165 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

Daggers, are a very special weapon. It has the shortest reach of all
(shares it with other knives though). This means that a dagger is always
at an disadvantage. No matter what it faces chances are other weapons
can hit it's user when they are still out of reach.
So the underlying
principle of dagger fighting is: Don't let them. The entire style is
about dodging, wrestling, grabbing, feinting, advancing, controlling the
opponent and constantly being aggresive. Never allowing their opponents
to do squat against them. Constantly harassing them with attacks and
feints. Being in complete control of the fight at all times. It is a
style of fighting very well suited to unarmoured combatants.

Frankly, I'd do away with the "rouge" class altogether.. Just mage and non-mage classes and you specialize from there.

The reality of combat is that you NEVER want to get hit - armor or no. The dualist/swashbuckler as such is somewhat of a myth, born from fencing duels among nobility.

A typical rouge setup (no or light armor + twin daggers) is in reality a very bad way to fight. Against someone with heaveir armor, with a sword and shield, you're in a big disadvantage. Blocking a large blade with daggers is difficult and your opponent has longer reach and better protection.

Those that did fight with two weapon, fought with one regular sword nad a fencing/parrying dagger/sword..not two daggers.

[Sir JK]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Frankly, I'd do away with the "rouge" class altogether.. Just mage and non-mage classes and you specialize from there.
The reality of combat is that you NEVER want to get hit - armor or no. The dualist/swashbuckler as such is somewhat of a myth, born from fencing duels among nobility.
A typical rouge setup (no or light armor + twin daggers) is in reality a very bad way to fight. Against someone with heaveir armor, with a sword and shield, you're in a big disadvantage. Blocking a large blade with daggers is difficult and your opponent has longer reach and better protection.
Those that did fight with two weapon, fought with one regular sword nad a fencing/parrying dagger/sword..not two daggers.

Indeed, getting hit no matter what you are wearing is a bad idea.
But unarmoured fighting and dagger (mono- or dual-) happened, especially in cities where armour was forbidden and wearing a long weapon could get you a stern talking to by the local guard captain. I've heard there's one european school of dagger fighting where you start off with two daggers. Virtually all techniques consist of dropping one of them and taking your opponents weapons from them though. There's supposedly a few sub-schools that teaches how to handle two daggers as well, usually with the caution: "Don't ever find yourself in this situation, but if you do here's how you survive long enough to run away:"

But to be honest, I don't think double daggers in the game(s) is that bad. If they want to make combat more realistic then there's more important things to focus on and making combat fun is an even higher priority I think (of course if they come up with an idea how to make it fun and realistic that'd be awesome). That said, let's bring it back to armour.

[Xewaka]

I believe that Mike Laidlaw said that "daggers" was a misleading term for the weapons, and that the category would include all manners of light bladed weapons.

[Aermas]

Sir JK wrote...


You really don't want to end the discussion yet, do you . Very well, I'll indulge you.

You haven't seen my Profile Status have you?

Let me begin with saying that D&D is probably the least realistic rpg combat system in the world, and far from all great games are based on it. But it can be quite enjoyable for those that do play it (I don't, other than in cRPGs. I prefer other systems) and if that's what they prefer then I support them playing it.
But yes, they did solve it by making armour hinder spell casting (by claiming that it prevents the finesse required for the somatic (which is to say movement) components of the casting itself <_<, just like with the penalties to move silently, acrobatics and stuff like that. You know as well as I do how ridiculous that is). I have yet to see this mentioned in the Dragon age setting thus far though.
But I also think the statement that mages and similar faces less threat than others is plain ridiclous. If we accept the fact that a sin gle hit is enough to kill (which we do if we claim that armour is necessary), then a single hit to a mage is also lethal. Fights take place in small areas of a 100 square meters at the most, often with archers involved. Conceptually, it's very probable that opponents would beeline towards and/or try to shoot the mage. Which thus puts them in just as much risk as the warriors or rogues.
Noone is safer than anyone else. Regardless of role in combat.

