Post/Author/DateTime	Post
DM Zoc 07-31-06, 02:39 PM	That strength increases ones chance to hit and armor reduces it has been a staple of D&D since way back in the day, and there is some logic in saying that stronger characters are more likley to score a telling blow through armor, but it has never made much sense when it comes to the dexterity bonus. In the current ruleset, a defender is as likely to have most of his AC come from mobility effects (dex bonus, monk wisdom bonus, etc) as from being trapped in a tin can. Why should a strength 40, dex 4 giant ever score a hit on a strength 4, dex 40 fey? By the rules, he will hardly ever miss. I would propose making to-hit bonuses based around dex, thus allowing that fey to dodge that giant indefinitely, as befitting logic. (Of course, the combat will likely end in a well-placed 20 on an attack role, but that's the lucky break.) Armor, of course, would serve as DR in reducing all damage taken in combat. Since fighters wouldn't all be strength-monkeys under this system, 8 DR from full plate might actually mean something. Since increasing BAB would ensure that virtually every attack is a hit, I would propose a BDB that would rise along with it to make sure that every fighter would always have a 55% chance of hitting an equal-level fighter of the same dex bonus. (I am unsure whether BAB should be separate from BDB, such that a cleric would have full BDB and medium BAB, or to just make them equal for the sake of simplicity.)
Fallenangel359 07-31-06, 02:55 PM	That giant takes a size penalty to attack roll (-1 large, -2 huge, -4 gargantuan, and -8 collossal) and a size penalty to defense, which goes by the same numbers That fey, most likely is very small, and gets equal defense bonuses. Also that fey gets an attack roll bonus for being small. So that fey with 40 dexterity, has a massive dexterity bonus to defense, a size bonus to defense, and the giant has a massive penalty to attack roll That giant isn't going to hit unless its a 20 :P
was_fired 07-31-06, 08:23 PM	Actually odds are it won't miss. If the fey is tiny, and the giant is huge that gives the giant a -2 and the fey a +2. A huge giant will have around 10HD or more giving it a BaB of +7. Meaning it hits the fey on a roll of 7 or higher on his first attack and 12 or higher on his second attack.
Sinaz 08-01-06, 01:00 PM	I have been tooling around with something almost exactly like that. The idea is that your DEX bonus appends to your BAB rather than your STR. The target has a "To Hit" rating which is AC minus the armor and shield bonus. Damage is reduced by the Armor and Shield bonus, unless a critical threat is rolled. This has been working kinda alright with my called shot and injury house rules which tended to lead to a lot of injuries without some sort of DR. We just need to make character sheets to better track the numbers. I'm also creating min STR and DEX ratings for weapons. This represents, for instance, the need for a certain strength to be able to nock an arrow and hold the bow steady at full draw, or the ability to heft a warhammer, or the ability to guide rapiers towards kinks in the armor. I basically tack on penalties for failing to meet the required mins. I haven't played tested this extensively yet... just discussed it with my group.
Vintar 08-02-06, 11:42 AM	I might agree with you - except that it would unbalance the game. To get this to work you would probably have to bring in a new stat - agility. This would represent one's ability to dodge, tumble etc., while dex would represent hand-eye coordination. However, while I can see the benefits of such a system - the majority of the combat system would have to be re-vamped for balance. Possibly make melee half dex and half strength for the to-hit. Strength increases the speed of the swing as well as the power - making it harder to avoid. In your example - the fairy would have an incredably high agility and solid dex, while the giant would have very high strength and con, but only mediocre dex and low-end agility. The giant would then have a significantly tougher time hitting the fairy - but not impossible. However, two giants would slug it out, and two fairies still wouldn't hit each other all that consistently. The reason why I haven't already figured out this system is in part because I'm too lazy - and it part because when rolling for stats it would make the wizard even better - one more chance at rolling an 18 for Int - and fighter types need even more stats - they're already on the shallow end of the power pool.
