RQ2/RQ3 : 2 weapons & 2 attacks in the same round?

[MJ Sadique]

To reinforce always sharp RosenMcStern reasons : Most people are like me, right handed but terrible at doing things with his left hand, not very rich so can't afford to be trained  and moreover they like wining fight but prefer living.

Another Christian reason : a nobody know as David with a low-cost sling just critical hit some big giant well trained soldier and became king. Morality : better have an helmet (D&D vital first weapon), a shield (Warhammer vital first weapon) and an full-armor (RuneQuest vital first weapon).

[Yelm's Light]

1 hour ago, RosenMcStern said:

But dual wielding includes shields! MOST soldiers were dual-wielding. With shields. Only shock troops (pikemen, greatswordsmen, poleaxemen) did something different.

The point is that having a shield encompasses both the advantages of dual-wielding (engage enemy weapon with your shield and counter-attack with your sword or axe) and having a powerful defense against missile fire. Who wouldn't have a shield when there are so many advantages?

Dual wielding is a very specific term that refers to wielding two weapons.  The Spartans in 300 or Brad Pitt in Troy notwithstanding, the shield isn't used as a weapon.  At best it's used to push someone off-balance with a bash.

(Btw, that jumping-around-in-duels BS that Achilles pulls wouldn't fly in reality; he'd soon find himself at the end of a spear.)

[SDLeary]

6 hours ago, g33k said:

Hmmm.  At first I thought, "YES!  That's right."  But upon reflection... is strikes me as TOO good, I think.

Given that the overwhelming majority of ancient-through-medieval soldiers were NOT dual-wielding (single-hand weapon + shield was far more common) I have to regard the mechanism as too advantageous; why aren't MOST soldiers dual-wielding?  I'm not saying that the scenario (bind with primary, strike with off-hand) didn't happen... just that the historical record would seem to indicate that there's a ready counter that most fighters would know...

 

Of course this was done. Bashing with the boss or edge of the shield has a long tradition. And please repeat after me... "A shield IS a weapon". 

SDLeary

[fulk]

20 hours ago, g33k said:

Given that the overwhelming majority of ancient-through-medieval soldiers were NOT dual-wielding (single-hand weapon + shield was far more common) I have to regard the mechanism as too advantageous; why aren't MOST soldiers dual-wielding?  I'm not saying that the scenario (bind with primary, strike with off-hand) didn't happen... just that the historical record would seem to indicate that there's a ready counter that most fighters would know...

 

 

It is worthwhile placing dual wielding and shield use in context.  Historically dual wielding was really used for dueling in a civilian context not on the battle field.  Rapier and dagger is great when you're walking around Florence and then get into a fight.  Who wants to carry a kite shield around town? 

However, on the battle field a shield is a better defensive weapon, especially when you are boxed up in a shield wall and can't dodge around.  It also is great against the enemy's arrow barrage and is much cheaper than good armor.  On the battle field soldiers switch from spear and shield or sword and shield to two handed weapons (eg pike, halberd occasional 2h sword) as plate armor becomes more effective.  For one, a shield is less necessary if you are covered in plate armor.  Second, against plate a simple sword won't do it anymore, so use a 2H weapon (eg English billmen).  Similarly as firearms (and to some extent crossbows) become more powerful, shield become more or less useless and are dropped (as is armor).

There are some obvious historical exceptions to the above re 2H weapons vs shield (Alexander's infantry, housecarls with 2H axes) but as a general trend it holds pretty well.

Personally from RQnew and BRP in general, I'd like to see a bigger jump in armor points from chain to plate, and some rules that make blocking/parrying with a shield easier than blocking/parrying with a sword or sword and dagger. 

Fulk

[MJ Sadique]

5 hours ago, fulk said:

1/ It is worthwhile placing dual wielding and shield use in context.  Historically dual wielding was really used for dueling in a civilian context not on the battle field.  Rapier and dagger is great when you're walking around Florence and then get into a fight. 

