Devoted: Chromoprismatic Quarterstaff

[Yosharian]

4 hours ago, AeonsLegend said:

Or perhaps because blunt weapons are the only thing that can harm a heavily armored person in real life. In real life a sword and dagger are completely and utterly useless vs anyone in plate armor especially if they're wielding a long reach weapon. No one in their right mind would actually use a dagger in actual combat, that only happens in fantasy games where "rogues" are a thing. That stuff never existed in the real world.

No-one uses a dagger in actual combat?  U wot m8

[AeonsLegend]

A sword cannot pierce or slice through plate armor, nor can a dagger. That's a myth from video games or movies. Those weapons were used against mildly armored opponents such as people wearing leather armor or gambeson for instance. 

A dagger is too short to be of use in combat vs opponents that have longer reaching weapons such as spears or longswords. Let alone hand and a half swords or great swords. A true greatsword isn't that much heavier than a long sword mind you, it just has more reach.

Like stated in the wiki it is a back-up weapon. You'd be an idiot to go charging into a battlefield wielding only a dagger. You'd be dead before you'd be able to reach anyone. 

If PoE would be closer to real life and physics then dagger wielders would deal 0 damage vs plate armored enemies and have a -10 (or even -20) to deflection and accuracy.

Edited May 1, 2019 by AeonsLegend

[Boeroer]

9 hours ago, Boeroer said:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rondel_dagger

Let me quickly quote myself with the Wikipedia article that says that daggers were used in combat against and by knights in plate armor to stab between the gaps and also to deliver a coup de grace. Also look at several historical art pieces where knights in plate armor carry daggers as backup weapons - maybe not because they were useless once the riding stopped and the grappling started... It's fairly difficult to fight with a two handed sword on a crowded battlefield once formations are lost. Also bad in a dense forest, while wading in water and so on.

Then look again at your statement:

Quote

No one in their right mind would actually use a dagger in actual combat, that only happens in fantasy games where "rogues" are a thing. That stuff never existed in the real world.

Hm...

Besides that: who said that combatants on medieval or even renaissance battlefields all wore plate armor? 

Also PoE/Deafire ecounters are not really battles. Bringing a dagger is fairly reasonable for an adventurer and has its pros - but also its cons of course. Mayb that's why Deadfire encourages you to switch weapons based on your opponent's characteristics.  

Anyway: making light weapons as slow as heavier weapons while retaining the lower damage is not acceptable in a balanced game like Deadfire.

Edited May 1, 2019 by Boeroer

[AeonsLegend]

I know all that Boeroer I'm making the comparison because we're talking about a game where people trod around in full plate mail and the discussion was about there being a preference to blunt weapons. My statement on them being far superior versus heavily armored enemies is valid. Sure on a battlefield people wear lighter armor, depending on the times. Still daggers are out of all weapons the most useless. Longer reach is better. Fighting among trees you still want to wield a longsword over a dagger. The only place where a dagger has optimal use is when the enemy isn't wearing any particular type of armor and you can stab them without them noticing you. A dagger is a backup weapon, not a main one like in video games. It is a backup so you have something to wield when you lose your main weapon. The picture shows two people wielding longswords and having a dagger on the side of their belt. Even the swords aren't much use. If one of them was wielding a morning star he would easily win the duel.

[Yosharian]

12 hours ago, AeonsLegend said:

A sword cannot pierce or slice through plate armor, nor can a dagger. That's a myth from video games or movies. Those weapons were used against mildly armored opponents such as people wearing leather armor or gambeson for instance. 

A dagger is too short to be of use in combat vs opponents that have longer reaching weapons such as spears or longswords. Let alone hand and a half swords or great swords. A true greatsword isn't that much heavier than a long sword mind you, it just has more reach.

Like stated in the wiki it is a back-up weapon. You'd be an idiot to go charging into a battlefield wielding only a dagger. You'd be dead before you'd be able to reach anyone. 

If PoE would be closer to real life and physics then dagger wielders would deal 0 damage vs plate armored enemies and have a -10 (or even -20) to deflection and accuracy.

