The Rapiers I´ve seen are swords by any meaning of the word. "not getting through", compared to what? Metallurgy is metallurgy.

"Rapier" is also used to cover a variety of swords from a long period. So it depends on what you mean by "rapier", too.

Nevertheless over time from, say, 11th century to 18th century, swords changed. A quick review of the Oakeshott typology here indicates that they first got bigger, then introduced fundamental changes in design to better support use as thrusting rather than cutting weapons. (Removal of the fuller, diamond cross-section, tapering to a point.)

The Wikipedia article on "Rapier" is consistent with other things I've read, which you can take at face value. The point is that when we say "rapier" we're most often referring to a civilian weapon, used for fighting in the style advocated by 16th-century dueling theories. Over time it became lighter and shorter to better suit those specific needs.

I highly doubt that any sword thrust is going to penetrate armor plate, so the question is whether your weapon is heavy enough that it won't deform when pushed into the cracks. "Rapiers" in general, and later ones in particular, arguably didn't measure up to what in modern terminology are often called "estocs". Let alone to weapons that actually could crack armor, like pikes & halberds.

Exactly.

Well, the point I think is that if you're fighting someone or something with articulated or overlapping plates of armor, then most swordstrikes are all-or-nothing. Personally I'd be surprised if even a greatsword/zweihander/hand-and-a-half-sword could penetrate a plate when swung. (There would be some bruising and the possibility of knocking the other person down.)

If used for thrusting, then if you can find a crack, you'll do some real damage. (This is a problem with most "armor absorbs" systems: the technique of going around instead of through armor just doesn't work. OTOH this is a good argument in favor of Elric/Stormbringer's variable armor absorption approach.)

A heavier, more rigid sword should work better for this because it'd be less likely to be deflected and more likely to slide into a crevice.

If you buy this model/analysis, then (again) what we think of as a "rapier" isn't going to be as effective as an "estoc".

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;370587Well, the point I think is that if you're fighting someone or something with articulated or overlapping plates of armor, then most swordstrikes are all-or-nothing. Personally I'd be surprised if even a greatsword/zweihander/hand-and-a-half-sword could penetrate a plate when swung. (There would be some bruising and the possibility of knocking the other person down.)

If used for thrusting, then if you can find a crack, you'll do some real damage. (This is a problem with most "armor absorbs" systems: the technique of going around instead of through armor just doesn't work. OTOH this is a good argument in favor of Elric/Stormbringer's variable armor absorption approach.)

A heavier, more rigid sword should work better for this because it'd be less likely to be deflected and more likely to slide into a crevice.

If you buy this model/analysis, then (again) what we think of as a "rapier" isn't going to be as effective as an "estoc".

this is why i dumped slash/mash/thrust and varaible absorbtions of same.  
I have enough to keep track of, and I managed to achieve 90% of what I wanted with the weap speeds in a continuous init system/as well as changing the damage and protection bell curves through the use of dividing dice.  But 'penetrating' the heavier armors was rarely the affect.

I agree very much with Eliot that the point of whacking overlapping plates with a large sowrd was often percussive and very often trying to use the 'edge' (such as it was after whacking metal) to direct the maximum force to a minimal area, hopefully finding a spot to 'catch' in the armor.

Quote from: Age of Fable;369275Does anyone know whether any of the following systems for hand-to-hand weapons is more realistic?

• Better weapons do more damage.
• Better weapons are more likely to hit.
• If you attack someone who has a better weapon (eg you have a dagger, they have a polearm), they're likely to get a free hit on you instead, or prevent you closing with them.

I "model" some of these differences in my mechanics with two variables, Weapon Speed and Penetration.

(1) "better" weaopns do more damage or "hit" versus armored opponents because they have higher Penetration so can ignore more armor (which absorbs damage).

(2) "better" weapons are more balanced so they are faster (they have less of an Initiative penalty and greater chance to swing more than once) and thus are more likely to "hit" the other guy before he hits you.

(3) On this last one I use an off the cuff zone of control idea, the guy with such a longer weapon gets a first swing at you, but if you get past that he's in trouble, penalties for close in use, slower weapon.

