What are some weapon and armor misconceptions and myths that

>>50126369
That's it. I'm sick of all this "Heavy Crossbow" bullshit that's going on in the d20 system right now. Crossbows deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.

I should know what I'm talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine crossbow in Italy for 4,500 Euro (that's about £2000) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even pierce slabs of solid steel with my crossbow.

European smiths spend days working on a single crossbow and test it up to two dozen times to produce the finest peasant weapon known to mankind.

Crossbows are thrice as easy to train as an English Longbow and thrice as deadly for that matter too. Anything a bodkin arrow can punch through, a crossbow bolt can punch through better, and more accurately too. I'm pretty sure a crossbow could easily pierce the lung of a Gendarme wearing full plate with a simple trigger pull.

Ever wonder why medieval Europe never bothered conquering medieval Europe? That's right, they were too scared to fight the disciplined Crossbowmen and their implements of destruction. Even in the Fifteenth Century, the Vatican banned the use of crossbows against Christians because their killing power was feared and respected.

So what am I saying? Crossbows are simply the best ranged weapon that the world has ever seen, and thus, require better stats in the d20 system. Here is the stat block I propose for Crossbows:

Light Crossbow (Two-Handed Martial Weapon) 1d12 Damage 19-20 x4 Crit +2 to hit and damage Range 200ft

Heavy Crossbow (Two-Handed Exotic Weapon) 2d10 Damage 17-20 x4 Crit +5 to hit and damage Range 280ft

Now that seems a lot more representative of the cutting power of Crossbows in real life, don't you think?

tl;dr = Crossbows need to do more damage in d20, see my new stat block.

>>50126426
>cutting power of Crossbows in real life,

Ya goofed it.

>>50126369
>treat it as a wonder weapon when it couldn't even pierce gambeson.

You'd hope the most common armor would actually protect you from one do the most common weapons in history.

But seriously who in their right minds believes that a bow is pretty much a lightsaber? Is only real claim to fame is its being able to knock a man on his back which is still pretty useful if you are talking about a battlefield scenario.

Also breaking a man's bones is pretty fucking debilitating if you then hit him in the ribs with a spear.

>>50126426
>why medieval Europe never bothered conquering medieval Europe?
But they were doing it all the time...

>>50126369
>/k/ nerds
Among the worst kind of players you can have to deal with. The whole katana meme in gaming was borne from crap like this.

>>50126620
>waaah, stop pandering realism, tabletop is for fantasy only

>>50126426
>Crossbows should do more damage!
G a m e b a l a n c e

>>50126636
If a weapon takes more investment from a character, be it money or skill points, then it should perform better. They're called role-playing GAMES not role-playing simulations after all.

>>50126416
there's an election soon, get over it, faggot

>>50126434
>actually reading it

>>50126689
lel, newfag

This thread was pretty shit.

File: drake-hotline-bling-jacket-moncler-1-00.jpg (45KB, 766x460px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 766x460px

>English Longbow

Welsh m8

>>50126369
Literally who gives a shit?
As long as it's fantasy you can justify literally anything without even going for the "hurr it's magic".

"but katanas couldn't pierce armor!11!!"
in my setting they're made with space steel and can cut through anything

"b-but longbows couldn't pierce this or that!!!11"
in my setting the bows are made of a particular kind of tree which is a lot better than regular wood

>>50126369
Nice wooden and lacquered leather armor you have in that pic

To this point I find anti-weebs more annoying and dishonest than weebs

>>50126369
Personally, I hate when people talk about armour being made of super-strong materials that can turn aside any blade, because it really doesn't take particularly strong metals to make armour that can do that, and you're not supposed to be hitting the guy in his armoured parts anyway. You're supposed to be attacking weak points, like joints and gaps in the armour. Plate armour from the European middle ages was considered so great because it covered up as many of those joints as possible, not because it was made of Adamantium.