My counter to the put rogues in light armour thing. Okay, we've established that they should wear armour for safety. Fair enough. But why are we stopping at light armours? The group clearly affords light armours. Heavy armours do not hinder you (much). So why do we put the rogues in light armour? Why not go for heavy then?
Why is it so wrong to allow them to be unarmoured when we're not putting them in the heavier, but more protective, metal armours?
Why must there be a cloth - light - heavy dictomy (trictomy?) between the classes?

I know there is no armour profiency. But there are styles based on the fact that you won't wear it. These styles rely on the fact that you won't be wearing several kg and/or thick and volumous bolts of cloth of metal on your body. They are faster, more exertive and a whole lot more aggresive than "normal" styles. I'm proposing that Isabela would have several years of experience (which you know, is more important than any armour) with one of those. Why does these not work with armour? Usually because you become exhausted much quicker. The arms become heavy due to lactic acid and so on. It's not something ever intended for the battlefield but for short and hectic fights with few opponents. But it certainly exists, and it is not a bad style.

The reason I am stressing that she's not a soldier is because I think it is a very crucial point. Like the one I made about the baker. It relates to the scholar thing. Mages are conceptually considered to be scholars. Which is why they often are excused from armour (and given excuses). The archetypical one being Merlin, the very first robe-wearing mage. The robe sort of tagged along but originally it was sort of a important indication: These people do not fight. Now mages sort of wear robes out of tradition, even if they do fight. Often given various excuses that allows them to do so. But the point is still there.
These are people that spend much of their lives in academic study. They don't practise combat skills and lead a rather calm life. Their social position in Thedas symbolised by the robe. Much like the priests of the chantry, who also lead a calm and non-violent life.
Soldiers do not lead a non-violent life and train every day for the fact. Their social station symbolised by the armour and the sword. They are not calm academics, but active men of violence. Hence the need for armour.
Now come the point where it all muddles. The game is combat centric so we need people in combat. The soldier-types are easy. The mages are given a free pass due to their roots as a non-combatant.
My argument is thus this: Isabela, sailor and duelist, is also, to an extent, a non-combatant. As is Varric. They have just as much "right" as a mage does to not wear armour. They become combatants in the game because combat is the primary challange presented not because it fits their character. Hypothetically if combat was rare in the game, you would not demand them to wear armour. Would you?
The core of my argument is that they should not have to wear armour because, even if good at fighting, not combatants, at the root concept, just like mages are.

Now of course, if we make the claim that mages should wear armour then the basis of that argument is of course not valid. But then all characters should wear plate (if available), because why not? It does, as you say, not hinder anything.

I'm all for saying screw the D&D likeness, & have everyone wear plate. It's more realistic & I'm a fan of realism. I only made the D&D comparison because that is what Bioware is basing it's system (loosely) off of. Mages don't wear armor, rogues don't wear anything heavier than leather & so on. The original niche for rogues was not DPS for that you had the Barbarian, rogues were the skilled people, the lockpicks & the acrobats, for this they need light armor that won't make noise. But in DA you can't do all of that, because it is a fighting game. So the trope stays but the reasons do not, making this a very dumb thing to continue to exist.

As for Isabela adopting a non-armored fighting style, this is BS, every style teaches you to fight unarmored so that you know how to handle yourself before you have the "safety net" of armor. Even duelist & swashbucklers had breastplates & vanbraces. & the rich ones had a nice set of Brigandine

Modifié par Aermas, 24 novembre 2010 - 03:06 .

[Ziggeh]

Aermas wrote...

I'm all for saying screw the D&D likeness, & have everyone wear plate. It's more realistic & I'm a fan of realism. I only made the D&D comparison because that is what Bioware is basing it's system (loosely) off of.

Here's the thing: you're happy to make the concession to realism for the fictional fighting system that is d&d, but not make the slightly different concessions for the slightly different fiction fighting system of dragon age. It seems like an arbitrary place to put your line in the sand.

[Aermas]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Aermas wrote...

I'm all for saying screw the D&D likeness, & have everyone wear plate. It's more realistic & I'm a fan of realism. I only made the D&D comparison because that is what Bioware is basing it's system (loosely) off of.

Here's the thing: you're happy to make the concession to realism for the fictional fighting system that is d&d, but not make the slightly different concessions for the slightly different fiction fighting system of dragon age. It seems like an arbitrary place to put your line in the sand.

