Official Codex Discord Server

  1. Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
    Dismiss Notice

Why are Gun based RPGs so much more rare then the sword rpg's

Discussion in 'General RPG Discussion' started by Lukrame, Mar 18, 2019.

  1. Sacred82 Dumbfuck! Dumbfuck

    Sacred82
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2013
    Messages:
    2,952
    Location:
    Free Village
    Mhm. That already tells us something, doesn't it?

    You discounted the viability of the sword as a weapon in your last post (after having talked about how to fight with a sword before). You called it simply a status symbol. That doesn't seem to be the reality of it, to put it mildly. I mean, I've already indicated that I expect lots of bullshit from historical documents in the Middle Ages, not unlike you can expect a lot of bullshit in documents from modern times. So we could have a little conspiracy theory on our hands that would boil down to spears reigning supreme on the battlefield for thousands of years, but at least in the Middle Ages people simply loved to write about swords because those were coveted status symbols carried by people from the upper social strata (who would also have been the people to do or commission most of the writing at that time).

    I'd say the reality is somewhere in the middle; and I also think that this is the accepted history of the Medieval sword. The sword was a status symbol for, among other things, the costs and craftsmanship involved. But it was also a very effective and very versatile weapon; the versatility of it can't be debated. However, to make full use of that, you needed lots of practice, experience (not the same thing) and physical conditioning. It was therefore both a status symbol in terms of money or importance of those who carried it, but also a status symbol in terms of fitness, skill and simply dangerousness of those who actually wielded it - as intended. So we can agree it was not simply the a go-to weapon when you were planning large scale military operations from your own territory. Those who were carrying swords were doing so all the time; either because they were self-important noblemen or actually highly trained soldiers.

    uhm… the equivalent of the spear when it comes to the function and requirements of the spear could only be… just a spear.

    Ok this is the old spear vs. sword, which was more effective/ succesful debate. For our purposes, it's important to note two things:

    1) in games, we don't just want one type of (melee) weapons, no matter how convinced the designer is that this weapon would reign supreme in their world

    and

    2) in reality, coincidentally, different weapons also have always co-existed in the same place at the same time. Seems like you didn't want all of your infantry to be carrying nothing but spears. Whodathunk.

    seems like we have to sort out our definitions again.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_(weapon)

    That shit… is just a hook on a pole. No point at the top. No curved blade remotely comparable to the design of an effective axe. They call it "a hooked chopping blade", but was the end opposite the hook even actually honed for chopping in all cases? I repeat, this is a fishing implement used for hauling in people.

    I actually would put that in the hands of peasants. For two reasons… first of all, they'll be at least good for something on the field. And secondly… that shit isn't an effective murder tool. If there's a peasant uprising backed by this kind of weaponry, I'll have them back in their fields the next day.

    The halberd was...

    *dramatic silence*

    A huge poleaxe to be used by an equally huge but specifically trained professional soldier. Probably some kind of elite trooper (because with reach weapons you also have to be somewhat light on your feet) and definitely not your grandma's old city guard.

    Your grandma's old city guard would be exactly the kind of goofball who really really wants that impressive looking weapon that those impressive looking elite soldiers are carrying, without having the physique or training for it, let alone actual applications in the cramped confines of a city. A somewhat long spear and some short blade for close quarter fighting would be just fine. Instead him and his drinking buddies are now carrying a long spear with an axe head on it that they couldn't use effectively if their lives depended on it - literally. And because you sometimes get guards who are even more useless than that, you need a bill-like weapon for them so they can do something - theoretically. But because the English Bill is already established as a weapon of useless peasant miitias, you now have to issue your long spear with a useless axe head AND a hook on the other side. And later generations are going to look at that thing and go "wow, that's some Transformers shit. It must have taken incredible skill for one soldier to master all of those three completely different weapon types and intuitively switch from one application to another in combat while maneuvering that friggin huge pole around because you just can't hit someone with an axe blade if you were just holding them at spear point a moment ago.

    You need to stop listening to your re-enactment buddies. "I can block most strikes with my shield, and I can dodge the occasional blow, but I can also just stand there letting blows rain down on me because I'll suffer some bruises at most". Yeah, and maybe no oversized lump of a man ever took a serious swing at your armored arm/ shoulder/ torso with a huge sharpened axe blade seriously trying to mangle you. The thing you do with your armored body to avoid damage is exactly the same as you'd do without any armor; you're trying to move out of the way, quite simply. Maybe I have to back off a little less than I'd have to if I was in the nude because a sword tip grazing down my mail coat isn't goint to prick my skin, but that's it. Never ever would you seriously train to "intercept" blows using your armored body.