Xeviat-DM 08-02-06, 04:07 PM	I've long been pointing this out, and discussing the addition of a new ability score to cut the slack. Problem is that adding Agility unbalances the mentals, so a 4th mental would need to be added. Here is my current idea (other than skills): Str: Melee and Thrown damage bonus (and with Comp. Bows), Combat Manuevers (Trip, Bull Rush, Overrun, Grapple), Weapon Wielding (more later) Dex: To hit with all weapons, Optional defense vs. Combat Manuevers (if Dex is higher than Str) Agility: AC (limited by Armor), Reflex Saves, Possibly Speed Con: HP, Fort Saves Int: Skill Points Wis: Will Saves Perception: Initiative Charisma: ? My players really like the idea, especially when combined with armor as DR. I'm about to start a thread discussing armor as DR, so please swing by (the main issue is that armor does deflect attacks, so I think armor as AC and DR, with threats ignoring DR is the best way to go). So yes, I have thought of this. Speed and Coordination are linked to a degree, just like strength and endurance are; there are people/characters who don't fit the mold though. Some marksmen are very coordinated (as shown by their accuracy with a gun), but aren't quite agile (which is why I moved Initiative to Perception, because it seems to be more of a mental thing and because Perception needed something other than skills). Most athletes have very high endurance (constitution), but not all of them are exceptionally strong (though I don't think there are many athletes who are "weak").
Sinaz 08-02-06, 05:57 PM	Xeviat: I don't really see a need for separating out an Agility score (unless you want to see rogues more separate from fighters... which I'll address further on.) I think that by using the Dex bonus for attacks and separating out the Armor Bonus from AC and applying at as damage conversion (lethal -> nonlethal) then you will get a healthy system where every attack is Dex vs. Dex. Now, I liken Dex here to parrying and simple dodging. A larger idea of dodge fits better under the Reflex save. In combat, I'm going to say that 'dodging' refers to moving a limb out of a weapon's path, or a change in body posture to shrink the body's profile so that an attack misses. Therefore, I feel good in letting Dex control this feature. Now, lets make a character... Bezel, a lvl 3 rogue, with a Dex of 19, has a BAB of +2 and a Dex bonus of +4. His melee attack is D20 +6 and his AC, while wearing leather armor, is 14 (because we subtract the armor bonus.) If he gets hit, his armor converts 2 points of damage into non-lethal damage. To prevent classes like Rogue from becoming misfocused by having a high Dex, we limit weapon usage to Str. Let's say that a PC must have a Str equal to or greater than the weapons damage die -6. So, Bezel who has a Str of 12 (+1 bonus) can use any weapon that deals up to 1d6(actually 1d7, but what's that?) without penalty. To use something capable of more damage, he suffers the difference as a penalty. For instance, he'd weild a greatsword at a penalty of -5 (2d6 = 12; 12-6 = 6; -6 +1(Str bonus) = -5). It's just so heavy and huge that he lugs the thing around in big clumsy swings. This would apply to ranged weapons too. Bezel can use short bows, but suffers a penalty with longbows (because the draw weight would be too much for him to hold steady.) Crossbows would be special, as it the player would more likely suffer a penalty to reloading the thing rather than accurately firing it. Ok, so lets look at an opponent for Bezel. Introducing Horace the Rude, a towering level 3 barbarian with a pentiant for cleaving things. He wears a breast plate and uses a greataxe to make two where there was once only one. His Str is a whopping 19, and his Dex is 15. Horace's AC is 12, and his armor converts 5 points of damage. He swings his great axe (or whatever happens to be around) with a melee bonus of +5. He's built to hammer things with weapons, and doesn't bother putting precious skill points into things like sneak or hide... he's not subtle... he's destructive, constantly asking the DM why he can't have skills like 'Crush' and 'Deny Mercy'. Bezel can prance around Horace and poke him with puny weapons... most of which can on occasion deliver only 2 points of lethal damage if any at all. Horace has a harder time hitting Bezel, but packs a wallop. Both attacking and defending rely on Dex, but the damage dealt relies on Str. I would also recommend making it so that rolling a critical threat negates the damage conversion. That is, if Bezel rolls a 20 on an attack against Horace while weilding a dagger, Bezel delivers 1d4 of damage regardless of Horace's armor. These are my thoughts. I've used similar things in the past and this is rapidly becoming a viable solution for my homebrewed Advanced D&D v3.5 that we play at my table. And I hacked together those stats up there... if you want to correct them, that's fine... but it's just a hypothetical.
