Rapier vs. Chain/Plate?

[Tash]

After our first session of sparring duels my group and I learned some interesting things about the system.  One of these is that rapiers are ungodly....ATN5, STR+2 damage (on a thrust)....one of the players uses one and is nigh unstobable.  Now part of this is because all of us wear light armor and he was making attacks to the face.  One hit would either kill or cause enough shock that he could kill next round.

Even when he made chest attacks at a character wearing a chain shirt he was still doing major damage.  The low ATN was giving him lots of successes, and with a decent strength he was getting L3-5 wounds quite easily.  I could see that against leather, but chain?  Can you run a rapier through a chain shirt?  Maybe, but I doubt it.   Against plate?  Certainly not.

So I was thinking about this a bit and it seems to me that this may be a tad inaccurate, essentially a rapier is the same as a fine bastard sword thrusted with two hands from an offensive standpoint (the higher DTN against heavier weapons makes perfect sense, but doesn't strike me as much of a tradeoff, especially if you have a buckler with the rapier).  I'm having a hard time seeing a rapier driven through a steel breastplate...actually I'm willing to go out on a limb and say "No way in hell could that actually happen".

Wouldn't a rapier blade either bend or break if it was thrust into hard armor with any degree of force?

On a related note, I know half swording was a historically used and extremely useful technique, but in RoS it seems a bit more useful that it should be.  I can't see the downside to half swording, basically its better all around: lower ATN, big increase to damage against hard armor, no real penalties.  Only the shorter range is a detriment and that actually becomes an asset if you are close to an opponent.
It strikes me that if half swording were as useful as in real life as it is in the game then no one would have ever used a sword held in a standard grip.  And we all know that isn't the case.

Any thoughts on either of these topics?

[Caz]

There's an unspoken rule for realism.  Don't let weapons penetrate metal generally.  Weapons just don't penetrate metal in general.  Many were made to get around it, or were good at smashing it, or a lucky hit with a raven's beak might penetrate, but generally in real life it didn't happen.  ESPECIALLY with rapiers.
   There's plenty of historical examples of rapiers not penetrating mail small enough to stop the blade.  Ignore the numbers and say it can't be done.  
   VS plate it may break, but more than likely it'd just slide off.
   VS mail you can have any damage that exceeds the AV as blunt.  VS some mail, like the usual diameter on a hauberk, a rapier that's pointy enough may penetrate lethally, but it's not going to actually damage the mail.

Downside to 1/2 swording- Shorter range, can't cut.  (you can slice, but that's different, reduced DR)

[Lance D. Allen]

In general, especially for plate, the high AR isn't specifically the rating of the armor for absorbing damage, but just.. preventing it. A hit on the chest can mean that a hole in the armor was discovered, slid between two plates.

Occasionally, this isn't possible. Wearing a full peascod will never allow a rapier, or most other heavy weapons, to pierce the heart. In that case, you may want to apply heavier AR in a given location, or simply revise the flavor text to fit the weapon.

[Tash]

Downside to 1/2 swording- Shorter range, can't cut.  (you can slice, but that's different, reduced DR)

I had thought that was the case, but couldn't find anywhere in the rules stating that you lost the ability to cut when half swording.

[[MKF]Kapten]

I know house rules dont help very often but you get one from me anyway :)

I have made the rapier's damage the same as the sabre's damage; +2 vs no armor, +1 vs mail and +0 vs plate. This has levelled the field somewhat. Also consider the DTN the rapier get when parrying cuts from anything bigger than a tooth pick. I think this helps to balance the rapier out somewhat.

And never forget the stop button; if a PC gets out of hand, an assassin with Sneak and Camouflage SR 5 and a crossbow can easily put him out of your misery }:-)

[Salamander]

After our first session of sparring duels my group and I learned some interesting things about the system.  One of these is that rapiers are ungodly....ATN5, STR+2 damage (on a thrust)....one of the players uses one and is nigh unstobable.  Now part of this is because all of us wear light armor and he was making attacks to the face.  One hit would either kill or cause enough shock that he could kill next round.

I think you need to sit this player down and let him know how you feel. Also, there are ways of stopping him. Steal initiative, counter, parry & beat all work well against rapiers.

Even when he made chest attacks at a character wearing a chain shirt he was still doing major damage.  The low ATN was giving him lots of successes, and with a decent strength he was getting L3-5 wounds quite easily.  I could see that against leather, but chain?  Can you run a rapier through a chain shirt?  Maybe, but I doubt it.   Against plate?  Certainly not.

Now this is an interesting little bit of information, isn't it? In my game nobody has tried to do this, mainly because we are all rather historically oriented and knew of fine hidden chain brigandine having saved a de' Medici's life during an assassination attempt using a rapier. A long sword thrust or an arbelest shot to the torso would be stopped, why should a rapier make it through? It should not. Against a fellow in harness I suspect that even a foolhardy rapier wielder would simply pull up stakes and flee.

