Knives and Daggers

[khoridor]

I may be repeating myself, but the real advantage of a dagger over plate armor is that you can wear the dagger at all times.
A knight in plate armor stopping by a tavern? That happens in cartoons.

And yes, you can kill the plated guy with a dagger: When he is fallen helpless and you can insert into and shake the joints and penetrate with some level of freedom.

[Draklar]

I'm not sure where you get your exhaustive and precise knowledge of weaponry, but its hardly a subject for such narcissistic drama.

Which part are you asking about exactly? Purpose of Xiphos may be taken from The Spartans (not 300, of course), rejection of the idea that you can effectively use a dagger against a shielded opponent may be taken from observation of actual duels, rejection of the idea that you can out-manouver an opponent wearing plate armour may be taken from wearing that thing or seeing experienced infantry in action - unlike what this thread appears to claim, they're damn fast.

Bottom line is, plated warrior is greater challenge for a dagger than un-plated one. Slow plate is a myth, and yes, that's a well known fact. If the dagger wasn't treated as a super-effective weapon before plate, then it couldn't be considered as one in the plate era. A dagger would be used only if you lost your other weapons or if your other weapons proved ineffective. That's where your quotes come in. None of this actually proves superiority of dagger over plate armour.
Tuck was about as effective against plate as longsword was against mail. And I doubt anyone in his right mind will claim that dagger was as effective battlefield weapon as tuck.

@Tessra: I believe there's a legend of a samurai that used thrown knife against master of Kusarigama (very effective against swords) to weaken his opponent and used his sword only after wounded, the guy couldn't use Kusarigama anymore. So distance isn't really their disadvantage as they used a big variety of weapons, including longbows and shortbows.

And yes, I only talk about open combat. Dagger can be hidden more easily so it's better for surprise attacks. Also no one in his right mind would use a long weapon indoors or any place with little space - that's why I said daggers were used for out-of-battle defense. But in such scenario daggers were superior to most any type of equipment and it's not about out-manouvering just plate.

@khoridor: agreed.

[bloodedIrishman]

Slow plate is a myth, and yes, that's a well known fact.

As it is now, a person wearing full plate (helmet, chest, legs, arms, boots, gloves) can run at full speeds, keeping up with someone garbed in some ragged trousers.

Draklar is correct in his statement:

Bottom line is, plated warrior is greater challenge for a dagger than un-plated one.

However, someone who wears plate should not only have their mobility reduced but their ability to dodge and counter blows effectively.

And why, tell me, are other classes of weaponry allowed enchantments which lower their delay significantly, yet dagger can only be lowered to 1.35 from its original 1.5? It's my opinion that Daggers & Knives ought to be the fastest range of attacking weapons, but they can be matched in speed and overwhelmingly beaten in possible damage.


I would like to see some balance between armor-weapon realism and letting dagger characters have their fun.

[kaerli2]

The goofiest part of this is that daggers IG do Slash damage, not Pierce, which doesn't exactly make that much sense...although can't we all admit that the combat system needs a thorough rework?

Or:

• Swords do Slash (and in the case of claymores, Blunt) damage at the moment.  They should really do all three damage types in various proportions (either mostly slash for say a sabre or falchion, mostly pierce for say a rapier, or a fairly even mix of the two for say a longsword; heavier blades would get more blunt damage then lighter ones (but it'd still be minor compared to the blade's Slash or Pierce stats)
• Knives and Daggers always do Slash damage.  This is a holdover from when Pierce was not implemented.  Again, they should do a variable mixture of Slash and Pierce damage to account for the fact many of them can be used both for cutting and stabbing/thrusting (unless you are dealing with a weapon that is thrusting-only, which would do only Pierce damage)
• Axes do Slash damage as well.  They should be able to do Blunt damage too (I don't see how someone would NOT be in pain after being hit with the side of an axe).
• Mace & Hammer is fine in all aspects (these weapons do Blunt damage en masse, obviously) with one exception: quarterstaves should be under Polearm due to their length and the fact they are held at the center, not at the end
• Polearm isn't fleshed out yet (quarterstaves SHOULD be considered polearms if they aren't already), but when further developments are put together, staves should be all Blunt damage while spears and the like are mixtures of Slash, Pierce, and Blunt (simply turn the spear around or use the flat of its blade to get Blunt damage).
• Ranged right now covers bows.  These do Pierce damage exclusively.  Throwing weapons are a different can of worms all together: I guess they'd do Pierce as well, but you'd need some sort of modifier to account for the point's impact angle to the target (which very often is not 90deg, due to the fact knives and stars have spin on them when thrown; darts on the other hand do not need such a modifier, whether thrown or shot from a blowpipe)
• Melee, finally, can simply do Blunt damage (or can it? Should we take into account moves beyond the obvious kicks and punches, such as joint manipulations of various and sundry varieties?)

