Shield Parries and the Issue of Armor Points

[kintire]

Interesting, but early steel was nowhre near as good as what came later. THe quality is just not there. Also,many sword were made with wrought iron, or cast ion, rather than pattern formed. While the odd blade or two might be good, they were still ararity

Swords generally were a rarity compared to, say, spears. The surviving samples are often too damaged by age to give a real picture of quality, but the general picture is that they tended to be quite good. Obviously, techniques improved over time but even early swords were perfectly usable. That is, of course, why people used them!

Well, then it is a myth that is believed by many historians and armorers. It also matches up well with the weapons I've seen. Sword quality startds to improve during the middle ages.

err... the Medieval period is the middle ages. And while there were low quality swords, generally if you were spending the money for a sword, you spent it for a good sword. Actually, its later that poor quality swords arise, as production processes become cheap enough that low quality, low cost swords become possible. But that's post medieval really.

THe Gladius, and most other early thrusting swords, had a relatively short blade

Yes. And were highly effective thrusting swords.

Also, none off the early thrusting swords and knives, such as the Gladius, were used to parry much. FOr that the warrior carried a shield.

Interesting statement. I'm not aware we have many bronze age fighting manuals, or Roman ones in fact. Shields are very useful for parrying, of course, but they weren't always carried.

 

[atgxtg]

Swords generally were a rarity compared to, say, spears. The surviving samples are often too damaged by age to give a real picture of quality, but the general picture is that they tended to be quite good. Obviously, techniques improved over time but even early swords were perfectly usable. That is, of course, why people used them!

One reason why survivng sample give an indication of quality is that the lesser quality weapons didn't survive. Sort of a combination of better weapons being more surviable combined with the fact that those who can afford better quality weapons can afford to take better care of them.

Practically anything is usable as a weapon. Especially if it is all you have. While the professional soldiers and warrior elite had acess to weapons, everyone else had to make do with whatever tools they had. One reason why a sword, any sword, is useful is that it usually most opponents.

err... the Medieval period is the middle ages. And while there were low quality swords, generally if you were spending the money for a sword, you spent it for a good sword. Actually, its later that poor quality swords arise, as production processes become cheap enough that low quality, low cost swords become possible. But that's post medieval really.

If you had the money to spare for a sword (a rather expensive purchase) you would try to buy the best sword you could find/afford. Still, the quality and weight of latter swords was much better than blades of earliler ages.

THere were quite a few poor quality swords prior to the medieval peroid. Cast forged blades for example. Especially when someone had to oufit a large force.

Te Gladius, and most other early thrusting swords, had a relatively short blade

Yes. And were highly effective thrusting swords.

Sure, but they wrere not very good quality blades. A sharp stick is a highly effective thrusting weapon. IF you look at those early swords, they are all short, with broad blades (or triangular) so they they would be strong.

What those swords were not, were good parrying swords.

Also, none off the early thrusting swords and knives, such as the Gladius, were used to parry much. For that the warrior carried a shield.

Interesting statement. I'm not aware we have many bronze age fighting manuals, or Roman ones in fact. Shields are very useful for parrying, of course, but they weren't always carried.

I can't think of any ancient cultures warrior class that used a sword that didn't also use a shield. Why do you think the shield was so common and then fell into disuse? Modern practitioners of the sword note that the shield is more of a hindrance than a help. Why? Because modern techniques rely on parries. If the early swords were good enough to reliably parry with, then shields would have fell into disuse a lot earlier than they did.

 

[elgrin]

Interesting, but early steel was nowhere near as good as what came later. THe quality is just not there. Also,many sword were made with wrought iron, or cast iron, rather than pattern formed. While the odd blade or two might be good, they were still ararity. Doubly so, since swords were usually tooi experience for the common man to afford.

Were they really Cast Iron? I would have thought Grey Cast Iron too unreliable and White too hard and brittle for useful combat. You learn something every day!

elgrin

 

[Mugen]

Max of two rolls for combat - attack and defence with damage not rolled, or attack and damage with static defence. ideally only a single roll is desired. Unfortunately again RQ lacks this.

