KickStarter Solasta: Crown of the Magister - 5E OGL TB RPG with verticality and environmental interactions

All the melee weapons need the same level of expertise to be honest,hammer,axe or sword,the trick is the same for all.....don't get you head chopped off. The whole "muh you have to be master" shit is retarded. Back in the day weapons were used by live long warriors and not by random peasants. There were no "you have be master to get a X weapon",back then it was shit passed down generation of knights and lords,they were pretty much versed in all weapons,after all it was their job. Same is all the other civilizations during that time period. There were ruling casts and warrior casts that were expert of warfare.

As you pointed out,they were like the katanas. They were used in the same isolated way like the katanas,only in the german lands and against other messers . Tho the two handed one is a whole different thing . The short one is pretty meh because it is short and lacking in versatility.

Prefer war axes,the best anti shield melee weapon. Also good for killing of armoured assholes.

 

Yeah but the minimum amount of skill you need to be able to get in a fight and not get your head chopped off is a different level for different weapons. Like a polearm or dane axe or something inherently helps you with that because they are so long they help you keep people at bay.

This is generally true, I mostly agree, but you still had peasant levies who you'd give "easier" weapons to, like a bill hook or a spear or whatever (part of this was also because those weapons are cheaper, but still).

Axes are also dope, not as good as hammers vs armor of course but they saw lots of use for a reason.

 

I mean do swords, when used for slashing or stabbing, is even effective against heavier armor of any kind? I guess cloths armor up to something like gambeson would be vulnerable, but any metallic armor? You either stabs in the armor gaps, use the handguard thing as a makeshift hammer for heavier swords, or better use polearms or hammer/mace, right? I guess heavier western swords would deliver a big punch when smashed against armor even when it doesn't cut, but at that point it is pretty much a metal stick in function, not a sword anymore.

 

Slashing, not really, piercing definitely. Something like an estoc would be good vs armor.
However hammers and maces are better vs heavier armors.

 

Fantasy isn't medieval and any enchanted sword is able to cut through normal armor. Ego sword can even kill his own user. Now of course it also means armors in fantasy should be A LOT more expensive than medieval armors.

 

Generally speaking,yeah,there is difference between the weapons. In reallity tho it didn't really mattered,most of the noble's kids were pretty proficient with those weapons at early age. They train by actual fighting for most of their early life,so by the age of 10 they were pretty good warriors. After all at the age of 13 most boys were seen as man already. The difficulty in training is more of modern thing when people do it as hobby where you get 3 hours a week doing it. Back then it was more about reading the battle than knowing how to slash or stab,that shit was more a muscle memory than anything.

They were used more out of economical reason than because they were easier to use. It was a lot more cheaper and faster to make stick with an iron point than a well balanced sword. Also the peasants were kind off proficient with using such weapons in their daily life in the form of pitchforks and such. Same shit with axes and hammers,they were practical tools that could be used as weapons and the peasants were used to handle. Spears are like any other weapon out there,in the hands of an expert it will hold its own against any other weapon .

Ahhh depends on the axe,a nice back spike will fuck up any armour. Also a nice top spike could give you a nice edge in poking shit.

 

I guess a specialized sword for stabbing might be effective yeah. To something up to chainmail like armor I guess?

I just find it silly to discuss the merit of which swords work best against armor because in my mind any slashing or stabbing sword is mostly effective against non-armored to lightly armored opponents, to begin with. The fact that some western sword as heavy as fuck and can deliver a blunt force trauma enough to hurt people behind armors is something I personally consider to something outside the function of a sword. At that point might as well bring a mace.

Now a question. I read that axes are more effective against armor compared to sword? What caused this? They are after all both slashing weapon right?

 

Swords could be effective against plate armour,you have to used them in half-swording where you grab the blade with hand and either try to pierce the armour's crevasses or use the hand guard as a hammer.

 

But basic physics shouldn't be hand-waved just because of magic weapons.

 

You underestimate the ability of men to find ways to kill each other. In reality you don't have resistances or immunities to X type of damage,even a small wound could be deadly in a real fight. The defensive abilities of armour is greatly overestimated in games .

 

Yeah I pointed out that you can find the gaps to thrust. But if you are indeed in a position to do so, wouldn't any stabbing sword works as long the tip is thin/small enough? I guess Japanese swords which are designed around slashing won't work... but all primarily slashing swords will not work as well. You can't do shit with falchion or kopesh or thick roman style sword to do that.