2/ Who wants to carry a kite shield around town?
...
Personally from RQnew and BRP in general, I'd like to see a bigger jump in armor points from chain to plate, and some rules that make blocking/parrying with a shield easier than blocking/parrying with a sword or sword and dagger. 

Fulk

Nope, nope and nope...

1/ This is a European medieval point of view... but the world is much bigger. Dual weapons was commonly used on battlefield in siam and india as soon as martial art exist. Just see the history of Krabi-Krabong, the dual weapons techniques of Muay boran/thai. It was specifically made to kill mass of people... on the battlefield ! From India to japan, dual wielding on the battlefield are usual because a good defence equal a good mobility for martial artist. Only European discovered it at the renaissance, one to three millennia late...

2/ Legolas... everybody know why !

3/ Not logical, chainmail can be 1centimeters thick at max, plates 4mm at max. So no need for big change (rq3 values at max are fine) + Kite Shield protect passively 3 localisations (on 7, so almost half of the body) and moreover a normal parry still lessen damage from a critical hit. (rq3 : Sword at 1D8+1 will do 9+BD, kite shield still stop 16PA, a dagger 6PA).

 

 

[fulk]

6 minutes ago, MJ Sadique said:

Nope, nope and nope...

1/ This is a European medieval point of view... but the world is much bigger. Dual weapons was commonly used on battlefield in siam and india as soon as martial art exist. Just see the history of Krabi-Krabong, the dual weapons techniques of Muay boran/thai. It was specifically made to kill mass of people... on the battlefield ! From India to japan, dual wielding on the battlefield are usual because a good defence equal a good mobility for martial artist. Only European discovered it at the renaissance, one to three millennia late...

2/ Legolas... everybody know why !

3/ Not logical, chainmail can be 1centimeters thick at max, plates 4mm at max. So no need for big change (rq3 values at max are fine) + Kite Shield protect passively 3 localisations (on 7, so almost half of the body) and moreover a normal parry still lessen damage from a critical hit. (rq3 : Sword at 1D8+1 will do 9+BD, kite shield still stop 16PA, a dagger 6PA).

 

 

Disagree.

 

#1.  Yes.  I was thinking of a western context.  I will admit to less knowledge of eastern warfare.  Nevertheless, the context is important.  All you have done is suggested a different context, which is fine.  What works in a different culture, works in that culture because the best offense depends on your opponent's defense and vice versa--context.   Tradition also matters.  Samurai had their origins as horse archers, so it would make sense that they wouldn't use shields.   Western cavalry liked to close to HtH, so heavier armor and shields were more relevant. 

If one fights in a shield wall, where maintaining the integrity of the wall is important, mobility is somewhat of a bad thing.  The last thing you want is the wall to disintegrate with people moving around.  Using a shield is the way to go. There will, of course, always be individual exceptions like Anglo-Saxon housecarls (really a Danish term) who fought with 2H axes out in front of the line, but they were the elite, not the mass, and their tactical role is different.  A lot of Western European infantry (archers aside) used shields because their main role was to hold the line or at advance in mass. 

Eastern traditions of warfare are different, so different techniques are effective.   In more open formations, different tactics and weapons will be appropriate. 

Even in the west, different troop types used different tactics (obviously) and had different roles in a battle.  Skirmishers like peltasts fought differently than heavy infantry like hoplites.  Their arms and armor are different based on the context in which they use them.  

I'm not sure what you mean by a martial artist.  However, fighting as an individual is not the same thing as being a soldier in a massed unit and is a lot more like being a civilian fencer.  What works in a large group on a battle field, may not be the same thing that works in a 1-on-1 fight.  If you're not running around in armor, mobility is obviously a good thing whether you are using a rapier and main gauche or Krabi-Krabong techniques.  

#2.  I assume this is a joke. 

#3.  I'm not sure what you mean by not logical or # 3.  Plate armor certainly provides significantly more protection than mail.  15C ranged weapons could easily penetrate mail, but not plate.  I just think the bump up in AP should emphasize, 1) needing to use crushing weapons to achieve knock downs, or 2) 2H weapons do do more damage.  A one point increase (for plate) doesn't seem high enough for me.  YRQMV. 

