrapping5084 I wasn't saying you're always at the center, but I can understand why you'd think that since I'm not the best at explaining.
What i was trying to get across is, say you are being attacked by opponents from all 4 adjacent squares (north, south, east and west for simplicity sake we'll leave out the diagonal ones).
Now let's say you are standing at the corner furthest from the foe in the square to your north and they in turn are standing in the corner of their square first from you. Alright, more you have the situation in the video, but now let's look at the person to your south, by design you're standing in the corner closest to theirs, so even if they stand in the furthest corner from you, you'll both be at the same range as if you were both standing at the centers of your respective squares. With East and west your opponents are also at varying distances. I felt the video was a bit disingenuous with the assertion you'd always be that far from the opponent, or that such a positioning would be normal.
Likewise, I also wanted to point out that in a fight, you're constantly in motion. Perhaps when holding a defensive stance slowly circling your opponent looking for an opening and anticipating an initial attack you'll likely be holding a static distance from your opponent, if you're lucky enough not to be in a skirmish. But in the throes of an engagement things get quite hectic, so you'd be all over the place in your square, thus if we took an average of you position in the square you occupy over the duration of the conflict, you're average position would likely be around the center.
That's all i'm trying to say o3o
@@asthmeresivolisk3129 I mean the only issue I took with it is that you seem to be under the impression this was done in poor taste or attempted to demonstrate more realism than it was.
It was purely an attempt to show that DND rules do have a more or less realistic background to them that on average makes sense.
10’ squared is a perfectly reasonable sized expected area of combat between two people. And 5’ squared is typically what an average person can “control” in their immediate area.
And yes, if you’re surrounded on all sides you’re clearly going to be closer. But let’s extend that. If you were facing off vs multiple opponents in real life, and they had you surrounded…you’re equally as fucked. Cause in game people behind you get backstabs, attacks of opportunity, etc. it’s accounted for generally speaking. So the spacing still maintains realistic sense on the whole.
And no, it’s not as realistic as literal real life combat. But it has enough to be reasonable with regards to distance.
Yes, IRL you’re likely circling each other, backpedaling and advancing forward. But you regardless you’ll stay in that general 10’ area. The 10’ area will move around a bit, but that’s *usually* irrelevant.
My only point is that there’s clearly no attempt to be disingenuous here, and even the rules themselves, as fanciful as they might be, hold a surprising amount of real world realism to them. Despite the obvious many flaws.
@@noobgoestrapping5084 I agree with your assertions. I was a little too zealous in my approach.
You are correct, D&D is just trying its best to emulate real life combat using the tools it has chosen for the task. And while not perfect, honestly that'd be impossible anyways, its rules reflect a level of realism that shows the effort and knowledge of its creators.
I just get overly upset when I see misconceptions in popular media, like people thinking that shields aren't weapons, or that swords are heavy or that swords have any effect on someone in plate armor or... well you get the point lol. Perhaps I should tune down my indignation and chillax.
The end had the vibe of two kids hitting each other and constantly saying "you punched me way harder then I punched you. This is how hard you punched me"
"this is just as easy"
- "he missed"
"shut up"
I now imagine every DnD fight like this
I now believe that Jacob's characters shout "I AM TAKING THE DODGE ACTION!" when trying to be stealthy.
"This is JUST as easy. 🙄"
"You missed. 😐"
"Shut up. 😫"
* silence after shove battle*
Jacob: "This video was sponsored by Grim Ho..."
Me: "This video was SPONSORED? Someone was sponsoring this? "
Have you seen some the antics that Sam does on Critical Role for THEIR sponsors?! This is TAME!!!
Let me clarify though that I am NOT saying either is a better thing than the other, both are GREAT!!!
@@JacksonOwex I know, this was supposed to be a joke.
