Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ilja" data-source="post: 4920998" data-attributes="member: 84300">@Celebrim: Yes, that is a valid point of the invisible attacker. However, even punching someone with a battle axe wouldn't necessarily kill someone if that person had full plate armor. [sblock=Rant from an amateur at medieval history]Full armor gave enough protection to withstand nearly any attack except some missile weapons at short range as well as heavy piercing weapons such as picks and some piercing swords (particulary the estoc), and then it only didn't work some times.The primary way to kill someone in plate armor wouldn't ever be to try to chop of his head with an axe - it's going for the weak spots with a piercing weapon such as an estoc or a warhammer (which is a piercing weapon, not a blunt one thankyouverymuch D&amp;D designers) or simply denting the armor enough to crush the person below. This was done either with again - a warhammer, or any really heavy weapon. There the battleaxe MIGHT work, however, it wasn't usually &quot;one hit kills&quot; then, but rather bashing the hell out of them when they had been beaten to the ground.[/sblock]And with a +3 magical armor, I think you could safely say that he's decently protected even at these &quot;weak spots&quot; where a piercing weapon might work.While a naked person standing like that would indeed be very vulnerable to a battle axe chop, he'll still be staggering back as soon as he gets hit whether he likes it or not, lessening the damage compared to someone held or tied up.So yes, in general you might be right that there are cases where a coup de grace should be possible when it's currently not, but in this case where we're talking about a guy wearing armor making him almost immune to slashing and light piercing weapons being threatened by some goon with a dagger, I think allowing a coup de grace (even if the goon was invisible) would be at least as wrong as not allowing it when he's naked.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ilja, post: 4920998, member: 84300"] @Celebrim: Yes, that is a valid point of the invisible attacker. However, even punching someone with a battle axe wouldn't necessarily kill someone if that person had full plate armor. [sblock=Rant from an amateur at medieval history]Full armor gave enough protection to withstand nearly any attack except some missile weapons at short range as well as heavy piercing weapons such as picks and some piercing swords (particulary the estoc), and then it only didn't work some times. The primary way to kill someone in plate armor wouldn't ever be to try to chop of his head with an axe - it's going for the weak spots with a piercing weapon such as an estoc or a warhammer (which is a piercing weapon, not a blunt one thankyouverymuch D&D designers) or simply denting the armor enough to crush the person below. This was done either with again - a warhammer, or any really heavy weapon. There the battleaxe MIGHT work, however, it wasn't usually "one hit kills" then, but rather bashing the hell out of them when they had been beaten to the ground.[/sblock] And with a +3 magical armor, I think you could safely say that he's decently protected even at these "weak spots" where a piercing weapon might work. While a naked person standing like that would indeed be very vulnerable to a battle axe chop, he'll still be staggering back as soon as he gets hit whether he likes it or not, lessening the damage compared to someone held or tied up. So yes, in general you might be right that there are cases where a coup de grace should be possible when it's currently not, but in this case where we're talking about a guy wearing armor making him almost immune to slashing and light piercing weapons being threatened by some goon with a dagger, I think allowing a coup de grace (even if the goon was invisible) would be at least as wrong as not allowing it when he's naked. [/QUOTE]

Verification