Also, if we do decide on a minimal speed penalty for heavier armors, couldn't we use a stamina penalty instead?

[Minks]

I like that summary. Just one complaint.
Enkis fighting melee should do slash&pierce damage 

[Tessra]

[I'm just gonna address these in your list, as you wrote them out so well. kaerli2!]

• Swords do Slash (and in the case of claymores, Blunt) damage at the moment.  They should really do all three damage types in various proportions (either mostly slash for say a sabre or falchion, mostly pierce for say a rapier, or a fairly even mix of the two for say a longsword; heavier blades would get more blunt damage then lighter ones (but it'd still be minor compared to the blade's Slash or Pierce stats)

So true.  Obviously one can turn a blade to the side, and smack with the flat of it, or even with the hilt to do a blunt damage, but as a rule, they would be a slashing damage.

• Knives and Daggers always do Slash damage.  This is a holdover from when Pierce was not implemented.  Again, they should do a variable mixture of Slash and Pierce damage to account for the fact many of them can be used both for cutting and stabbing/thrusting (unless you are dealing with a weapon that is thrusting-only, which would do only Pierce damage)

Even on the best thrust, the victim of the thrust usually twists in their effort to pull away.  I do some knife fighting IRL, and it's hard to do a pierce only damage unless it's a sneak attack.

• Axes do Slash damage as well.  They should be able to do Blunt damage too (I don't see how someone would NOT be in pain after being hit with the side of an axe).

Yeah... just ow.  

• Mace & Hammer is fine in all aspects (these weapons do Blunt damage en masse, obviously) with one exception: quarterstaves should be under Polearm due to their length and the fact they are held at the center, not at the end

Keep in mind, things like morning stars have points, and should be able to deal at least some pierce/slash damage.  I would think a crushing blow to the head would have some amount of pierce, while a swing across the body would drag the points through the person, causing a slash damage as well as blunt.

• Polearm isn't fleshed out yet (quarterstaves SHOULD be considered polearms if they aren't already), but when further developments are put together, staves should be all Blunt damage while spears and the like are mixtures of Slash, Pierce, and Blunt (simply turn the spear around or use the flat of its blade to get Blunt damage).

I would love to see these fleshed out in game.  I have a halbred that I fight with IRL, and it's a lot of fun, as well as a lot of work to be able to manipulate the type of attack delivered.  

• Ranged right now covers bows.  These do Pierce damage exclusively.  Throwing weapons are a different can of worms all together: I guess they'd do Pierce as well, but you'd need some sort of modifier to account for the point's impact angle to the target (which very often is not 90deg, due to the fact knives and stars have spin on them when thrown; darts on the other hand do not need such a modifier, whether thrown or shot from a blowpipe)

I'd like to see a thrown weapon skill.  Something that the distance you can accurately inflict damage on grows as skill level increases.  

• Melee, finally, can simply do Blunt damage (or can it? Should we take into account moves beyond the obvious kicks and punches, such as joint manipulations of various and sundry varieties?)

And like Minks says, Enki and Klyros should be able to do slashing damage, just by virtue of having claws.  

[khoridor]

The goofiest part of this is that daggers IG do Slash damage, not Pierce, which doesn't exactly make that much sense...although can't we all admit that the combat system needs a thorough rework?

We could admit, as in any system will always be too this for some and too that for others.

Take my personal opinion for example: To separate Slash and Pierce is a bad (D&D) idea in the first place. A weapon that can do one can do both, depending on how one uses it, what the target is, etc. Just that can lead to endless arguing. Then, there is slashing and slashing; e.g., try chopping down a tree with a sword... Just to say that what makes a weapon has more to do with how to handle it than with how sharp it is. Then 2 categories would be enough: Breaking and Bleeding damage. Just an opinion that I would suggest IF a rework was needed.