Everyone in 'combat' is using plate armor, got it

In case you miss my point, I'm trying to say that your point about daggers is ****ing absurd because not everyone in 'combat' is using plate armor.  A statement like "No one in their right mind would actually use a dagger in actual combat" (word for word quote from what you said earlier) is completely nonsensical.

If what you actually meant was 'no-one fighting someone in plate armor would use a dagger to fight them', then of course that's fine.  But that's not what you said.  So you should probably try and say what you actually mean.

Because the entire reason daggers and knives are so popular is precisely because they are brutally effective in many types of combat, precisely because of the qualities that set them in complete opposition to heavy, large weapons like a spear, or mace.

Edited May 2, 2019 by Yosharian

[AeonsLegend]

No I'm also saying daggers aren't effective in any type of combat situation because of their short reach. 2 people fighting with equal skill one wielding a sword and one wielding a dagger then the one wielding the sword will always win. And one wielding a spear would win over someone with a dagger as well. There is no combat situation I can imagine that a person wielding a dagger would have an advantage over a person wielding a weapon with superior range. Unless the guy is sneaking up on his enemy and stabbing him from behind.

Have you had any combat experience yourself? I have, with daggers, swords and poles (could view them as spears). Dual wielding daggers is effective vs people with very short reach weapons or no weapons. But fighting someone with a pole or a sword becomes extremely difficult. If you have nothing else at your disposal a dagger is of course preferable over fighting barehanded. But if you can choose a longer reach weapon is always preferable.

Edited May 2, 2019 by AeonsLegend

[Kaylon]

Daggers were of course used, but as back up, not as the main weapon. 

Edited May 2, 2019 by Kaylon

[AeonsLegend]

21 minutes ago, Kaylon said:

Dagger were of course used, but as back up, not as the main weapon. 

Yea that's a quote from my post. Running into a battlefield with just a dagger is basically suicide.

[Boeroer]

But - there is no battlefield in Pillars games (except maybe Yenwood Field). This is not a battlefield simulation with uniform weapons, horses and formations. It's adventuring. If you are a Rogue and learned how to use daggers but not spears - and then a tavern fight starts - why would you pull out a spear? Because you wouldn't.

There will always be situations in the life of an adventurer where a dagger is the best option. But I don't expect an RPG to simulate such situations in detail. It's ok to just balance out the weapons in general to make everybody happy.

Edited May 2, 2019 by Boeroer

[omgFIREBALLS]

27 minutes ago, Boeroer said:

If you are a Rogue and learned how to use daggers but not spears - and then a tavern fight starts - why would you pull out a spear? Because you wouldn't.

Since you mentioned spear, another point could be raised here. A sidearm weapon such as a sword or a dagger looks far less threatening than any kind of polearm, because you can carry it around sheathed. The only practical way to carry a polearm around is in one of your hands, which is going to make people uneasy unless you're a guard or somesuch. A sheathed sidearm just signals you've got means to defend yourself, but it doesn't look threatening until you reach for it. So chances are you'd have a hard enough time getting into the tavern with a spear in hand.

Paraphrasing a YouTube video. Polearms are superior weapons, sidearms are backups, but sidearms are more socially compatible

[AeonsLegend]

1 hour ago, Boeroer said:

But - there is no battlefield in Pillars games (except maybe Yenwood Field). This is not a battlefield simulation with uniform weapons, horses and formations. It's adventuring. If you are a Rogue and learned how to use daggers but not spears - and then a tavern fight starts - why would you pull out a spear? Because you wouldn't.

There will always be situations in the life of an adventurer where a dagger is the best option. But I don't expect an RPG to simulate such situations in detail. It's ok to just balance out the weapons in general to make everybody happy.

Oh no, from an RP standpoint I can definitely understand a farmer type person with no combat knowledge focussing on something like a dagger or cickle. But if he runs into a man with a sword in that tavern brawl he's going to draw the short end of the stick so to speak. In some situations a dagger may be preferable, but never in a straight fight. It's just less effective than any other type of weapon such as a sword, mace, spear or axe. Basically anything that has more reach is preferable. Up to the point where it becomes unwieldly obviously. You don't see Samurai fighting with a Tanto either. He's going to use his Katana and perhaps a Wakizashi (short sword) to assist. If he pulled out his tanto he'd be digging his own grave vs someone with a Katana.