    Are you... are you fucking kidding me? Have you even ever been... in a schoolyard fight? Have you ever even been outside as a kid?
    One of the first human experiences when it comes to people hitting you is that you can't "cover the area" in most cases. Try to cover your lower body when you're about to get kicked. That's how early people learn to try to move out of the way of things that are going to make an ouchie when they hit. We're both armchair guys here when it comes to medieval combat, but right now you're armchairing at being a human being O.o

    yeah yeah, it's all very simple, really. The HEMA guys told you so.
    "It's quite simple but there is much more to it" failed logic detected.

    yeah that's... about the most retarded description of how to use a shield I've ever read from anyone who actually seems to have an interest in historical combat.
    "Yeah using a sword is quite simple really, you just stab in the general direction you assume your enemy to be. There's much more to it ofc but that's how it works at the basic level" :lol:

    Yes. Or rather, maybe. And even then, "some kind of attacks" can only mean "those kind of attacks which won't penetrate the armor". Which is flat out impossible to know beforehand in most cases. And as we've both asserted time and time again, there's more damage you can do to the human body than sinking a blade into the flesh. Bottom line, you DON'T want it to become a habit - and when I say habit I mean for it to become ingrained in your muscle memory - to allow people to hit you because you assume you'll be fine afterwards.

    --> speaking from your experience with the standardized human body, apparently.

    What I can see e.g. is how far back someone is extending their weapon arm. Huge guy raising his huge axe/ club over his head with both hands = expect massive damage on impact. If only the world telegraphing were that easy.

    But some people can land much harder strikes than their frame would have you expect; sometimes, it's the opposite. Weapons can be of different sharpness. You can be confronted with weapons of a type you've never seen. Facing an enemy with a bec de corbin for the first time when you've never even heard of such a weapon may have been bad news; it was definitely very bad news if you just
    tried to "catch" those blows with your trusty plate armor.

    If you've faced lots of untrained fighters maybe you've experienced that most people actually overextend their reach and you think that guy you're fighting right now is one of those cases; but he is actually skilled in using the weapon and brings it down at the precise time to cut into you just as you lazily try to stab him in the gut as you've done before. Bottom line, muh telegraphing as your go-to defense is an option for absolute professionals. Exactly not the kind of thing that would be advisable under the circumstances you've been proposing (producing lots of weapons in a short time and train people with them and then make them fight battles). And when we're talking weapons, there's very little reason to present your armored body to the enemy because you think that blow is going to do nothing. And there's definitely no reason ever to train for it, because training is used to ingrain patterns of behaviour in your body to be accessed instantly or even automatically.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2019
    • /facepalm/ /facepalm/ x 1
    ^ Top  
  2. spectre Arcane

    spectre
    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    Messages:
    3,678
    Which tended to chip and break a lot and wasn't effective vs. armor unless specifically designed for it - with a tapered tip, see some of the variants on previous page.
    No need to romanticize it, you get enough of this shit from the katana folk (although not from the ones who have actually used it on stuff).
    The versality of the sword is there, but if you face guys in armor, you may want to opt for a specialized tool for the job and save yourself the bother.

    Yay, wikipedia images. You really do your research, my good man. Yes, that's a bill. The most basic design an adapted farming implement.

    Here's something that was built for warfare:
    [​IMG]

    And, for comparison, other designs from different countries.
    [​IMG]
    There, prepare to have your mind blown away, all these polearms are actually quite similar when it comes to their basic function - chopping, stabbing, pulling.

    And that's... because you say so? Or is this some sort of gamist trope, where city guard is there to take a beating and be useless? They might as well could, if the region was peaceful and they didn't see any action, but that applies to all kinds of fightning men.
    Historically, there were all kinds of militias out there, and the italian city-state militias were pretty damn impressive.

    No need to get upset, I can see you don't have any background in any kind of a martial art, but that too is all right.
    Yes, humans tend to telegraph their movements in one way or another - shifting balance, changing stance, flinching, it really depends.
    Good fighter will train to minimize that and reading your opponent is an important part of combat.

    Ah yes, magical strikes coming out of nowhere, magical weapons cutting through armor with ease. Good stuff.
    I didn't say anywhere that you could or should catch an overhead blows from a polehammer. You know, the thing that was designed to defeat armor. But you can do so with stabs, cuts and short jabs, no problem. The armor was made to withstand those, otherwise, there's no point to it.
     