Anyway, forget realism, because:
1) it's not achievable
2) it's not what people want (nobody survives 10 consecutives axe blows to the head IRL)
3) while not achieved, it's yet too complicated

What brings diversity in combat is not one parameter, but a series of advantages/disadvantages that do not necessarily enter into the hit/damage equations. In a balanced world, the simplest ones include weight, price, durability, etc. If balancing was all about playing with damage values, it would be boring. Instead, what may be done is choose which (yes, only some of them) advantages of daggers to put IG. They can be based on real world, on movies, whatever, it doesn't matter, because they are chosen for a purpose; pretty much anything can be justified.

So, what I suggest is to make a list of reasons why daggers would be selected as a weapon/skill, regardless of the damage they may or may not do on some type of armors. Starting with:
- Light
- Legal to draw
- Throwable
- Usable in small space, in a crowd
- ?

Then perhaps some ideas will be worth being added to the game...

[Caratacos]

Where are people getting this whole "you can't use daggers against shields" business? I've done it before, I tended to use short swords and daggers, and if your smart/quick its quite easy to get a dagger around a shield with enough force to make your opponent drop something O.o (well what would be enough force if we were stupid enough to be using sharpened weapons). Although if you were outnumbered, you would be screwed, and it is generally a rather risky thing to attempt.

anyway, to be honest i think daggers should be one of the only offhand weapons to be honest, i've always found the idea of someone running around wielding duel long swords  rather...stupid, it'd be pretty unwieldy and the guy with one sword would most likely be able to get through your guard, I'm sure its perfectly possible, but with long weapons like swords (short sword being an exception I suppose) it seems somewhat pointless to me, a sword and a dagger, thats a good combination, use one for parry and when your opponent gets close shove the dagger into their neck ect. but 'eh... thats just what I reckon.

[kaerli2]

Where are people getting this whole "you can't use daggers against shields" business? I've done it before, I tended to use short swords and daggers, and if your smart/quick its quite easy to get a dagger around a shield with enough force to make your opponent drop something O.o (well what would be enough force if we were stupid enough to be using sharpened weapons). Although if you were outnumbered, you would be screwed, and it is generally a rather risky thing to attempt.

anyway, to be honest i think daggers should be one of the only offhand weapons to be honest, i've always found the idea of someone running around wielding duel long swords  rather...stupid, it'd be pretty unwieldy and the guy with one sword would most likely be able to get through your guard, I'm sure its perfectly possible, but with long weapons like swords (short sword being an exception I suppose) it seems somewhat pointless to me, a sword and a dagger, thats a good combination, use one for parry and when your opponent gets close shove the dagger into their neck ect. but 'eh... thats just what I reckon.

You can simply jam their shield-arm to the outside, which forces them to use their feet...if you have them pinned to a wall when you do that, you can get quick strikes in that way.

BTW: try imagining a "box" in front of the enemy's (or your) torso.  You want to keep your hands/arms inside that box, so that you can strike or parry.  Also, whoever has their arms inside the opponent's has the advantage, as they can basically control the fight that way.

[mikeloeven]

you could institute minimum damages there is a difference between blocked and hit with failed damage. it would be as simple as if DR > damage dealt  than use minimum damage (1 to 2 hp) but if you do successfully hit someone you should always do at least a small ammount of damage.

[Chessire]

ok, having read most of the posts and links till here... i can't imagine a dagger weilder taking on a full plated warrior on a frontal attack. He should be ready to get butchered not because of the plate's protection as for the opponent's sword's length. Using daggers to block swords and figh on par with them sounds hard too... though, if two fighters are pretty close the one that has a dagger is in advantage... shields can't be used and there is little space for movements... if the combat system should be realistic then the most important thing would be the impact of a weapon affecting the opponent's movemet at least. Like making them stop for a short moment... thust there would be a meanining in someone approaching and hitting with daggers. But since PS is still on  i won't be surprised to see a bit different fighting system after a few years 

If the fighting system is reworked then how about changing to a secondary weapon as bow or daggers by pressing a certain key? (just as we press shift to run)

[Kiraki]

ok, having read most of the posts and links till here... i can't imagine a dagger weilder taking on a full plated warrior on a frontal attack. He should be ready to get butchered not because of the plate's protection as for the opponent's sword's length. Using daggers to block swords and figh on par with them sounds hard too... though, if two fighters are pretty close the one that has a dagger is in advantage... shields can't be used and there is little space for movements... if the combat system should be realistic then the most important thing would be the impact of a weapon affecting the opponent's movemet at least. Like making them stop for a short moment... thust there would be a meanining in someone approaching and hitting with daggers. But since PS is still on  i won't be surprised to see a bit different fighting system after a few years 

