PoE II at E3 2017.

[algroth]

One of the greatest things about Pillars is that it doesn't care about the knee-jerk reaction to some class/equipment combinations being "wrong".

Not to mention that it's hardly 'wrong' either, as the dagger was commonly employed as a sidearm by knights.

[MortyTheGobbo]

Indeed, but RPGs have a lot of baked-in assumptions that endure because they always have, and people don't think twice about them.

[Quillon]

 

One of the greatest things about Pillars is that it doesn't care about the knee-jerk reaction to some class/equipment combinations being "wrong".

Not to mention that it's hardly 'wrong' either, as the dagger was commonly employed as a sidearm by knights.

 

Daggers are not used that way in cRPGs or in PoE, its considered a main weapon so I'm treating it accordingly. Its like using pistol as a main weapon in a modern military game. Just cos the game lets me do something doesn't mean I have to be comfortable with it. And I'm not saying the game shouldn't let me.

[Karkarov]

 

Damn, that dagger is useless to me. I would never bind a dagger to a paladin or a priest. Maybe if a character is some weird multiclass with paladin or priest...

Paladins with daggers are one of the viable builds for the ultimate achievement.  Now part of that is the Flick of the Wrist talent, but paladins with daggers are downright nasty.  There's a bounty with them and they're very durable while having a respectable damage output.  It may be a little gamey, but it works.

Also don't forget the group it fits best for.  Priest of Skaen, makes absolute sense for one of them to use a dagger.

 

Edit:

 

Thinking about it I also suspect some people confuse "dagger" with "knife".  A Knife is what you use to peel apples, and cut up a piece of bread or steak.  A Dagger is a tool for combat meant to kill another person. 

 

Case in point, this is a dagger.

 

 

Nothing about that weapon is weak, one thrust to the right spot would be all it takes.  Also dagger blades are long, that one is 10 inches or so, but they could be 15 even 16 inches and still be daggers.  Most "daggers" you see in modern media are way smaller than they should be, that thing in the picture if stabbed in a spine would punch through the chest.

Edited June 19, 2017 by Karkarov

[Quillon]

Nothing about that weapon is weak, one thrust to the right spot would be all it takes.  Also dagger blades are long, that one is 10 inches or so, but they could be 15 even 16 inches and still be daggers.  Most "daggers" you see in modern media are way smaller than they should be, that thing in the picture if stabbed in a spine would punch through the chest.

You can "one trust to the right spot" and kill with many things; a knife, a pencil...

 

You wouldn't enter a medieval battle with a dagger in hand if you have options. Daggers are essentially medieval side-arms, but made so they can be main weapons & used in open battles in RPGs, so RL references & how good daggers are in RL meaningless here, talk about daggers for what they are in RPGs. And again, I'm not questioning daggers' place in the game; I like daggers when a rogue dual-wields them the best and I frown upon if a paladin or priest wields it If you can find a valid concept and the game allows it so you can make dagger wielding paladins & priests, good for you.

[Phenomenum]

Sorry for intervention.

Dirk, stiletto, within sailors known from XVI century as combat weapon. It's leight was about 25-28 sm, originated from ispanian blade "espada" (lenght about 50-80 sm). I don't know about Europe and USA, but in Russian army 1913 it was a was a standart for all marine officers - 24 sm lenght. Imagine this: 24 sm capable pierce your bogy through and through.

It's hell of a weapon. Don't underestimate it.

And about PoE - Daggers and Stilettos can make wonders in proper hands.
 

Edited June 19, 2017 by Phenomenum

[DigitalCrack]

 

Nothing about that weapon is weak, one thrust to the right spot would be all it takes.  Also dagger blades are long, that one is 10 inches or so, but they could be 15 even 16 inches and still be daggers.  Most "daggers" you see in modern media are way smaller than they should be, that thing in the picture if stabbed in a spine would punch through the chest.

You can "one trust to the right spot" and kill with many things; a knife, a pencil...

 

You wouldn't enter a medieval battle with a dagger in hand if you have options. Daggers are essentially medieval side-arms, but made so they can be main weapons & used in open battles in RPGs, so RL references & how good daggers are in RL meaningless here, talk about daggers for what they are in RPGs. And again, I'm not questioning daggers' place in the game; I like daggers when a rogue dual-wields them the best and I frown upon if a paladin or priest wields it If you can find a valid concept and the game allows it so you can make dagger wielding paladins & priests, good for you.

