Donald Coyote's page

Organized Play Member. 17 posts. No reviews. 1 list. 1 wishlist.


RSS


All of this is brilliant. Here I was searching for Elizabethan England material for a game set in London, and I find all manner of interesting ideas to mine.


There is also the laser torch, which bears some similarity to the lightsaber from d20 SW in that the laser torch hits touch AC and ignore hardness less than 20 and dealing full damage to objects vs the lightsaber ignoring the DR granted by armor and possessed by objects.


LazarX wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

When you purchase a suit of armor that comes with gauntlets, is the weight of the gauntlets assumed in the armor's weight? If so, could you get somewhat lighter armor by forgoing the gauntlets altogether?

Same question, but with cost. Could you get slightly cheaper armor by not purchasing the gauntlets?

No... gauntlets do not have a listed cost, and are a tiny fraction at best of the armor's weight so there would be no significant benefit to not having them nor any reason to restat the armor without them.

Gauntlets do have a separate price and weight of 2gp per gauntlet and weighing 1lb per medium gauntlet.


From Ultimate Equipment

Quote:
This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. Medium and heavy armors (except breastplates) come with gauntlets. Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of gauntlets.

So it stands to reason that aside from buying a gauntlet or cestus separately, only medium and heavy armors, except breastplates, have gauntlets included.


I would say determine its CR as a monster of its type, either animal or magical beast, with its HD based on your class level.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/monsterCreation.html#table-1-2- creature-hit-dice


FuelDrop wrote:

According to WEAPON page 106 a broadsword made in Scotland in approximately 1750 weighed in at 1.36 kg or 3 lb, with a length of 91 cm or 35 and three quarter inches. that means it weighed significantly less than a two liter bottle of water.

Now, while I wouldn't like to carry that around all day with my arm extended, could I? probably. It wouldn't be fun or convenient, but it's far from physically impossible.

An English longbow from around 1540 weighed in at 0.73 kg, or 1 and a half lb (Page 79). That's a 2 meter long weapon. Would it be inconvenient to carry around all day? Gods yes! would it be impossible? far from it.

Any inaccuracies about weight or weapon length in this post are due to source material.

Well I highly doubt if you were carrying your broadsword in hand, that you would be carrying it at arms-length. It is more likely that if you wanted to keep your single handed sword unsheathed and in hand you would be resting on or across your shoulder or nestled in the crook of your arm.

These positions show up in historical manuals of arms with such names as vom Tag and Carry Saber.


Cold Napalm wrote:
Donald Coyote wrote:


ALSO, maille has poor weight distribution yes? Like wearing an IBA that isn't adjusted correctly. As such would not be an appropriate comparison to wearing a full or partial plate harness, since wearing one correctly usually involves the harness being tied to an arming doublet, giving it better weight distribution.
Actually, if you weave in leather cord at various points of the maille, it can be quite comfortable and not have all the weight be directly on your shoulders. Also period maille used flattened riveted rings and did not weight as much as the cheap butted rings that most modern people think of as maille.

One step past using your belt to help with the weight. Is the leather in the rings based on archeological finds? I confess that anything before rise and fall of plate never held my interest.


Cold Napalm wrote:


In anycase, 15 swings and your tired means your seriously out of shape. Even the little asian girls in my WMA classes can do that with ease.

For sure. 8 hours of walking with 45 pounds of clothing, no matter how poorly distributed, and being tired after 15 blows means someone needs more conditioning.


In my experience a SCAdian heavy weapons "sword," being a club with a heavy basket hilt, generally weigh more than real swords. Assuming that Cold Napalm is a SCAdian based on the usage of tower shield while wearing full plate.


Cold Napalm wrote:
Hama wrote:

Have you ever fought in a suit of full plate? Have you ever walked in a 45 pound suit of chainmail for eight straight hours?

I have and it is tiring as hell. And i fought with a real longsword and a real heavy shield. And i was in good shape at the time. After fifteen or so swings, i couldn't lift my arm anymore, and after deflecting around twenty attacks from a guy, i couldn't lift my shield arm either.
After walking for eight hours in chainmail, i was so exausted that i couldn't get up on my feet once i sat down.
Then your NOT in good shape. Sorry, but I have a nice gut, have bronchatis and a bum knee and back...and you know what, I can STILL wear a suit of full plate and swing a sword around all day long while lugging around a tower shield. Hell I can even do this everyday for an entire week...and HAVE at pennsic.