I'm not saying you cannot fight with a dagger. I'm saying if you have the choice then it is the least preferable one. And when up vs heavily armored opponents any slicing or stabbing weapon is unfavorable because they simply will not harm the opponent. You see a sword slice through plate armor in movies and anime. That is pure fiction. The only reason they do damage in games and such is because it looks flashy and it is for balance purposes. From a real life perspective that just doesn't make any sense.

Also dual wielding weapons requires an immense amount of training and dexterity. It's impossible to propperly dual wield two full size swords and be effective. Only fantasy characters can do that. Anything you could do with the two swords you will be able to do with a single weapon much better. I've been trained in the use of dual wield blades (dagger type weapons) and that is actually only effective vs people with similar or no weapons and no armor. It is extremely difficult. I rather use a single handed or hand and a half sword I can wield with two hands. Some of that is due to personal preference I admit. But by far the pole is more effective. The weapon in fantasy games given to people that are bad at combat such as a druid. It's funny actually.

Rule of thumb in battle scenario's is "If I can stab/hit you before you can stab/hit me I win."

[Jayd]

I thought it was understood that the whole dagger thing was a fantasy play on a roguish character who uses short blades because they are easily concealed for stealth attacks. Crucially, their small size also makes them easily handled so that you can quickly and accurately strike vitals when the opportunity presents itself. Obviously this isn't applicable to a game like Pillars' combat because not every fight is going to end in sneak attacks, so they end up being included as toe-to-toe weapons because that's how the game plays. Usually in these games they are given higher crit damage or chance to indicate that they are meant for deliberate, definitive strikes. It might have been interesting for daggers to have very high bonuses to crit damage against sneak-attack vulnerable targets, or something like that.

Skyrim handled it by giving daggers absurd damage from stealth and they were weak for hacking and slashing. Stealth characters (i.e. everyone) therefore put out the most damage with daggers when they could avoid being detected. That is all fair and good, because if you are trying to gouge people's throats before they register you as a threat you are not going to use a longsword. This applies when your target is in any sort of armor as well, obviously. You aim at the gaps (something that's near impossible to do unless the target is unaware or incapacitated).

 

So yeah, daggers and stilettos would have a more flavourful and "realistic" (were my quotes big enough?) presence in Pillars if their damage was heavily reliant on stealth and sneak attack. The unique ones tend to nod in this direction. But this is very hard to balance as it usually ends up with daggers doing much better damage than anything else, or being inconsistent. 

[Boeroer]

Of course reach is an immense advantage on the battlefield (as long as you can keep the enemy at that reach). 

But you would have to design a game around that reach factor - and also around the awareness of the opponent.

Then you could give daggers and such advantages in certain situations (e.g. in a tavern brawl, in cavern fights, when you want to hide the weapon, when you sneak etc.) while exposing their disadvantages in other situations (open battlefield, duels...). 

You could start with giving weapon certain maluses/bonuses for reach categories and then define maps/surroundings that have certain limits in terms of how well you can use a long reach weapon. Let's say you are in a dungeon where's not much space. You could give the map or certain areas in it a value that represents how well you can fight in it with certain weapons. 

Example:

You invent reach categories A, B, C, D and give weapons a value for each. Dagger would be A: 0, B -5,  C -10, D -20. Sword: A: -5, B: 0, C -5, D -10. Pike: A: -20, B: -10, C -5, D 0. And so on. Just quick examples. There could be weapons that work equally well in different categories. Maybe even with special abilities like Half-Sword etc.

Thenan area like a dungeon could give you possible categories like A, B. Open field would be A,B,C,D. A map where you have to strike over a narrow chasm or through bars might only give you C and D. You name it.

Then you could give maluses to "stealth" or "making a totally peaceful impression while approaching" checks while wearing certain weapons. Let's call it "conceal". 

And so on.

