Trip? Disarm? Sunder? Gone forever?

[med stud]

I would point out that the main characters who were disarmed in the Star Wars movies (whether they lost the weapon or the limb) were all at the verge of defeat. Luke didn't just walk up and slap the saber out of Vaders hand on the first strike. IMO these sorts of attacks should be restricted to use against bloodied opponents or enemies significantly lower than the attacker.

-Q.

It can also be a dramatic way of subduing a foe at 0 HP if that is your prefered mode of play.

 

[Lacyon]

It can also be a dramatic way of subduing a foe at 0 HP if that is your prefered mode of play.

This. Hardcore this.

 

[Stoat]

The 3.5 gave me the rules I'm asking for here.

And it seems that 4E provides rules for tripping and disarming (via specific powers) as well as a framework for creating additional rules if you want more.

 

[tomBitonti]

If you would strike a blade hard enough to break it if it was stuck in something, your opponent would lose his hold of it before it broke. The feat or maneuver Sunder essentially gave you the opportunity to use anything that deal damage and use it to destroy your enemies weapon. IMO that's just silly.

As a side note, there is an episode of MythBusters that attempts to sunder bladed weapons. I didn't see the entire episode, so I didn't see all of the tests. What I remember seeing are two tests, one (I think) being of a pair of katana type bladed made with modern materials, and two with at least one of the blades being a heavy blade (maybe a claymore).

In none of the tests did a blade break. At best, the blades caused nasty notches in each other. What seemed to happen was that one of the blades bent out of the way, or the mounting device failed to hold on to the blade. (Seeing a blade bend back to a U shape was definitly an "oh wow" moment for me.)

My sense is that for masterwork (good quality steel) blades, the same would hold, if you equated masterwork blades with good quality steel ones.

It's too bad that D&D doesn't have weapons of varying qualities, as (my understanding is that) iron weapons are much more brittle than steel ones and much more prone to breaking. Would this be a metel fatigue / crack growth type problem? Also, isn't this the case with aluminum, which (also in my understanding) does not self-repair cracks?

Also, isn't this be a very testable hypothesis? The strengths of steel and iron are known, and can be used to figure what force is needed to push one blade through another.

 

[Saeviomagy]

As a side note, there is an episode of MythBusters that attempts to sunder bladed weapons. I didn't see the entire episode, so I didn't see all of the tests. What I remember seeing are two tests, one (I think) being of a pair of katana type bladed made with modern materials, and two with at least one of the blades being a heavy blade (maybe a claymore).

Katanae are the gods of swords and all other weapons cower before them.

If you like katanae, you don't need to read the rest of this post. Seriously, stop now.

I had heard that early asian forms of sword combat didn't make use of parrying because the weapons of the day were made so badly that they would become badly damaged or destroyed.

Technological advances fixed this over time for well made swords.

Does anyone have anything that supports or refutes this?

 

[hong]

Katanas are the gods of swords and all other weapons cower before them.

If you like katanas, you don't need to read the rest of this post. Seriously, stop now.

Nobody said anything about katanas.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Nobody said anything about katanas.

I have no idea what you're talking about...

 

[SDOgre]

Your statements regarding armor and firearms are wholly inaccurate. Armor was effective against firearms for a very, very long time. There was the practice of proofing where armor would be shot and the dent left by the pistol ball would provide evidence of the armor's suitability. Their are plenty of accounts of armor stopping pistol fire. The cuirassier was fielded by the French on the battlefield until 1914, well past the time it was effective, but the use of armor continued for so long because armor was effective against firearms for a very long time and would help keep you alive on a battlefield.

The reason for the reduction in the use of armor is very simple and was the same as the reason it was never entirely universal to begin with. Armor is expensive and heavy. Dismounted soldiers are severely hampered by it and for the cost of armoring them you can just field more of them with more weapons, which the advent of the firearm made even more advantageous. But mounted soldiers, being of higher status and greater cost to train, were routinely armored for the battlefield.

Personal weapons of the light and quick sort were not made for the battlefield. The rapier and small sword were never seriously considered weapons of war. They were sidearms for killing a fool who stepped to you in the street, because being nobility is the same as being a rapper. Got to protect the rep.

First I never meant my post to be a specific year by year, culture by culture break down of the medieval arms race. It was meant to be general and why I have a problem with mixing "fencing" style fighting with medieval fighting.

Saying that, the use of guns absolutely contributed to the decline of armor. It was not the only factor. The cost of a fully armored knight had become ridiculous by the 15th century. And with the use of the peasant soldier, a much cheaper solution was to use the non-noble peasant, give him basic if any training, and throw him at your opponent in mass. The knight became an inefficient use of gold.

Guns, the peasant soldier, and economics put the heavily armored knight of out business.

You could add other factors as well, including new battle tactics that took away much of the mounted knight's advantage in battle.

Three were many reasons for the decline of the knight. Sometimes in history we hear of one thing and cling to it because it's all we know. Keep an open mind and ear and you'll continue to learn.

 

[SDOgre]

Katanae are the gods of swords and all other weapons cower before them.

If you like katanae, you don't need to read the rest of this post. Seriously, stop now.

I had heard that early asian forms of sword combat didn't make use of parrying because the weapons of the day were made so badly that they would become badly damaged or destroyed.

Technological advances fixed this over time for well made swords.

Does anyone have anything that supports or refutes this?

I can tell you that in a general sense while European master smiths who made swords were no shmows, the secret of japanese samauri swords was a well guarded secret and was superior to European swords.

Saying that, they still only had iron. Improved iron over time, but it wasn't until the Bessemer Process in the late 19th century that you get true steel. Thus weapons were by modern standards brittle and known to break in combat if struck the wrong way with enough force.

Poorly made weapons could break more easily.

 

[Hussar]

I can tell you that in a general sense while European master smiths who made swords were no shmows, the secret of japanese samauri swords was a well guarded secret and was superior to European swords.

Saying that, they still only had iron. Improved iron over time, but it wasn't until the Bessemer Process in the late 19th century that you get true steel. Thus weapons were by modern standards brittle and known to break in combat if struck the wrong way with enough force.

Poorly made weapons could break more easily.

Actually, that's not particularly true. Damascus steel is every bit as strong as the steel made to make Katana. I would also point out, that at the point in time you are talking about for making Katana, we're pretty close to the 19th century.

The myth of the katana is something that has been persistent for years.