Quote from: JeremyR;997730If you had an army, you'd probably want to give them pikes (ie, really long spears). But one on one the sword is king.

Eh, I dunno about that. I like swords, but the reach of a spear isn't to be discounted. I'd say that if you have equally skilled combatants, one armed with a spear and one armed with a one-handed sword, the guy with the spear has an advantage. Discussions on this kind of stuff are difficult to have, though, because so much of it depends on the situation in which the weapon is used.

Quote from: Larsdangly;997850This thread makes the case for 1E AD&D's weapon vs. armor type system. Generally ignored, often reviled, but really represents the relative merits of pre-gunpowder weapons better than any other roleplaying game system I've seen, including the supposedly super realistic ones.

I thought it was a good idea, except that it required the use of charts. My method is not aimed at such precision but it does not use charts. The game has been played since the mid-eighties, although we only printed some copies for our own use and sold some at cons, and the sword has been the most popular weapon in most campaigns. If my main aim were realism, I am sure I would reduce sword edge damage but as it is, I put the original post on this thread on the support website and the GMs can decide for themselves.

Yes, obviously are, because the odds of getting 21+ damage is higher with a sword;).

Quote from: Kiero;997750Barring speciality weapons like zweihanders, a sword is a sidearm, not a primary weapon. It's the backup for when your main weapon either fails or is situationally less useful. We see this across cultures and times, the sword was always a secondary weapon. The ancient Chinese, for example, called it the "queen of battles" - the "king" was the spear.

Many RPGs undervalue the spear, not least later editions of D&D introducing silly, arbitrary rules like regular war-spears requiring two hands to use.

^This. On the battlefield, with rare exception, a spear, pike, bow, or crossbow was always a soldier's primary weapon. Reach and distance were a soldier's best friends. A sword, if they even had one, was a sidearm used when their primary weapon was broken, dropped, or the enemy got inside their optimum reach. The sword (and dagger) was there for self-defense. Keep in mind, this was on a battlefield fighting against armored opponents. Swords and daggers are utterly useless against armor. You had to get in close and find gaps to hurt your opponent at all. Off the battlefield, swords were far more common, carried, and used in civilian life as a sidearm. They're easy to carry and the best weapon against UNarmored opponents, which will be almost everyone. This is where you see the most widespread use of swords as 'primary' weapons.

Adventuring in an RPG isn't on a battlefield, but adventurers are usually armored and often fight against armored opponents. So, this paradigm sort of combines the common usage of carrying swords as a 'civilian' with armored, battlefield combat. Swords shouldn't be (and aren't) the best choice for armored combat, but as a civilian adventurer, it is. Most games don't try to distinguish any differences in weapon types and armored combat. If you want a more realistic approach, there should be major differences. If you want the typical 'high fantasy', the true differences don't really matter. It really comes down to how accurate you want your combat to be and how much time you want to spend to make it so.

Shields are another example. Exceedingly useful and almost necessary on the battlefield, but never carried around and used in civilian life (apart from bucklers). They are far too cumbersome to be carrying around all day, yet many adventurers do just that...

Quote from: Graewulf;998100... Keep in mind, this was on a battlefield fighting against armored opponents. Swords and daggers are utterly useless against armor. ...

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1712[/ATTACH]
?

?

?

Quote from: Skarg;998104[ATTACH=CONFIG]1712[/ATTACH]
?

?

?

You could take your firearms performance data from Hollywood, too.

Quote from: Graewulf;998100Swords and daggers are utterly useless against armor.

I agree with some points from your post, but I wouldn't go this far. Swords and daggers are much less effective when cutting vs. armor, but I wouldn't say they're useless. Depending on the armor, sword cuts can still be directed at less armored (or even unarmored) areas like hands, arms, and legs, and even against heavily armored enemies, there's the possibility of using the point against weak points (joints, etc), especially when half-swording. Lastly, there are techniques like the murder stroke. As for daggers, many daggers (e.g., rondel) are specifically designed for thrusting into gaps in armor. I think a duel between heavily armored warriors armed with swords and/or daggers would look more like a wrestling match to work a point in than like something out of Captain Blood or the Three Musketeers.

Your point about the edges of swords and daggers being very iffy against good armor is a valid one, though.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;998138I agree with some points from your post, but I wouldn't go this far. Swords and daggers are much less effective when cutting vs. armor, but I wouldn't say they're useless. Depending on the armor, sword cuts can still be directed at less armored (or even unarmored) areas like hands, arms, and legs, and even against heavily armored enemies, there's the possibility of using the point against weak points (joints, etc), especially when half-swording. Lastly, there are techniques like the murder stroke. As for daggers, many daggers (e.g., rondel) are specifically designed for thrusting into gaps in armor. I think a duel between heavily armored warriors armed with swords and/or daggers would look more like a wrestling match to work a point in than like something out of Captain Blood or the Three Musketeers.

Your point about the edges of swords and daggers being very iffy against good armor is a valid one, though.

That was my point. I should've been clearer. Slashing attacks directly against armor are utterly useless. Blades, I don't care how sharp they are, cannot cut through armor. You had to hit unprotected areas or get into the gaps. Mail (over padding) was the best armor to wear for a long time for this very reason. Even padded armor alone (gambeson) was great to wear as it was much cheaper, absorbed bludgeoning attacks well, piercing attacks had a hard time penetrating, and slashing wasn't all that effective either since even razor-sharp swords couldn't cut through all those layers. Yet, in RPGs, padded armor was always one of the worst armors to wear, even though it was actually quite effective and certainly better than leather (if that was, in fact, ever widely used to make armor, regardless of what Hollywood tells you). Indeed, once plate armor enters into the picture, brawling, half-swording and rondel daggers were the most effective way of actually wounding the guy in the armor. Maces and hammers could batter your opponent through the armor and bruise them pretty badly (that was their purpose), but you needed to get in those gaps to finish him.