I guess this also leads into a pet peeve about how people view pre-gunpowder weapons. It doesn't matter how keen your blade is or how invincible your armour - if you're an untrained, undisciplined, uncoordinated novice, you are going to get your shit wrecked by the first warrior you meet who actually knows how to fight. Real life is not a videogame: a warrior with an iron sword will not suddenly start doing +3 more damage than a warrior with a bronze sword. Iron is definitely better than bronze for making weapons, but the actual benefits of iron over bronze are a lot more subtle and nuanced than a simple damage modifier, which is partly why it took so long for bronze to fall out of favour.

>>50127399
Beware old men jobs with high mortality rates.

>>50127399
The iron advantage is you could buy twenty knives for the price of one made from bronze

>>50127399
But what if the joints are also made out of super material that blocks all sorts of shit

And it makes a difference in fantasy when you have foes strong enough to cleave or crush through regular armor as a regular occurrence.

>>50127549
>But what if the joints are also made out of super material that blocks all sorts of shit
You missed the point.
>And it makes a difference in fantasy when you have foes strong enough to cleave or crush through regular armor as a regular occurrence.
If they can cleave through your armor, their strike will most likely throw you a few meters away. And break your bones and cause concussion.
Even in fantasy it makes sense that big creatures can literally kick out smaller ones.

File: 1224652096468.png (1MB, 797x1200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 797x1200px

>>50127593
Except the super strong armor material also blocks the effects of science from the impact

Unless you are playing Riddle of Steel you need to stop being such an autist.

File: 1474533304378.png (310KB, 1024x887px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 1024x887px

>>50127375

>>50126689
Why does game balance in D&D only seem to equate to fucking over martials and making them inferior to actual warrior in real life while letting wizards do whatever they want and actively aiding them in doing so?

>>50127615
>implying sending your opponent into space via mighty punch isn't fun
>le autism maymay
Kill yourself.

>>50127375
That's because weebs don't have any grasp on history while anti-weebs lie about it or at best ignore facts, big difference between arguing against a kid and an armchair "historian"

>>50126369
The British longbow killed thousands of armored French men-at-arms and Italian crossbow men. For a while it was the magic weapon, same as French artillery was the magic weapon of Napoleonic wars, or combined arms tactics was in WWII.

The video proves only that idiots made it. Bodkin arrows are designed to pierce mail and brigandine. To pierce simple gambeson a more pointy broad head will be much more effective.

>>50127801
>The British longbow killed thousands of armored French men-at-arms and Italian crossbow men
Wrong, fucking wrong. The terrain killed them, barely any arrow killed a French knight that day.

>>50127636
Because that is entirely an artifact of 3e OGL, and it is the D&D that you are most familiar with, despite it NOT being a major part of the game?

>>50127820
>Implying 5e doesn't do this
>Implying a 20th level Barb isn still weaker than an olympic athlete
>Implying a 20th level Monk isn't still slower than Usain Bolt
>Implying a 20th level Fighter can't throw at best 2 knives per 6 seconds
>Implying a 20th level whatever martial isn't still below olympic athletes at long jump
>Etc
Suuuure

>>50127801
Actually, if you talking about Agincourt, it was a combination of mud, weather, french carelessness and english bills that won the battle, not longbows.

>>50126369
Only thing I can think is that since Handguns or Muskets are indeed wildly inaccurate compared to modern guns, that is somehow retroactively applied to them so that they are somehow less accurate than bows, which they are not.

If muskets were so inaccurate, people wouldn't have hunted with the damn things. They don't have the range or precision of a 20th century or 21st century rifle, but that's a matter of degree.

File: 1475633568043.png (97KB, 362x492px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 362x492px

>>50126369
That little red arrow in the pic is bothering me, what the hell is it pointing at?

>>50128967
It's a dent in the plates, probably from a longbow like OP was on about.

>>50127846
What the fuck are you talking about? 20th level monks basically can pierce plate armor with their fists.

>>50127209
>implying stealing something and claiming full credit for its invention isn't a standard English tactic.

Its the English longbow mate

File: The Long Bow Mystery.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>50126369

File: nigga you dumb.jpg (89KB, 585x500px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 585x500px

>>50127775
Why would they need a grasp in history to enjoy pure fiction based on settings made from pure fiction?

Take your pills properly, gramps

>>50127615

He must have forgot the preferred system was the one that allows man to make a leap off a 40 foot tower without so much as breaking a single bone.