 

To summarize.. He just feels this way, nothing anyone says will sway his opinion.

 

It really is the fault of the fantasy community for assuming paladin's are always associated with a "knight" type role.   As well as assuming that Knights are only allowed to be meat headed sword and board types..

[smjjames]

 

 

Nothing about that weapon is weak, one thrust to the right spot would be all it takes.  Also dagger blades are long, that one is 10 inches or so, but they could be 15 even 16 inches and still be daggers.  Most "daggers" you see in modern media are way smaller than they should be, that thing in the picture if stabbed in a spine would punch through the chest.

You can "one trust to the right spot" and kill with many things; a knife, a pencil...

 

You wouldn't enter a medieval battle with a dagger in hand if you have options. Daggers are essentially medieval side-arms, but made so they can be main weapons & used in open battles in RPGs, so RL references & how good daggers are in RL meaningless here, talk about daggers for what they are in RPGs. And again, I'm not questioning daggers' place in the game; I like daggers when a rogue dual-wields them the best and I frown upon if a paladin or priest wields it If you can find a valid concept and the game allows it so you can make dagger wielding paladins & priests, good for you.

 

To summarize.. He just feels this way, nothing anyone says will sway his opinion.

 

It really is the fault of the fantasy community for assuming paladin's are always associated with a "knight" type role.   As well as assuming that Knights are only allowed to be meat headed sword and board types..

 

Or as DnD based comics (Order of the Stick makes use of it a couple times, and I linked to the first page as I can't be bothered to find the page that mentions it) joke about it, 'lawful good, not lawful stupid'.

 

Everybody is entitled to play it however they want and Obsidian provides lots of latitude with possibilities with PoE1 and 2. Like my rogueish monk concept.

[Quillon]

 

 

Nothing about that weapon is weak, one thrust to the right spot would be all it takes.  Also dagger blades are long, that one is 10 inches or so, but they could be 15 even 16 inches and still be daggers.  Most "daggers" you see in modern media are way smaller than they should be, that thing in the picture if stabbed in a spine would punch through the chest.

You can "one trust to the right spot" and kill with many things; a knife, a pencil...

 

You wouldn't enter a medieval battle with a dagger in hand if you have options. Daggers are essentially medieval side-arms, but made so they can be main weapons & used in open battles in RPGs, so RL references & how good daggers are in RL meaningless here, talk about daggers for what they are in RPGs. And again, I'm not questioning daggers' place in the game; I like daggers when a rogue dual-wields them the best and I frown upon if a paladin or priest wields it If you can find a valid concept and the game allows it so you can make dagger wielding paladins & priests, good for you.

 

To summarize.. He just feels this way, nothing anyone says will sway his opinion.

 

It really is the fault of the fantasy community for assuming paladin's are always associated with a "knight" type role.   As well as assuming that Knights are only allowed to be meat headed sword and board types..

 

There is no right way, its everyone's fantasy why would I need my opinion swayed? I don't have to like certain/all concepts. I usually like traditional norms, maybe cos I'm used to them but also my canon PoE character is an intelligent barb, I think its great game lets me make this, some other person could hate the idea of intelligent barbarians and I don't need to sway their opinion cos its their likes/dislikes.

[DigitalCrack]

 

 

 

Nothing about that weapon is weak, one thrust to the right spot would be all it takes. Also dagger blades are long, that one is 10 inches or so, but they could be 15 even 16 inches and still be daggers. Most "daggers" you see in modern media are way smaller than they should be, that thing in the picture if stabbed in a spine would punch through the chest.

You can "one trust to the right spot" and kill with many things; a knife, a pencil...

 

You wouldn't enter a medieval battle with a dagger in hand if you have options. Daggers are essentially medieval side-arms, but made so they can be main weapons & used in open battles in RPGs, so RL references & how good daggers are in RL meaningless here, talk about daggers for what they are in RPGs. And again, I'm not questioning daggers' place in the game; I like daggers when a rogue dual-wields them the best and I frown upon if a paladin or priest wields it If you can find a valid concept and the game allows it so you can make dagger wielding paladins & priests, good for you.

To summarize.. He just feels this way, nothing anyone says will sway his opinion.

 

It really is the fault of the fantasy community for assuming paladin's are always associated with a "knight" type role. As well as assuming that Knights are only allowed to be meat headed sword and board types..