@@JacksonOwex WEEEEEEEEEEEE PLAY XP TO LEVEL THREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
Jacob been going thru them Marlboro packs
and the chicken nuggets.... all of them
2:55 - Jacob uses a bonus action to rage
1:00 So that's why sword experts say no spin attacks
Among many other reasons. Not injuring yourself or others on accident is another good reason. But yes spinning, outside of video games where you can spin at the speed of light which also grant i-frames and hitstun, is a very not good idea. I don't think most people would like the additional debuffs granted by hitstun in real life, like bleeding out, infection and burning pain.
Another problem with spinning is you take your eyes off your opponent for a brief moment when doing so. With your eyes off your opponent 2 issues arise. 1 you can't tell what they're doing, and many actions with a weapon can be performed in mere milliseconds, so it's not exactly a good thing. But not only have you lost track of your opponent's actions, but you also can't aim your spinning attack because they're out of view until you turn back around and by that point you're basically just about to land the hit. Unfortunately you have too little time to react to the visual information you are now recieving and will likely either whiff entirely, hit an armored part of your opponent, swing at an angle that lacks edge alignment so your attack glances harmlessly of instead of hitting or you freak out and lose your balance. If you manage to get the luck of the gods you will land a hit with massive centripetal force, but swords are more about drawing a cut than chopping. You want to chop into someone, then use an axe, but good luck landing a spin attack with a dammed axe, you have even less range than a sword and if you miss you have even more inertia to fight due to the weighted head.
BUT DAMN IF IT AIN'T FLASHY!
Spinning can have it's uses but it is extremely situational and require a very good perception of the battlefield.
@@asthmeresivolisk3129 Yeah but what if you spin around multiple times like a tornado???!
@@drsunshineaod2023 you'd probably make yourself dizzy, and your opponent would think you've lost your mind.
But, you have to admit, at least you got to be a human beyblade.
@Diego Palacios paiva What if you both spin and instead have a beyblade battle?
I think the reason you can only make one attack per 6 seconds as a level one is because readying for an attack can leave your guard open. It takes a skilled combatant to be able to attack multiple times without worrying about a counterattack.
"why do I need to spend six seconds go lik-"
**THWAP**
"... that's a fair point"
"Disengage as a bonus action" had me going 'no reaction attacks, I'm too fast it's a fact' in my mind. :D
The old Pocket Sand + runaway tactic
"This is just as easy!
*pop*
- You missed.
- Shut up!"
xD
1:18
I keep coming back just to watch the "Oh, its because you can hit the weapon~" up to the "Crossbow Expert" quickshot.
I always thought of it as the characters are constantly going back and forth, however every 6 seconds a more decisive or "purposeful" blow is struck if that makes sense? Which is why if you aren't defending yourself (running away, trying to grab, picking something up) people get to stab you for free. Because you aren't blocking.
Jacob, my boy, get this man some tea
I imagine this is how development meetings go at Wizards of the Coast...probably.
Someone break into Shadiversity's house and force him to react to this at pommel-point.
Edit: Please
Well since you asked so nicely...
Please no. He's an ass.
@@darklordofsword must be a nunchuck fan sad
@@darklordofsword Go to Skall's house then, Metatron's if you don't like him either
@@TheCosmicViewer A thumbs up simply won't so, I loved this comment.
I love how half of the complaints had visual representation of it working accurately
Also how it turned into shoving, like all games of D&D
I love how when Jacob asked why he needs six seconds to disengage and Colton used his attack of opportunity
Having never watched D&D aside from the Community episodes, _this is suuuuper entertaining._
*Watch* D&D? Community episodes?
@@Max_G4 haha, yes, nor have I been a participant.
@@PutingPinoy I'm just confused as to what you mean by that.
@@Max_G4 I think I already explained it. I haven’t seen nor participated in a game of D&D. So, what he is referencing is stuff for which I lack a point of reference, therefore I am not all that sure what he is talking about. All the same, I really enjoyed it.
@@Max_G4 I think he means the dnd based episodes in the tv series community
Jacob is my favorite child in a mans body. "NO! YOU SHOVE LIKE THIS!"