 

I think the main point is that the arms and armor fighters use have a cultural/military context, and that context changes through time (and in space).  Fighting/defensive style evolve as a result.

F

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RosenMcStern]

6 hours ago, fulk said:

Personally from RQnew and BRP in general, I'd like to see a bigger jump in armor points from chain to plate, and some rules that make blocking/parrying with a shield easier than blocking/parrying with a sword or sword and dagger.

This would not be the correct solution. As you yourself stated, a shield is a vastly superior choice on the battlefield, when you can use it as passive protection from arrows and in a formation. By making it easier to parry with a shield (an active manoeuvre, as opposed to the two passive manoeuvres that were more common on the battlefield), you are not making a shield better in battle, you are making it a better choice in situation in which it should not. A passive protection advantage as in RQ3 and Mythras gives a better representation of the immense usefulness of the shield on the battlefield, but at the same time it does not make it a better weapon for dueling.

As for chain vs plate, the progression is wrong in BRP, RQ2 and RQ3. A bit more realistic in Mythras. The point is that chain is an intermediate armour that everyone and his dog as been wearing for the last 2500 years. Brigandine, scale and lamellar was often worn over chain, which means that they should have more AP than chain. Basically, these armours, and plate, have the total AP of the underlying chain and their own, exactly as the AP for chain is in fact the AP for the chain and the mandatory gambeson underneath.

Thus, if plate is AP 6, chain should not exceed 4. If plate is AP 8, chain should not be more than 5. In Mythras the values are 6 and 8, so more reasonable and probably the closest to reality.

[Mankcam]

As an aside, I wonder what the AP values will be in CRQ4? I guess to be consistent with the RQ Classic stat blocks that the AP may be from RQ2.  Personally I tend to think more in RQ3, just due to familiarity, but I can easily adapt either way with these things.

I wonder which direction the next edition of RQ is gong in?

 

 

Edited October 1, 2016 by Mankcam

[SDLeary]

2 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

Brigandine, scale and lamellar was often worn over chain, which means that they should have more AP than chain.

Not necessarily They could all have the same AP... but the armor types you mention are more rigid than chain, and should thus be better protection against certain weapons. Thus when donned over chain, it is probably because some on the other side have weapons that chain doesn't do so well against, such as maces and mauls. 

 

2 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

Basically, these armours, and plate, have the total AP of the underlying chain and their own, exactly as the AP for chain is in fact the AP for the chain and the mandatory gambeson underneath.

Early plate was worn over chain (note: because of the Brigandine listed above, I assume you are talking about a Cuirass) early on. Later, in an attempt to lighten the load, chain sleeves and leggings were worn separately, laced or buckled to the shoulders and waist of the arming doublet. The Plate would then cover other exposed areas. Some areas may have more plate coverage, such as vambraces, pouldrons, greaves, etc. So to assume that a particular armor type includes anything other than basic padding underneath is not necessarily the case. Plate, brigandines, scale, lamellar, and others were worn by themselves, with padding only underneath.

SDLeary

[SDLeary]

2 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

Thus, if plate is AP 6, chain should not exceed 4. If plate is AP 8, chain should not be more than 5. In Mythras the values are 6 and 8, so more reasonable and probably the closest to reality.

I would say that light/early plate (European bell cuirass, Dendra panoply, hoplite armor, lorica segmentata, early medieval plate) should be enough to turn the blow of the average opponent using a spear or sword, how ever much that is in the game. Later/more advanced plate should be about 2 points more. 

Chain is a special case, and is always open to interpretation. The apparent reason for chain is to simply minimize one from being cut or stabbed by a bladed or pointed weapon, as its much too flexible to really protect against bludgeoning weapons. My personal preference for chain is 5-6 points, but only counts as 2 points (from the padding) vs. bludgeoning. Half vs bludgeoning is also viable. 