Quote from: Spike;369736First, the term 'better' is entirely relative to situation. Its an imprecise term at best and you need to dismiss it from your mind. Or not.

Better is Situational.

Are you in a city, wearing 'street clothes' and the like? Then a light, thin fast blade is 'better'.

Are you on a battlefield where everyone is wearing fifty pounds of steel and lugging about great walloping blades? Then your poncy little city blade is faffing useless....

In rules terms, does this mean that old D&Ds optional weapon vs armour rules are realistic?

Quote from: Age of Fable;370669In rules terms, does this mean that old D&Ds optional weapon vs armour rules are realistic?

Yes and no. they had an additional element of realism but the fundamental system is still faulted. By which I mean it is much easier to hit a guy in plate than it is to hit a guy wearing no armour. You just do no damage most of the time. However if you hit a guy in plate with a mattock or a maul they will still feel the impact and may well be knocked off their feet even if no penetration occurs. D&D doesn't cope with any of that.
Having said that the fact that a warhammer is a better weapon against a plate armoured opponent than a scimitar is true and should be reflected in the rules.

I still don't like the variable armour absorbtion rule. I would prefer a simple damage protection for amour then called shots to target 'chinks', some weapon based effects (like a pick reduces amour absorbtion by 2 points) and then some sort of way with dealing with heavy blows that don't penetrate (strength checks for example). This should mean there is enough variability in tactics by the detail is contained within each wepon and clearly written on the charcter sheet, which shoudl mean that in actual combat resolution is very fast.

On the rapier argument I suspect a skilled fencer could easily defeat a fully plate armoured combatant in a 1:1 situation. The field of view available to a guy in a full helm is so restricted and despite armoured knight actually being pretty mobile and not lumbering beamoths the armour does restrict. A good fencer can target an area the size of a button and I suspect that they could slide a blade past armour quite easily. The weakness of course is that they can easily loose or break their wepon as a result. The stength of knights was always in massed ranks and then the guy next to you can thwak the dex faggot on the head with a mace whilst he is trying to stick a rapier through the opening in your visor.

Something I've dabbled in is giving a strike bonus to guys in plate. In my own game system, letting yourself be hit grants a large bonus to strike so long as you can reasonably be expected to carry through with your action, despite the damage. Anyone with the super power of invulnerability really likes this option.

I think it would be the same for plate. The ability to ignore the huge number of glancing shots would increase your ability to attack. I think a guy in plate with a long sword up against lightly armed and armored infantry should gain strike bonuses and additional attacks.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;370587Well, the point I think is that if you're fighting someone or something with articulated or overlapping plates of armor, then most swordstrikes are all-or-nothing. Personally I'd be surprised if even a greatsword/zweihander/hand-and-a-half-sword could penetrate a plate when swung. (There would be some bruising and the possibility of knocking the other person down.)

I've been curious about how bad the bruising is. The ringing in your hands must be tremendous when you clash steel against steel. My friends in the SCA have some bullshit armor that they made to use against wooden weapons. It doesn't even seem to protect them against being punched or kicked is someone was halfway serious.

Quote from: Cranewings;371963Something I've dabbled in is giving a strike bonus to guys in plate. In my own game system, letting yourself be hit grants a large bonus to strike so long as you can reasonably be expected to carry through with your action, despite the damage. Anyone with the super power of invulnerability really likes this option.

I think it would be the same for plate. The ability to ignore the huge number of glancing shots would increase your ability to attack. I think a guy in plate with a long sword up against lightly armed and armored infantry should gain strike bonuses and additional attacks.

I can't see how wearing plate shoudl give you additional attacks or a strike bonus.

First of all full plate on foot is pretty much of a non starter cos although you are far more mobiel than people give credit for gettign up once you have been knocked over is a bit of a shit and a guy ont eh floor in a melee is dead end of.

Second the lack of vision is something hugely overlooked and it makes a vast difference.

Lastly however mobile that armour maybe you will not be as fast as a guy who isn't wearing armour.