You could to a lot to make combat more interesting while keeping it a bit more "realistic" while also encourage the adventurer to use/carry more than one single weapon. So a spear user would most likely carry a dagger for the times he crawls down that burrow.

Obviously you have to plan this right from the start. And it's not that easy to communicate to a new player. 

PoE didn't go that route - so in order to prevent frustration for rogueish dagger lovers it has to balance all weapons. Daggers doing low base dmg but striking faster makes sense then. If you now take away the speed advantage - that doesn't make sense.

Edited May 4, 2019 by Boeroer
Had to remove accidental emojis which pop up if you use colons too much...

[Kaylon]

I think the easiest way is to give them bonuses when used in the offhand and from stealth. Balancing them as main hand weapons doesn't seem very intuitive for me.

For example with a dagger in the offhand you would benefit from both one handed and two weapon styles. 

[Boeroer]

Then One Handed Style without using an offhand weapon would be inferior.

So you would need to give a lower One Handed Style bonus - and things become more complicated.

My "simple" approach for Deadfire would be to give dagger, stiletto and club bonuses of some sorts (e.g. wounding dmg or a bigger additive modifier or whatever) in situations where it makes sense. Which translates to giving them those bonuses with certain abilities: mainly attacks from stealth/invisibility, higher Sneak Attack bonus, higher crit chance with Minor Threat, better Assassinate and Backstab. Something like that. Maybe a single simple bonus in certain situations would be better to keep things simple. Maybe there are other abilities of other classes that make sense to get the bonus when being very near to the target. 

Don't know. Or just keep it as it is. It's a fantasy game after all. It's ok if weapons are balanced if you don't have special "situations" in your game (in combat) to take into account the "real" properties of those weapons.

[AeonsLegend]

5 hours ago, Boeroer said:

Then One Handed Style without using an offhand weapon would be inferior.

So you would need to give a lower One Handed Style bonus - and things become more complicated.

My "simple" approach for Deadfire would be to give dagger, stiletto and club bonuses of some sorts (e.g. wounding dmg or a bigger additive modifier or whatever) in situations where it makes sense. Which translates to giving them those bonuses with certain abilities: mainly attacks from stealth/invisibility, higher Sneak Attack bonus, higher crit chance with Minor Threat, better Assassinate and Backstab. Something like that. Maybe a single simple bonus in certain situations would be better to keep things simple. Maybe there are other abilities of other classes that make sense to get the bonus when being very near to the target. 

Don't know. Or just keep it as it is. It's a fantasy game after all. It's ok if weapons are balanced if you don't have special "situations" in your game (in combat) to take into account the "real" properties of those weapons.

Why give a dagger a wounding bonus and not a greatsword? I rather take a hit from a small blade than from one that can slice me in half. Trust me the wounds from a spear and a sword are larger than the ones from a dagger. The only thing that would make sense is to have dagger strike repeatedly in a shorter amount of time. A dagger requires very small space to operate effectively and can be used to stab quickly in the gut or overhand. Of course more effective only vs low protection enemies.

I think daggers could be made to work better if they are fitted solely to stealth builds, which are not very effective in this game. If you have stealth you have an easy time to find a weak spot in enemies armor and can therefore strike with impunity. Because of stealth you don't have to deal with deflection nor with enemy weapons so range is not an issue. so to have a stealth attack strike multiple times for decent damage and leave a person crippled if they survive would be good. Then in straight up fight have daggers lose their penetration value and give -10 or higher or so to deflection for the wielder. Have the rogue switch to actual hand to hand combat weapons while not in stealth. I think that would be really cool and intuitive.

Of course if you go that route then you could debate how an unarmed monk fighter makes sense. It doesn't. They would lose to any and all armed enemies in real life. You can't block a sword with your arm. Well you can. Once.

[Boeroer]

As I said: it would be a simple "fix" for Deadfire. Not an approach for the superduper battlefield simulation you might have in mind.

Giving dagger/stiletto/club an additional wounding property (or wahtever fitting bonus - doesn't matter at this stage of theorycrafting) ONLY for abilities that somehat imply that the enemy doesn't see you coming (Sneak Attack, stealth attacks, Backstab...) would somewhat resemble to better advance with a weapon without drawing attention. And if you can advance without raising suspicion you will most likely be able to land a more precise hit which will be bleeding (aka wounding in Deadfire).