SDLeary

[Yelm's Light]

4 hours ago, MJ Sadique said:

1/ This is a European medieval point of view... but the world is much bigger. Dual weapons was commonly used on battlefield in siam and india as soon as martial art exist. Just see the history of Krabi-Krabong, the dual weapons techniques of Muay boran/thai. It was specifically made to kill mass of people... on the battlefield ! From India to japan, dual wielding on the battlefield are usual because a good defence equal a good mobility for martial artist. Only European discovered it at the renaissance, one to three millennia late...

I'm not much of an expert on Pamaltela, but Genertela is modeled primarily on European, Middle Eastern and Indoeuropean civilizations.  In none of those that I know of was dual wielding a major battlefield tactic.  And it's hardly only medieval, either.  There's no evidence (again that I know of) that Roman, Greek, Trojan or Egyptian warriors or nomadic Arabs were majority dual wielders.

Edited October 1, 2016 by Yelm's Light

[Mugen]

7 hours ago, MJ Sadique said:

Nope, nope and nope...

1/ (...) From India to japan, dual wielding on the battlefield are usual because a good defence equal a good mobility for martial artist.

Concerning Japan, Dual wielding was definitely not common, and especially on the battlefield. Prior to the Edo period, the main weapon of the samurai was the bow, then the lance. The katana was a close defense weapon, and a secondary one on the battlefield.

[Mugen]

In RuneQuest 3, you can wear plate over chainmail armor (or, in fact, any rigid armor over non-rigid armor). 

Also, base Armor Points are for bronze weapons and armors, and armors made of Iron or Steel should have higher values.

[soltakss]

On 9/29/2016 at 8:35 PM, RosenMcStern said:

But dual wielding includes shields! MOST soldiers were dual-wielding. With shields. Only shock troops (pikemen, greatswordsmen, poleaxemen) did something different.

The point is that having a shield encompasses both the advantages of dual-wielding (engage enemy weapon with your shield and counter-attack with your sword or axe) and having a powerful defense against missile fire. Who wouldn't have a shield when there are so many advantages?

Exactly. Look at the Vikings, some of them had iron-bound shields, with a ring of fairly sharp iron around the edge of the shield, that could be used to smash someone in the face or the body as a slashing attack.

[styopa]

18 hours ago, fulk said:

I think the main point is that the arms and armor fighters use have a cultural/military context, and that context changes through time (and in space).  Fighting/defensive style evolve as a result.

One point that I feel is lost (and will likely remain lost, because people hate encumbrance/fatigue rules so badly) is that weapon, armor, use and context has EVERYTHING to do with environment.  It wouldn't surprise me at all if 2-weapon use was prevalent in India (I don't know their martial culture at all) and the midweast because...have you ever BEEN to India?  Hot as hell.  I didn't enjoy wearing a SHIRT, much less would someone be able to wear/operate with heavy armor - even a locally-acclimated native.

In the Euro context, people *could* wear heavier armor, so they did, so weapons responded by being more about the hammering and puncturing and hacking than the cutting (the easiest thing to resist).  It's chicken and egg about which development came first, but inarguable that it has everything to do with comfort - you might need that armor for a hours during a battle, but you've got to wear it and be effective for the span of a campaign.

Unless/until someone comes up with a good rule for comfort/happiness, people will wear the heaviest armors that they can get away with.

 

I'm curious how armor stacking will work in RQ4, for sure.  What's rigid, what's flexible (is bezainted flexible?  Could you put a plate over it?), and what are the penalties if any for experimenting?

 

As far as the shield/dual-wielding thing, personally I feel that this is going to badly get in the way of the effort to 'simplify' melee by having a single skill for "Broadsword" instead of a separated attack and parry.  The fact is that there is a complicated synergy between 1h weapon, off-hand weapon (which could indeed be a shield), and using a larger weapon with 2h.  Having (what I'd call) ridiculously high parry values for weapons (ie shortsword 20AP, more than even a hoplite shield) almost negates the point of ever using a shield in melee.  "Giving" any 1h weapon wielder the ability to freely pick up a shield and use it without penalty seems overly generous, while penalizing that 1h weapon wielder on their fundamental ability to hurt an enemy because they happened to pick up an unfamiliar shield seem overly hurtful.

