What's the Katana good for?

[DM Under The Bridge]

Aelryinth wrote:

No, DR works as /against everything, nonexistent against X.

To typify plate, you'd have to do something like DR 10/Bludgeon, DR 5/-.

Or try Chain Mail! DR 10/Piercing or Bludgeon, DR5/Piercing.

:P

I could see leather as DR 5/Slashing or piercing, DR 3/Slashing, DR 1/-.

==Aelryinth

It is quite remarkable how well some minor games have represented this. Take War of the Roses for instance. It really cares about weapons and armour. With a very nice longsword you are pretty much wasting your time pursuing slashing, your longsword is better spent hacking up the lowborn and unarmoured, in which it does the job well (funnily enough the basic sword does very well against pro players that forgo armour, if you can hit them). However, if you are calm and skilled your thrusts can penetrate parts of the plate, get into joints and the like. If you are really good and their vizard is up you can stab through the face and get an easy victory: the silly knight is killed without touching the armour.

I was very impressed with how it was done. It seemed like an even better version of mount and blade and its DR type armour system in which heavy armour could be countered by bashing or piercing. MB allows one to over-rule the armour (mostly) with weapons with high enough slash or if your char has great strength and upgrades, but war of the roses forces the realism and doesn't allow you to escape it. I encourage everyone to give war of the roses and its free demo a go. They have implemented some very curious mechanics which are relevant for those wanting to create house rules.

[lemeres]

gustavo iglesias wrote:

A "realistic" full plate should be near invulnerable to fangs, fists, whips, slashing light weapons like kukris, a lot of wooden monk weapons like the tonfa, and los of exotic weapons like bladed scarf, and drastically shift the power balance between "lots of small hits" vs "few big hits", thus reducing the number of viable melee builds.

Now ask yourself if reducing the number of viable options (animal companions, wildshaping options, monks, two weapon fighters, dagger rogues, etc) makes the game more fun.

If the answer is not, then you have to choose between fun, and simulation realism if weapons vs armors

They are immune to whips (excluding feats).

Kukris have been known to cleave into helmets, so I would put them in line with axes (not all light weapons are tiny dainty things like pocket knives- it covers everything to about 3 feet long). And you are of course ignoring the fact that daggers could be used on joints.

Not sure about whether the fact that they are wood disquaifies tonfa- being smacked upside the head is being smacked upside the head. Armor helps, impact weapons do still affect you. Hell, I think most of your protection from impact weapons doesn't come from the metal parts of full plate, but from the padded gambeson underneath (which was also used like a light armor on its own)

[DM Under The Bridge]

If you were held down and bashed repeatedly in the head with a tonfa, I would hope you had a great helm, because I don't think a light helm is going to save you.

On light helms which you could wear with light or heavier armour, I remember reading a long discussion of them in the renaissance context (lighter older designs were having a... renaissance). Brilliant for what they were and light, you could breathe easy, you could see a lot, but heavy weapons, puncturing or serious bashing rendered them quite ineffective.

[shroudb]

Don't forget that full plate is all but useless vs flexible weapons like rapiers and that actual crossbow bolt penetrate all kinds of armors like paper.

On that not, every combat full plate should come with a heart spike that can easily result in insta kill vs a humanoid opponent with a grapple and etc.

Really, changing the system would be a ton of work and people would still be complaining.

Although switching some weapons (like crossbows and rapiers p.e.) to have a little less damage but inherent Dr penetration wouldn't be that hard and it could be thematic and help diversify the weapon lists a bit

[DM Under The Bridge]

Rapiers were not built for dealing with full plate, your are more thinking the earlier tuck or estoc, which was held in the half-sword fashion and they would try and drive through and impale through chain and plate.

Rapiers did however have to deal with some armour in street dueling situations, but even against heavy brigandine there is no guarantee the rapier is just going to slide through metal plates and leather.

Bolts could not always just insta-penetrate and insta-win against gothic or fluted plate or lamellar. Sometimes even bodkins from powerful bows had trouble getting through nice reinforced brigandine.

I like the idea of lowering the damage of some but allow them to counter some DR. A very interesting idea.