I have been watching some of the Deadliest Warrior tv shows. Really quite bad and cheesier than a 4 cheese pizza with cheese on the side but there is a degree of science (certainly more than from Internet forum anecdotes). They do tests of weapons versus armour etc of various historical types. They basically do stuff like shoot breasplates with arrows, smack crash test dummies with morning stars etc from what I have seen on that a pick can puncture a hole in a plate helmet (the thickest part of the armour) fairly easily and Gygax was right a halberd really can destroy just about anything

Check out he Wiki entry and decide if it has any useful information http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadliest_Warrior

Quote from: jibbajibba;371980I can't see how wearing plate shoudl give you additional attacks or a strike bonus.

I think it's reasonable, but the effect is hard to pin down, so I wouldn't personally want to worry about it.

Still, take a look at this guy. Granted, I'm completely untrained, but if I were facing an unarmored person and two of us had similar weapons, I think we'd be spending a fair amount of time jockeying for position and feinting. (If you've ever seen the movie Yojimbo, it has a very plausible portrayal of what real people with a sense of self-preservation are likely to do when they come within striking distance of each other.) A man in armor would have the confidence to approach and intimidate his opponent, keeping him off-balance.

In game terms it might be more desirable to use a "stance" or "positioning" option where someone could choose to fight aggressively giving a bonus to attack and a penalty to defense, or conservatively having the opposite effect. Especially if combined with a system that uses "armor absorbs" (RQ or GURPS), a heavily-armored attacker could opt to use armor for an offensive advantage this way. In Harnmaster you get exactly this if the armored character uses Counterstrike as their defensive option.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;371993I think it's reasonable, but the effect is hard to pin down, so I wouldn't personally want to worry about it.

Still, take a look at this guy. Granted, I'm completely untrained, but if I were facing an unarmored person and two of us had similar weapons, I think we'd be spending a fair amount of time jockeying for position and feinting. (If you've ever seen the movie Yojimbo, it has a very plausible portrayal of what real people with a sense of self-preservation are likely to do when they come within striking distance of each other.) A man in armor would have the confidence to approach and intimidate his opponent, keeping him off-balance.

In game terms it might be more desirable to use a "stance" or "positioning" option where someone could choose to fight aggressively giving a bonus to attack and a penalty to defense, or conservatively having the opposite effect. Especially if combined with a system that uses "armor absorbs" (RQ or GURPS), a heavily-armored attacker could opt to use armor for an offensive advantage this way. In Harnmaster you get exactly this if the armored character uses Counterstrike as their defensive option.

The whole positioning to attack thing is about training I think. Give me a sword and I woudl be shit shared about getting killed but give it to someone who's trained and they will just get on in there and kill the other guy while he hesitates. I mean iajitsu is an entire discipline about how to draw your blade and kill your opponent in one move.

The stance option is the obvious way to go with the armour advantage being passive rather than active (ie it doesn't give you more options but in preventing you from dying it makes some of the options you already had a lot more attractive).

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;371993I think it's reasonable, but the effect is hard to pin down, so I wouldn't personally want to worry about it.

Still, take a look at this guy. Granted, I'm completely untrained, but if I were facing an unarmored person and two of us had similar weapons, I think we'd be spending a fair amount of time jockeying for position and feinting. (If you've ever seen the movie Yojimbo, it has a very plausible portrayal of what real people with a sense of self-preservation are likely to do when they come within striking distance of each other.) A man in armor would have the confidence to approach and intimidate his opponent, keeping him off-balance.

In game terms it might be more desirable to use a "stance" or "positioning" option where someone could choose to fight aggressively giving a bonus to attack and a penalty to defense, or conservatively having the opposite effect. Especially if combined with a system that uses "armor absorbs" (RQ or GURPS), a heavily-armored attacker could opt to use armor for an offensive advantage this way. In Harnmaster you get exactly this if the armored character uses Counterstrike as their defensive option.

we have part of this with the parry skill option, protective armor and high damage weapsn, but a characer can go defensive, at least, and add some off their chance to hit into protection.