I suggested using 10s of the roll as Degree of Success and have Damage = DoS + weapon'offensive value (with a similar rule for parry), but it didn't receive much attention.

I just feel that maybe there are more elegant ways to do this, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay's way of determining hit loocation by reversing teh digits on the attack roll is a great idea, gives the same effect but avoids the need for another roll.

Actually, the first test drafts of MRQ used WFRP's system for determining hit locations, but it was discarded because it was not really consistant with rule for criticals.

With a skill of 20, your possible location rolls for crits were 10 and 20. With a skill of 50, you could also hit 30, 40 and 50.

 

[RosenMcStern]

I suggested using 10s of the roll as Degree of Success and have Damage = DoS + weapon'offensive value (with a similar rule for parry), but it didn't receive much attention.

DoS was rejected as a concept in MRQ, whatever idea you and me may have about it. Furthermore, this system has a big flaw: with 90%+ skill and a small weapon, rolling 90 deals more damage than a critical. It could work with DoS = amount by which you made the roll / 20, but this is more maths than most people would accept.

Actually, the first test drafts of MRQ used WFRP's system for determining hit locations, but it was discarded because it was not really consistant with rule for criticals.

Having to roll an additional die is no big trouble, it just adds to the tension of the fight.

 

[Mugen]

Furthermore, this system has a big flaw: with 90%+ skill and a small weapon, rolling 90 deals more damage than a critical.

Not if you state that a '0' is read as a 10 on a critical and 0 otherwise. Doing so, your roll of 90 will deal 1 less damage than a critical.

 

[RosenMcStern]

Furthermore, this system has a big flaw: with 90%+ skill and a small weapon, rolling 90 deals more damage than a critical.

Not if you state that a '0' is read as a 10 on a critical and 0 otherwise. Doing so, your roll of 90 will deal 1 less damage than a critical.

Oh, I see. But this method breaks at skills higher than 100, as a 100% swordsman can deal 1-10 additional damage, while a 200% swordsman can deal, well, 1-10 additional damage. If you want to use DoS, you must accept some complexity.

 

[Mugen]

Oh, I see. But this method breaks at skills higher than 100, as a 100% swordsman can deal 1-10 additional damage, while a 200% swordsman can deal, well, 1-10 additional damage. If you want to use DoS, you must accept some complexity.

Here I simply add 1 to DoS for each full 10% above 100%, and I can treat opposed skills above 100% in a quite elegant manner.

 

[RosenMcStern]

Oh, I see. But this method breaks at skills higher than 100, as a 100% swordsman can deal 1-10 additional damage, while a 200% swordsman can deal, well, 1-10 additional damage. If you want to use DoS, you must accept some complexity.

Here I simply add 1 to DoS for each full 10% above 100%, and I can treat opposed skills above 100% in a quite elegant manner.

Which is fine for me, but too complex for most other gamers here.

 

[atgxtg]

Oh, I see. But this method breaks at skills higher than 100, as a 100% swordsman can deal 1-10 additional damage, while a 200% swordsman can deal, well, 1-10 additional damage. If you want to use DoS, you must accept some complexity.

Here I simply add 1 to DoS for each full 10% above 100%, and I can treat opposed skills above 100% in a quite elegant manner.

Which is fine for me, but too complex for most other gamers here.

What if you let people with skills over 100 switch the 10s and 1s die around. THat way they would still have the same DoS range (so a low skillked character can get lucky and beat a high skilled character once in awhile), but the higher skilled character is more likely to get a better DoS.

For skills over 200%, roll and extra die and keep the best two. THis can be extended out for skills over 300%, 400%, etc.

Not very complex, not a lot of math, but gives a nice range of results.

 

[atgxtg]

Interesting, but early steel was nowhere near as good as what came later. THe quality is just not there. Also,many sword were made with wrought iron, or cast iron, rather than pattern formed. While the odd blade or two might be good, they were still ararity. Doubly so, since swords were usually tooi experience for the common man to afford.

