Hello all.
I have now bought, read and digested The Riddle of Steel, though I have yet to test it. Nevertheless, I have a few questions.
What is the advantage of armour piercing weapons, seing that there is no differentiation in armour values? As it is, a heavier hacking sword is just as effective in dealing with armour as a pointier stabbing sword, and consequently there is no impetus for weapon evolution to change emphasis. Granted, you do a different sort of damage, but since cutting wounds are generally far more painful than stabbing wounds I doubt that is a valid reason.
War hammers and some similar weapons have armour piercing bonuses, but why doesn't this apply to swords, or spears?
Incidentally, bullet proofed armour is yet another matter that must be taken into account when taking guns into account. Medieval armour does little to protect against firearms.

And the other thing; How does the system work with unskilled fighters? I presume that with no weapon proficiency the CP defaults to Reflex, and in that case it seems difficult to generate enough successes to kill anyone. That's hardly realistic, is it? Potential problem with a die pool mechanic...

murazor wrote:
And the other thing; How does the system work with unskilled fighters? I presume that with no weapon proficiency the CP defaults to Reflex, and in that case it seems difficult to generate enough successes to kill anyone. That's hardly realistic, is it? Potential problem with a die pool mechanic...

murazor wrote: Hello all.
I have now bought, read and digested The Riddle of Steel, though I have yet to test it. Nevertheless, I have a few questions.
What is the advantage of armour piercing weapons, seing that there is no differentiation in armour values?

There are several weapons that give you bonus damage against wearers of heavy armor (pole axe is particularly nasty in this regard). The game is pretty effective that way. If I know I'm going to be fighting a guy wearing full plate, I'll take a Pole Axe over Cut and Thrust any day. If I know I'm going to be fighting a guy in shirtsleeves I'd take a Cut and Thrust or Sabre over a Pole Axe. Its in there.

As it is, a heavier hacking sword is just as effective in dealing with armour as a pointier stabbing sword, and consequently there is no impetus for weapon evolution to change emphasis.

Not sure I follow you. A long sword does significantly more damage than a rapier. There are further advantages to a long sword by "Half Swording" which is a "Great Sword" proficiency ability. Perhaps you missed that?

And the other thing; How does the system work with unskilled fighters? I presume that with no weapon proficiency the CP defaults to Reflex, and in that case it seems difficult to generate enough successes to kill anyone. That's hardly realistic, is it? Potential problem with a die pool mechanic...

Is there such a thing as an unskilled fighters? I can't imagine anyone who does not have a couple points of dagger, or mass weapon at least. How many proficiency points do you get with Priority E?

I think it would be reasonable for a cut & thrust swords (and daggers) to do more damage vs. plate when used in a thrust. I thought the whole 'point' of the development this type of sword had to do with stabbing through gaps in plate armor (eg, arm pits).

Alternatively a 'maneuver' could be to target gaps. One might pay 2 CP, and stab to the chest. If the attack is successful, the AV of whatever armor is underneath (leather or mail) would be applied instead of the plate. This way standard attacks would not get past the heavy armor.

One might also have a defensive maneuver based on opposing this type of attack. The defender would pay some CP to increase the cost of the armpit or neck stab.....

just a thought.


As for guns, I believe most chest plates (at least the better ones) were 'proofed' aginst guns and crossbows. I once read that the invention of the wheel lock pistol drove heavy cavalry off the battlefield only after the pistoliers learned to fire at the HC's face or legs, since their chest plates would block the bullets.

NT

There's a LOT of misconceptions about what armor can and cannot do. I think I can say that TROS handles armor very well withough diving into worlds of "I heard that..." and other "theories" about what does and doesn't work. The primary anti-armor weapons were mass weapons (axes, pics, maces) and the estoc or bastard sword when used in "half-sword." This is what *all* the old manuals show. This is what we know worked, and the rules modify it well (though I'll be the first to say "not perfectly). The C&T and Rapier are both products of an era of lighter/less armor on the battlefield. The Rapier was a street weapon only, in fact.

The "manuever" of targeting gaps is allready "in there" in the form of simply attacking with more dice and the "accuracy" Gift. Could you write a new manevuer for it (like toli describes)? You could if you wished, but I think it's allready in there.

Jake

Jake Norwood wrote: There's a LOT of misconceptions about what armor can and cannot do. I think I can say that TROS handles armor very well withough diving into worlds of "I heard that..." and other "theories" about what does and doesn't work. The primary anti-armor weapons were mass weapons (axes, pics, maces) and the estoc or bastard sword when used in "half-sword." This is what *all* the old manuals show. This is what we know worked, and the rules modify it well (though I'll be the first to say "not perfectly). The C&T and Rapier are both products of an era of lighter/less armor on the battlefield. The Rapier was a street weapon only, in fact.

Irmo wrote: How about the "murder stroke", i.e. using the hilt/guard of your sword like a hammer? Will we see that in FoB?

I have to agree with Jake and say that pretty much everything is covered withing the TROS combat system and how armor works and the ability of certain weapons. I would also say that it's probably a really good idea to play the game as is at least for a few sessions before worrying too much about changing things or adding new maneuvers.
That being said however we should remember that the rules are a simulation. There is also the fantasy element that probably should be considered and that most games probably aren't going to be set in historically accurate Medieval Europe.
So when you look at how the weapons and armor relate to each other you can consider the histroy of your world. In our real world all the weapons and armour in TROS werent being used at the same time. There are many hundreds of years of weapon evolution covered in the proficiencies, armour and shields. To a great degree this is due to firearms. But in your fantasy world there may be no firearms. Thats ok. Maybe someone discovered something else that revolutionsed weapon tech. Maybe a different way of forging, a superior metal or whatever and there you have it cut and thrust sword are really effective against armour, spears have armour piercing point. It doesnt matter as long as it makes sense on your world.
With regards to Toli's suggestion I came up with a maneuver for my group to try which reduceses the effective armor of their opponent. This was after a duel that involved one combatant in full plate. It ended up with them wrestling. Even then it was nearly impossible for him to get hurt
so the maneuver I'm going to try is probably going to be pretty specific to grappling, and other in close, situations.
Aaron