[shroudb]

rapiers weren't designed to counter full plate. that was just a happy coincidence. The flexibility of the rapier's edge would skim through the plate and easily dive inside the plates if you even hit somewhere near them, what protected the body was the several layers of additional padding, leather and etc beneath the metal plates.

but truth is, nothing was really needed to counter heavy full plate since it was a VERY short lived thing due to firearms being developed simultaneously with it (trend only for at most 200y or so i think?)

plate armor was "finalized" around the start of 14th century, and earlier version of firearms were just about then. by the 16th century the firearms were developed enough that heavy armor was scrapped in order to increase mobility.

a regular heavy crossbow would punch through most metal and leather armors from closer to ~30m. sure, things like masterworked, especially well made stuff and etc could halt it somewhat, but similary, crossbows of exceptional make and harder/more elastic materials could breach those too and etc (similar to how in a game we can simulate a +1 armor or a +1 weapon).

as for the actual game now:
i could see a rapier being utterly pathetic in causing severe damage by itself, i mean even a dagger usually causes more gushing and dangerous wounds (unless the rapier penetrates vital organs ofc, but that is reflected imo in it's high crit threat range).

so maybe something along the lines of:
rapier, 1d3 bypasses first 5 points of DR.
heavy crossbow, 1d6 bypasses first 5 points of DR.

this would knock ~1.5 point of damage from the rapier and 2 points of damage from the crossbow but give them potentially +3.5-3 points of damage vs DR/ creatures, which seems balanced number wise (the loss is lower than the gain, but the chances of the loss is higher than the chances of the gain)

[Senko]

Robert Carter 58 wrote:

What's the katana good for?

Making people who don't know what they're talking about argue "What sword is the best?"

I put myself in this category.

I put pretty much everyone in this category, unless you've been going around killing people with swords. Hopefully, on behalf of your feudal lord- in which case you're a time traveler- then: Awesome! Can we meet for lunch or something? Message me. Have someone show you how.

Or you're a psychopath (if you've been killing folks with swords without being a time traveler that is...)

Or you're one of the few people who make swords in the present. Not QUITE the same, since you're not actually using them to kill people (as that's what swords are for) but I'll give folks who are making them some credit as that's an art form and some of these guys know their stuff.

There's also immortals who haven't killed anyone in decades and that was with a gun.

@everyone else.

As for the debate accepting for the moment the Katana has largely stopped evolving due to various social factors can we truly compare the pathfinder katana to the real world katana. The pathfinder variant has probably seen continued evolution, it may be forged curved rather than become that way due to stresses for example. It may still be called a katana, it may still be curved and have the circular hand gaurd but aside from that it may bear as much resemblance to the real world variant as a Japanese giant hornet does to a Bee. Similarly looking and probably the same genus (i'm not an expert on insects). However one stings you once then dies while the other spits flesh melting poison into your eyes that calls every other hornet for miles around to join in the fun. Not to mention a bee is only about a centimeter long while the hornet comes in at 3 inches.

[PrinceRaven]

Okay, now explain why bastard sword require special training to wield with 1 hand and long swords don't.

[master_marshmallow]

The size and weight of the blade?

[PrinceRaven]

Why would a smaller, lighter sword be more difficult to wield 1 handed?

[Bandw2]

PrinceRaven wrote:

Why would a smaller, lighter sword be more difficult to wield 1 handed?

they were thicker, heavier and had a longer hilt than a longsword even with comparable sizes.

in the real world, longswords were two-handed weapons, btw.

in games and today they seem to describe claymores that aren't quite claymores.

[master_marshmallow]

Too easy to throw, it flies out of your hand!

[DM Under The Bridge]

Yeah, a fighter-barbarian raging and using a longsword two-handed as it was intended is a grand thing that never let me down.

[Aelryinth]

Circa 14-1500's, standard armor was invented that was nigh immune to missile fire. YOu needed a really overpowered crossbow to get through it, otherwise it would just hit and bounce off. There's youtube videos testing the designs.

The problems was that not many people could afford full plate that covered everything, so it was mostly breastplate and keep that shield up against missile fire.

During later years, the best defense against heavily armored foes was the terrain. Just make it muddy (like Agincourt), kill the horses, and then swarm the bastards and stick them in the eye.