I don't have the answer, mind you, but it's a complex conundrum.  

[MJ Sadique]

Armor and 2-weapons-2-attacks-in-the-same-round : The thread is not really speaking about armor but I had the cases where the problem of Shield or Armor with dual-wielder clearly arise : Like some player wanted to wear his brigandin + new found iron plates and twin 1H swords; total of 100enc : I won't even speak about malus and fatigue cost but he forget this after crawling for the full time of his first fight !

 

20 hours ago, styopa said:

One point that I feel is lost (and will likely remain lost, because people hate encumbrance/fatigue rules so badly)...
...
Unless/until someone comes up with a good rule for comfort/happiness, people will wear the heaviest armors that they can get away with.

Yeah, the rules are heavy (-) but realist (+) and usefull : sword + shield are 5enc worth so -5% to dodge and chainmail (20e) + plates (25e) are 45 Enc worth so total of -50% to dodge. As for fatigue, peoples under heavy heat lose 2-4 FP per melee action (losing at max 8 per round so all positive points in 3 rounds, and getting -8% additional malus each next round). How many master really apply this rules ? few, I think.

But these rules are the main reason for dual weapons usages : Armored fighters aren't supposed to dodge. Against a dual wielder retiarii, they are screwed. Against a fencer with rapier, screwed too... this is a historical fact : rapier go through plates and ended the era of heavy armors (severely outdated by crossbow and longbow), and the rules say so rapier max damage at 18 vs 7 PA (3rd ed.).

21 hours ago, styopa said:

Having (what I'd call) ridiculously high parry values for weapons (ie shortsword 20AP, more than even a hoplite shield) almost negates the point of ever using a shield in melee.  "Giving" any 1h weapon wielder the ability to freely pick up a shield and use it without penalty seems overly generous, while penalizing that 1h weapon wielder on their fundamental ability to hurt an enemy because they happened to pick up an unfamiliar shield seem overly hurtful.

I don't have the answer, mind you, but it's a complex conundrum.  

Nope, with one hand weapon you can attack OR parry. With a 100% broadsword, you'll have to choose to attack perfectly or parry perfectly. Dual wielder are great because with a sword and a side weapon they have 4 configurations : A+a, A+p or P+a, and P+p.

For the shield or weapon change, the rules states a malus of half of the skill which will get better with times... nobody said we have to wait weeks of training ! I personally prefer giving a -30% to -50% and lower the malus by 10% each round or failed parry; with -10% minimum. And if you miss a parry, you can still dodge (unless having a full twin plate iron armor... yeah some dwarf PC ask me if he can try a roll at -50% {skill and malus included}).

 

As a master said : Against a powerful attack use a complex respond. Against a complex attack, use a prowerful but yet simple respond.

[RosenMcStern]

On 1/10/2016 at 3:46 AM, SDLeary said:

My personal preference for chain is 5-6 points, but only counts as 2 points (from the padding) vs. bludgeoning. Half vs bludgeoning is also viable.

Definitely the most plausible values. They are those listed for ring mail (an armour that most historians insist never existed) in RQ3 and the BGB, so the best solution is, I think, to rename ringmail as "historical chain mail" and restrict 7-point armour* effectiveness to a combination of chain and brigandine, lamellar or laminar cuirass and limbs. This would probably do the trick.

* - 5-point on the RQ2 scale, in which case chain mail is 4 points.

2 hours ago, MJ Sadique said:

this is a historical fact : rapier go through plates and ended the era of heavy armors

Where did you get this "historical fact" from? ALL historians and re-enactors agree that 1H swords are almost useless against plate armour.

Quote

Nope, with one hand weapon you can attack OR parry. With a 100% broadsword, you'll have to choose to attack perfectly or parry perfectly.

This rule is superseded by the official errata. You can parry and attack in the same round with a 1H weapon.

[soltakss]

4 hours ago, MJ Sadique said:

Against a fencer with rapier, screwed too... this is a historical fact : rapier go through plates and ended the era of heavy armors (severely outdated by crossbow and longbow), and the rules say so rapier max damage at 18 vs 7 PA (3rd ed.).