There is no right way, its everyone's fantasy why would I need my opinion swayed? I don't have to like certain/all concepts. I usually like traditional norms, maybe cos I'm used to them but also my canon PoE character is an intelligent barb, I think its great game lets me make this, some other person could hate the idea of intelligent barbarians and I don't need to sway their opinion cos its their likes/dislikes.

Never said you were wrong ha, its a personal opinion that your entitled too. just didnt want to see the thread drag on with replies to you from people trying to change your mind on it.

[Quillon]

I interpreted your post wrong then, sorry.

[injurai]

Do dagger's get any bonuses? I can't recall. But it would be neat if they got a bonus to reflexes and maybe increase chance of crit on pierce damage attacks. I'd imagine it's easy to stab where you want to with a dagger than a sword.

[draego]

Do dagger's get any bonuses? I can't recall. But it would be neat if they got a bonus to reflexes and maybe increase chance of crit on pierce damage attacks. I'd imagine it's easy to stab where you want to with a dagger than a sword.

 

Daggers in POE1 get +5 accuracy

[injurai]

Daggers in POE1 get +5 accuracy

 

Sounds about right. And there's your reason to use one. Nice for melee that isn't meant to tank or engage.

[rjshae]

 

Pickpocketing does tend to have a very high requirement for actually working, but more importantly, it encourages, or outright requires save-scumming. If it doesn't work, the NPC gets angry, but you can just reload and try again.

Plus it depends on how worthy are the items designers are going to put into NPCs for us to pickpocket. And ofc if there are scrolls/spells/unique equipment that buffs stealth/pickpocket.

 

That's easy enough to fix: just have a minimum Pick Pocket skill level for success, then determine what can be picked based on the skill level. A low level only shows a few easy to pick items, but a high skill will recover more valuable objects. Hence save scumming becomes pointless since your skill level doesn't change (unless you expend a helper item).

[Karkarov]

You can "one trust to the right spot" and kill with many things; a knife, a pencil...

Fair enough, but it is way easier to do it with a legit Dagger than it is with a pencil, or a steak knife. 

 

In all seriousness though, there is a reason modern military forces only have swords for dress, but still make many of their soldiers carry bayonets, or drop point knives.  AKA: modern versions of the dagger.

[algroth]

 

Nothing about that weapon is weak, one thrust to the right spot would be all it takes.  Also dagger blades are long, that one is 10 inches or so, but they could be 15 even 16 inches and still be daggers.  Most "daggers" you see in modern media are way smaller than they should be, that thing in the picture if stabbed in a spine would punch through the chest.

You can "one trust to the right spot" and kill with many things; a knife, a pencil...

 

You wouldn't enter a medieval battle with a dagger in hand if you have options. Daggers are essentially medieval side-arms, but made so they can be main weapons & used in open battles in RPGs, so RL references & how good daggers are in RL meaningless here, talk about daggers for what they are in RPGs. And again, I'm not questioning daggers' place in the game; I like daggers when a rogue dual-wields them the best and I frown upon if a paladin or priest wields it If you can find a valid concept and the game allows it so you can make dagger wielding paladins & priests, good for you.

 

You would never enter a battle with a dagger in hand because it's a side-arm, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't employ it in battle. Especially in later periods where plate armour started to be used, a dagger was an effective sidearm to have because given its size and length it was very efficient and accurate at getting between the plates of the armour and dealing a lethal wound to your adversary (in close quarters and once the other knight was disabled, that is). This is my understanding anyhow, and I don't see why it would be so incongruent with the world of Eora too.

[Karkarov]

You would never enter a battle with a dagger in hand because it's a side-arm, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't employ it in battle. Especially in later periods where plate armour started to be used, a dagger was an effective sidearm to have because given its size and length it was very efficient and accurate at getting between the plates of the armour and dealing a lethal wound to your adversary (in close quarters and once the other knight was disabled, that is). This is my understanding anyhow, and I don't see why it would be so incongruent with the world of Eora too.

Actually if anything the dagger makes sense as a major weapon in Eternity.  With the advent of firearms (not to mention the cross bow) heavy armor because largely pointless, because those weapons could punch right through it.  Thus people started wearing lighter more mobile armor, and when in melee started using lighter more flexible weapons.  Like the Rapier, Sabre, or "Side" Sword.