So I was thinking about this a bit and it seems to me that this may be a tad inaccurate, essentially a rapier is the same as a fine bastard sword thrusted with two hands from an offensive standpoint (the higher DTN against heavier weapons makes perfect sense, but doesn't strike me as much of a tradeoff, especially if you have a buckler with the rapier).  I'm having a hard time seeing a rapier driven through a steel breastplate...actually I'm willing to go out on a limb and say "No way in hell could that actually happen".

You are quite correct. In fact against harness or maille the rapier will not breach. A longsword thrust with both hands will most often make a horrible screeching noise and anger the owner of the harness. (Oi! lookit that! See what you did?!?!?! Now I have to repaint that!)

Wouldn't a rapier blade either bend or break if it was thrust into hard armor with any degree of force?

On a related note, I know half swording was a historically used and extremely useful technique, but in RoS it seems a bit more useful that it should be.  I can't see the downside to half swording, basically its better all around: lower ATN, big increase to damage against hard armor, no real penalties.  Only the shorter range is a detriment and that actually becomes an asset if you are close to an opponent.
It strikes me that if half swording were as useful as in real life as it is in the game then no one would have ever used a sword held in a standard grip.  And we all know that isn't the case.

Any thoughts on either of these topics?

Rapiers were quite resilient and strong weapons. They are not so fragile as many suppose them to be! Most often the blade of a rapier would simply flex. Breaking the blade of a sword is not an easy proposition.

Halfswording is an excellent weapon use. I have used it for longswords, rapiers and even (Gasp!) Dolfechten (Dagger Fighting). While the halfsword does provide one with many benefits, that range band (or two) can be a big deal! While the rapier has been halfsworded, it was not to penetrate armour so much as a method of close fighting and changing the playing field a bit. Also in reference for Caz, having examined some historic examples of both rapiers and maille, I can say that the rapier would more than likely not penetrate the maille much past a few centimeters, if at all.

[tauman]

I agree with Salamander, with regard to the rapier. While they weren't fragile little needles (based on handling real ones, and the writings of Fabris, Capo Ferro, et. al.), thrusts and especially cuts that land on armor would do absolutely nothing. Note, I'm a pretty big fan of the rapier, but if I ran into someone with any significant armor at all, I'd have to do the "full retrograde, continued pass" (i.e. turn around and run like hell). Even if my opponent was wearing a completely open-faced helmet and had no throat protection, if his torso is protected and he's even moderately skilled, I'm pretty much doomed.

I don't know how I'd handle this in the game. It's almost as if the chance of success ought to be decreased for a rapierist who encounters significant armor, but that's only a hazy feeling on my part.

Steve

[Ashton]

Wasn't the whole point of the rapier that you would not be going up against people wearing any significant armor? While it was hardly what I would consider a court only weapon, it was an urban one where you would likely not find people walking around in full harness.  I realize that this discussion is focusing on the use of rapier's against armor, but I feel that context is also important.

As for the torso protected and the face not... I don't think I'd necessarily see that as immediate cause for a full retreat. They are still exposing a big enough target that you would need a minimal number of successes to cause some significant damage to the face and head area.

If I recall correctly, a few of the Italian styles (Agrippa for one) had attacks that lent themselves to thrusts to the head.

[Sneaky Git]

I have made the rapier's damage the same as the sabre's damage; +2 vs no armor, +1 vs mail and +0 vs plate. This has levelled the field somewhat. Also consider the DTN the rapier get when parrying cuts from anything bigger than a tooth pick. I think this helps to balance the rapier out somewhat.

Hmm.  I like this.  Very intuitive.  And smooth.  Nice.

[Salamander]

Wasn't the whole point of the rapier that you would not be going up against people wearing any significant armor? While it was hardly what I would consider a court only weapon, it was an urban one where you would likely not find people walking around in full harness.  I realize that this discussion is focusing on the use of rapier's against armor, but I feel that context is also important.

As for the torso protected and the face not... I don't think I'd necessarily see that as immediate cause for a full retreat. They are still exposing a big enough target that you would need a minimal number of successes to cause some significant damage to the face and head area.

If I recall correctly, a few of the Italian styles (Agrippa for one) had attacks that lent themselves to thrusts to the head.

You are correct that t he weapon in question was not merely a courtly weapon, in context of todays ideas. What was really meant by this comment was that those who most often carried and used such weapons were those who had access to the court. You are correct in your comment that it was an urban weapon, almost perfectly suited for the close confines of a towns streets. However, I do not recall endorsing the weapon for use against any form of proofness. The comment about maille is actually based upon a foiled assassination attempt against a de' Medici in the early 16th Century where a hidden byrnie of maille saved Cosimo's(?) life from an attack with either a stiletto or a rapier, I can't find which one.

In regards to a fellow retreating in the face of a foe wearing a byrnie, I would. Just because you can attack the head does not mean he cannot simply ignore any foynes to his torso and do you in with a simultaneous strike. Armour was basically a target denial device. He would not have to worry about his torso, while you still would have to worry about yours.

