NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BlockyPS" data-source="post: 4722871" data-attributes="member: 80677">Hey APC  Yes, the body is amazing but it is very vulnerable too. Know those weaknesses (arteries, tendons) and you can defeat an attacker with a fast cut more efficiently than hoping a heavy blow lands in the right place or a thrust to the body doesn’t get caught on the ribs etc.  I don’t think so. Some of the guys I train against are recognised as some of the best in the world. However my reference to daggers is probably misleading. I use dual knives. The blade is a foot long and flat on the reverse side, for blocking (as you know daggers are bladed on both sides). You have to consider the mechanics of using weapons to understand why I find dual knives a better choice. In the hands of an accomplished martial artist a weapon is merely an extension of their body. Ideally it should react as quickly as their own hands as well as having the structural strength behind it to block powerful blows. Due to their smaller size and weight you can fight with knives almost as quickly as you can use bare hands. Their lightness means you can change direction with them lightning fast too. And as I said above, it takes just one cut to a variety of areas to finish a fight. You are also seriously underestimating the effectiveness of having a second weapon. With a single weapon it’s like fighting in a fist fight with one hand tied behind your back. You’re options are severely restricted which makes you much more predictable.  Yes, the D&D gaming world has a vast range of people playing the game. It’s great to see!   Ha ha – you have seen some action haven’t you <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> I was of course referring to experience or training with weapons. I’m assuming that you would have had some training in the SEALs with knives but as you know the training in them is very limited as the vast part of your training is with guns and other utility equipment. In fact, most people would be surprised to learn that in the whole of the armed services bare-handed and knife combat has little place in training, besides bayonet drilling. Most of the guys in the SAS here actually get their martial arts training outside of the forces and even fewer get proper training with weapons. But I’m sure now that you’re older and wiser you can see how pretty stupid you were getting yourself into bar fights, especially one every couple of weeks. In fact you’re lucky to be alive. To go into a bar fight and not know 1) how good your opponent is, 2) whether they are armed or 3) whether they have several friends nearby ready to jump you from behind is pretty crazy. My instructor was a bouncer for a several years and has several knife wounds from his years on the door. People out there are pretty crazy. Oh and I’ve never seen anyone killed by a temple blow either but its frequency wasn’t my point. I was debunking the use of hit points to reflect how much damage a person could take to be killed or knocked unconscious when a strike to the temple COULD kill/knock unconscious a person as well as the variety of other simple killing strokes, like cutting an artery.    I have already explained that a simple cut can kill a person, that’s not a ‘weak’ attack if they’re bleeding to death. Whether they’re armed or trained is irrelevant to the point. And if they’re armoured then a) that slows them down making my additional speed much more of an advantage and b) a thrust with a knife using the right body dynamics and structure can be very powerful and penetrate most armour (assuming they’re covered from head to toe and have no exposed areas you could attack instead)   Reach is an advantage when using similar weapons (hands in your case) and you are evenly matched in ability. We have an old saying: “If two opponents are evenly matched, beware the stronger fighter”. So attributes such as strength, reach etc can give you an advantage if things are evenly matched but the argument doesn’t hold up with weapons as the reach factor of a weapon is usually offset by the loss of another benefit.  Sorry not true. I can stop a full swing from a baseball bat with one knife. As I mentioned before, it’s a matter of getting the right technique and body structure. Don’t try it at home readers. It takes years of training to get it right!  Well, APC, I don’t blame you but you obviously don’t know how to use 2 weapons properly.  As you argue in a later post, the battlefield is a completely different arena compared to a one on one situation, with groups of men moving and attacking in formation. The dynamics change completely. And you can’t bring the comparison of modern warfare into this either. A bayonet is attached to the end of a gun for a reason. A soldier, would never drop their gun to draw 2 knives, you of all people should know that. However, 2 knives has a massive advantage over a stick with a knife on the end of it.    This shows your limited understanding in the use of weapons. A weapon is only dangerous when it enters a certain zone around you where it can reach you. When the weapon can reach you, you can reach it. An untrained person only thinks about attacking the person “looking for an opening”, not attacking the weapon and controlling it so you can then attack the person. You overlooked this most crucial part of my post, that after deflecting/blocking then you attack the hand/arm that has the weapon, as we say “defang the snake”.  As you say in another post, armies are actually made up of people who aren’t well trained. Put a stick with a blade on the end in their hands. Form them up and march them at the other side. I don’t know where you got 20% dead from but the vast majority of deaths occurred after the actual battle from injuries that were usually poorly treated.  In your opinion.  Only more formidable in the sense they can do greater crushing damage from their sheer weight. Recovery time is not the major disadvantage of a reach weapon. It’s once you’re past the pointy end, from either a miss or a deflection that the user is pretty much at their opponent’s mercy.  Never fought someone with a short sword and shield, so I can’t really comment on it unless you want me to give it some serious thought and come back to you. And I’ve always agreed with you that having two daggers shouldn’t mean you get an extra attack. I only spoke out against you saying that two daggers was an inferior fighting form when my direct experience and training says otherwise <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  *sigh* Please don’t treat me like I’m some teenage kid who hasn’t been around the block a bit and is just going by what he sees on TV or reads in comics. I know the dangers of live weapons, I know how a sword can be used in combat and I also know how to counter it. I never said it was easy but using two knives gives you options that a single sword user just doesn’t have. I fully agree with you when it comes to the D&D game, we can’t make it a simulation of reality. But I’m not arguing that, I’m taking you to account on what you perceive reality to be when you haven’t trained in it.   Again, not arguing for unbalancing the game. 4e has done an excellent job restoring balance. I really hope they don’t blow their hard work. There are definitely many ways a sword and shield can work together but I would argue that two short knives in your hands work much faster and more harmoniously/fluidly.CheersBlockyPS</blockquote>

Verification