Were they really Cast Iron? I would have thought Grey Cast Iron too unreliable and White too hard and brittle for useful combat. You learn something every day!

elgrin

Some were. One practilce was to cast a relatively soft steel into a clay mold that had been "doped" with carbon to give it a hard cutting edge. Some were wroght iron, too.

By todays standard such blades are too unreliable for useful combat, but most military technology is relative. Cast iron weapons were usually better than weapons made of stone, wood, and (sometimes) bronze. Even so, most of the stuff I see from historians indicates that the unreliablity of the weapons was a reason why cultures such as the Vikings would block with a shield rather than a blade. The weapon being "saved" for striking something softer, such as a living target.

It is worth remembering that metawl armor was less common than metal weapons, so practically anything with a point, edge, or some weight could be effective as a weapon.

Consisteincy was a big problem too. Metallurgy was learned through trial and error, and not everything was passed down. Without modern technology, a lot of things, such as temperature, had to be worked out by eye. requiring a rather long learning curve for a weaponsmith. Sometimes smiths would discover that something made a blade better in some way, but didn't know quite why.

The Katana is considered by most eperts to be the finest cutting sword ever made, yet quality varied greatly from smith to smith. In fact, as the katan faded from use, so did a lot of the skills and techniques of its manufacture. Even with modern equipment swordsmiths today can't duplicate the quality of the finest blades.

 

[Rasta]

Interesting, but early steel was nowhere near as good as what came later. THe quality is just not there. Also,many sword were made with wrought iron, or cast iron, rather than pattern formed. While the odd blade or two might be good, they were still ararity. Doubly so, since swords were usually tooi experience for the common man to afford.

Were they really Cast Iron? I would have thought Grey Cast Iron too unreliable and White too hard and brittle for useful combat. You learn something every day!

elgrin

Some were. One practilce was to cast a relatively soft steel into a clay mold that had been "doped" with carbon to give it a hard cutting edge. Some were wroght iron, too.

By todays standard such blades are too unreliable for useful combat, but most military technology is relative. Cast iron weapons were usually better than weapons made of stone, wood, and (sometimes) bronze. Even so, most of the stuff I see from historians indicates that the unreliablity of the weapons was a reason why cultures such as the Vikings would block with a shield rather than a blade. The weapon being "saved" for striking something softer, such as a living target.

It is worth remembering that metawl armor was less common than metal weapons, so practically anything with a point, edge, or some weight could be effective as a weapon.

Consisteincy was a big problem too. Metallurgy was learned through trial and error, and not everything was passed down. Without modern technology, a lot of things, such as temperature, had to be worked out by eye. requiring a rather long learning curve for a weaponsmith. Sometimes smiths would discover that something made a blade better in some way, but didn't know quite why.

The Katana is considered by most eperts to be the finest cutting sword ever made, yet quality varied greatly from smith to smith. In fact, as the katan faded from use, so did a lot of the skills and techniques of its manufacture. Even with modern equipment swordsmiths today can't duplicate the quality of the finest blades.

Oh atgxtg, my heart skips a beat when you talk like that.

I love it.

 

[Lord High Munchkin]

Dear All,

I used to have a Japanese instruction book for sword-smiths that described how to make a tachi in "10,000 easy stages" - a lot of repetition was involved.

I swopped it for a book on Japanese Buddhist portrait sculpture, which is a LOT more interesting.

Regards

 

[Mugen]

What if you let people with skills over 100 switch the 10s and 1s die around. THat way they would still have the same DoS range (so a low skillked character can get lucky and beat a high skilled character once in awhile), but the higher skilled character is more likely to get a better DoS.

For skills over 200%, roll and extra die and keep the best two. THis can be extended out for skills over 300%, 400%, etc.

Not very complex, not a lot of math, but gives a nice range of results.

In fact, I created a game engine around this idea, using HQ-like masteries. You count 1 success if you succeed at a d10 roll under skill threshold, and 1 for each mastery you have. Ties are resolved by comparing the d10 result and die is re-rolled on a '0'.

But this is definitely out of topic for this thread and this forum.

