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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Silverglass" data-source="post: 1226026" data-attributes="member: 14071">Which is historically realistic because if you look at what happened people went for bigger and bigger weapons as armour got heavier. If Larger weapons were no more effective against plate armoured opponents why did the plethora of Polearms become so widely used by foot soldiers during the dark ages. If your hypothesis was true everyone would have stayed with light weapons.Well all this is based on the assumption that you are not using huge DR numbers of armour:Firstly Daggers were not efficient weapons against heavily armoured opponents, all this piercing the holes in the armour is rubbish against an opponent who is fighting you, unless you got a lucky hit, which is modelled by D&Ds critical hits. So as long as a critical with a dagger can get through you are ok. The other common situation documented was Knights taken out with daggers after being unhorsed. This is modelled by Coup De Grace within D&D and shows how foot soldiers finished him off "helpless" knights.Daggers were mainly used carried as a utility item, for eating food and defence against unarmoured opponents.Again wrong, during the early use of firearms armour was able to protect against firearms. "Shot-Proof" armour was available which could stop the balls fired from early hand-cannons and arquebus, so against early firearms doing maybe 1d10 damage armour should be able to protect against some attacks (and a critical is again going to blow through the DR).So armour DR is realistic as long as it can be bypassed on a high roll critical with light weapons and normal rolls with large weapons (and with armour providing DR there will be proportionally more critical threats being converted as the target number "to hit" will be lower). So a Full Plate DR of 8 is not completely unrealistic, a DR of 16 would be.</blockquote>

Verification