No I'm not, I was just pointing out where the tropes came from

[Sir JK]

Aermas: Heh, glad I can be of service then



And I suppose you managed to find what I'm really arguing against. The cloth-light-heavy dictomy. In my meaning you either armour everyone properly (which seem to be your position as well) or you dispense with the arbitrary distribution and allow characters to wear what armour that suits their concept the best. Which could be plate for knights, lighter armours for scouts/gendarmerie type characters and clothes for sailors, spies and scholars/mages. Armours for soldiers/guards and suitable clothing for those who are not.

The dictomy I think, is needless.



And yes, I am aware all styles initially teaches you to fight without armour. No protest there from me. What I am saying that there are also styles revolving around the fact that they won't ever be fought in armour (unlike the styles you refer to, where you learn without it but the techniques are designed with that you will wear it).

I agree that swashbucklers, the real ones that is, wore armour into combat. But duelists, who fought duels (which is to say, not in battles), generally did not. Most duels are fought with no armour whatsoever. This is because of the gentlemans agreement of duels that it is the most skilled swordsman that is the one that is to be the victor. So they remove all armour so that it is only the skill with the blade that matters. This is also why in later periods it became the norm to place or tie one hand behind the back so that you couldn't even use that to defend yourself with/grab the blade. Which later evolved into sports-fencing (which in turn led to movie-fencing).

[In Exile]

Grand_Commander13 wrote...
Studded leather tends to be cheaper than the ring because in a setting where the ring is cheaper studded leather armor doesn't get made unless you can't add a second ring to improve your defense; even in settings where it would be more expensive it still can't be too expensive so you better believe everyone would be wearing both as long as there was a limit to how many rings you could wear.

There are lots of reasons you wouldn't want to wear studded leather armour - suppose you were an assasin, for example. Going out in plate with 19 swords does not make you all that subtle in the killing. Looking like your average peasant but being armoured like your average knight does make a difference.

Again - there is no in-setting reason not to have both, and there is no in-setting reason to wear armour to the exclusion of all else. This is how, again, armour in Dragon Age works.

Anyway, why does it matter?  I was going to ask you the very same thing about your hypothetical "well what if magical was cheaper than mundane?" scenario because I don't know of any settings like that; though there must be some Dragon Age certainly isn't one.

I didn't say, what if magical was cheaper than mundade. I said, what if enchanting different kinds of mundane items had a different cost?

A suit of metal armour to be enchanted requires, well, enchanting the whole armour (or could). Whereas enchanting the ring requires only enchanting a small right. We have no idea how magic works since this is all ass-pull - that's what magic is in setting.

Once you allow for special magically protected clothing, complaining that people won't wear armour, and instead act as if clotch can magically protect them, well...

Someone buying a magical whiz-bang piece of gear as their sole means of protection in Dragon Age is highly unrealistic, as even the best pieces of defensive jewelry protect less than a leather cuirass.  In neither real life nor Dragon Age does a leather cuirass impede your ability to dodge enemy attacks, so why wouldn't you wear the leather cuirass if you were a warrior expecting a fight?

For one, diminishing returns. If your current protection is good enough, why would you upgrade it at all?

There is no in-setting reason to prefer one set-up to the other, when you have equally good effectively BS gear.

Aermas wrote...
You're point is moot if we believe that mages
should also wear protective gear, which I do

Good for you, but mages don't. You can have 33 armour on a mage wearing nothing better than clothing, which is equivalent to a warrior in a decent suit of plate. The only way to beat a mage pumping magic with rock armour & reaper vestments is to wear DLC armour with shield wall.

[Ziggeh]

Aermas wrote...

No I'm not, I was just pointing out where the tropes came from

Apologies then, I was reading more into " all great games are based on" than you intended.

[Aermas]

In Exile wrote...

Aermas wrote...
You're point is moot if we believe that mages
should also wear protective gear, which I do

Good for you, but mages don't. You can have 33 armour on a mage wearing nothing better than clothing, which is equivalent to a warrior in a decent suit of plate. The only way to beat a mage pumping magic with rock armour & reaper vestments is to wear DLC armour with shield wall.