Otherwise, you were looking to have to use very large weapons and really grind down someone in full armor. Knights in full armor, until the advent of penetrating gunfire, were feared for a reason. Whole lines of weapons were invented to deal with them, for a reason.

And the gambeson beneath helped provide a level of shock insulation, sure, but the metal is what spread the impact over a large surface to really make it useful, AND it stopped the penetration to the flesh below, which was just a little important. Chain mail also had gambesons, but couldn't spread out he impact like plate could.

(This is incidentally why 'boob plate' for women is bad, since the ridges concentrate the points of impact of attacks, instead of spreading them out evenly)

===Aelryinth

[Charon's Little Helper]

Aelryinth wrote:

(This is incidentally why 'boob plate' for women is bad, since the ridges concentrate the points of impact of attacks, instead of spreading them out evenly)

Well - I'd think that it'd be equally bad for the men it'd fit. :P

[shroudb]

Aelryinth wrote:

Circa 14-1500's, standard armor was invented that was nigh immune to missile fire. YOu needed a really overpowered crossbow to get through it, otherwise it would just hit and bounce off. There's youtube videos testing the designs.

The problems was that not many people could afford full plate that covered everything, so it was mostly breastplate and keep that shield up against missile fire.

During later years, the best defense against heavily armored foes was the terrain. Just make it muddy (like Agincourt), kill the horses, and then swarm the bastards and stick them in the eye.

Otherwise, you were looking to have to use very large weapons and really grind down someone in full armor. Knights in full armor, until the advent of penetrating gunfire, were feared for a reason. Whole lines of weapons were invented to deal with them, for a reason.

And the gambeson beneath helped provide a level of shock insulation, sure, but the metal is what spread the impact over a large surface to really make it useful, AND it stopped the penetration to the flesh below, which was just a little important. Chain mail also had gambesons, but couldn't spread out he impact like plate could.

(This is incidentally why 'boob plate' for women is bad, since the ridges concentrate the points of impact of attacks, instead of spreading them out evenly)

===Aelryinth

i think that thickening of the armor/reinforcing/bulletproof didn't develop enough until the middle of 16th century. and it had a ton of drawbacks.

for starters, whereass combat plate was usually about 50pounds, and allowed enough mobility in combat (apart from jousting tournaments and parades, the whole "crane to mount up and etc" is just a myth) to move/fight on foot/mount/etc, the reinforced plate was really only a "mount or die" armor due to extra weight and reduced mobility. Thus the "heart spike" that was introduced then, because after you were dismounted in a reinforced plate, your stamina would get depleted quite soon, making the "hug to pierce enemy's heart" one of the few posible maneuvers that wouldn't leave you out of breath.

also, by this time, plate armor was already becoming rare. add in the fact that the reinforcing process made them extra bulkier/heavy, and add in the extra cost, and plate was becoming even rarer by then.

so reinforcing came at a too big a cost (weight+$$) and a bit too late (popularity was already in massive decline) to actually matter.

but yeah, boob plate is soooo bad. not only for ranged attacks, but for heavy slashing strikes (axes, greatswords, etc) it would deflect the blow right in the sternum and in the heart, not the best place you want the force of the hit to get you^^

[KahnyaGnorc]

Fluting allowed for a certain level of reinforcement without add weight (or, conversely, lightening the armor while maintaining defenses)

[Andor the Great & Powerful]

Aelryinth wrote:

(This is incidentally why 'boob plate' for women is bad, since the ridges concentrate the points of impact of attacks, instead of spreading them out evenly)

Quite frankly I'd never realistically expect women to wear "boob-plate" since it was most likely designed by gamers who wanted sexier women in combat and were not really concerned with any form of realism.

Besides I'm pretty sure that any plate worn by Joan-of-Arc (or other woman-warriors) was simply padded to accommodate her particularly womanly anatomy... that is if it was even an issue that particular woman.
Sadly the idea of boob-plate stuck: Mind you: if I were a curvaceous woman about to battle in custom-made full-plate, I'd probably want to have some accommodation in the plate, but it would most-likely end up as a mild contour. not a jutting curve with any kind of seam.
Since we're on such a topic on a discussion about katanas we may as well consider it thoroughly.
:p

[Andor the Great & Powerful]

I have to say that following this conversation has been very fascinating to say the least. thanks ya'll for making my day(the past couple of days) much more enjoyable.