Rapidexit 08-02-06, 06:58 PM	That strength increases ones chance to hit and armor reduces it has been a staple of D&D since way back in the day, and there is some logic in saying that stronger characters are more likley to score a telling blow through armor, but it has never made much sense when it comes to the dexterity bonus. :confused: maybe I am totaly lost here but it seems your alterations would end up with unarmored characters being almost imposible to hit, while fighters can only hit other heavly armored targets.. So mr fighter is up against another fighter, both in identical heavy armor that limits their ac bonus from dex so they are both the same ac. both get something like 8/- DR In this case whoever has the higher strength score ends up doing more damage, and thus likely to win. Because the heavy armor restricts their movement it means the fights focused on who has the higher strength. On the other hand the fighter in heavy armor fights a rogue, the rogue has light or no armor on and a high ac because of dex, but the fighter has a low ac from their 8/- DR armor on. The fighter has problems hitting the rogue unless he has a high dex but if he has a high strength he does more damage when he does hit. On the other hand the rogue has a -very- easy time hitting the fighter because his armor makes him easier to hit and doesnt protect his vital organs. And his fient/sneek attack chews threw the fighter in a few short rounds because the armor 8/- dr is only the equivalent of 2d6 sneek attack damage. Now the Rogue fights another Rogue, Both have problems hitting eachother with out a fient. both do big damage if the fient gets past.. this is a bloody game of knives foused almost completely on sense motive and bluff and with little consern about whos dex or strength is higher... I guess this might be helped a little if you removed the max dex to armor class while wearing armor, but doing that would mean theres not much reason for a combat orented rogue to wear full plate. or why a wizard doesnt wear full plate, afterall it wont hinder his dex while wiggling his arms to cast spells anymore. I kinda see that dex and armor are different in what happens in combat.. The high armor fighter who is attacked by the giant is often hit, but the giant doesnt manage to do damage unless he beats the fighters AC. Instead the fighters just battred a bit and might have to polish his armor. On the other hand when the giant swings at the fae he often misses the slipery creature that seems to bend out of the way. likely the giant is more frustrated with the fae at evading all thoes swings while if he was swinging at the armored fighter he might "think" hes doing a good job at bashing him up. >> Inserts mental picture of the disney cartoon with Goofy in the suit of armor being clobbered over and over with a morning star but not being hurt by it<<
Xeviat-DM 08-02-06, 08:44 PM	Sinaz; the problem with your suggestion is that it makes Dexterity WAY more important than any other stat: I'm already having a hard time with Con being the most important stat in my games (we use WP/VP and fort saves to resist death), so I don't really want to see the same thing happen to Dex. OH, and my weapon wielding rules: Light: Str 7 One-Handed: Str 11 Two-Handed: Str 15 If your strength is insufficiant to wield the weapon in question, you suffer a -2 attack penalty when attacking with it (taken from the penalty for using a composite bow who's strength rating is higher than your strength). Nice and simple.
Sinaz 08-02-06, 09:39 PM	Sinaz; the problem with your suggestion is that it makes Dexterity WAY more important than any other stat: I'm already having a hard time with Con being the most important stat in my games (we use WP/VP and fort saves to resist death), so I don't really want to see the same thing happen to Dex. Well, can you elaborate on why you feel this, or maybe offer some feedback on tuning it? I can't see how Dex providing more benefit for melee and ranged combat is going to entice the magic user to dump stats in Dex and Con versus Int, Wis, and Cha. At least, my players are more concerned with cool functional characters rather than min-maxing thier mages for maximum melee combat. Plus, Str still contributes to damage... I have also been toying with a restructure of the mental stats for magic which would essentially make it better for casters to focus thier stats there for the potency of magic.