[Richard_Strey]

At least two of my players have quickly picked up the idea of hiding a light shirt of maille under their tunics. One was doing so during one of our first sessions for reasons of law when he got attacked. I, as the GM, had the attacker strike a rather conservative blow to the shoulder. It would have thrown him into defense, but he went like "Wait a second...", grinned like mad and threw an all-out attack himself. The result was a bruised arm and two halves of opponent. Ever since, they go for this "trick", while expecting virtually everything. :)

So, an attack towards an armored, unarmored *looking* area might well recieve an attack the armor can take, while a visible piece of armor will cause the attack to be redirected or increased in power.

[Ashton]

You are correct that the weapon in question was not merely a courtly weapon, in context of todays ideas. What was really meant by this comment was that those who most often carried and used such weapons were those who had access to the court. You are correct in your comment that it was an urban weapon, almost perfectly suited for the close confines of a towns streets. However, I do not recall endorsing the weapon for use against any form of proofness. The comment about maille is actually based upon a foiled assassination attempt against a de' Medici in the early 16th Century where a hidden byrnie of maille saved Cosimo's(?) life from an attack with either a stiletto or a rapier, I can't find which one.

In regards to a fellow retreating in the face of a foe wearing a byrnie, I would. Just because you can attack the head does not mean he cannot simply ignore any foynes to his torso and do you in with a simultaneous strike. Armour was basically a target denial device. He would not have to worry about his torso, while you still would have to worry about yours.

So don't feign to the byrnie... I think a lot of it might come down to choices in technique. Fabris would lend itself to making your opponent thinking he can bisect you, or driving his blade through you on a simultaneous attack, while you are actually in the zone of safety.  Counter lunges are also useful here where someone might take too much comfort from the armor they are wearing.

I suppose what I was really questioning was the likelihood of any rapieriest going up against someone in harness, and I was not looking to disparage the utility of armor. I am definitely not one to suggest that hidden armor would not be useful.

[Dain]

Having actually held a real and functional Rapier, I can't imagine anyone being stupid enough to purposely attack someone in armor. If you were cornered by someone in armor and were going to be mercilessly murdered unless you somehow miraculously escaped and the only sharp pointy thing you had in your possession was a Rapier, they'd pretty much be chalking out your outline a few minutes later in that corner unless you dropped the rapier or threw it in your opponents face as a distraction or something and then ran like hell and outdistanced him.
A rapier blade is very thin, and unlike a true sword (what most people think of when they hear the word) is somewhat fragile. The rapier was meant to pierce flesh, and maybe some light to medium non-metalic armors. If it was thrust against a solid piece of metal or unpierceable armor with any real force you'd pretty much be hanging onto a badly bent piece of metal or just a hilt connected to a very short piece of broken blade. When you think Rapier, think of something whose blade alone is roughly 3 to  4 feet long whose width is only about one inch at the widest part, and the blade starts off being MAYBE a little more than an eighth of an inch thick near the hilt and thins proportionally to something like a sixteenth of an inch within a foot or so of the tip, and thins to even less than that the closer you get to the actual tip. Temper it all you like, but the laws of physics only go so far.
Don't get me wrong, these blades WERE very strong and could take quite a bit of heavy punishment against skin, cloth, maybe even some light to medium leathers, etc,.... but a Rapier is something you probably COULD bend/break with your own bare hands by grabbing both ends (better have a armored glove for the sharp end if you don't want to get cut though) and flexing it too far using just your body strength. This was a weapon designed to duel with, not to do war combat with.

Actually, the first day this thread's title showed up, I resisted the temptation to post the following just based on the title:

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, whoa, ho, ha, ha, ha, ha,...swhoo....good one.

but I didn't do so because it is a reasonable question for someone hasn't seen and held one or who hasn't had time to read up on them.

Anyhow, that's my understanding of the weapon from what I've read and from actually holding one. Correction welcome if I've mis-spoken.

[Ashton]

Rapiers were not just duelling weapons I guess would be the one correction I'd posit, especially the Italian versions.  Italians did not so much duel as they simultaneousl attempted to murder each other. Having a rapier was also a good way to discourage would be muggers.

I guess the only other thing I'd say is that there were significant changes that occurred in rapier design depending on time period and locality, and I'd go so far to say that they were not all created equally or fighting in the same style.  Would I choose one for a Germanic judicial duel? Heck no. Depending on the weapon would I immediately give up all hope for a reasonably skilled practitioner to find away around armor? No.  It's a matter of defeating the armor not by going throught it, but around it. But then that's true no matter what weapon you are using (someone made a reference to horrible screeching noise of longsword being dragged across harness).  I think where a rapier would come into its own would be finding those weaknesses and limitations of armor.

[Tash]

Thanks for all the feedback, I think we are going to implement the same rule suggested above with the rapier doing damage equal to a sabre, only for thrusts instead of cuts.  That seems like a realistic alteration that still works well with the dynamics of the game.