[Aelryinth]

Women in armor typically strap themselves as flat as possible. You don't change the armor, you change what's underneath.

You want the surface under the armor to be as flat and even as possible, so something hitting it has the impact spread across the entire surface underneath it. The gambeson helps with that, as well.

Boob plate instead concentrates that impact in the area/edges around the breasts, and also channels blows right into the center of the chest, making it a double whammy. The area between the breasts is a like a wedge aimed at the breastbone, saying "Please, break my ribs here!"

So, a woman warrior would wear plate armor as flat as possible, and bind their breasts to do the same, so that the stuff works just like it would for a man. Boob armor is ceremonial and ornamental at best, no serious woman warrior would wear anything like it. They'd be undercutting the reason they wear armor in the first place.

==Aelryinth

[Andor the Great & Powerful]

Aelryinth wrote:

Women in armor typically strap themselves as flat as possible. You don't change the armor, you change what's underneath.

You want the surface under the armor to be as flat and even as possible, so something hitting it has the impact spread across the entire surface underneath it. The gambeson helps with that, as well.

Boob plate instead concentrates that impact in the area/edges around the breasts, and also channels blows right into the center of the chest, making it a double whammy. The area between the breasts is a like a wedge aimed at the breastbone, saying "Please, break my ribs here!"

So, a woman warrior would wear plate armor as flat as possible, and bind their breasts to do the same, so that the stuff works just like it would for a man. Boob armor is ceremonial and ornamental at best, no serious woman warrior would wear anything like it. They'd be undercutting the reason they wear armor in the first place.

==Aelryinth

Thank you!... my whole idea came from the idea of a contoured breastplate. though not as effective as others, it sure looked cool. the contour of which I spoke would be over padding creating a "uni-boob" effect.

[Aelryinth]

Trying to make effective armor for women is a vexing problem that exists even today.

Men tend to have fundamentally the same body shape, tapering from shoulders to waist, varying only by height/length.

Women have curves. Curves INCREASE the amount of material you have to use, so armor for a woman would actually weigh more then armor for a man of the same size/height. Women also vary in body shapes a great deal more then men, which makes individually fitting armor a total PITA that modern body armor manufacturers are still trying to work out.

So, to simplify things, a woman with a body shape as close to a man as possible wears armor the easiest, and it works the best for her.

just ask women in the Armed Services, or policewomen, about wearing body armor. Pretty much unless it is custom made, it fits horribly.

==Aelryinth

[Andor the Great & Powerful]

I would like to see where in history "breast-plate" armor was ever made. seriously. I'm pretty certain that it was so ridiculously un-feasible that there was never a set of such armor made(even ceremonial armor), even for any kind of female royalty. If they were to wear armor, it would most likely be as Aelryinth, and I have said and they would strap themselves and pad the armor to make it work. then again, most women at that time weren't as naturally busty as they are today. So, such things may have been a minor issue for most women of the times when such armor was worn.

[shroudb]

there is a ceremonial female armor in the museum in the castle in malta i think, it's been ages since i've been there so i'm not sure. (although real chest-armors had a single unichest bulge, not 2 cups obviously.)

generally, combat armor was almost the same for males/females, with the females one sometimes having just a tad more space in the center (think of something like a very tiny belly way up high)

[Athaleon]

shroudb wrote:

Don't forget that full plate is all but useless vs flexible weapons like rapiers

What are you talking about? Full plate is incredibly useful against a rapier. If you're in full plate the rapier user is forced to thrust at gaps in your armor, because his sword doesn't work as a bludgeon or a lever. If you were in mail, or unarmored, he could aim anywhere. He could try to disable your hand, he could try to wear you down with multiple smaller wounds, or he could go for the lethal thrusts to the head, neck, and chest.