Dunelord 08-02-06, 11:25 PM	Dex becomes WAY over powered with this, and to be honest the str does make a certin amount of in character sence. Dex already adds to a save, way more skills then anything else, AC, and ranged attacks.
DM Zoc 08-03-06, 01:13 AM	Thanks for the replies, everyone. With regards to my system in warrior vs. rogue combat, that is more or less exactly what I envision. However, the fighter should still be able to hit because of the BAB contribution (also, fighters would need to start focusing on Dex, as much as Strength if not moreso). My only real goal is to make swashbucklers viable. I've played the unarmored fighter many times, and though they often achieve a viable AC (something a tank normally cannot), they never deal anywhere near enough damage to make an impact. As it currently stands, the only viable fighter is one who maxxes Strength. I also heavily approve of making all spellcasters dependent on multiple stats.
Vintar 08-03-06, 01:14 AM	Yeah - dex as is is quite powerful. And with dex determining all to-hits weapon finesse becomes obselete. This makes it so that a high dex rouge is still going to use the biggest heaviest weapon they can find - like the best thing about weapon finesse is that rouge types use rouge-ish weapons. (light/rapier) And frankly DR 8 is too high - a kobold litterally couldn't hurt him except on a crit - and even that would have to roll well. Perhaps a DR of d8 - variable on each hit. And I would reccomend - even with agility added in there - that to-hits in melee be (strength mod + dex mod)/2. It would make it so melee combatants would still have different stats than archers - a good thing in my opinion.
Dunelord 08-03-06, 03:10 AM	My only real goal is to make swashbucklers viable. Then rework the class, not the system.
DM Zoc 08-03-06, 07:06 AM	Then rework the class, not the system. I meant the lightly-armored rapier wielding archetype, not the specific class. The class would be easy to overhaul, but that's addressing the symptom rather than the disease.
DM Zoc 08-03-06, 07:10 AM	And frankly DR 8 is too high - a kobold litterally couldn't hurt him except on a crit - and even that would have to roll well. Well, full plate is supposed to be rare. It certainly is unavailable to anyone who might normally fall prey to kobolds. It's supposed to be a very significant alternative to the dexxed out AC monkeys, since you really would have to choose one or the other.
Dunelord 08-03-06, 12:05 PM	I meant the lightly-armored rapier wielding archetype, not the specific class. The class would be easy to overhaul, but that's addressing the symptom rather than the disease. I know what you are saying, but the comment still stands. The Swashbuckler does have some serious problems, but I think it would be far more to the point to rework one/create one class the start reworking the entire system.
Oneiros 08-03-06, 12:59 PM	For a fairly comprehensive Dex-to-Hit, Armor as DR set of variant rules, check out Waking Lands Combat Variant (http://wakinglands.com/htm_files/the_combat_variant_page.htm)
Goblinchaser 08-03-06, 06:25 PM	In essence I believe that with the correct character build this would be a non issue. A character that relies on Dexterity, should probably have the weapon finess feat, which would do wonders with "to Hits" As well when facing that Giant, he could fight defensively, and hopefuly he has 5 ranks in Tumble to take advantage of the extra AC. As such, some of the dexterity over str classes and PrC's use intelligence to AC and offer Class based level AC bonuses. When I envision a Giant attacking I see wide arching swings and such that cover large amounts of area, much in comparison to a area effect. thus would be hard to dodge. Although some the class feature allow a "roll with the Blow" type ability so many times per day. Another way to simulate would be use the Out of Turn Dodge variant in the UA, allowing a +4 to AC, allowing dex based character to possibly dodge when he is the target and not his freinds. another feat that can offset the balance is Combat expertise (BAB for AC) especially for the Light armor warrior. With NOrmal Armor adding a AC bonus instead of DR, STR is needed to penetrated the armor. The only solution I could see is making Armor DR, Applying Str only to damage not to hit Keep Dex to AC unless they have weapon finess, this will allow light weapons to hit more often, but when that swashbuckler tries to hit that armored fighter with the rapier he will never damage him unless it is a critical. Realistic from a certian point of view. BUt lightly armored dexterous fighters shouldn't do much damamge, thier style is to wear you out till they can point out a weak spot and exploit it. Which might take quite a few rounds....