I am not sure about this fact at all.

I was under the impression that black powder weapons finished off plate armour as it offered not much protection against musket balls, so when we got large number of muskets deployed on the battlefield, plate armour was seen as unnecessary.

It would seem to me that a rapier against a plate armoured knight would consist of the rapier hitting the armour, bending in a cartoon fashion and then either bouncing back or breaking. "Have at you! Ah ...".

[SDLeary]

6 hours ago, soltakss said:

I was under the impression that black powder weapons finished off plate armour as it offered not much protection against musket balls, so when we got large number of muskets deployed on the battlefield, plate armour was seen as unnecessary.

Not immediately. Plate did sometimes triumph against ball from Handgonne's and early Arquebus. As barrels became longer, the faster the decline though.

SDLeary

[SDLeary]

10 hours ago, MJ Sadique said:

But these rules are the main reason for dual weapons usages : Armored fighters aren't supposed to dodge. Against a dual wielder retiarii, they are screwed. Against a fencer with rapier, screwed too... this is a historical fact : rapier go through plates and ended the era of heavy armors (severely outdated by crossbow and longbow), and the rules say so rapier max damage at 18 vs 7 PA (3rd ed.).

Retiarii were generally unarmored. The only way an armored opponent was screwed was if the Retiarii could keep away long enough to tire them, or if the gladiator was seriously much more skilled than a soldier; not a forgone conclusion. 

Despite rapier damage, today I would say that the type of plate would matter greatly. ...

If we are talking about Greek Hoplite Panoply, European Bell Cuirass, or Roman Lorica Musculata then a rapier functions normally; gaps around the armpits and waist are great enough that chest and abdomen could be injured after sliding off the armor itself. 

If we are talking European Medieval Full Harness, then no. The only way I could see this would be on a Critical Hit.

The rapier was a dualing weapon, and not suited to the battlefield. Thats why longswords continued to be made and carried.

SDLeary

[Mugen]

On 01/10/2016 at 7:51 PM, styopa said:

As far as the shield/dual-wielding thing, personally I feel that this is going to badly get in the way of the effort to 'simplify' melee by having a single skill for "Broadsword" instead of a separated attack and parry.  The fact is that there is a complicated synergy between 1h weapon, off-hand weapon (which could indeed be a shield), and using a larger weapon with 2h.  Having (what I'd call) ridiculously high parry values for weapons (ie shortsword 20AP, more than even a hoplite shield) almost negates the point of ever using a shield in melee.  "Giving" any 1h weapon wielder the ability to freely pick up a shield and use it without penalty seems overly generous, while penalizing that 1h weapon wielder on their fundamental ability to hurt an enemy because they happened to pick up an unfamiliar shield seem overly hurtful.

I don't have the answer, mind you, but it's a complex conundrum.  

Personnally, having 1 Attack and 1 Parry skill per weapon is something I see as exceedingly cumbersome. A solution would be to have only 4 or 5 skills : 1H Attack, 1H Parry (including shields), 2H Attack, 2H Parry, and perhaps Off-hand attack.

And, obviously, shields need to be more effective as defensive weapons than shortswords.

[Yelm's Light]

46 minutes ago, Mugen said:

Personnally, having 1 Attack and 1 Parry skill per weapon is something I see as exceedingly cumbersome. A solution would be to have only 4 or 5 skills : 1H Attack, 1H Parry (including shields), 2H Attack, 2H Parry, and perhaps Off-hand attack.

And, obviously, shields need to be more effective as defensive weapons than shortswords.

Really not realistic.  An axe will be far different parrying than a longsword, which will be different from a broadsword one-handed (due to weight difference), from a dagger, and very different from a shield.

[Mugen]

17 minutes ago, Yelm's Light said:

Really not realistic.  An axe will be far different parrying than a longsword, which will be different from a broadsword one-handed (due to weight difference), from a dagger, and very different from a shield.

