Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Derren" data-source="post: 5880895" data-attributes="member: 2518">Because they historically were (at least if you had to use words they were better than bigger ones).Something that D&D (or most RPGs really) doesn't simulate very well and DR as armor would make even worse is that when fighting heavily armored opponents the usual tactic was to hit the gaps in the armor, not to get a bigger weapon.There is a reason why knights preferred a polaxe instead of huge 2 handers. Because greatswords were very bad against other knights. A longsword was equally ineffective and it required a lot of skill to harm a knight in plate with them.PS War hammer:<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6b/Moritz-von-Sachsen-1578.jpg/461px-Moritz-von-Sachsen-1578.jpg" target="_blank">http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6b/Moritz-von-Sachsen-1578.jpg/461px-Moritz-von-Sachsen-1578.jpg</a><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/War_hammer2.jpg" target="_blank">http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/War_hammer2.jpg</a>They were not the oversized sledgehammers with flat heads D&D wants you to believe.So much wrong...1. Bows, crossbows and most guns had quite a lot of trouble with heavy armor. Plate armor was designed to be bulletproof and also normal arrows and bolts couldn't penetrate them either. Only rather modern muskets (17th century) became more armor piercing and still the important people wore breastplates.[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZuWjk[/ame]2. Normal Axes sucked against heavy armor. Against heavy armor the only "axe" you used were in the form of long polearms like halberds. For smaller weapons people prefered piercing weapons (or slashing weapons with a pointy end) because those weapons were actually able to pierce through armor.</blockquote>

Verification