Sinaz 08-03-06, 06:46 PM	One thing nobody else seems to be addressing was the idea of using damage conversion rather than reduction. With damage reduction, a puny rogue poking at a warrior can still whittle him down to unconsciousness or at least weaken him for someone else's sword.
Goblinchaser 08-03-06, 08:20 PM	One thing nobody else seems to be addressing was the idea of using damage conversion rather than reduction. With damage reduction, a puny rogue poking at a warrior can still whittle him down to unconsciousness or at least weaken him for someone else's sword. I use Damage conversion, but not for the above reason, I used to assist in survival and quicker healing means, since non lethal heals quicker with rest, usually in a few hours. But from a realistic stand point, the Rapier (most common light weapon) would not even affect a heavily armored target, and would most likely break on most thrusts and jabs. But in the Dmg Conversion Rules Armor, in addition to adding a bonus to AC, also converts lethal damage from physical attacks into nonlethal damage. (Shields provide a shield bonus to AC, as normal, but do not convert damage.) Still does not address the fact that you still have to hit the AC provided by that high armor bonus and still does not give a advantage to lightly armed fighter. From a historic stand point.. light weapons were not used until heavier armor was rendered obsolete, or only used in certian Circles of society as a gentleman's weapon. Armor started to become ineffective with the creation of the Crossbow, then quickly faded away with the Firearm. So there really is no example of a rapier wielding rogue laying low a Knight in armor I can see possibly bringing ack the old 1st/2nd edition Dmg type verse Armor types.. where Piecing, bludgening and Slashing was mor effective against a type of armor, and ineffective vs another type. But this adds an additional level of complexity that I feel the game does not need. In my campaign with Dmg Conversion, allow heavy crossbow to avoid the conversion, in earlier campaign I allowed Heavy Crossbows to halve armor ratings and such. The best way to highlight light armored warriors is create a campaign that focuses on them such as a Swahbuckling campaign, or have the game more orientated to a Urban adventure, where the social norm is Heavy armor is For WAR, not walking down the everyday street to go to the pub for a drink and carouse. After all wearing heavy armor day in day out would wear on the body, trained or not. But the world of fantasy avoids this. Create ensounters that will highlight the rogue's approach, such as more urban conflicts, and creature that attacks when the party would be unarmed and where the light warriors skills can shine, because the tank that usually rules the show was quickly ousted thanks to his dependance on armor... I do not see much as an issue, but I can see everyones point as concern making stregnth the most premier among the abiities to any combative character.
Vintar 08-05-06, 01:38 AM	The only reason that I'm considering using a half and half system in my upcoming campaign is that I plan on using damage reduction armor (based on iron heroes system) which would make strength more valuable as it would be needed in order to breach DR. Therefore, making to-hits half dex would cancel out this increased value of strength. Plus it does make sense to be half and half realilistically speaking - especially when armor is DR as opposed to turning aside the blow or not.
Dunelord 08-06-06, 07:59 PM	The only reason that I'm considering using a half and half system in my upcoming campaign is that I plan on using damage reduction armor (based on iron heroes system) which would make strength more valuable as it would be needed in order to breach DR. Therefore, making to-hits half dex would cancel out this increased value of strength. Plus it does make sense to be half and half realilistically speaking - especially when armor is DR as opposed to turning aside the blow or not. But Iron Heroes uses str to hit.
Vintar 08-07-06, 01:50 AM	I realize that Iron heroes uses strength to hit - however it also has every class but 2 start with only light armor profiency. As well they state pretty implicitly that every class but the one focused on being the armor king rarely if ever wears armor heavier than light. As well - since I'm planning on using a low-end magic campaign without the iron heroes' extensive weapon focus/specialization tree - strength becomes extremely important for defeating DR.
