Merlkir

Sorry to be quotepicking, but this is the only bit I'm interested in replying to. No, this is not correct. 1) there were military rapiers. 2) in the time when rapiers saw widespread use, people didn't wear that much armour. Also, "poking" someone with a longsword (in the hypothetical case of one being used at the same time) would require the same amount of finesse, as the longsword won't cut through armour, so you have to hit vital spots as well. You know what's ludicrous? The idea that medieval swords were used to just vaguely hack in the enemy's direction and hope that'll kill him somehow. That ties to the next bit: Not really. I wish I could find a specific video I have in mind, of a guy using a zweihander in a duel against a longsword (iirc). It's all fluid movement, one efficient motion leading into another. Definitely no wild swings trying to crush the other guy, or simply hack him in half. You can't afford to do stuff like that if you want to stay alive, because your opponent probably will know what he's doing. If anyone here wanted to get a solid lecture of real swordfighting basics, I heartily recommend the "Reclaiming the Blade" documentary. Very accessible to beginners, explains well why we associate "finesse" with more recent "fencing" and how the myth of knights bashing each other with blunt swords until one of them drops came to be. (I think it's even available on Youtube) edit: OK, I found another one. It's stage fighting, so they do the grunting and it's not anywhere near full speed. But you can see how the attacks and parries flow quite nicely. http://www.stream.cz/uservideo/68255-zoldaci-video-3

I agree with everything except the last conclusion. If these guys are bigger and stronger, their swords are heavier, yes. But they're strong enough to handle them, so they fight as quickly and with such finesse as anyone of normal size with a normal sized weapon. There have been weapons found which are "oversized", it's clear certain individuals had greater strength and could wield such "monstrous" weapons. Nobody would wield a sword that would make more damage, but which would move slower, that'd be pretty much suicide. I think it'd be even more terrifying and intimidating to see a half giant with such a massive sword, and realize he's moving it around as quickly as any other swordsman. That speed + that mass, the carnage would be immense. :D In fact, someone mentioned it already, but now I really really want to see a race of four armed humanoids wielding two two-handed swords simultaneously. Such a race would probably develop some kind of complex fighting method just for that. Such an opponent would make my fighter character pee his pants most likely. (like, look at some of the videos posted here, look at this one and imagine that speed and that intensity. Times two. :D )

Yeah, mine's different in the way weapons deal different type of damage depending on how they're used, but yeah. Pretty much. It alleviates the full inventory problem somewhat. If you only have a cool sword and are fighting a skeleton, you can cave its skull in with the pommel, stuff like that.

Notice I didn't write about a strike TO the head (headshot? location damage was in the Fallout games, right?), but WITH the head, the head of the axe. (the metal cutting bit, as opposed to the wooden haft bit) Sorry missunderstanding, but its still same thats why we have damage treshold, 1-6 if you hit for 1dmg than bad luck you hit him with hilt, if you score 6 than good, you place good and precise strike. What are we talking about now? It's just level of complexity. Or more variety, depends on how you look at it. If you have damage types, you can have damage type resistences for armour and creatures. example following the axe - if you're facing a heavily armoured opponent, you'll want to hit him right with the head, because it has some chance of armor penetration, he'd just shrug off any hits with the wooden handle (because of padding). If you're facing a lightly armoured opponent, you don't have to care so much about proper distance, which can be useful, especially if he has a dagger and wants to get as close to you as possible. It really is a bit of a rock/paper/scissors kind of functionality, which in itself is an inaccurate rule-ification. But it adds complexity and playstyles not present if you just have damage ranges. if we wanted to take abstraction the other way, we could give weapons a single number, or even decide the battle with one dice roll. I've heard this actually suggested for other games as a fight system - one number for weapons. Of course, we love our numbers and weapons need to be differentiated, so we don't usually use it.

Well, I would assume quite similar to what a critical strike with other weapons: Notice I didn't write about a strike TO the head (headshot? location damage was in the Fallout games, right?), but WITH the head, the head of the axe. (the metal cutting bit, as opposed to the wooden haft bit)

I would also dispute that. Like, come on, it's a couple of number checks and random rolls. Hardly impossible for modern computers. Also a critical is clearly something entirely different for axe combat.

Yeah you can. Depending on your skill level with axes, your distance from the enemy and his dodging skill, it may happen that you hit him with the haft of the axe, not the head. In that case you deal a smaller amount of blunt damage. (which may be reduced by his padded armor etc. etc.) If you're better with axes and if you use proper distance, you'll hit with the head and deliver crushing+cutting type of damage instead more often. Many people diss the first Witcher game's fighting system, but I think they were onto something with the combo system. Not saying that's something that should be in PE, but the idea you need to click at the right time to chain attacks successfuly is a good one. Different weapons would have different timing for example, based on the way they're used. Just damage/speed/critrange are, as I said, a bit boring. edit: and I just realized that's not what you were talking about. Nevermind about that, still I think the various damage types for weapons are a valid topic.