I bet it just the fact that Hama is a weekend warrior, and therefore does not use the appropriate muscles for swinging a sword to the extent that a professional medieval warrior would be expected to. OR he is using a sword and shield that is too heavy. I'm pretty sure I could swing my backsword all day with a buckler, in a breastplate, and probably be less fatigued than if I did a 10 mile ruckmarch with 65-80 pounds of gear in my ruck, carrying a SAW.

ALSO, maille has poor weight distribution yes? Like wearing an IBA that isn't adjusted correctly. As such would not be an appropriate comparison to wearing a full or partial plate harness, since wearing one correctly usually involves the harness being tied to an arming doublet, giving it better weight distribution.

Not an attack just pointing out that modern people, even the majority of people who engage in historical recreational activities, aren't using the same muscles to the same extent that a martial character in a fantasy medieval setting would have been using since childhood.


Yosarian wrote:

It's not just that carrying a longsword or heavier weapon in your hands all the time is tiring (although it is).

It's that it's tiring out the exact same muscles you're going to be relying on in an extended swordfight.

In a real swordfight, very often, the person who loses is the person who gets tired first, and starts swinging his sword a little slower, holding his shield a little lower, not blocking quite as well, ect. (Anyone who has SCA experence or whatever can tell you that.) If you've been carrying a longsword or a battleaxe or a warhammer out in your hands all day, and your opponent hasn't been, then you're at a real disadvantage against him in a long swordfight.

On the other hand, if you have a longbow or a polearm or something, you will have it out all the time.

So what about if you have been carrying a lance or other hafted weapon all day? The short and simple of it is that if one combatant has been one his feet all day traveling in armor, then he is going to be tired all over his body, unlike the guy who has been chilling in his tent in his traveling clothes.

Furthermore, as modern people are not members of a culture that routinely carries around archaic weapons while traveling one foot or horse, our perception of what would be normal, or comfortable, for a member of a medieval culture that is used to living harder, nevermind that this medieval culture contains men who were trained from age 5-6 to eventually spend significant periods of time bearing arms and fighting.
Also consider that this is a fantasy game, one generally considered a high fantasy, in which players take on extremely heroic roles, as well as the fact that several members of modern military forces have chimed in on this.
Would I want to carry any weapon all day in my hand(s) while traveling on foot or horseback? Not really, but if it were required of me I would do so. And presumably anyone with any levels of a full BAB class in a fantasy roleplaying game would be able to as well without any extra physical penalties than detailed in the rules.


Roberta Yang wrote:
Donald Coyote wrote:
An m16 weighs 6-7 pounds. A longsword weights 2-3 pounds. Which one is lighter?

Ah, but remember, Trayce didn't say guns were actually lighter. Trayce said "Guns are theoreticly [sic] lighter". It's an important difference. The issue isn't whether or not carrying around a weapon is possible in the real world; the issue is that some people can't imagine it, it seems wrong, it feels wrong, it's impossible in their mind's eye. What's actually true is secondary to what they have deemed theoretically true.

If it feels like a modern gun ought to be lighter than a longsword, then "facts" and "weights" and "people saying things that are actually true" don't matter. All that matters is that someone with no actual real-life experience with weapons might not, off the top of their head, assume the sword is lighter than the gun. And once they've reached that conclusion based on what they reckon, anything that other people know is a vicious attack on their position as GM.

Stupid FACTS and first hand KNOWLEDGE.


Roberta Yang wrote:
But guys, it seems wrong. Whether or not it's actually possible is irrelevant to the situation; what's relevant is that I reckon it's impossible. I can't bellyfeel walking around with a bow in hand, therefore it simply cannot happen.

This reminds of the last group I GMed for, the guy who was doing all the searching finally last his mind when it was pointed out that Perception could also involve the sense of taste.

"WELL I AM NOT GOING TO START LICKING THE WALLS THAT HAVE GOBLIN POOP ALL OVER THEM!!!!!!!!!!!"