Andor the Great & Powerful wrote:

I would like to see where in history "breast-plate" armor was ever made. seriously. I'm pretty certain that it was so ridiculously un-feasible that there was never a set of such armor made(even ceremonial armor), even for any kind of female royalty. If they were to wear armor, it would most likely be as Aelryinth, and I have said and they would strap themselves and pad the armor to make it work. then again, most women at that time weren't as naturally busty as they are today. So, such things may have been a minor issue for most women of the times when such armor was worn.

I submit that a woman of "fighting" fitness would not have large enough breasts for them to be an issue when wearing full plate, since plate armor was always tailored to the wearer anyways (which would also make differences in shoulder/waist/hip size irrelevant). Modern body armor doesn't fit female soldiers that well because it's a mass-produced product designed to fit millions of wearers adequately, not to fit an individual soldier well.

[DM Under The Bridge]

Aelryinth wrote:

Trying to make effective armor for women is a vexing problem that exists even today.

Men tend to have fundamentally the same body shape, tapering from shoulders to waist, varying only by height/length.

Women have curves. Curves INCREASE the amount of material you have to use, so armor for a woman would actually weigh more then armor for a man of the same size/height. Women also vary in body shapes a great deal more then men, which makes individually fitting armor a total PITA that modern body armor manufacturers are still trying to work out.

So, to simplify things, a woman with a body shape as close to a man as possible wears armor the easiest, and it works the best for her.

just ask women in the Armed Services, or policewomen, about wearing body armor. Pretty much unless it is custom made, it fits horribly.

==Aelryinth

Comfort is a problem, but have you ever stabbed at a woman with a modern fencing chest guard? The angles can be wonderfully made to deflect straight attacks. I was actually jealous of their "boob plate" because even though it was only a minor addition of firm plastic it could really deflect an attack aside with no added work from the wearer. We tested it at slow and high speeds too, and a firm flat chest is easy to hit and stick your blade firmly into, but an angled surface means the blade easily slides off. Damn you physics!

This is what I am talking about
http://www.decathlon.it/media/829/8291714/zoom_9df9a97253c348a3bfc017f708c4 f61d.jpg

Then we have these types of male armours:

http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/7 789/kirasyp18.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.napoleon-series.org/cgi-bin/foru m/archive2012_config.pl?md%3Dread;id%3D131018&h=2108&w=1532&tbn id=jt1Rx17DMC2w9M:&zoom=1&docid=v6Jht-DDqvSVIM&ei=BNWNVY6UJ4ma8 QXl9J7oAg&tbm=isch&ved=0CB0QMygBMAE

http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://i554.photobucket.com/albums/j j404/Michael_Ab/three-quarter-armor_zpsda94502a.jpg&imgrefurl=https://f orums.obsidian.net/topic/62316-armour-weapon-designs-a-plea-part-iii/page-2 4&h=1024&w=682&tbnid=5yffvLZ6nEkTqM:&zoom=1&docid=z3Tuf UrbBBZuxM&ei=PdWNVZ_XHcmF8gXVwZnACg&tbm=isch&ved=0CBcQMygTMBM4Z A

Angles are wonderful. Helping to deflect direct attacks to the chest.

[shroudb]

Athaleon wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Don't forget that full plate is all but useless vs flexible weapons like rapiers

What are you talking about? Full plate is incredibly useful against a rapier. If you're in full plate the rapier user is forced to thrust at gaps in your armor, because his sword doesn't work as a bludgeon or a lever. If you were in mail, or unarmored, he could aim anywhere. He could try to disable your hand, he could try to wear you down with multiple smaller wounds, or he could go for the lethal thrusts to the head, neck, and chest.

Andor the Great & Powerful wrote:

I would like to see where in history "breast-plate" armor was ever made. seriously. I'm pretty certain that it was so ridiculously un-feasible that there was never a set of such armor made(even ceremonial armor), even for any kind of female royalty. If they were to wear armor, it would most likely be as Aelryinth, and I have said and they would strap themselves and pad the armor to make it work. then again, most women at that time weren't as naturally busty as they are today. So, such things may have been a minor issue for most women of the times when such armor was worn.

