Color exists, light exists.  If no humans (or creatures) were around, color and light would still be there, exactly the same, but they wouldn't be called color and light.  It's not the same as morality.  Morality is a purely human construct.  It did not exist until we created it and if we were gone, it wouldn't exist anymore.  The universe keeps ticking along without our intervention, and it doesn't do morality.  It does do light, color, sound, and all the other things in physics that we named but did not create.  Color is what we call the differences between wavelengths of light.  It's there in the universe, exactly as it was before we were around to call it color, the same as it will be when we're all gone.  An alien somewhere else in the universe may call it something entirely different, but IT still exists.  It doesn't need humans.  Justice, morality, love, etc... and purely human constructs.  They did not exist before humans, and they would not exist if humans were gone, except as concepts in our books.  If those books were destroyed, so to are they.

These same people will tell you that god exists outside of the laws and rules of the universe and therefore can't be explained. Linky

Then they can't use scientific points of reference to try to convince me he's real.  I am perfectly willing to believe in something that I have no evidence for or against, but you can't say on the one hand that God can't be explained, and then on the other try to explain him to me.  The faithful are always trying to do that.  The big kick nowadays is Intelligent Design.  They are trying to create a scientific basis for the existence of a creator.  The problem is that the idea of a creator fails the scientific method.  "Never mind that," say ID proponents.  "We know he exists and you can't prove otherwise."

That is utter nonsense.  Either you stick with the "unfathomable unexplainable" and therefore undefinable creator, or you play by scientific rules.  You can't pick and chose which aspects of science you use and which you don't.

It wouldn't be so bad if people simply said "I don't care if their's no evidence I "KNOW" they exist.  We could part ways and they could believe what they want, and I could believe what I want.

Unfortunately people all over the place say they have "scientific proof" that these things are real, when they actually have no more than an unexplained event and a blip on a monitor, smudge on a photo or an 'eyewitness' who has everything to gain by either lying or embellishing the truth.  I'm sorry, there is not proof.  You can believe anything you want to, and when(if) you have solid evidence, I'll listen with an open mind.  Until then, just because you saw it on Ghost Hunters doesn't mean anything.

I'd just like to say, that I am thoroughly enjoying watching people talk about stuff they probably, when it comes right down to it, have no real idea about.

Now, proceed.

By the way, the pillum was more of a javelin than a spear, correct me if I'm wrong of course.  Made of soft metal so that it would render the opponents shield useless.

Get in close with a dagger and you win.

If it was used to throw, the momentum would almost always make it break off in the opponents shield, and yes, it was designed that way.  When used in battle, that was always the goal, but it didn't always work that way.  The gladius was long enough to reach past your shield and into the opponent, but if you're in formation with an army, a dagger is not what you'd want to use.  In order to make it an effective weapon, you'd have to break formation, which was a tremendous advantage.  Otherwise every army would have used daggers in battle.  They didn't.  There are very good reasons for that.

In one on one combat, there is also the law of diminsihing returns.  My favorite weapons is a sword somewhere between the length of a broadsword and that of a short sword.  It doesn't put you at much of a disadvantage with opponents with heavier blades and it still gives you reach, plus its lighter.  If the blade is too short, the required skill to use it effectively goes up faster than the inherent advantage the extra speed would give you.  Also a smaller weapon becomes primarily a stabbing weapon because it's not heavy enough to slash against an opponent with any sort of armor.  To use a short sword against an enemy with a longsword requires you have to know what you're doing and play your advantage against his disadvantage.  To win against the same opponent when all you have is a dagger, you have to be better.

On the other hand, it doesn't take much skill to be dangerous with a polearm, except the problem is you're a danger to most people around you and probably yourself if you don't know what you're doing.  It's fine for an unskilled fighter to use a spear or pitchfork to keep a wild animal at bay, but it's quite another to try to defeat a warrior who knows what he's doing.

I'm no expert.  I expect someone who's good with a dagger could wipe the floor with me, but if he's an expert in knife fighting and has never run into anyone with a sword, I'll probably wipe the floor with him, because I HAVE used a sword against a knife.

Idoru:  The pilum didn't have a barb on it, but it was designed to snap when thrown and usually did even if you missed.  I suppose an enemy could have used the end (which was around two feet give or take) but it wasn't going to be as effective as the weapon they already had.