Now do it again with four people, two v two and a vertical 10 ft pole to understand how fall damage occurs
It wasn't until I actually started participating in the SCA until I understood exactly how hard it was to swing at someone more than once in 6 seconds. Yeah you can just wave the stick and hope but you'll lose almost every time. Landing 2 hits accurately and effectively in a short span of time is hard.
Honestly there's been lots of good videos where people break down combat and how it would translate front the table top and this is just a few guys in their backyard with little practical experience taking guesses.
This week on XP to Level 3, Jacob just turns on a camera while he plays in the backyard with his friend and then finds a way to make it into content
Me and the bois finding an excuse to play with toy swords as adults:
Excuses?! I am a grown ass man, and no longer require excuses to have fun. Yeah, these are my G.I. Joes what of it? Shouldn't play with them because I am 30? NONSENSE.
@@HanaTheSloth Solidarity!
Try and find a LARP near you and learn how to build combat-safe weapons to practice
Okay watching them just messed around and have fun is definitely worth the like
The fact that this is a sponsored video makes it even more funny
I'm sorry. Watching Jacob get owned at fighting because he thinks it's super easy is literally the most fun I've had watching an XP to Level 3 video.
Having actually used two weapons during LARPs, I will say it's really difficult as you have to keep aware of both hands at the same time, generally one is facing the ground in order to block, and the other is used to attack.
Or you can use a sword and a dagger, specially if it is a parrying dagger.
That's my favourite fighting style when boffering/LARPing.
so today we learned that dnd rules makes sense and Jacob has to read again the basic rules of attacking(6 seconds are not expended in one sword swing, but in battle that results in an attack contested by the targets AC)
also, 1 players turn isnt 6 seconds, the whole round is
also also, 2 people CAN move at the same time, the whole round happens within 6 seconds, so everyones actions play out at the same time, its just that, its a game, with turns, and rules and shit.
the mechanics arent a 1 to 1 representation of whats happening,
suspension of disbelief.
@@thisscreensucks I mean... Each player's turn does happen in six seconds. It's just that every turn happens in the same six seconds.
@@thisscreensucks
The movement does not happen at the same time in D&D, due to it being turn based. It should be abstracted as such but in certain situations, that is impossible.
Let's say you walk to someone 30ft away and hit them with a sword. In the same turn they disengage and move 30ft away. If movement happened at the same time though, by the time you moved 30ft, they would have moved 30ft as well. As they wouldn't have needed to disengage, they would dash, so you would never reach them.
That and the swings he did to show a fighter swinging 8 times and saying its easy were really off, a fake plastic sword, each swing was swung with zero force which is why its impressive to swing 8 times in a round because swinging a heavy sword with enough strength to deal damage 8 times in 6 seconds is impressive.
@@thisscreensucks it's almost as if D&D rules where an abstraction instead of a simulation
This is such a wholesome example of "boys will be boys" and also a delightful watch
"I have stick let's walk eachother" lol my friend and I broke his chandelier last week playing catch with his pair of socks lol.
This was so incredibly charming and had me laughing a bunch.
Colton hits Jacob with a sword:
Jacob: that’s fair
The 5ft square, according to 3.5e isn't how much space a creature takes up, but rather how much they can easily control. I think you both demonstrated that pretty well, as well as showing how your characters are actually meant to be moving about in that 5ft square in order to get better positioning to dodge and attack.
The "six seconds" melee round represents six seconds of constant exchanging of attacks, parries, and blows and not just a single swing of the sword.
Immediately when I saw this video I was thinking “yeah, this is just another excuse for Jacob to play with plastic swords with his friends” and I was so excited!
These 2 used to be friends... Maybe even best friends, but now the evil D&D has corrupted them and they must fight till death
It's all fun and games until a Nerf gun is involved.
i was excited to watch "REALISTIC D&D COMBAT" instead I got how to push someone 101 you have excited my expectations
2:03 -„damn, monks are fast!“ that part absolutely killed me, haha!
this genuinely makes me happy, the dude just doesnt care what you think.
1:41 I died as fast as Jacob just did, just from laughter instead
I like to believe that the reason you get so few attacks isn’t that that’s how many times you swing your weapon, but rather how many times you get an opening between parried blows.