I submit that a woman of "fighting" fitness would not have large enough breasts for them to be an issue when wearing full plate, since plate armor was always tailored to the wearer anyways (which would also make differences in shoulder/waist/hip size irrelevant). Modern body armor doesn't fit female soldiers that well because it's a mass-produced product designed to fit millions of wearers adequately, not to fit an individual soldier well.

the tip of a rapier will skid over the plate and guide itself inside the chinks of the armor plates. Since those chinks are at the joints, there is a severe chance that a simpe thrust could hit a tendon, crippling you.

estocs are better, since they were longer and actually designed to battle plate, but rapiers do just fine

[Senko]

DM Under The Bridge wrote:

Aelryinth wrote:

Trying to make effective armor for women is a vexing problem that exists even today.

Men tend to have fundamentally the same body shape, tapering from shoulders to waist, varying only by height/length.

Women have curves. Curves INCREASE the amount of material you have to use, so armor for a woman would actually weigh more then armor for a man of the same size/height. Women also vary in body shapes a great deal more then men, which makes individually fitting armor a total PITA that modern body armor manufacturers are still trying to work out.

So, to simplify things, a woman with a body shape as close to a man as possible wears armor the easiest, and it works the best for her.

just ask women in the Armed Services, or policewomen, about wearing body armor. Pretty much unless it is custom made, it fits horribly.

==Aelryinth

Comfort is a problem, but have you ever stabbed at a woman with a modern fencing chest guard? The angles can be wonderfully made to deflect straight attacks. I was actually jealous of their "boob plate" because even though it was only a minor addition of firm plastic it could really deflect an attack aside with no added work from the wearer. We tested it at slow and high speeds too, and a firm flat chest is easy to hit and stick your blade firmly into, but an angled surface means the blade easily slides off. Damn you physics!

This is what I am talking about
http://www.decathlon.it/media/829/8291714/zoom_9df9a97253c348a3bfc017f708c4 f61d.jpg

Then we have these types of male armours:

http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/7 789/kirasyp18.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.napoleon-series.org/cgi-bin/foru m/archive2012_config.pl?md%3Dread;id%3D131018&h=2108&w=1532&tbn id=jt1Rx17DMC2w9M:&zoom=1&docid=v6Jht-DDqvSVIM&ei=BNWNVY6UJ4ma8 QXl9J7oAg&tbm=isch&ved=0CB0QMygBMAE...

I get a 404 OPPS so sadly I still have no idea what your talking about.

So no one wants to speculate that the pathfinder Katana is an evolution from the real world one rather than an equivilent blade?

[Athaleon]

shroudb wrote:

the tip of a rapier will skid over the plate and guide itself inside the chinks of the armor plates. Since those chinks are at the joints, there is a severe chance that a simpe thrust could hit a tendon, crippling you.

estocs are better, since they were longer and actually designed to battle plate, but rapiers do just fine

There's a chance, but it's not severe. Unless the sword is coming in at a really sharp angle, the sword will probably hit something else like a besagew before it could go far enough to do any real damage. Rapiers were not that flexible to begin with, since they were more optimized for the thrust. And Estocs were even stiffer.

[Bandw2]

Athaleon wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Don't forget that full plate is all but useless vs flexible weapons like rapiers

What are you talking about? Full plate is incredibly useful against a rapier. If you're in full plate the rapier user is forced to thrust at gaps in your armor, because his sword doesn't work as a bludgeon or a lever. If you were in mail, or unarmored, he could aim anywhere. He could try to disable your hand, he could try to wear you down with multiple smaller wounds, or he could go for the lethal thrusts to the head, neck, and chest.

it just so happens all those gaps are right where major arteries are...

and then you can't apply pressure to the wound, because you're wearing full plate

[shroudb]

Athaleon wrote:

shroudb wrote:

the tip of a rapier will skid over the plate and guide itself inside the chinks of the armor plates. Since those chinks are at the joints, there is a severe chance that a simpe thrust could hit a tendon, crippling you.

estocs are better, since they were longer and actually designed to battle plate, but rapiers do just fine

There's a chance, but it's not severe. Unless the sword is coming in at a really sharp angle, the sword will probably hit something else like a besagew before it could go far enough to do any real damage. Rapiers were not that flexible to begin with, since they were more optimized for the thrust. And Estocs were even stiffer.