Personnally, I don't see having completely disconnected weapon skills as very "realistic" either.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Mugen

[RosenMcStern]

2 hours ago, Mugen said:

Personnally, I don't see having completely disconnected weapon skills as very "realistic" either.

I think we have already tackled the subject ad infinitum. The truth is in between, with battlefield expertise actually giving you an edge with any weapon in any situation, but your specific training with a weapon having a fundamental role in how well you perform,too. And similarities between weapons being a thing.

Different systems model this reality in different ways, highlighting the aspect the designer saw as more important. You range from OpenQuest only having a Close Combat skill to classic RQ versions using a separate skill for almost everything. None of these can really model "reality as it is", so it is just a compromise between simplicity of play and the group's personal tastes.

[MJ Sadique]

17 hours ago, soltakss said:

It would seem to me that a rapier against a plate armoured knight would consist of the rapier hitting the armour, bending in a cartoon fashion and then either bouncing back or breaking. "Have at you! Ah ...".

You don't know what the rapiers are ! First, Rapier's blades don't break... they can even parry a heavy sword at full strenght without getting damage (1) . Even if rapier cross section are a quater of medieval sword, they are in Forged Iron with great ductability, not in wood. I won't play like some rpg were swords break at first impact and where the best sword of the world is in crystal...

18 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

This rule is superseded by the official errata. You can parry and attack in the same round with a 1H weapon.

Still sharp ! Didn't remember this errata change, but I never use rule . I always accept parry and attack with same weapon but at a cost of 1RA which mean a player attacking at RA 7 like his ennemy must choose between attack or parry !

10 hours ago, SDLeary said:

1/ Despite rapier damage, today I would say that the type of plate would matter greatly.
...
If we are talking European Medieval Full Harness, then no. The only way I could see this would be on a Critical Hit. The rapier was a dualing weapon, and not suited to the battlefield. Thats why longswords continued to be made and carried.

Yes, this is the key point but a plate armor with thickness of 1mm is still 15Kg (metal only, spare you the calcul & explanation). Later plates armor were ~30Kg with 2mm of forged iron protection but even at this thickness, a longbow or crossbow at 50 yards could pierce it. An arrow cross section is ~100mm², but most rapier have less than 40mm² cross-section then you need half or third of an arrow strength to pierce such armor with a rapier !

One of my friend with decade of escrima pratice had test it, it's not easy but when you get the tip, you always pierce it. To me, chance seems likely than a special success even if he argue me for hours that he could do it more often than that. He's slim but a bit more than 2,1 m tall man so he may be a bit easier for him.

Only the armor classified "A toute Epreuve" could still stop such attack but they are heavy (up to 50kg) similar to jousting armor (~4mm thick, won't even speak about the cost). A good way to find these info "weapon vs armor" is looking for docs about War wounds. A french specialist in Medievals (2) had written a very clear and funny title chapter : "The medieval defensive weapons. The always disappointed illusion to be protected ?".

 

Back to the main dish, "2-weapons-2-attacks-in-the-same-round" : In looking for historical combination with rapier (3), I found the rapier and cloak combo (which could be use as a net or to deflect); most commonly used are buckler, dagger or a shorter sword which give high adaptability at melee or close combat. Dual similar weapons usually depict specialist : dual dagger, cestus for close combat, Shimmen Musashi's dual style are powerful combo for melee and berserker twin axes are usefull for melee or short ranged fight (as state in earlier pages of the thread).

back to the thread : Which dual weapons will you choose and why ?

I prefer rapier + hidden/throwable dagger because it's a fashion weapon (3) thinking it's a sissy weapon, they'll get a big surprise ! (And as not part of 1H sword skill, noby will steal you -nor teammates, no ennemies-). So it's melee, close combat and short distance (throwable) and no armor to run away quickly !

 

1 : http://www.salvatorfabris.org/RapierParryingLongsword.shtml
2 : http://www.persee.fr/doc/medi_0751-2708_2000_num_19_39_1498#medi_0751-2708_2000_num_19_39_T1_0127_0000
3 : https://web.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project-101313-104620/unrestricted/IQP_History_of_the_Rapier.pdf