Well technically you're swinging at them and they're swinging at you, all within the same 6 seconds.
Well swinging a sword take a bite more than floppy it around like in the video to swing a sword 8 times requires a lot of speed and strength.
You're also not just attacking, you're also moving, using bonus actions, and casually taking in your surroundings. And keep in mind, it's not your turn that is 6 seconds, it's the entire round... each turn doesn't start at the same time, those with higher initiative literally start sooner. That's not to say that an initiative with 6 combatants results in each combatant's turn being 1 second long... rather, some of your turn will happen concurrently with others, even if they didn't announce their actions until after you made your decisions.
Up to, I think, 3e, this was much more explicit. Rolling for an attack wasn't swinging your weapon once, it represented 6 seconds of swordplay, and whether you came out of it on top. No one really treated it like that though, so it's gotten a bit handwavier in the last decade.
@atombrain111 Every game system is flawed in some way. Dungeon World is heavily dependent upon the GM and players being great at improvisation, and most people are not very good at it. That causes the game to stall while the player/GM tries to figure out how to react to whatever just happened or decide what is going to happen next.
Dungeon World is a game for story-tellers, and sadly, most D&D players aren't.
I always pictured combat as fluid and continuous, you making the attack action is your character seeing an opportunity during the constant fighting to land a blow and taking it, higher levels fighters get more because they're more skilled at melee combat and as such, they create more openings.
That is pretty accurate to one on one dueling. Lots of fencing and positioning, then step in and make an intentional strike, possible block, parry, dodge, counterstrike, then back to fencing. Intentional combination strikes (extra attack) take training
2:50 When your barbarian has -2 Int go into rage and forget how use the weapon
My friends and I had the same questions in the late 90s and early 2000s when we started playing D&D. RUclips wasn't around, so we went outside and did this exact same thing.
Just as I was about to poke fun at Jacob's running I realized I pretty much run the same way
Broke: Hey, wanna go outside and play?
Woke: Hey, wanna go outside and record a DnD video?
The thing I hear a lot of people asking "why do I have to be 5 feet away from my ally, why can't we willingly share a 5 foot square?"
You see Jacob singing that sword around? Imagine he's 2 foot taller and the sword is Jacob sized... You wanna get within 5 feet of your own ally?! Fucker probably doesn't even realise you're there! (what with trying to fight for their life and all)
Yeah, people asking this question often don't realise an "occupied space" doesn't mean the creature fill the whole cube and there's no room, it means this space is dangerous to stay in, or teleport into, during combat because *someone is currently doing combat maneuvers* in there. You don't want to be in that area and they don't want to have their movements impaired by you.
Also, because if you share a space, that makes it more likely for one of you to take an enemy blade swung in that general area.
Whenever someone really wants to share a space with an ally, instead of forbidding it I just rule that both players will have disadvantage on attacks, and any attack missing one creature in that space will be then roll to see if it hits the other.
They stop trying that shit very quickly.
@@bouboulroz hope you take size difference into account. I'd let a dex based small humanoid and a large humanoid occupy semi-freely. Probably lock their "orientation" though
@@NoConsequenc3 Why would I ? If the opponent sees two target next to each other, they will obviously take advantage on the limited space the two targets have to share.
And combat maneuvers aren't something you can do that easily in such a tight space without each person limiting their range of movement, at least not in a real combat situation.
Besides, I'm already allowing something I don't have to. People shouldn't see this as an oportunity to ask for more. When I give you a hand, I have no intention of letting you take the whole arm.
@@bouboulroz because if I have to swing *up* at the guy who's eight feet tall, that attack has no chance of hitting the guy *below me* who's only 3 feet tall.
@@nicholascarter9158 You have to move your legs accordingly to make such a swing.
You also limit yourself to horizontal strikes, meaning your opponent has an easier time to read your moves.
If your opponent parry your blade downward, you can still hurt your friend.
This isn't as easy as you make it sound.