Why do you think the Chantry fear mages? If a mage was equal to a fighter they wouldn't be so much of a threat, Fireballing in Plate would but the fear of the Old Ones in the sisters.

[Aermas]

Sir JK wrote...

Aermas: Heh, glad I can be of service then

And I suppose you managed to find what I'm really arguing against. The cloth-light-heavy dictomy. In my meaning you either armour everyone properly (which seem to be your position as well) or you dispense with the arbitrary distribution and allow characters to wear what armour that suits their concept the best. Which could be plate for knights, lighter armours for scouts/gendarmerie type characters and clothes for sailors, spies and scholars/mages. Armours for soldiers/guards and suitable clothing for those who are not.
The dictomy I think, is needless.

And yes, I am aware all styles initially teaches you to fight without armour. No protest there from me. What I am saying that there are also styles revolving around the fact that they won't ever be fought in armour (unlike the styles you refer to, where you learn without it but the techniques are designed with that you will wear it).
I agree that swashbucklers, the real ones that is, wore armour into combat. But duelists, who fought duels (which is to say, not in battles), generally did not. Most duels are fought with no armour whatsoever. This is because of the gentlemans agreement of duels that it is the most skilled swordsman that is the one that is to be the victor. So they remove all armour so that it is only the skill with the blade that matters. This is also why in later periods it became the norm to place or tie one hand behind the back so that you couldn't even use that to defend yourself with/grab the blade. Which later evolved into sports-fencing (which in turn led to movie-fencing).

 For the record I do not view Fencing as a battle applicable art, fencing in real combat will get you killed. This viewpoint is probably what had me arguing so long. As for the cloth-light-heavy-massive mechanic, I hate it, but taking away interchangeable armor is not the solution.

[tmp7704]

Xewaka wrote...

I believe that Mike Laidlaw said that "daggers" was a misleading term for the weapons, and that the category would include all manners of light bladed weapons.

In a more recent clarification he explained as far sa rogues go, they get only daggers. These daggers may come in (somewhat) varying sizes, but the term isn't really misleading after all.

Modifié par tmp7704, 24 novembre 2010 - 04:49 .

[Aermas]

tmp7704 wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

I believe that Mike Laidlaw said that "daggers" was a misleading term for the weapons, and that the category would include all manners of light bladed weapons.

In a more recent clarification he explained as far sa rogues go, they get only daggers. These daggers may come in (somewhat) varying sizes, but the term isn't really misleading after all.

If it's shorter than your arm, it's not a weapon.

Modifié par Aermas, 24 novembre 2010 - 05:14 .

[Nerivant]

Aermas wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

I believe that Mike Laidlaw said that "daggers" was a misleading term for the weapons, and that the category would include all manners of light bladed weapons.

In a more recent clarification he explained as far sa rogues go, they get only daggers. These daggers may come in (somewhat) varying sizes, but the term isn't really misleading after all.

If it's shorter than your arm, it's not a weapon.

Wait, what?

[Sir JK]

I'm a little confused by that statement as well. There are plenty of weapons shorter than one arm (not to mention that armlength is very variable depending on length). Daggers, stilettos, knives, many maces, some swords, most shields (if you call them weapons) all qualify as shorter than your arm.



As for the point you made above: I'm glad we agree on the arbitrary distribution as for interchangeable armour. That's a different issue (but related), is it not? The discussion isn't about wether we should be able to change their outfits but wether the outfits they do have (changeable or nor) are acceptable.

My position is: Yes, they are. Because it fits with who they are as characters. It's not horribly unrealistic to fight without armour (happened often in RL in fact) after all. As long as we accept that not all companions have to wear heavy armour (which we do if we don't insist mages should) then exactly what they wear doesn't matter to much as long it fits their character concept (which is not rogue but spy/merchant and sailor/swashbuckler).



Also about fencing: Yes, modern sports fencing in combat will get you killed. As will most movie fencing. Original fencing, that which you did in duels however, was real swordsmanship. Of course... short of in martial codices there's no record on how to do that anymore...

[Aermas]

Sorry, I mean't smaller than your forearm, as in elbow to tip of your middle finger, anything less than that distance is unsuitable for combat, you might as well use it to eat your food.