Trayce wrote:

There aren't rules against it, but you're right. You don't walk around constantly with your weapon drawn in a fantasy world. Why? It screws up maintenance, but more importantly, it's effing exhausting! Ever swung a sword? or a full sized composite bow? The're heavy!

Want a simple answer? Running around with your weapons constantly drawn causes fatigue penalties. Each hour of walking with weapons drawn counts as hustling. Same with mounts: while trick riding might be possible, doing so for extended amounts of time is tiring to the animal. If that seems iffy to you, then make it tiring to the rider instead. Do you have any idea how tiring steering a horse with your legs would be after a few hours?

Modern day combat is not equivalent to swords and horses. Guns are theoreticly lighter and easier to use then a good old fashioned two-handed weapon.

Try not to be mean about it, but shut him down on this one imo: he's poking holes in the logic of a fantasy game: it's your job to justify the setting.

An m16 weighs 6-7 pounds. A longsword weights 2-3 pounds. Which one is lighter?

I've carried both, and worn modern body armor and pseudo-medieval harness.


Cold Napalm wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:


It's also worth noting that there is a sword technique called the Mordschlag where you gripped the sword by the blade and bashed the crap out of someone with the pommel/crosspiece. (google it for more)

And they didn't cut themselves because the blades weren't razors and they weren't running their hands down the edges.

The murderstroke (what mordschlag translates into) can be done with a very sharp blade tho. Once again, you palm the blades. Not nearly as easy as if your doing a halfsword...but you can do it. That plate is somewhat confusing as there is at NO point where doing a muderstroke in unarmored combat makes sense once it is out of the scabbard. The germans wore their scabbards on their belt and as such there would be no reason to do this with the scabbard...but the italians did like to carry their scabbarded swords in hands so you could possible do it as a first blow, but fiore writes to use the scabbard as a projectile instead to unsheate while using the scabbard as a distraction. Now with ARMOR, it makes a bit more sense...especially once they are in a coat of plates or better armor. Maybe the plate is just to show how to do the blow for learning sake and not indicative of when to use the technique? In fact the muderstroke would be LESS effective against linen then the stabby end. The pommel certainly will not skewer as well as the pointy end will...and neitehr will the qullions. So why waste time to flip your sword around to attack with the LESS deadly parts of your blade?

The most likely reason Talhoffer plates show a lot men out of harness doing harnessfechten techniques is that they were training the techniques without bothering to get into harness all the time.


Gauss wrote:

Donald Coyote:

I can put my palm against a moderately sharp blade without cutting it. It is when force and motion is applied that it gets cut. The original comment that sparked all of the discussion about how sharp swords were was when one poster stated (paraphrasing here) that it was a rediculous idea that a barbarian with a greatsword would rest that sharp sword on his shoulder and potentially cut his neck with it.

My point is (not made that well Im afraid) is that large swords do not need to be razor sharp. Even just a little sharp (which has a low risk of cutting yourself unless you apply significant force) is not only adequate, but desired as a way to protect a blade from damage while in combat.

So yes, stupid sharp is not a desirable quality for many medieval blades. :)

- Gauss

We are actually in agreement in that respect. I've personally rested sharp blades against my person while carrying them. The way I see it there are two sharps, shaving/stupid sharp and tool sharp.


Gauss wrote:

ButterKnife:

When I say 'dull' I mean 'not razor sharp'. A semi-sharp sword is like a dull knife. I can put a dull knife blade in the palm of my hand and not cut myself.

Some types of swords were kept razor sharp. Due to the purpose of large swords they did not NEED to be razor sharp. In fact, a razor sharp sword is more likely to get damaged edges. A sword that is slightly dull can still cut through flesh and bone if it is heavy enough without suffering edge damage.

Sir_Wulf is correct about the half sword techniques.

Just to reiterate: I was not speaking about all swords. I was referencing very large european swords that did not need to be razor sharp to do thier considerable damage. Smaller swords had a need to be sharper.

- Gauss

You can halfsword with a sharp blade, without gloves, because yanno, the hand on the blade is just guiding and stabilizing the sword and the hand on the hilt is where the power comes from.

That being said, there is sharp and then there is stupid sharp, and most swords, even eastern swords like the katana, weren't stupid sharp for battlefield use.