As someone who spent a few hours of my adolescence contemplating how DnD combat translated into something realistic, I concluded that much of what occurs in melee is feints, dodges, parries etc, and in any given turn only one real serious attack move. I also concluded that in stylized fantasy melee combat, some hit point losses would be attributed to fatigue and exhaustion of fending off aggravated attacks rather than an actual strike landed on a character's person. A 20th level fighter will be slain by a stab in the belly, or a hammer blow to the head as quickly as a zero level NPC. However the 20th level fighter has plenty of ways to neutralise plenty of attacks, but expends hit points fending off some of the better ones that don't strike their intended blow. When you visualise it this way, its a lot less stupid.
I believe it's canon that hp is a measurement of exhaustion, ability to fight and tiny injuries wearing a combatant down, rather than just how durable their body is.
As a HEMA nerd, that is how I envision it as well. It's a combination of endurance, subconscious reaction time, and dumb luck. Plenty of time in sparring I'll parry or divert something without any conscious action or plan. Several years of training makes that automatic, but rely on that too long and it will fail you. Every time I fail to see an attack coming and my sword just happens to be in the way, that's just luck, and eventually luck runs out. HP = luck points plus stamina in my book.
@@isaacmiller3386 this would be a great way to explain why charactes dont just die when their hp reaches 0, they arent dead, they are incapacitated and cant fight anymore
@@timothym9398 the pain of feeling you are doing quite well then sudenly you feel your head being pushed nack by the nearly invisible thrust to your face the mask plus the thin profile of the blades makes it trully hard to see thrusts coming
"Two guys having fun with toy swords"
Alternative title
Yes, this tbh.
Still fun to watch.
I've never even played D&D and this is HILARIOUS.
1:22 : "that's a valid point"
i laugh so hard XD
Same
I want more of this kind of content when you try D&D actions and decide whether they make sense
I imagine the 1 attack per round as the one option you get to actually break through someone's defense. The whole six seconds you're moving, making lunges, feints, dodges, but mostly you'll get blocked or parried, or you'll be kinda busy not to get hit. More skilled you get, more attacks have chance to go through, even though you're probably making the same ammount of strikes
That's what I love to see. Just too knuckleheads horsing around in their back yard trying to better understand a hobby. Simply beautiful.
1:57 *Ok now ur going to be a monk* **Reloads Gun**
that rogue's disengagement hit me hard :D
To be fair, an "attack" action doesn't mean "one strike." I usually flavor even single attacks as multiple hits or maneuvers. Even if it's only one hit, you can flavour it as a clash of swords and have only one of your swings make contact.
yeah, I tend to flavor AC as attacks being 'ineffective' rather than misses. So If you hit a person with heavy armor, you do hit them but it bounces off.
@@TheRedAzuki Depends on the scenario, I'd say. People wearing leather armor for example aren't gonna tank a warhammer, I don't think.
@@TheTwinkelminkelson no one in any armor will tank a warhammer,thats blunt damage,will go through anything
@@vitormaodevaca8469 True. XD Though I guess that does kinda prove the point that dodging is a viable explanation for armor class.
@@TheTwinkelminkelson ineffective, could be a parry, A spellcaster going misfire, a block. I only took heavy armor as an example.
The best explaination of what's happening during combat is actually in the old AD&D (1e) DMG on page 61.
"During a ... melee round many attacks are made, but some are mere feints,
while some are blocked or parried. One, or possibly several, have the
chance to actually score damage. For such chances, the dice are rolled,
and if the"to hit" number is equalled or exceeded, the attack was successful,
but otherwise it too was avoided, blocked, parried, or whatever."
Basicially, the idea is that the whole 6 seconds is not one swing then wait. Instead, it's dueling, dancing around, cut and thrust, parry and riposte etc. During all of that, a 1st level can spot 1 opening in the enemy's defenses to attempt to land the hit. A high level fighter is much better at finding or creating a momentary break in the defense and has more than one opportunity to try for a hit. Watch an olympic fencing match and you will see a lot of action between hits.