[algroth]

 

You would never enter a battle with a dagger in hand because it's a side-arm, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't employ it in battle. Especially in later periods where plate armour started to be used, a dagger was an effective sidearm to have because given its size and length it was very efficient and accurate at getting between the plates of the armour and dealing a lethal wound to your adversary (in close quarters and once the other knight was disabled, that is). This is my understanding anyhow, and I don't see why it would be so incongruent with the world of Eora too.

Actually if anything the dagger makes sense as a major weapon in Eternity.  With the advent of firearms (not to mention the cross bow) heavy armor because largely pointless, because those weapons could punch right through it.  Thus people started wearing lighter more mobile armor, and when in melee started using lighter more flexible weapons.  Like the Rapier, Sabre, or "Side" Sword.

 

My understanding is that in Renaissance times plate was still pretty damn effective against firearms (though eventually it would grow obsolete), and also crossbows, and was thus commonly used up until the late 17th century ('commonly' for those who could afford it, that is). Also 'heavy' armour wasn't really that cumbersome - there's plenty of tests on YouTube that you can see of people in full plate showing off just how flexible full plate was, even being able to *swim* in full gear. The weight may seem scary at first but it's distributed through your whole body, thus making it relatively much lighter than when simply lifting it (of course you would only really use such armour for an actual battle, and not for travelling or the likes the way characters in an RPG do). Games ignore just how effective armour was usually - even a thick enough gambeson could provide excellent protection against arrows, slashes and the likes. Also my understanding is that sabres are pretty top-heavy weapons and thus not very nimble, whereas rapiers used to be very heavy, on average heavier than arming swords even. The change that came with the implementation of full plate was especially with regards to a new focus on piercing: slashing against plate was pretty useless, so swords were adapted to best be able to reach and pierce the "weak spots" in the armour, these being the parts that were not covered (slits, joints and the likes).

Edited June 21, 2017 by algroth

[Karkarov]

My understanding is that in Renaissance times plate was still pretty damn effective against firearms (though eventually it would grow obsolete), and also crossbows, and was thus commonly used up until the late 17th century ('commonly' for those who could afford it, that is). Also 'heavy' armour wasn't really that cumbersome - there's plenty of tests on YouTube that you can see of people in full plate showing off just how flexible full plate was, even being able to *swim* in full gear. The weight may seem scary at first but it's distributed through your whole body, thus making it relatively much lighter than when simply lifting it (of course you would only really use such armour for an actual battle, and not for travelling or the likes the way characters in an RPG do). Games ignore just how effective armour was usually - even a thick enough gambeson could provide excellent protection against arrows, slashes and the likes. Also my understanding is that sabres are pretty top-heavy weapons and thus not very nimble, whereas rapiers used to be very heavy, on average heavier than arming swords even. The change that came with the implementation of full plate was especially with regards to a new focus on piercing: slashing against plate was pretty useless, so swords were adapted to best be able to reach and pierce the "weak spots" in the armour, these being the parts that were not covered (slits, joints and the likes).

Sabres it really depends, they could be top heavy, but they also could not be.  Depends on the construction.  Weapons like the ones I mentioned also all had some form of full hand covering hilt, as people stopped wearing metal gloves. 

 

They didn't call crossbows "Knight Killers" because plate armor was all that effective against them.  With the gun technology in Eternity (they have freaking pistols and cannon) historically speaking they are well past the age of plate armor.

[Quillon]

 

 

Nothing about that weapon is weak, one thrust to the right spot would be all it takes.  Also dagger blades are long, that one is 10 inches or so, but they could be 15 even 16 inches and still be daggers.  Most "daggers" you see in modern media are way smaller than they should be, that thing in the picture if stabbed in a spine would punch through the chest.

You can "one trust to the right spot" and kill with many things; a knife, a pencil...

 

You wouldn't enter a medieval battle with a dagger in hand if you have options. Daggers are essentially medieval side-arms, but made so they can be main weapons & used in open battles in RPGs, so RL references & how good daggers are in RL meaningless here, talk about daggers for what they are in RPGs. And again, I'm not questioning daggers' place in the game; I like daggers when a rogue dual-wields them the best and I frown upon if a paladin or priest wields it If you can find a valid concept and the game allows it so you can make dagger wielding paladins & priests, good for you.