As for smashing them using the guards I also acknowledge it above. But. well, at that point it is like using a turned-off chainsaw to bash a person head in. Or using a rifle, handling the barells and smashing people head with it. It works due to the weight of the object as a blunt weapon. It is not indicative of the "qiuality" of a sword at all like doing so with chainsaw or rifle would indicate their respective quality.

 

Basic combat styles. Magic sword vs magic sword is still sword combat style. On the other hand spear shaft sliced off would be likely result with normal spear vs magic sword.

But of course, if we want to talk about normal heavy armors then, fighting in insufficiently ventilated heavy armor would kill you. And sufficiently ventilated heavy armor has lot of weak spots. Enchanted armor would likely have both advantage of no weakness, and ability to fight without heat problems.

 

Sure, you could say that they all had martial weapon proficiency and could pick up any weapon and fight with it. I still say there are weapons that take less time to learn to use competently, but practically speaking if it was your job to fight yes you'd have time to become competent with pretty much all of them. Oviously there were better fighters and worse fighters, and individuals were better or worse with specific weapons, but beyond that I agree with you on "muh studied the blade" shit being dumb.

For polearms and spears and stuff they also work well for formations where you tell the untrained dirt farmer, "just hold this out in front of you," although I don't know if that was the original intent of the weapon or if the tactics are a consequence of the fact that peasant infantry already had those weapons.

A thin and pointed sword would be easier to use to seek out gaps, like if you thrust it might slide along the armor and naturally find a gap easier. That is just a guess though.
As far as axes, as fantadomat mentioned they could have a spike on them for piercing armor, but also their weight is all focused in the head so they focus more force into a smaller area which would be better than a sword for breaking mail links, for example. The blade would probably not be meaningfully better than a sword against plate, probably.
"Some western sword as heavy as fuck" is a meme though, by the way. Swords are pretty light unless they're ceremonial.

Depends on the game, in real life unlike Pathfinder plate armor is going to be better than "muh Dex build" 99.999999% of the time for example. People probably overestimate how serious an injury has to be to get killed in a fight, but based on the way armor is treated in a lot of fiction (weighs 200lb and has the protective ability of wax paper) I bet most people underestimate how good armor was at protecting you.

 

Except itches.

 

Not with that attitude

 

Axes have a smaller impact area compared to swords and the way they're weighted means they're more choppa.

 

Or that hammer.

 

Potato, potato:

 

Katanas too have pointy edge,but you can't do half-swording with it. The shape and the thickness is all wrong,also don't have a guard to use as a hammer.

As for slashing weapons...well that is the point. Slashing weapons were a lot later part of the european warfare evolution. They were used predominantly in countries that have a lot heavy armour like in the middle east. In Europa became a dominant after the invention of the muskets because they made heavy armour redundant. Before them it was the rapier and other piercing weapons that dominated because they were counter for plate armour. With the invention of muskets armour became useless and soldiers begun using cloth "armour" because it is a lot easier to take off so the wounds could be treated,also it gave them more mobility. That is why the Euros adopted slashing weapons such as the saber.
The point is that japs lack any military evolution and the katana is the basic piece of metal that was 2000 years ago. Even as a slashing weapon it is inferior to say,a saber. It lacks refinement that comes with a lot of war experience. Despite what anime and games show it to be,japan does have pretty war free history. They have a single big civil war and single war with the mongols in the last 1000 years,before the westernization.

 

Yeah those would do.

 

You never see an axe phalanx or a club phalanx. For a large number of scrubs fighting in close formation, spears seem the most idiot-proof.

 

Generally yes but on the other hand:

 

The game's depiction of armour is really annoying and far fetched at best,only kingdome come did it justice. In reality plate armour was not just plate like games,underneath it had layer of chain armour and padding,which is lighter leather armour. And that dex stupidity is painful too . Actual armour was not as heavy or wooden as games make it to be. You could do pretty dexterous shit in it,you even got more chance dodge/parry a hit with it than naked.
Tho i do disagree on your view on the seriousness of an injury. You are ignoring the fact that it was a fucking fight,and your enemy wouldn't just let you go like that. Also suffering an injury meant that your surviving chances and computability are diminished. On top of that many people used "poisons" on their weapons,also the chances of infection were pretty high. Winning a battle doesn't equates in to surviving it . Getting injured during training is not a big deal,but during a campaign is a very dangerous thing,especially if not a high noble.

 

No, that's what I was saying too. I said people overestimate how much injury would take you out of a fight - as in, they don't realize how small of an injury will take you out of a fight (or kill you after the fight).
I was just pointing out that armor was very very good at protecting against injuries and I don't think most games portray it as such.
I haven't played KCD yet, it's on my list for sure.