Besides that reasoning: it was just a random example for some bonus you could give daggers when they are used with "stealth" and "hey look: I'm not really attacking you, am I?" stuff in mind - as I explicitly said.

It's obvious that getting cleaved in half by a great sword is often more harmful than getting stabbed in the back. But that was not the point. I thought that was fairly obvious. If not you'll have to blame my poor English skills I guess...

For your nice combat simulation approach I gave some other examples (with reach maluses on weapons and places with confined spaces on maps etc.) that might be suited to make combat with different weapons which are suited for different situations in an RPG more realistic. 

 

Edited May 4, 2019 by Boeroer

[AeonsLegend]

Guess I just never understood the wounding thing on some weapons. Anything that punctures, slices or stabs would leave an open wound. I'd rather see weapon speed be factored into the attack itself as I suggested. Even better with a stilleto type weapon as those can pierce clothing and leather better than a dagger could. the wider the tip the less piercing you get, the thinner the blade itself the more piercing you get. Prevents the weapon from getting stuck as well. From that perspective the stilleto would be optimal as you would be able to stab an enemy repeatedly without having to force too much strength into the blade itself. It has less momentum than a larger weapon, but doesn't require as much effort either. The only issue is getting close enough to your enemy to be able to pull it off. Hence the stealth suggestion.

[Boeroer]

You mean my stealth suggestion.

[omgFIREBALLS]

7 minutes ago, AeonsLegend said:

Guess I just never understood the wounding thing on some weapons. Anything that punctures, slices or stabs would leave an open wound.

It'd be a whole new game, really. Any piercing/slashing weapon should cause bleeding, and furthermore, that bleeding shouldn't just wear off within half a minute, but rather force the victim to either win fast or run away and nurse the wound. Unless they have access to magical healing, I suppose. Is the fact that this doesn't bother me much what's called suspension of disbelief?

[AeonsLegend]

7 minutes ago, omgFIREBALLS said:

It'd be a whole new game, really. Any piercing/slashing weapon should cause bleeding, and furthermore, that bleeding shouldn't just wear off within half a minute, but rather force the victim to either win fast or run away and nurse the wound. Unless they have access to magical healing, I suppose. Is the fact that this doesn't bother me much what's called suspension of disbelief?

Yea so that's why it either shouldn't be in the game or tailored specifically to wounds that are really bad in my opinion. You could state that being stabbed mutliple times in quick succession counts as a large wound. But a chop from an axe would also wound. But yea it would just throw a wrench in the entire game.

My original statement with which I started in this topic was in defense of blunt weapons being better vs armor. It is drawn from simple real life facts.

My personal favorite weapons in games are either Voulges/Naginatas or spears. Unfortunately I never learned to handle those weapons. I could very likely apply my pole figthting skills to the spear though. Still blunt striking and point striking are very different. Strangely enough I never use poles in games even though I am proficient with them myself.

Edited May 4, 2019 by AeonsLegend

[Yosharian]

On 5/2/2019 at 6:46 PM, AeonsLegend said:

No I'm also saying daggers aren't effective in any type of combat situation because of their short reach. 2 people fighting with equal skill one wielding a sword and one wielding a dagger then the one wielding the sword will always win. And one wielding a spear would win over someone with a dagger as well. There is no combat situation I can imagine that a person wielding a dagger would have an advantage over a person wielding a weapon with superior range. Unless the guy is sneaking up on his enemy and stabbing him from behind.

Ooh you're almost there, you've almost understood what I was trying to get at...

[Yosharian]

On 5/2/2019 at 10:17 PM, Boeroer said:

But - there is no battlefield in Pillars games (except maybe Yenwood Field). This is not a battlefield simulation with uniform weapons, horses and formations. It's adventuring. If you are a Rogue and learned how to use daggers but not spears - and then a tavern fight starts - why would you pull out a spear? Because you wouldn't.