 

[kintire]

By todays standard such blades are too unreliable for useful combat, but most military technology is relative. Cast iron weapons were usually better than weapons made of stone, wood, and (sometimes) bronze. Even so, most of the stuff I see from historians indicates that the unreliablity of the weapons was a reason why cultures such as the Vikings would block with a shield rather than a blade. The weapon being "saved" for striking something softer, such as a living target.

By the time of the Vikings pattern welding was a fully mature technology. Viking swords are flexible and effective weapons with a hard cutting edge. They parried with shields because that's easier.

The Katana is considered by most eperts to be the finest cutting sword ever made, yet quality varied greatly from smith to smith. In fact, as the katan faded from use, so did a lot of the skills and techniques of its manufacture. Even with modern equipment swordsmiths today can't duplicate the quality of the finest blades.

Katana construction is well understood, and the construction techniques have faded because they are obsolete. A katana made with modern techniques blows any ancient one out of the water. Mind you, it is true that early sword smithing was an art, not a science, but low quality blades wouldn't see much use.

http://www.thearma.org/essays/hype.htm

 

[atgxtg]

By the time of the Vikings pattern welding was a fully mature technology. Viking swords are flexible and effective weapons with a hard cutting edge. They parried with shields because that's easier.

Well, we disagree a bit here. Most of my sources do not rate Viking swords highly.

Katana construction is well understood, and the construction techniques have faded because they are obsolete. A katana made with modern techniques blows any ancient one out of the water. Mind you, it is true that early sword smithing was an art, not a science, but low quality blades wouldn't see much use.

http://www.thearma.org/essays/hype.htm

Katana manufacture has lost some. THe stuff I've seen has most master swordssmiths admitting that many techquies have been lost as the sword has fallen into disuse. I haven't seen any modern smith who claim to make a blade as good in quality as the blades produced when the art was at it's height, and there are still some smiths in Japan who make katanas.

That said, modern maufacturing techiques would be far more reliable and consistent in quality.


As for low quality blades not seeing much use, guess again. Part of the problem with old swords is that it wasn'T easy to tell just what you were getting. Many lower quality blades has smith marks of masters (it was coomon practice for a mastersmith to "claim" the products of his apprentices under his mark, likewise some smithswould put the marks of more famous smiths on thier own swords to increase the sale price).


Most people were happy to have a sword, any sword, and didn't know enough about blades to tell a good sword from a not so good sword.

You are probably right about lower quality blades not being used much, since going into battle with an inferoir weapon no doubt shortered several warriors careers.

 

[atgxtg]

Oh atgxtg, my heart skips a beat when you talk like that.

I love it.

I'm not following you here. Do you mean too much info, too funny, too boring, or what? :?

Sometimes I just don't pick up on subtext, sacasm and other stuff in text form.

 

[Rasta]

I'm not following you here. Do you mean too much info, too funny, too boring, or what?

Sometimes I just don't pick up on subtext, sacasm and other stuff in text form.

Yeah, I know. It's hard to convey the meaning too, in a meaningful way.

I was saying that I like the detail you put into the post. It kinda turned me on, in a heterosexual kinda way.

 

[atgxtg]

I'm not following you here. Do you mean too much info, too funny, too boring, or what?

Sometimes I just don't pick up on subtext, sacasm and other stuff in text form.

Yeah, I know. It's hard to convey the meaning too, in a meaningful way.

I was saying that I like the detail you put into the post. It kinda turned me on, in a heterosexual kinda way.

Euww! Now I got to wipe down the computer with anti-bacterial form. A sad waste of alcohol. :!:

 

[Rasta]

I'm not following you here. Do you mean too much info, too funny, too boring, or what?

Sometimes I just don't pick up on subtext, sacasm and other stuff in text form.

Yeah, I know. It's hard to convey the meaning too, in a meaningful way.

I was saying that I like the detail you put into the post. It kinda turned me on, in a heterosexual kinda way.

Euww! Now I got to wipe down the computer with anti-bacterial form. A sad waste of alcohol. :!:

Indeed. I get a little too excited from time to time. It just happens.