On the subject of experience, no I've never duelled to the death in RL, but I've had plenty of brutal experience with the advantages and limitations of a wide variety of weapons.  I have the scars and memories of nasty bruses to punctuate that experience.  I've used pole arms, swords, maces, axes, daggers, shields, worn a suit of plate armor in battle (although I've never rode a horse in one) fought with and without a shield, used two weapons and one, been in knife fights, one on one, wild melees, ambushes, battles with tactics and strategy and I know a little Akido.  I've fought opponents who know fencing (florentine which is actually a very good style) and competition fencing (which isn't) Kendo, Karate, Akido and used and had used against me a variety of unclassified weapons (including a rather ingenuous two bladed dagger designed for throwing)

As I said, I'm not an expert (although I have been up against experts), but I do know something of what I'm talking about.

A peasant is causing trouble in a bar. He's rather drunk, and he's knocking over beer and insulting folk. He's unarmed and unarmoured, but rather strong so the guards are still called.

The guard walks in, sporting a full set of finely polished steel knight's armour and a big magic claymore. He spots the peasant and moves grimly towards him.
But then he steps on a puddle of beer that was spilled earlier - it's in the shadow of the table, so it's completely invisible.

The guard's feet slip right out from under him and he falls backwards slamming his head hard on the table and stonework floor. The razor-sharp, magic claymore clatters to the floor next to him as the guard lies dazed on the ground.

The strong peasant then staggers to the guard, picks up the sword, stands over him and plunges it into the guard's chest. The highly trained, heavily-equipped guard is now very dead due to the magic claymore lodged in his chest (which magically pierced the armour, obviously).




That's a perfectly logical occurance. Highly trained people die of freak accidents all the time. Just look at Steve Irwin.


But, of course, that would never happen in an RPG.

I wish that could happen in an rpg.  Mostly luck is simulated by a die roll that is a catch-all for all those variables we can't take the time and effort to define.  On the other hand, luck didn't play as big a role as your example would lead us to believe.  It wasn't luck that made the puddle invisible, and maybe someone with sharper eyes would have seen it and avoided it, or maybe a guard who had more experience in bar fights would have known where not to step, or maybe he might have chose not to go in fully armored because metal feet slip more.  A lot of experience related things might have kept him alive.  Luck came into play when he stepped on the puddle.  It also might have been possible that he wouldn't have fallen when he stepped on it.  He might have had enough experience in a fight or a good enough sense of balance that he might only have stumbled, or if he fell he might have kept hold of his sword because hey... in a fight, people might fall, and the more experience he had in fighting, the better his grip might have been.

In your example, the guard didn't die necessarily die in spite of his experience or because of bad luck.  He may have died because he was inexperienced in that kind of situation.  He might also have died simply due to dumb luck.  But if you are exerienced or well trained, you are able to take better advantage of good luck and reduce the consequences of bad luck.

*edit*

I have a dagger and no armor, you are a knight, full armor and a VERY big heavy sword.

I charge at you, you swing your sword but I dodge it. you are busy following through with your swing and now youre screwed, im too close to you for you to swing at me again. I stab you through your helmets eye holes (kinda thinking there is a proper name for the ).

Another example of short swords being more effective is a Gladius it helped conquer europe, and used it quite effectively against spears and other longer weapons.

Point of fact, the gladius was used as a SECONDARY weapon by the Romans.  They would first lodge their spears in the enemies shields to slow them down and when(if) they got close enough, they would use the gladius to stab at close quarters where the spear is less effective.  It was not effective against spears on its own.  It was effective against spears because of the way the Romans used their own spears (ie as one weapon in an arsenal, not their only weapon as a lot of armies did in those days) I highly doubt that if the Roman front line legions had entered battle armed with ONLY the gladius, that they would have conquered Europe.

Also, you are using the gladius in combat between armies to justify the effectiveness of a dagger used in one on one combat.  The two are entirely different.  Besides that you skipped passed one basic assumption in your example:  "You swing your sword but I dodge it"  That is an assumption that you need to define.  Why did he miss?  Did he miss because he's unfamiliar with fighting unarmored opponenents with knives?  Did he miss because he misjudged his swing?  Did he miss because he's unfamiliar with his weapon?  He could have hit you in spite of you dodging.  You are trading increased mobility for less protection.  He is trading mobility for increased protection.  With a dagger unless you DO hit some place vital, like under the arm or the thigh or the eyelet, then he is pretty much invulnerable to your weapon.  If he's any good wth his sword, he pretty much only has to hit you once.