    • Brofist Brofist x 3
    ^ Top  
  3. Sigourn Arcane

    Sigourn
    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2016
    Messages:
    4,223
    Location:
    Greater Buenos Aires, Argentina.
    Because developers are not very creative and they take guns to mean "modern world" and thus "boring".
     
    ^ Top  
  4. Sacred82 Dumbfuck! Dumbfuck

    Sacred82
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2013
    Messages:
    2,952
    Location:
    Free Village
    how often exactly. If a sword got chipped in one several hour long battle, not much of a biggie, I'd say. Not if it actually did a good job at what it was intended to do - and I see no reason to doubt that atm. If it broke or got noticeably chipped halfway through, you'd probably have scrounged around for a dead guy's weapon - that kind of thing was far from unheard of AFAIK. And WHY did swords get chipped or broke? Because they were of shoddy craftsmanship/ the design of the weapon was shit? Or rather because people actually swung them with a lot of force - because they could penetrate armor in that case.

    If you have a specialized combat role, then this is probably what is going to happen, yes. In this regard, I'd assume that spear type weapons actually were specialist weapons in the Middle Ages. Not in the sense that they took a huge amount of training or physical conditioning to use properly, but in that they were lacking exactly that versatility that e.g. the sword was offering.

    In ancient times, maybe you could wield a short spear and a shield throughout an entire battle while remaining engaged on the field. Maybe. But that would have changed with the widespread use of effective armor. Now a one-handed stab wouldn't do much of anything anymore unless you lucked out and took out someone's eye. At the very least, you'd have to use both hands to have a chance to break through armor. And a two-handed spear type weapon would have been anything but versatile at that point in time.

    But armor =/= armor, not everyone had access to the same kind of armor, and you need to get your autistic head out of the notion that we're just talking about the Late Middle Ages when swords not coincidentally started to disappear. You have ancient sources describing long Celtic swords that couldn't be used for stabbing (unrealistic as that claim may be) but were very effective in individual combat; you have ample evidence of the Roman gladius that was anything but a show weapon as far as we know; and you have descriptions of people fighting with swords in battle throughout the Middle Ages, from the Franks to the heavily armored cavalries of the High Middle Ages, who surprisingly enough, were still carrying swords.


    So you'll have to make clear what angle you're coming from before carrying on this discussion makes any sense, because you keep moving the goal posts here.

    - are you claiming swords were only show items, that they were useful in individual combat but not on the battlefield, that they were useful on the battlefield but not equally useful in all situations? Which is it?

    - are you claiming that conflicts have always been resolved by arming lots of people with more easily manufactured weapons, like the spear? If so, are you proposing masses of rudimentarily trained soldiers, or was there some conspiracy to mask the fact that professional soldiers were already strictly using specialist weapons on the battlefield throughout the Middle Ages, but the individual combatant got romanticized by stressing the importance of a versatile weapon like the sword? Which is it?

    - are you claiming that armor offered equal levels of protection throughout the Middle Ages, and that therefore certain weapons were never really useful? If so, what level of protection do you propose for the Middle Ages? Something a sword couldn't penetrate? If so, why could a spear penetrate armor that a sword couldn't?

    - are you claiming equal levels of quality/ penetrative power for each weapon type throughout the Middle Ages, everywhere (in Europe)? If so, describe exactly what armor could be penetrated with, let's say, just the sword and spear respectively, or more weapons, at your leisure.

    We don't really have a useful debate here before you clear this stuff up.

    well, that resolves exactly nothing, but thanks for the pretty pictures.

    A weapon with a short point on top and another short point facing down, now that at least makes some sense as far as penetrating metal armor goes, which is usually what is ascribed to those weapons. It would still be a specialist weapon, that is, serve a specialized purpose. Still not something highly trained troops would bother with because it wouldn't require that much training. Basically, you're a can opener.

    Strictly speaking, a city guard could be anyone. Could be militia (not too likely in pre-Renaissance times I guess). Could be someone in the employ of the city/ some local noble. Could be soldiers from a garrison nearby.

    As you may have realized, the city guard of a city state might just be… the regular armed forces in that place. They may see action in the field regularly. Even the elite troops in that place may be roaming the city, official guard duty or no. That doesn't make a spear-axe-hook transforming weapon any more useful or realistic though.

    You can tell me about your relevant martial arts background if you like. I'm pretty sure it's Armchair-Fu though. You also completely missed the point in the same go, grats.