What do "hits" mean? Does a number of hits determine who wins the combat? This kind of contest doesn't really give any results you could use to judge the efficiency of weapons in combat. Hey, if there's logic to these spells, if we know HOW they work, we can speculate quite successfuly about what a real life warrior would've done with them. Is the shield spell a literal shield? Then the hoplite doesn't need a shield. Is it a ball of protective energy? Is it the same shape as his body, protecting it whole? etc. etc.. As for how - sure I'd come up with a solution, if you paid me to be a systems designer. I've worked on a commercial RPG before btw, it's not like I'm trying to imagine cars running on water.

I still think the simplification, or rule-ification could be done better. One of the points is - you don't need more dexterity to thrust a rapier correctly than you need to swing a 2h sword correctly. If you look at how they're used and what techniques there exist for their use, it's about the same complexity and both require considerable dexterity. And of course a rapier doesn't deal much damage if you swing it, that'd be like beating someone with the shaft of the spear. Sure it's possible and you should be able to do it. But the weapon is primarily designed to do something else. How do I fight differently with a spear than I fight with a sword, in the game? That's what the devs should be figuring out. Of course you have to abstract this into numbers and game mechanics, but I suspect it could be done better (and in a more interesting way to play) than "this and that give you 2 more attacks per round" or "X has Y% chance of critical hit". Just giving the weapons different amount of damage or critical range is boring. Also thanks.

*sigh* yeah, dem awesome false stereotypes. And isnt it true? I mean if I put aside man vs man fight and put in man vs eg. minotaur than it makes perfect sense. You will do more damage with 2h, you will attack more times with 2 weapons and you will have better defense with shield. I still see here people lamenting about how was 2H used in history but well, this is not historically accurate world or fencing simulator. Live with it or kill it with fire. No, it really isn't true. 1) 2h swords were only a bit heavier than 1h ones and the power added by the other hand was more for better control than significantly more damage. A rapier stab could inflict a much more serious wound than a longsword slice, so how do you measure damage? 2) 2 weapons weren't a very common thing used in history. And certainly it doesn't mean you attack twice as many times in the same time as with just one weapon, it's much more complex than that. It was something unusual, something not everyone would be prepared to and expect in a fight, that gave you some advantage. (similarly to being left handed) 3) you have different kind of defense with a shield and it protects you from projectiles. This "2h do more damage, rapiers are about finesse (whatever that means mechanically) and shields give you better defense" is just a simplification of reality to fit in a specific ruleset, not a very accurate one at that. It mostly stems from wrong assumptions and ideas people have about medieval combat. But I know, people don't care about learning something about reality, let's just keep doing what everyone's done in the past. You know what? I'd rather kill it with fire then. "This is not a fencing simulator, it's just a game..." - this makes me sick. Yes, it IS a fencing simulator, you're having characters fight with swords and you simulate the result. You're just using it as excuse for familiarity, laziness and ignorance. It's not like anyone is asking to turn PE into a Mount and Blade kind of game, or CLANG. If we have that knowledge and if we have some understanding of those principles, why not apply them? Why not do things slightly differently and possibly better?

*sigh* yeah, dem awesome false stereotypes.

See, THIS is useful and contributes something: while THIS: is just posting to pick at the OP about something that doesn't really matter. Classifications don't really change what swords are and how they're used. As mentioned, the use of "longsword" for one handed swords is a DnD trope, HEMA people use it for swords handled mainly with two hands. Larger swords are usually called greatswords, or swords of war. Does it matter? Nope. An oh wow, you know of Oakeshott's typology, gee, you must be an expert. Or not. How many people here actually remember which type is which? I don't. If I wanted to communicate a very specific type of a historical sword to someone, sure, I'd go see an Oakeshott website and find out which type of pommel, crosspiece and blade it is. Does it do anything for PE? Not really. Still, thanks for those links I guess, some people here may be not aware of this.

No it doesn't. It just means he likes the artists he mentions better. No, it does. That is exactly what those words mean. If he were to express his preference, he'd use the word "like", or "prefer". I'm not a native English speaker and it's quite clear to me despite that.

Thank you.

Newsflash. People have different tastes in drawn art. One person likes another style and another person likes something else. I personally find Justin Sweet's art unfit for "portraits". newsflash, if one goes around throwing words like "better" and "average", that implies some kind of objective value. And only shows how clueless that person is.