 

You would never enter a battle with a dagger in hand because it's a side-arm, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't employ it in battle. Especially in later periods where plate armour started to be used, a dagger was an effective sidearm to have because given its size and length it was very efficient and accurate at getting between the plates of the armour and dealing a lethal wound to your adversary (in close quarters and once the other knight was disabled, that is). This is my understanding anyhow, and I don't see why it would be so incongruent with the world of Eora too.

 

 

Why do you guys need to tell me how awesome a dagger is in RL again & again? Daggers are awesomER in RPGs, cos they are so good so you would employ daggers as main weps in open battle. How do you guys interpreting me not liking certain character concepts' wielding daggers to me questioning daggers' merits?

[JerekKruger]

You would never enter a battle with a dagger in hand because it's a side-arm, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't employ it in battle. Especially in later periods where plate armour started to be used, a dagger was an effective sidearm to have because given its size and length it was very efficient and accurate at getting between the plates of the armour and dealing a lethal wound to your adversary (in close quarters and once the other knight was disabled, that is). This is my understanding anyhow, and I don't see why it would be so incongruent with the world of Eora too.

 

Indeed. A lot of historical fencing manuals depict two armoured fighters, armed with daggers, grappling with each other whilst standing up. The manuals describe various methods of locking down your opponent's weapon and bringing yours to bear against their weak points (usually the face).

 

That said, the daggers used for this sort of fighting are really better represented by stilettos than daggers in Pillars (things like rondel daggers).

 

Actually if anything the dagger makes sense as a major weapon in Eternity.  With the advent of firearms (not to mention the cross bow) heavy armor because largely pointless, because those weapons could punch right through it.  Thus people started wearing lighter more mobile armor, and when in melee started using lighter more flexible weapons.  Like the Rapier, Sabre, or "Side" Sword.

 

Crossbows really couldn't punch right through plate, particularly not the case hardened plate that was used in the period that is equivalent to Pillars setting.

 

Yes, they had enormous draw weights (as high as 1200lbs) but they had tiny draw lengths compared to longbows, and crossbow bolts were a lot lighter than longbow arrows (they lose velocity to wind resistance faster). These differences lead to surprisingly a similar performance from the two weapons at normal ranges.

 

This doesn't mean that crossbows couldn't put men-at-arms out of action, they certainly could, but much like longbows they relied on hitting weak points in the armour (most often an exposed face, but also some gaps in joints or thinner pieces of armour) to do so, together with a very high volume of fire to make this likely. Also, obviously against mounted men-at-arms horses were generally more vulnerable.

 

By the way, the sabres and rapiers that were used in battle weighed about the same (sometimes more) than a typical arming sword. Their modern day fencing namesakes are far lighter.

 

My understanding is that in Renaissance times plate was still pretty damn effective against firearms (though eventually it would grow obsolete), and also crossbows, and was thus commonly used up until the late 17th century ('commonly' for those who could afford it, that is). Also 'heavy' armour wasn't really that cumbersome - there's plenty of tests on YouTube that you can see of people in full plate showing off just how flexible full plate was, even being able to *swim* in full gear. The weight may seem scary at first but it's distributed through your whole body, thus making it relatively much lighter than when simply lifting it (of course you would only really use such armour for an actual battle, and not for travelling or the likes the way characters in an RPG do). Games ignore just how effective armour was usually - even a thick enough gambeson could provide excellent protection against arrows, slashes and the likes. Also my understanding is that sabres are pretty top-heavy weapons and thus not very nimble, whereas rapiers used to be very heavy, on average heavier than arming swords even. The change that came with the implementation of full plate was especially with regards to a new focus on piercing: slashing against plate was pretty useless, so swords were adapted to best be able to reach and pierce the "weak spots" in the armour, these being the parts that were not covered (slits, joints and the likes).

 

Indeed. There's this idea that armour was useless against the weapons of the time, but it's demonstrably false. Tests done with good quality reproduction plate show longbow arrows could, at best, penetrate to about an inch depth i.e. not enough to injure (there's a thick gambeson on underneath that plate). Breastplates from the seventeenth century were tested against musket shots to prove to their buyer that they'd provide protection. People in the past weren't idiots, they wouldn't have loaded themselves up with a heavy suit of armour if it didn't work. Armour worked.

[algroth]

 

 

 

Nothing about that weapon is weak, one thrust to the right spot would be all it takes.  Also dagger blades are long, that one is 10 inches or so, but they could be 15 even 16 inches and still be daggers.  Most "daggers" you see in modern media are way smaller than they should be, that thing in the picture if stabbed in a spine would punch through the chest.