estocs aren't flexible at all, it's the hand that's wielding it that is the flexible part. estocs just have mean piercing power.

if you hit the plate badly, like in an angle redirecting the force of the blow back into the blade, it will break yeah, but due to the curves of the plate (used to redirect slashing swords) it will almost always just skid to the sides, and when it finds a chink, it will thurst inwards

[Aelryinth]

Unfortunately for the rapier wielder, the plate wearer also knows those points are vulnerable, and since he doesn't have to deal with any other points, it becomes that much harder to get to the places he knows are vulnerable! All the while you're trying to prevent him from cleaving your head in two, of course.

Fencing plate for modern fencing is made to deflect basically 'touches'. If you want to test how viable it is, have her put it on and then slam her with a baseball bat or a heavy cutting weapon. She'll see the difference between real combat armor and safety armor right quick. Those curved surfaces make her more vulnerable to slashing and crushing attacks, not less. Yes, they'll pop aside a rapier point...but as the above person noted vs full plate, why on Earth are you making a target of the breastplate, anyways?!

==Aelryinth

[Scythia]

Katina Mathieson wrote:

As someone who frequently has her name autocorrected to Katana, I'd like to think I'm pretty useful.

Mr. Wertz already concurred earlier in the thread. Motion carried.

[Charon's Little Helper]

Aelryinth wrote:

Unfortunately for the rapier wielder, the plate wearer also knows those points are vulnerable, and since he doesn't have to deal with any other points, it becomes that much harder to get to the places he knows are vulnerable! All the while you're trying to prevent him from cleaving your head in two, of course.

Not to mention that (vary by region/time period) those gaps may have bits of chainmail protecting them. While not great at protecting against piercing weapons - even a rapier - on its own - if you've just skimmed off of the plate it likely wouldn't have the force to punch through said chainmail.

[Bandw2]

Aelryinth wrote:

Unfortunately for the rapier wielder, the plate wearer also knows those points are vulnerable, and since he doesn't have to deal with any other points, it becomes that much harder to get to the places he knows are vulnerable! All the while you're trying to prevent him from cleaving your head in two, of course.

Fencing plate for modern fencing is made to deflect basically 'touches'. If you want to test how viable it is, have her put it on and then slam her with a baseball bat or a heavy cutting weapon. She'll see the difference between real combat armor and safety armor right quick. Those curved surfaces make her more vulnerable to slashing and crushing attacks, not less. Yes, they'll pop aside a rapier point...but as the above person noted vs full plate, why on Earth are you making a target of the breastplate, anyways?!

==Aelryinth

all true, i'm more talking about Estocs and weapons deigned for actual battlefield conditions not duels.

[DM Under The Bridge]

Aelryinth wrote:

Unfortunately for the rapier wielder, the plate wearer also knows those points are vulnerable, and since he doesn't have to deal with any other points, it becomes that much harder to get to the places he knows are vulnerable! All the while you're trying to prevent him from cleaving your head in two, of course.

Fencing plate for modern fencing is made to deflect basically 'touches'. If you want to test how viable it is, have her put it on and then slam her with a baseball bat or a heavy cutting weapon. She'll see the difference between real combat armor and safety armor right quick. Those curved surfaces make her more vulnerable to slashing and crushing attacks, not less. Yes, they'll pop aside a rapier point...but as the above person noted vs full plate, why on Earth are you making a target of the breastplate, anyways?!

==Aelryinth

My point was on rapier thrusts specifically, nothing to do with baseball bats.

[Aelryinth]

Rapier thrusts don't work against a breastplate, flat OR curved.

==Aelryinth

[DM Under The Bridge]

You should check.

[Gorbacz]

This thread feels like if it is some medieval hardcore wargame forum, not a forum about bashing dragons to death with flaming quarterstaffs.

[Rob Godfrey]

got a source for a rapier being effective against plate? I have never heard that and would be interested.

[Andor the Great & Powerful]

Gorbacz wrote:

This thread feels like if it is some medieval hardcore wargame forum, not a forum about bashing dragons to death with flaming quarterstaffs.

Agreed.