    "I can safely move in the way of this guy's blade. He flinched while lifting it up. Don't nobody gotta fear a flincher." :lol:

    This shit is getting hilarious, keep going. Also, again, you completely missed the Point. I acknowledged the existence of telegraphing while pointing out that "bro it's all in the telegraphing" is a typical armchair bullshit explanation. The physical properties of the human fist and the lightly clothed human body tend to be largely the same; different People facing off with different weapons while wearing different armor, now that's a real toughie when it comes to telegraphing. But apparently, you don't even understand telegraphing. You were using telegraphing as an explanation for why people would have deliberately allowed themselves to be hit by the enemy's weapon; when in reality, reading the enemy's movements to predict the direction of the blow and its point of impact to dodge/ block it or, way better yet, to predict a hole in his defense and then exploit it to kill him would be both safer and way more effective. That is in fact what martial Artists do, they don't try to decide wether they should just take that blow.
     
    • /facepalm/ /facepalm/ x 1
    ^ Top  
  5. spectre Arcane

    spectre
    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    Messages:
    3,678
    A debate you say? So far what you bring to the table is shoddy reading comprehension and spotty factual knowledge, backed by lots and lots of straw men.
    As far as I am concerned this off topic has run its course and not sure what you want to debate here?
    That you can cut through plate armor (or even maille) with a sword edge? Sure, although you need a magical katakakana to do so.
     
    • Brofist Brofist x 2
    ^ Top  
  6. Sacred82 Dumbfuck! Dumbfuck

    Sacred82
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2013
    Messages:
    2,952
    Location:
    Free Village
    :lol:

    You've cited one source so far, and reading sources critically isn't one your abilities apparently. People who rely on documents in verse form using "obscure and cryptic words" and who then say that knowledge comes from "reading between the lines" here don't even know what they don't know about what actually constitutes knowledge.

    You've been contradicting yourself in at least one point from post to post as I've pointed out.
    gg

    Just answering the questions that I've asked in my last post to clarify your position would give us some grounds for further debate/ discussion. There's a point where it's no use wasting more time if people keep moving the goal posts.
     
    • hopw roewur ne hopw roewur ne x 1
    • Cheers!! Cheers!! x 1
    ^ Top  
  7. JarlFrank I like Thief THIS much Patron

    JarlFrank
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2007
    Messages:
    24,048
    Location:
    Secret Lab of the Warrior-Magus of Esoteric RPGism
    Which is more than you cited, just fyi :P
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    ^ Top  
  8. Sacred82 Dumbfuck! Dumbfuck

    Sacred82
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2013
    Messages:
    2,952
    Location:
    Free Village
    Fine by me. I asked him to point me to his source so I could read it for myself, because I had already pointed out some logical problems in the things he claimed were in the paper ("casualties from leg wounds"). Just citing any old bullshit isn't fruitful for discussion, it won't even win you a debate because the other side can always cite yet more bullshit.
     
    ^ Top  
  9. JarlFrank I like Thief THIS much Patron

    JarlFrank
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2007
    Messages:
    24,048
    Location:
    Secret Lab of the Warrior-Magus of Esoteric RPGism
    What's the logical problem in casualties from leg wounds? Yes, there are major arteries in legs that can be hit and lead to bleeding out. Yes, blood loss can lead to you losing consciousness on the battlefield. Yes, being wounded in the leg reduces your mobility and impairs your fighting ability. Leg wounds can be very bad, and even fatal. And when the leg wound can be seen on the bone it means it was a major wound, likely cutting down to the bone, which causes major pain, blood loss, and mobility impairment. This can be deadly on the battlefield.

    Keep in mind that in a battlefield - not single combat or small group combat, like RPGs usually depict - a wound that leads to pain, blood loss, mobility impairment, and results in collapsing to the ground due to those cases, means you are likely to be trampled in the melee since there's about 1000 dudes duking it out there and if you go to the ground you're fucked.

    A wound that makes you pass out in the middle of a battlefield between 5000 BC and 1900 AD is a wound that likely leads to your death for various causes.

    And if only the lack of on-battlefield medicine to save you from the wound's direct effects (bleeding etc), not to mention infection.
     