Most RPGs are awful in the way they handle combat. D&D, for example, is horrible if you want any kind of realistic combat.

Quote from: Graewulf;998169That was my point. I should've been clearer. Slashing attacks directly against armor are utterly useless. Blades, I don't care how sharp they are, cannot cut through armor.

I guess you mean bladed weapons, and not Daneaxes. And I'd agree.

QuoteYou had to hit unprotected areas or get into the gaps.

You can also create a gap, but yes:). Piercing, however, might work better than cutting - though I'd take a spear for that, if given a choice.

QuoteMail (over padding) was the best armor to wear for a long time for this very reason.

Eh, I'd take a lamellar over mail. They coexisted.

QuoteEven padded armor alone (gambeson) was great to wear as it was much cheaper, absorbed bludgeoning attacks well, piercing attacks had a hard time penetrating, and slashing wasn't all that effective either since even razor-sharp swords couldn't cut through all those layers. Yet, in RPGs, padded armor was always one of the worst armors to wear, even though it was actually quite effective and certainly better than leather (if that was, in fact, ever widely used to make armor, regardless of what Hollywood tells you).

I don't care about Hollywood. But leather was used, yes.
Contemporary accounts of the Mongol army, however, say they used leather to make lamellar-style armours, and warn that normal blades might not pierce, unless they've been specially tempered;).
There's also accounts from the local tribes of Siberia, and tests on their surviving armours (protection was, let's just say, better than a gambeson's).

QuoteIndeed, once plate armor enters into the picture, brawling, half-swording and rondel daggers were the most effective way of actually wounding the guy in the armor. Maces and hammers could batter your opponent through the armor and bruise them pretty badly (that was their purpose), but you needed to get in those gaps to finish him.

And pollaxes. Gotta love pollaxes - hammer, warhammer, spear and a stick in one package:D!
My first OD&D PC carried a halberd for this very reason.

Quote from: AsenRG;998203I guess you mean bladed weapons, and not Daneaxes. And I'd agree.


You can also create a gap, but yes:). Piercing, however, might work better than cutting - though I'd take a spear for that, if given a choice.


Eh, I'd take a lamellar over mail. They coexisted.


I don't care about Hollywood. But leather was used, yes.
Contemporary accounts of the Mongol army, however, say they used leather to make lamellar-style armours, and warn that normal blades might not pierce, unless they've been specially tempered;).
There's also accounts from the local tribes of Siberia, and tests on their surviving armours (protection was, let's just say, better than a gambeson's).


And pollaxes. Gotta love pollaxes - hammer, warhammer, spear and a stick in one package:D!
My first OD&D PC carried a halberd for this very reason.

You'd feel the impact and could get hurt, for sure, with axes, but steel can't cut steel. Buckle, dent, and smash, sure, but not cut. This isn't like a 'ginsu' knife cutting a tin can.

Mail, lamellar, scale, and later, coat of plates and brigandine over mail were probably all in use together at some point, depending on the area and what you could afford.

Yes, leather was used as a material in some lamellar, jazerant, splint (as backing), and perhaps other armors, but I was referring as to how it is used as its own suit as it is in D&D and in movies. The stuff that looks like it was made for a biker.

Quote from: AsenRG;998203And pollaxes. Gotta love pollaxes - hammer, warhammer, spear and a stick in one package:D!
My first OD&D PC carried a halberd for this very reason.

Halberd & Poll axe are very different weapons. Poll axe is an individual knightly weapon for can-opening other knights, about 5' long.  
/pedant

Quote from: Graewulf;998212You'd feel the impact and could get hurt, for sure, with axes, but steel can't cut steel. Buckle, dent, and smash, sure, but not cut. This isn't like a 'ginsu' knife cutting a tin can.

I don't want to be inside the smashed tin can, however:).
And steel can pierce steel.

QuoteMail, lamellar, scale, and later, coat of plates and brigandine over mail were probably all in use together at some point, depending on the area and what you could afford.

Yes.

QuoteYes, leather was used as a material in some lamellar, jazerant, splint (as backing), and perhaps other armors, but I was referring as to how it is used as its own suit as it is in D&D and in movies. The stuff that looks like it was made for a biker.

I'll have to check the Siberian armour on that one. IIRC, it was made by seal leather with suitable preservation techniques, and granted protection as good as that of the steel armour, but was less mobile in the joints;).

Quote from: S'mon;998215Halberd & Poll axe are very different weapons. Poll axe is an individual knightly weapon for can-opening other knights, about 5' long.  
/pedant

Yes, but they're the same class of weapons, and that was good enough for me, given the reputation of OD&D for relentlessly pursuing historical accuracy:D!

Quote from: AsenRG;998222And steel can pierce steel.

Piercing isn't cutting. They are very different things. It's exceedingly rare, but yes. Spears and arrows still had to find gaps to be truly effective though. Despite what some Youtube videos might show (shooting an arrow from 30 feet away at a motionless breastplate that's sitting up against a bail of hay or a plank isn't even remotely an accurate test), arrows (even from a war bow) can't reliably pierce plate armor and 9 times out of 10 barely scratch it. Against mail armor, sure, a bodkin point will blast apart some rings and make an opening in the armor, but it's not really piercing the armor, it's finding a loop hole (pun intended).

Is this thread going anywhere? It all sounds all too familiar.

Quote from: Bren;998295Is this thread going anywhere? It all sounds all too familiar.

Shh...nerds arguing about medieval weapons online is one of my favorite spectator sports.