There will always be situations in the life of an adventurer where a dagger is the best option. But I don't expect an RPG to simulate such situations in detail. It's ok to just balance out the weapons in general to make everybody happy.

Exactly.

[AeonsLegend]

51 minutes ago, Yosharian said:

Ooh you're almost there, you've almost understood what I was trying to get at...

Which is what rogues hardly ever do in fantasy games, just like pillars. Plus it is impossible vs steel plate armor, which also exists in Pillars.

49 minutes ago, Yosharian said:

Exactly.

Exactly. Except that it is wrong. The best scenario is where you use your dagger for peeling your apple. Like I said before. If you're a farmer or some other person without knowledge of actual combat and the only thing available is a dagger and you actually trained to use it, then by all means it is a good idea to wield it. Just know that you will be at a great disavantage vs a person with an actual weapon made for combat. you don't need a battlefield situation for this fact to remain. A 1v1 in a tavern and the dagger wielder will still lose to someone with a sword or a pole with equal skill. Period.

But the original statement we let go of was my mention of the blunt weapon was more effective vs heavy armor because bladed weapons cannot pierce full steel plate in real life. We somehow lost track of that point because you're trying to convince me that a fantasy situation is actual reality. But please try to convince me next time that you attacking an M1 Abrams tank with a dagger is also a good idea. But only if it's not a battlefield situation of course. And only if you can sneak up on it.

[Yosharian]

5 minutes ago, AeonsLegend said:

Which is what rogues hardly ever do in fantasy games, just like pillars. Plus it is impossible vs steel plate armor, which also exists in Pillars.

Exactly. Except that it is wrong. The best scenario is where you use your dagger for peeling your apple. Like I said before. If you're a farmer or some other person without knowledge of actual combat and the only thing available is a dagger and you actually trained to use it, then by all means it is a good idea to wield it. Just know that you will be at a great disavantage vs a person with an actual weapon made for combat. you don't need a battlefield situation for this fact to remain. A 1v1 in a tavern and the dagger wielder will still lose to someone with a sword or a pole with equal skill. Period.

But the original statement we let go of was my mention of the blunt weapon was more effective vs heavy armor because bladed weapons cannot pierce full steel plate in real life. We somehow lost track of that point because you're trying to convince me that a fantasy situation is actual reality. But please try to convince me next time that you attacking an M1 Abrams tank with a dagger is also a good idea. But only if it's not a battlefield situation of course. And only if you can sneak up on it.

> rogues hardly ever do in fantasy games

I mean.  In my PnP games I see that kind of thing very often.  And it's often the case that a concealed weapon can be 10x more effective than a big, obvious, clunky weapon like a pike.  But ok, I bow to your superior knowledge here, I guess I just imagined all the times the party rogue went up behind someone to slit their throat, or stab them through a vital organ.  Or slipped a dagger into someone's side when nobody was looking.

> Plus it is impossible vs steel plate armor

Ah yes, we already established that everyone is always wearing plate armor in Fantasy games, how could I forget this.

> Like I said before. If you're a farmer or some other person without knowledge of actual combat and the only thing available is a dagger and you actually trained to use it, then by all means it is a good idea to wield it.

It's so strange that you keep saying a farmer would use a weapon such as a dagger.  It's like... totally wrong.  Where are you getting this from?

> A 1v1 in a tavern and the dagger wielder will still lose to someone with a sword or a pole with equal skill.

Facepalm.  You just don't get it, do you?

> But the original statement we let go of was my mention of the blunt weapon was more effective vs heavy armor because bladed weapons cannot pierce full steel plate in real life. We somehow lost track of that point because you're trying to convince me that a fantasy situation is actual reality. But please try to convince me next time that you attacking an M1 Abrams tank with a dagger is also a good idea. But only if it's not a battlefield situation of course. And only if you can sneak up on it.

None of this has anything to do with the point I was making, which was to address the statement you made "No one in their right mind would actually use a dagger in actual combat".

If you want to stop talking about that and instead talk about how blunt weapons are more effective vs heavy plate armor... well, yes.  Of course they are.  Well, that was illuminating.