    • Thanks! Thanks! x 1
    ^ Top  
  10. Sacred82 Dumbfuck! Dumbfuck

    Sacred82
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2013
    Messages:
    2,952
    Location:
    Free Village
    Can be, maybe baby, it's kinda sorta possible, fuck yeah science. That's not evidence, much less evidence for exactly 70% casualties from leg wounds. The number alone is absolutely excessive in the light of how impractical it would have been to aim for your opponent's legs. Except maybe in very specific scenarios; I've come up with one, which is more than he did :P And if we consider this source in the discussion it still begs the question what they considered to constitute evidence for death by nolegs.
     
    • rolleyes rolleyes x 1
    ^ Top  
  11. JarlFrank I like Thief THIS much Patron

    JarlFrank
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2007
    Messages:
    24,048
    Location:
    Secret Lab of the Warrior-Magus of Esoteric RPGism
    Can be, maybe, possibly, etc is exactly the kind of language you've been using during all your speculations, so...
     
    ^ Top  
  12. Sacred82 Dumbfuck! Dumbfuck

    Sacred82
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2013
    Messages:
    2,952
    Location:
    Free Village
    Speculations that are clearly speculations are more useful than speculations masquerading as fact. And the other thing is… what doesn't seem logical now wouldn't have been more logical in the Middle Ages. Unless of course it only seems illogical nowadays because we're lacking some critical piece of information about the past, but you can try to account for that even while speculating.
     
    ^ Top  
  13. JarlFrank I like Thief THIS much Patron

    JarlFrank
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2007
    Messages:
    24,048
    Location:
    Secret Lab of the Warrior-Magus of Esoteric RPGism
    Yes. Things like being able to slice through plate armor or even chainmail with a sword just because it is sharp and applied with lots of upper arm strength are things that never seemed logical, not then, not now.
    The majority of casualties resulting from one of the least well-armored body parts being struck, however, seems very logical and I don't see what's illogical about it.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Shit Shit x 1
    ^ Top  
  14. Sacred82 Dumbfuck! Dumbfuck

    Sacred82
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2013
    Messages:
    2,952
    Location:
    Free Village
    :lol:

    chainmail. An armor invented in ancient times (adopted by the Romans from the Celts and actually downgraded). Absolutely impenetrable for a sword. Pray tell, what kind of wizardry would people have used to bring this invincible wearer of chainmail down?
     
    • (autism) (autism) x 1
    ^ Top  
  15. sser Arcane Cuck Developer

    sser
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,865,820
    Guns in games flirt way too closely with 'my skill = character skill', which means the morons who can't conceptualize character stats will complain.
     
    ^ Top  
  16. JarlFrank I like Thief THIS much Patron

    JarlFrank
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2007
    Messages:
    24,048
    Location:
    Secret Lab of the Warrior-Magus of Esoteric RPGism
    It's not impenetrable. Chain links can break when hit hard enough. It can also be pierced by a strong enough strike (lance from a cavalry charge punching through, crossbow bolts, and yes maybe even a strong sword strike performed with both hands). But you can't cut through it. The kind of damage that breaks through chain links isn't cutting or slicing damage, it's the strong impact of a weapon against it. That's why piercing is effective against it, but it offers extremely good protection against any kind of cutting and slicing damage. Which is why chainmail was so popular from ancient times up until the early modern age, some Polish cavalry used it even in the 17th century.

    A sword edge scraping against chainmail isn't going to cut through it, no matter how sharp the edge is. Application of heavy force can break chainmail links apart and create a hole in the armor which can then be exploited, or heavy force can punch through the chain links and cause a wound right away (like a lance or crossbow bolt).

    But yeah, you know what the most effective way of killing a soldier in chainmail was?
    Aiming for the body parts not clad in chainmail. Usually chainmail would only be a shirt that protects your torso, upper arms and goin. Leaves enough other parts exposed.
    Also, weapons that are more focused on delivering a high amount of kinetic energy to a single point, rather than weapons focused on slicing. You won't get through good chainmail with a scimitar, since it's a slicing weapon meant to be used against lightly armored or unarmored enemies. But a pick or an axe? Yep, that might break through the chain links.

    Note that I didn't say chainmail is impossible to penetrate with a sword. I said it's impossible to slice through it, which is true. It's just a physical fact. You can try it out yourself, even, if you want.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    ^ Top  
  17. Sacred82 Dumbfuck! Dumbfuck

    Sacred82
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2013
    Messages:
    2,952
    Location:
    Free Village
    bro

    can you even into physics bro?

    "Chain links can be broken by being pierced with a sword. Only with two hands of course. The rules are the rules after all. They can not be broken by bringing a blade down hard on them; only tips need apply. Because chain links only break on impact and a blade hitting a chain link is not doing impact damage, it's cutting damage bro. It clearly says so in the Player's Guide, pp. 35-36, damage types per weapon. We could interpret it as slicing damage but that would basically be a house rule."

