Medieval Battlefield Medicine

It is generally believed that the Medieval Era was almost entirely ignorant of medical and surgical procedures.

This is simply not true.

By about 1400, medical knowledge included knowledge of the importance of cleanliness; suturing of wounds, blood vessels, and nerves; treatment of simple and compound (open) fractures, dislocations, amputation, cauterization to prevent excessive blood loss; anaesthesia; trepanning to treat skull fractures; gangrene and debridment of dead tissuel; etc. etc. Much of this knowledge dates to the Classical era, but some of it was developed during the late Middle Ages.

Medieval surgeons knew pretty much everything you need for battlefield medicine with the notable exception of antibiotics, transfusion, intravenous drips, and organ transplantation.

What does this mean? Well, if you can get to a surgeon and haven't lost too much blood, you're in OK shape. You might get an infection, and there's really nothing they could do about that, but if you don't (or if you survive it), you're likely to live.

Battle commanders of the Middle Ages were well aware of this fact. For instance, during the campaign that included Agincourt, the English army of 10,000 brought at least 24 surgeons - about one for every 400 men (incidentally, the current standard is about 1 surgeon for every 500-800 men).

By the 1200 or so, there were established medical schools you could go too, and the requirements for training were actually not that far from today's - you would take a 3-year college degree, a 4-year medical degree, then a year of practical study, and possibly another year of anatomy for surgeons.

The idea of getting your wounded Fighter to the Surgeon is definitely a lot less snappy than getting hands laid on by a Paladin or a Cure Light Wounds from a Cleric, but for a high-grit low/no-magic campaign set in a Middle Ages-like setting, consider having Surgeons available for hire in major centres to patch up serious injuries.

Regarding pricing, there's some evidence that medieval physicians and surgeons charged on a charge-what-you-can plan - i.e. make the wealthy pay through the nose, and give care away for free to the needy. So excellent medical care need not only be available to the wealthy.

Surgery will feature in my upcoming draft of a Descriptive Damage System, a gritty replacement for a hit point system that focuses more on roleplayable injuries and treatments.

The 0-Level Man-at-arms

For some reason, D&D has gotten it into its head that men-at-arms would be 0-level. This trope dates back pretty far, and is taken as canon by many.

Let's examine this for a minute, though.

The historical term "man-at-arms" was used to denote a professional cavalryman in full armour. Knights would be an example of a man-at-arms, but many men-at-arms were not knights. In D&D, however, the term tends to be used to refer to any professional soldier, regardless of equipment.

In either case, though, the term refers to a professional.

The idea that a professional solder has the same odds of hitting in combat as an untrained peasant is, frankly, laughable. This professional, in fact, has lower odds of hitting in combat than your fresh-faced 1st-Level Fighter with 0 XP.

In an older edition like BECMI (my old stand-by), a professional soldier with training and experience should probably be around level 3 - greater odds of hitting, and much more survivable than an untrained peasant.

On average, a peasant (AC 9, 1-6 HP, Attack +0) will take around 5 rounds to kill a Level 3 fighter (AC 9, 3-18 HP, Attack +3). The Level 3 fighter will only take around 1 or 2 rounds to kill the peasant. The difference swells, obviously, if you give the man-at-arms armour.

Conclusions? City watchmen, mook guards, anyone with no real training - 0-level or Fighter 1.

Serious men-at-arms, with training and experience? Probably Fighter 3-5.

Training vs. Practice

In reading through Alexis' archives over at Tao of D&D, I read an interesting article and ensuing discussion on training, and the difference between training and practice.

Now, I believe a starting character should be a pretty highly-trained individual: someone at the level of a journeyman, a member of a professional association, or a Bachelor of a University. In 99% of cases, the character got there through training: there was a master, and the character was a student. This could have been the Master-at-Arms on their father's estate, a scholar at a University, some weirdo who takes in orphans and teaches them to be pickpockets and sneak-thieves, or what-have-you.

Something I've never been able to reconcile with D&D, though, is stories like Charlie Parker. With a basic education in music under his belt, and some informal instruction from acquaintances and listening to records (let's say he was a 1st level jazz musician at this point), Parker set out to practice. He spent his late teens practicing 15 hours a day, and emerged as a master - one of the best in the world (by old D&D standards, probably level 9 - name level).

So, in 3 years, practicing 15 hours a day, Parker went up 8 levels. That's an average of 1755 hours of individual practice per level, or about 220 8-hour days.

How to handle a player who wants their character to "woodshed" (as in practice non-stop out behind the woodshed) for a year to gain a level or two?

I don't know, but this is something that bothers me. In an ideal world, XP should probably be awarded for practicing a great deal and revoked for failure to practice. This may be too fiddly, and would almost certainly lead to the first act of a campaign being the, "We train for two years, what now?" phase.

Don't have a solution, but it's something that bugs me.

Classes: The Magician

Magicians begin with 1 Power Level and knowledge of the Minor Works of the Major Magicians, but no martial training.

The Magician can gain additional Power Levels by studying new Books of Magic by the greats, or through study. Magical items, creatures, and unfamiliar spells all provide avenues of investigation for the magician's study. Further details on advancement will be covered in an upcoming series about XP and advancement in general.

I think that tying the magician's advancement to study will serve to cap some of the extreme power that magic can bring at higher levels by slowing advancement in game-time terms. It will also serve to reinforce the archetype I have in mind of a magician who spends much of his time in his library or laboratory studying, venturing forth primarily to find new materials for investigation.

Magician

• Background:
• Scholar, Hermit, Monk, Gentry, Noble
• Abilities:
• Power Level: 1
• Knowledge of the minor works of major magicians.
• Advancement by:
• Studying new Books of Magic, magic sources, magical creatures, spells, etc.
• Further Advancement:
• +1 Power Level

Classes: The Fighter

A first-level Fighter should be a force to be reckoned with. This isn't just someone who picked up a sword. They have either seen battle, or have extensive training. Or maybe both. They should almost always win a fight against an untrained opponent.

Fighter

• Backgrounds:
• Sellsword, Bandit, Man-at-arms, Hedge Knight, Yeoman, Squire, Knight, Noble
• Abilities:
• Use any weapon
• Ignore first failed Fortitude check
• +2 to Attack and Defence
• Advancement by:
• Surviving Battles, training
• Further Advancement:
• +1 to Attack and Defence
• Every second level, fight an additional opponent without penalty

I haven't quite figured out the advancement rate for these things, but I definitely want to tie the advancement of each class to their key talents.

Next up: the Magician.