Hugin 08-08-06, 10:41 PM	IMC we have been using a modified D&D system that I worked out and it has STR and INT apply to attack rolls (it is still only STR that applies to damage), and DEX and WIS apply to AC. So far this has been working out well and is used across the board - monsters included. What this allows is the possibility for smart and effective fighters; they could give up extra damage for extra skill points. I should note however, that my games are usually around the 28 point buy mark max and this rule is likely to make higher-power games even higher-powered, so caution is advised.
The_Levitator 08-09-06, 01:23 AM	We've been using the Opposed Defense Roll variant as we thought it would even the playing field a little bit for weaker, but faster creatures. I know that it was intended to increase the randomness, but using the defense roll will still favor more dexteritous combatants than slow strong ones. I'm not a statistics expert, so I'm not sure how it all plays out mathematically. All I can say is that from exeperience using the Opposed Roll variant it has "felt" better for everyone in the group, and we've been using it for 3 years now. It gives the quicker guys a better chance of avoiding blows than the slower guys while still keeping the balance that when the big strong guys do hit, they will still do more damage. We are also using the Armor as DR variant and the VWS variant. Is using the Defensive Opposed Roll somewhat of a solution to balance this issue, or am I looking at it wrong?
Mr_Spicoli 08-31-06, 01:11 PM	I use Damage conversion, but not for the above reason, I used to assist in survival and quicker healing means, since non lethal heals quicker with rest, usually in a few hours. But from a realistic stand point, the Rapier (most common light weapon) would not even affect a heavily armored target, and would most likely break on most thrusts and jabs. But in the Dmg Conversion Rules Armor, in addition to adding a bonus to AC, also converts lethal damage from physical attacks into nonlethal damage. (Shields provide a shield bonus to AC, as normal, but do not convert damage.) Still does not address the fact that you still have to hit the AC provided by that high armor bonus and still does not give a advantage to lightly armed fighter. From a historic stand point.. light weapons were not used until heavier armor was rendered obsolete, or only used in certian Circles of society as a gentleman's weapon. Armor started to become ineffective with the creation of the Crossbow, then quickly faded away with the Firearm. So there really is no example of a rapier wielding rogue laying low a Knight in armor I can see possibly bringing ack the old 1st/2nd edition Dmg type verse Armor types.. where Piecing, bludgening and Slashing was mor effective against a type of armor, and ineffective vs another type. But this adds an additional level of complexity that I feel the game does not need. In my campaign with Dmg Conversion, allow heavy crossbow to avoid the conversion, in earlier campaign I allowed Heavy Crossbows to halve armor ratings and such. The best way to highlight light armored warriors is create a campaign that focuses on them such as a Swahbuckling campaign, or have the game more orientated to a Urban adventure, where the social norm is Heavy armor is For WAR, not walking down the everyday street to go to the pub for a drink and carouse. After all wearing heavy armor day in day out would wear on the body, trained or not. But the world of fantasy avoids this. Create ensounters that will highlight the rogue's approach, such as more urban conflicts, and creature that attacks when the party would be unarmed and where the light warriors skills can shine, because the tank that usually rules the show was quickly ousted thanks to his dependance on armor... I do not see much as an issue, but I can see everyones point as concern making stregnth the most premier among the abiities to any combative character. The rapier was a very effective weapon against armored opponents-why? Because it had evolved as a weapon type from the time when armor was commonplace and it was used on the battlefield, to a time when the rapier was used mainly as a dueling weapon and not a battlefield weapon per se. The early rapiers were thicker with sharp cutting blades on each side as well as the point. The newer rapiers became thinner with only point blades. Eventually the rapier became a specialized weapon used for duels and decoration, as the power and accuracy of gunpowder increased to the level that they were more effective against armor. So if one is describing an early style rapier, the heavier one with side blades, so it could pierce & cut, then yes it can be effective against armor. A later rapier would be thinner, with no side blades for cutting, would be less effective. Although the newer rapier would be extremely