    Thanks for playing, I'll take my leave of you now my slavering friend. Armchair generals are one thing, and retardation generals are another.

    I'll take with me the image of the invincible wearer of chainmail appearing on an ancient battlefield, with the consequence that they had to call a fucking cavalry charge on the guy to bring him down. There was one big guy with a very sharp two-handed axe standing close to him, but they called him off. "Bro, you're doing cutting damage. Ain't no use trying to break those links with that little tool of yours. He might as well be wearing mithril"

    But then a stray crossbow bolt sailed across the battlefield and took the guy clean in the chest. It was probably fired by someone from inside a time machine.


    :kingcomrade::kingcomrade::kingcomrade::kingcomrade::kingcomrade::kingcomrade::kingcomrade::kingcomrade::kingcomrade::kingcomrade:

    :hero::hero::hero::hero::hero: 5/5 Azns, would reply again




    :buildawall:
     
    ^ Top  
  18. JarlFrank I like Thief THIS much Patron

    JarlFrank
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2007
    Messages:
    24,048
    Location:
    Secret Lab of the Warrior-Magus of Esoteric RPGism
    I mean yeah sure, if all you can reply with are memes I guess that's that.

    Swords are not top-heavy weapons. Most of them don't do a lot of impact damage, as in, deliver a lot of kinetic energy to a single point. That's not their point (pun not intended). They tend to be slicing weapons that cause deep wounds when slicing across organic material, such as cloth and flesh. That's why scimitars are curved like that. That's the point of their design, and why I specifically mentioned a scimitar won't ever slice through chainmail.

    The one who seems to be arguing with "player handbook rules" is you, because most of your theories seem inspired by common popular tropes about medieval combat rather than reality.

    There's a reason they developed specialized anti-armor weapons, and why even in the 11th century sword crossguards got longer and were already used offensively. Because that's more effective against armor.

    It's all simple physics, bro.
     
    ^ Top  
  19. Delterius Prestigious Gentleman Arcane

    Delterius
    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2012
    Messages:
    9,708
    Location:
    Entre a serra e o mar.
    tfw you make a thread about guns and the medieval weaponry nerds take over with a spear x sword debate
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • FAKE NEWS FAKE NEWS x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
    ^ Top  
  20. Cael Dumbfuck! Dumbfuck

    Cael
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2017
    Messages:
    9,467
    Remember the stilleto.
     
    ^ Top  
  21. Chippy Augur

    Chippy
    Joined:
    May 5, 2018
    Messages:
    1,608
    When you make a targeted shot at an enemy and hit them in the eye (even with a musket) they should die outright. Or at least be at death's door.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    ^ Top  
  22. Sykar Arcane

    Sykar
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2014
    Messages:
    7,148
    Location:
    Turn right after Alpha Centauri
    Well it kind of getting annoying when you read from a guy who thinks the most important part about using a sword are your muscles when in fact it is your coordination and skill. Also his inability to accept that modern weapons need just as much strength though due to other reasons.
     
    • Participation Award Participation Award x 1
    ^ Top  
  23. Delterius Prestigious Gentleman Arcane

    Delterius
    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2012
    Messages:
    9,708
    Location:
    Entre a serra e o mar.
    i agree, if that were true then undead skeleton swordsmen wouldn't be a problem in my area
     
    ^ Top  
  24. Sacred82 Dumbfuck! Dumbfuck

    Sacred82
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2013
    Messages:
    2,952
    Location:
    Free Village
    :deathclaw:


    > coordination and skill are what you need for the sword
    > strength is for using guns


    Contrarian Kodex at its worst :thumbsup:

    The discussion was in part about what would enable you to penetrate armor with a melee weapon. When you say 'coordination', what do you mean in this context? What do you mean by 'skill' in this context?

    As for the reasons why strength is just as important with modern weapons as it is for punching through armor with a melee weapon, plz elaborate on those 'other reasons'.
     
    • retadred retadred x 1
    ^ Top  
  25. JarlFrank I like Thief THIS much Patron

    JarlFrank
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2007
    Messages:
    24,048
    Location:
    Secret Lab of the Warrior-Magus of Esoteric RPGism
    The appropriate melee weapon developed for that purpose.
     
    • Participation Award Participation Award x 1
    ^ Top  

(buying stuff via the above buttons helps us pay the hosting bills, thanks!)