Who's going to win?  Look we can all come up with specific situations where one person X with Y weapon will have an advantage over person A with B weapon.  If the argument is: does the length and speed of a weapon matter? then the answer is: yes.  If the argument is does the length and speed of a weapon decide the battle? then the answer is no.  Training and experience is the biggest influence on the outcome of a battle, and NOT just with the kind of weapon you happen to be using.  It's using it in combat, whether its single combat or battles between armies, in using it against other types of weapons, fighting in different terrain, in different armor, weather, moods, degrees of health.  Some of these things we can't simulate in a game, others we can.  Anything we can't simulate is turned into a die roll and collectively called "luck"

[ Please avoid making one post right after the other in the same thread. Just "Modify" your first post to add more information. --Karyuu ]

I like it like that. It fosters player interaction - you've gotta RP for your bread and butter

I don't think you should have to ask PCs or NPC's for game mechanic stuff.  Where to get jobs, where to find monsters, quests, vendors, sure, but how to use your skills? no.  Either the manual or in-game help should tell you that.  Besides, how to you RP: "Click the mouse on...."?  I like it that you don't have a mini-map.  I like it that you have no gold or items to start out the game.  I like it that the only weapons you get free are your fists.  I don't particularly like having to 'figure out' how to use skills my character has apparently had for years.  That is "anti-immersive"

Quote

More than half the content isn't implimented yet,

Understatement of the year?

But anyway, how the newcomers adapt has been discussed a lot. Talk to NPCs, talk to other PCs...help abounds if you know the right places to ask.

Thank you.  I figured it out since I posted this, but there is some tutorial help at the beginning when you finish creating your character and you're finally in game.  I figured a little bit on skill use would be good.  Nothing fancy, but something like "To use a skill you need (x) and you need to click on (y)...." to start you on your way.

Point of interest, armies started using the spear because it didn't take a lot of skill to use and reduced the edge highly 'trained' men with swords and axes and such had.

That having been said, one of my primary beefs with any discussion about weapons in combat is people frequently forget that battles between armies require different training than duelling.  If you had an armored knight against an unarmored man who used the florentine style of fencing, my money would be on the fencer, every time.  He may not win every time, but I give him at least a 70%.  You put a hundred fencers on the battlefield and put them up against a hundred knight on foot with their armor, my money would be on the knights.  The reason why swords got lighter as time went on was that heavier blades were slower.  When everyone ran around in armor, this wasn't a problem, but as armor began to loose its advantage (against crossbows and later, gunpowder) mobility was more of an equalizer.  Fighting on a battlefield has way more dynamics than a duel.  You've got formations, friends, enemies, differences in terrain, in numbers.  All of these affect how you fight.  In a duel, you've got you, and yoiu've got the other guy, you're both on the same terrain usually and you're usually in a controlled field that limits distractions.  A lot of the random factors are cut down and you can concentrate on the fight.

Also a hundred peasants with spears have a good chance against cavalry, but I wouldn't give you twenty cents for the chances of one peasant with a spear against a cavalryman off his horse.  Spears, axes, swords... whatever.  Length matters, but not that much.  The determiner is skill.  I've had enough fights with different weapons to know that your chances of winning are most affected by TWO things, knowing how to use YOUR weapon, whatever it is and knowing what the enemy might do with his.  There are plenty of tricks to mitigate the length of weapons in combat.  An expert knife fighter is going to wipe the floor with someone of average skill with any weapon, spear, club, sword, dynamite.. whatever.  I'm sorry, as far as the broomstick vs katana/shortsword analogy goes, if I'm better with the sword than you are with the broomstick, your first attempt to block me or hit me and you're going to pull away a much shorter broomstick.  A spear is better than a broomstick, but well trained soldiers are not just given a spear, but also some kind of sword in order to use when things got too close for spears.  The big disadvantage of any pole arm is that they are unweildy.  If you're unskilled or not very well trained, you will not realize this until it's too late and you would have been better served fighting with the same skill level with some other weapon.  Skill with a weapon is not simply being able to hit the other guy with the sharp end.  It's knowing and using your advantages while trying to limit the advantages of the other guy.  Whoever can do that better usually wins.