If the fighting system is reworked then how about changing to a secondary weapon as bow or daggers by pressing a certain key? (just as we press shift to run)

I have to agree that I do not see someone skilled with daggers taking on a full plated warrior on a frontal attack, I think that is rather the point actually.  A dagger user would try a sneak attack from behind, or if confronted try and move around the warrior trying to stay out of axe/sword range and dash in and try to strike at weak points in the armor when possible (Or something of the sort), which would most certainly do at least some damage if it hit, especially since weak points are often along joints. 
However there is currently no speed or agility disadvantage to wearing full plate during combat and thus wearing lighter armor has no real advantage either.  Shouldn't someone wearing light armor and using daggers at least be able to dodge a lot more blows than someone wearing plate and wielding heavy axes?   I agree that if the axe user gets a hit in the dagger user is probably doomed, but a dagger user should at least be able to have chance at wearing the opponent down. 

If you want to go for full realism then yes, a fully plated warrior with axes/swords would most likely own a dagger user on the battle field, but -off- the battle field the heavy armor gets put away if not the weapons as well, while the daggers can be carried around permanently.  Yet I doubt that level of realism will be reached in game unless a time limit or some other penalty to wearing heavy armor is put in place, since when playing I see far more people wearing heavy armor as a permanent attire than those that actually take it off when they are not fighting.

So yes trying to stick with realism is nice but the game mechanics are limiting and thus it is not always fully possible.

My point is a dagger user should at least have -some- chance of defending themselves or doing some damage before they get taken down.   As things are currently there is basically no point in even making the attempt. 

[Caraick]

My point is a dagger user should at least have -some- chance of defending themselves or doing some damage before they get taken down.   As things are currently there is basically no point in even making the attempt. 

* Caraick applauds happily

Right now, it is completely -impossible- for dagger fighters to combat ANYONE wearing HA.   In normal stance, a HA fighter can sit down and watch as a maxed dagger fighter hits them endlessly, with absolutely no damage in return.  There is NO balance in the system right now in terms of HA versus LA and daggers.  There needs to at least be some balance, as Kiraki says.

[Catlemur]

@Caraick

[Everybody]

Swords were pretty useless against plate armor. Plate armor brought about a switch to blunt weapons, because pretty much all piercing and slashing weapons were rendered close enough to useless not to be worth it. Daggers still had a use, though. While no knight would charge into battle with knife extended, in the event combat turned to grappling, or in the event a plated warrior was taken off his feet, it was the dagger that was best suited to administering a death blow - but then, only once the opponent was fully subdued and pinned. If daggers need to be a waste of time leveling, so should swords and bows. Really, the only weapons that should be remarkably effective should be hammers, maces and the like. That's the realism if realism is the goal - not sure it should be.

If realism is the goal, and nigh invulnerable plate armor users (and they were neigh invulnerable until the advent of firearms), plate armor users should risk collapse from overheating if they don't take breaks from wearing the armor, and particularly if they fight in it for extended periods. The idea that plate armor rendered one immobile is largely a fallacy. Not a total fallacy - tournament jousting armor was indeed so specialized and heavy in some cases, that one did need help to mount a horse for example, but show arms and practical arms were two different things - same with sword weight. I have a replica zweihander from renaissance Landeskenechts and it weighs a good 15 pounds. Parade swords could sometimes get so unweildy, but combat swords never did.

So anyway, Real plate armor should be largely invulnerable to bladed weapons, reasonably vulnerable to blunt weapons, and the user should face penalties to endurance - passing out or worse, if he fights extended periods in any sort of warm weather. One idea about plate armor that isn't a fallacy is that the stuff was a microwave. Thick padding, heat conductive metal - it was a serious problem.

EDIT: In summary, if realism is the key, the tradeoff for practical invulnerability in combat to swords, daggers and the like should be my seeing random heavy armor wearers passed out here and there if they wear their armor everywhere they go, and passing out from protracted combat. To further the realism, the dagger users aught be able to take the opportunity to administer a near 100% chance death blow into a gap in the armor, such as the visor. THAT was the dagger's raison d'etre, and if its weaknesses are being fully recognized, so too should its strengths. Fair is fair.