manueverable and precision strike would still enable it to be effective against armor. Rapiers feel almost weightless in real use. Armor was worn well into the 1600s well past the advent of firearms. It took a couple of hundred years before the accuracy and power of gunpowder ammunition could make heavy metal armor obsolete. Even in the 1800s there were known accounts of heavy metal armors used against firearms. Heavy cavalry continued to use breast- and back-plates into the early 20th century in elite cuirassier units. Conventional wisdom says that plate armour faded away on the battlefield soon after firearms were introduced. This is very much not the case. Crude cannons were being used before plate armour became the norm. Soon, in the 1400s a small, mobile "hand cannon" was being used by horsemen. Improved crossbows, and the first pistols and pre-musket long arms, began to take a heavy toll on the mail clad, and partially plated knights and foot soldiers. Rather than dooming the use of body armour, the threat of small firearms intensified the use and further refinement of plate armour. There was a 150 year period, that more and better metallurgically advanced steel armour was being used, precisely because of the danger posed by the gun. In the early years of pistol and muskets, firearms were relatively low velocity, the full suits of armour, or breast plates actually stopped bullets fired from a modest distance. The front breast plates were, in fact, commonly shot as a test. The impact point would be encircled with ingraving to point it out. This was called the "proof" . It was not uncommon for a man in armour, mounted on a horse, to ride up closer to the enemy, in a tactical Manoeuvre called "The wheel", and discharge his hand-cannon or later, pistols, right into the faces of the adversary at close range. Cross-bow arrows, if still used, would seldom penetrate good plate, nor would any bullet but one fired from close range. In effect, (and this has long been misunderstood), plate armour actually came to replace chain mail because it was relatively, "musket ball proof". Plate would stop all of these at a distance. Hence, guns and cavalry in plate armour were "threat and remedy" together on the battlefield for almost 400 years. For most of that period, it allowed horsemen to fight while being the targets of defending musketeers without being easily killed. Full suits of armour were actually worn by generals and princely commanders right up to the second decade of the 1700s. It was the only way they could be mounted & survey the overall battlefield with safety from distant musket fire. Gradually starting in the mid 1500s, one plate element after another was discarded to save weight for foot soldiers, but breast and back plates continued to be used though the entire period of the 1700s through Napoleonic times in many (heavy) European cavalry units, all the way to the early 20th Century. Rifled muskets from about 1750 and later, could pierce plate, so cavalry had to be far more mindful of the fire. At the start of World War 1 the French Cuirassiers, in the thousands, rode out to engage the German Cavalry who likewise used helmets and armour. By that period, the shiny armour plate was covered in dark paint and a canvas wrap covered their elaborate Napoleonic style helmets. Their armour was meant to protect only against sabres and light lances. The cavalry had to beware of high velocity rifles and machine guns like the foot soldiers, who at least had a trench to protect them. Machine gunners in that war also occasionally wore a crude type of heavy armour. Here is some history on the sabre, a sword tha was used well into the 19th century well after firearms were accurate and powerful: The sabre first appeared in Europe in the 10th Century and was used until the 19th century. The sabre saw heavy military use in the early 19th century, particularly in the Napoleonic Wars, where Napoleon used heavy cavalry charges to great effect against his enemies. The sabre faded as a weapon by mid-century, as longer range rifles made cavalry charges obsolete
058 08-31-06, 08:51 PM	I don't have much to contribute to this particular conversation(lacking in massive historical knowledge of archaic weaponry), but I do have a note to make about the swashbuckler and someone's comment about how they can't do much damage. With a high dexterity modifier, they are more likely to hit the target, but less likely to do massive amounts of damage. However, with their high dexterity modifier, Called Shots become easier; instead of worrying over doing a lot of damage, why not hamstring your opponent and perform a coup de grāce, or relieve him of his eyeballs? After all, that is the purpose of a swashbuckling fighter, not to crush and vivisect, but to slice and cut, to take out enemies in style as opposed to simple, straightforward swing-chop-squish.