You can "one trust to the right spot" and kill with many things; a knife, a pencil...

 

You wouldn't enter a medieval battle with a dagger in hand if you have options. Daggers are essentially medieval side-arms, but made so they can be main weapons & used in open battles in RPGs, so RL references & how good daggers are in RL meaningless here, talk about daggers for what they are in RPGs. And again, I'm not questioning daggers' place in the game; I like daggers when a rogue dual-wields them the best and I frown upon if a paladin or priest wields it If you can find a valid concept and the game allows it so you can make dagger wielding paladins & priests, good for you.

 

You would never enter a battle with a dagger in hand because it's a side-arm, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't employ it in battle. Especially in later periods where plate armour started to be used, a dagger was an effective sidearm to have because given its size and length it was very efficient and accurate at getting between the plates of the armour and dealing a lethal wound to your adversary (in close quarters and once the other knight was disabled, that is). This is my understanding anyhow, and I don't see why it would be so incongruent with the world of Eora too.

 

 

Why do you guys need to tell me how awesome a dagger is in RL again & again? Daggers are awesomER in RPGs, cos they are so good so you would employ daggers as main weps in open battle. How do you guys interpreting me not liking certain character concepts' wielding daggers to me questioning daggers' merits?

 

The point is that you can carry a dagger as a side-arm in the game thanks to weapon sets as well, meaning that if you *wish* to play a paladin with a dagger you can and it would not in strict historical terms be wrong either. Besides the paladin and priest as portrated in Pillars is pretty divorced from its D&D counterpart - I don't see why a member of the Steel Garrote or a priest of Skaen would feel wrong when equipping a dagger. In the end it's really about how you imagine and portray your character, their job is simply to cater to every possibility (and once in a while make you think of possibilities outside the standard fantasy norm as well).

[Quillon]

So what do you want me to acknowledge? It doesn't sit well with me imagining a priest fighting with a dagger, which doesn't have anything to do with anyone from making such characters. Do I HAVE TO be comfortable with it?

[algroth]

 

My understanding is that in Renaissance times plate was still pretty damn effective against firearms (though eventually it would grow obsolete), and also crossbows, and was thus commonly used up until the late 17th century ('commonly' for those who could afford it, that is). Also 'heavy' armour wasn't really that cumbersome - there's plenty of tests on YouTube that you can see of people in full plate showing off just how flexible full plate was, even being able to *swim* in full gear. The weight may seem scary at first but it's distributed through your whole body, thus making it relatively much lighter than when simply lifting it (of course you would only really use such armour for an actual battle, and not for travelling or the likes the way characters in an RPG do). Games ignore just how effective armour was usually - even a thick enough gambeson could provide excellent protection against arrows, slashes and the likes. Also my understanding is that sabres are pretty top-heavy weapons and thus not very nimble, whereas rapiers used to be very heavy, on average heavier than arming swords even. The change that came with the implementation of full plate was especially with regards to a new focus on piercing: slashing against plate was pretty useless, so swords were adapted to best be able to reach and pierce the "weak spots" in the armour, these being the parts that were not covered (slits, joints and the likes).

Sabres it really depends, they could be top heavy, but they also could not be.  Depends on the construction.  Weapons like the ones I mentioned also all had some form of full hand covering hilt, as people stopped wearing metal gloves. 

 

They didn't call crossbows "Knight Killers" because plate armor was all that effective against them.  With the gun technology in Eternity (they have freaking pistols and cannon) historically speaking they are well past the age of plate armor.

 

Well, as Jerek mentioned above, it's not necessarily that plate and guns did not share a common time - again, they were worn regularly till the late 17th century, over a century after the pistol's invention, and even more after the incorporation of cannons in European warfare (which came before small firearms - obviously armour was also not designed to withstand cannonfire either). Crossbows also far predate plate armour, their common use going as far back as the mid-11th century, nearly three centuries before full plate armour appeared. I don't know the origin of the term but it could have just as well been referring to its ability to penetrate mail and gambeson, which were what knights usually wore as armour in the 12th and 13th century (again, as far as I recall). Plate armour must have been effective to first gain traction and then endure through all these periods, as otherwise it would not have been worn. Consider, too, that plate armour was also very expensive and hard to make, all of which would contribute to its decline once it did eventually become obsolete.

Edited June 21, 2017 by algroth