Meh. I take it you're enchanted by kitchy sacharine female portraits then? These artists you list are either oldschool (and most likely too expensive/uninterested in videogames), or quite boring, or lying cheats (like Linda Bergkvist). Sweet is "average"? Good ****ing grief...

Why is it retarded though? Warcraft, Guild Wars, Warhammer (both 40k and fantasy), and plenty of other works have all effectively mixed realistic armor, ostentatious but still reasonable armor, and the completely over the top stuff (including stripperific armor) while still maintaining a coherent design aesthetic. If it truly bothers you that much then simply don't use those particular pieces of gear; it's a single player game after all. Also, you'd do well to remember that in PS:T Annah ran around in a hooker outfit while Vhailor looked like a bulldozer with limbs, and I doubt anyone would say that game would have benefited from those characters dressing "realistically." well, I just don't think it's logical or necessary to include stuff like that. It depends on execution and context. I agree it can be done so that it doesn't raise eyebrows or blood pressure - Warhammer is a good example. Yes, there's stuff I could live without and which I think could've been done better. But hey, if the chaos mage has a magical shield, I guess she can wear that skull bikini. Another one I can think of are the new Berserk films. While some of the armour they designed looks a bit odd next to the straight up historical ones, it all kind of fits. The point the whole time was - you can do a walking buldozer armour, you can do sexy evil looking armour, and you can do them all in a way that's believable, without spikes that would go through your temple if you lifted your arms. look at the guy at 3:36 - pretty much a human tank.

Pretty much a typical longsword. (as were Glamdring and the Nazgul swords) John Howe knows his medieval swords.

Actually, I stated that only the higher end stuff should be crazy looking, but I can see how you might get confused. The earlier things you find should obviously be bland and boring; else there would be no sense of escalation, and no, going from plate mail to plate mail with gold inlay isn't my idea of improvement. On the other hand, you have just now (again) stated that you only want things the way you like them because compromise is apparently retarded. Do you have trouble understanding text, or is that yet another strawman? Read 1) again and then the last sentence. It's not "compromise" that's retarded, it's mixing of reasonable stuff with impractical nonsense. If you can have both reasonable realistic practical design and acceptably over the top fantastical design, why taint it with spiky crap that doesn't make sense? Couldn't the fans of fantastical designs be satisfied without nonsense and spikes? :D two great examples of the single nonsensical pauldron. Good, thanks! I'll use those in a future article. (I'm not dissing the designs otherwise, they look fine. Kinda Witchery..it's just the lone pauldrons which I find so amusing.)

Both are well in the acceptably-over-the-top range for me. The helmet is a bit too tall to be useful, but tall helmets were used through history, so it's somewhat believable.

It IS a strawman, I never said ALL designs should be historical. (which is what you accuse me of) 1.) I'm not against designs which are fantastical. I'm against designs which are retarded. If it's magical, if it makes sense in the world of PE, fine. It has been stated a few times that we'd like some historical influence, practical thought behind the designs. Not exact copies of historical armour. 2.) You are against realistic/reasonably functional designs in general, you said so a few times, you find it bland and boring. You require huge shoulder pads and spikes, because they're "cool". No idea why you're suddenly grouping yourself with the people wanting both. Anyway, wanting both reasonable and spiky/nonsensical designs is equally retarded.

1.) western swords don't rely on the weight of the blade. Longswords on average weigh about the same as Japanese swords. The katana is generally more rigid and has a thicker blade. 2.) kendo is a sport and it doesn't own the "overhand chop". 3.) the claymore is a very specific (and minor) sub section of the longsword/greatsword group, longswords in general didn't have leather foreguards and they were sharpened along the blade. 4.) longswords weren't huge 5.) the guys in the video know a hell of a lot about what they're doing. 6.) you don't seem to know much about western swordplay

Wow, another strawman. How unexpected.

'Cause they look cool and don't exist in the real world. 1) "cause they look cool" is subjective, many people would dispute this. 2) "don't exist in the real world" - neither do shoulder pads made of living radioactive jelly eels. Are those fun? I think they're quite retarded, as are spikes and massive shoulderpads. Try this for an extraordinary experience - wear massive shoulder pads with 2 foot spikes and lift your arms. We'll all be happier if you do.

You seem to push a false dichotomy between fun and realism/practical design. Which is just that, false. It is entirely possible to create cool looking stuff without it being ridiculously oversized and full of spikes. Similarly, "learning can be fun", which, sadly, you seem to have missed at college. Poor you, boohoo. Why do you even play RPGs? They often require quite a bit of that annoying thinking and stuff. Why not something more "fun", like God of War? So, how do escapism and extraordinary experiences necessarily equal spikes and massive shoulderpads?