>>50130270
You missed the point he made.
He said it was explicitly better to have no grasp than lying to claim you do have a grasp.

>>50127636
Martials are in a good place in 2e, 4e, and 5e.

>>50127846
>Implying a 20th level Barb isn still weaker than an olympic athlete
>Implying a 20th level Monk isn't still slower than Usain Bolt
>Implying a 20th level whatever martial isn't still below olympic athletes at long jump
I disagree with these comparisons in D&D because any time a D&D character does something the open assumption in most editions is that they're also doing something else, even passively, which distracts them. The rules aren't really there to abstract pure exhibitions of athleticism.
>Implying a 20th level Fighter can't throw at best 2 knives per 6 seconds
Only if they're all sheathed. Ever see a knife thrower throw knives? They're all in a bunch in their offhand. If a Fighter does this in 5e they can throw as many as they have normal attacks, plus a Bonus Action throw with the off-hand.

Alternatively, treat a brace of knives or darts as if it gives throwing knives the Ammunition property, acting as a quiver.

>>50130270
Because we are not weebs ?

File: 1476156564375.png (375KB, 763x960px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 763x960px

>>50126369
>Magazines being referred to as clips
>All M16s and AR-15 derivatives are rickety, unreliable pieces of shit
>All AKs are unbreakable and perfectly reliable all the time, every time
>The A-10 is some unkillable super-plane that can destroy tanks without fail using just the GAU-8
>CAS requiring low, slow gun runs
>Shermans are shitty, paper-thin deathtraps
I've spent way too much time on /k/.

>>50130686
But anon, ak fires even if you fill it with sand, mud, and twinkies.
My favorite was the one where they fed a sandwich to the ak.

>>50127846
>>Implying a 20th level Fighter can't throw at best 2 knives per 6 seconds
A level 20 fighter can throw up to 8 knives per six seconds and keep that up for 12 seconds and/or continually throw 4 knives per six seconds. More hilariously a level 20 fighter can fire off 48 arrows in a minute thanks to 4 attacks and action surge. So a level 20 fighter can fire a longbow or heavy crossbow faster than the world record for a bolt action rifle mad minute (36 hits in a minute).

But yeah monks are slow as shit. A level 20 wood elf monk with the mobile feat can travel up to 75 feet in six seconds, 150 if they dash. That's still only 25 feet per second or 17 mph. Usain Bolt has been clocked as going up to 28 mph. Of course if you halve a round to just 3 seconds the monk can go up to 34 mph and maintain that speed for a long period of time.

>>50130760
But how well-made are those AKs in such tests? How well-maintained were they beforehand? And where were they made? A rusty Chinese knockoff owned by a Middle-Eastern dirt farmer is going to have a very different failure rate than a pristine Russian-made AK that is regularly maintained by a Russian armorer. And that's before we get into issues like magazine and ammunition quality.

>>50129943
Churry is an english invention, yes.

File: 1459171602696.gif (2MB, 236x224px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 236x224px

Anytime anyone says X is shit, and said thing was very popular and mentioned to be very effective by contemporary sources, that persons opinion can be safely discarded.

OP, longbows were used for a reason. Even if the arrow didn't penetrate(which it could penetrate most armours excepting plate with the different arrowheads) the force of the arrow hitting you through your armour would hurt a fair bit, to the point of breaking ribs if it didn't penetrate your gambeson.

File: Alive or slain, thou shall come with me.png (177KB, 582x599px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 582x599px

>>50126369
Depending on the gambeson, it can't be penetrated by anything. One can pile up 30 layers of cloth and get the resistance of kevlar, but the weight and encumbrance would be disastrous. An actual gambeson has an optimal ratio of layers, material density and quality of the quilting, but individual examples could deviate from it. My trigger is that a type of armor which worked for 3000 years is forgotten for studded leather armor, and not even the real kind.

The misconception that sword dual welding is complete fantasy also annoys.

The idea that samurais wouldn't use muskets and much less their handheld rocket launchers.

That the phalanx was obsolete. To be fair, no single tactic or formation would've saved Macedonia at the time.

That piercing a plate is proof enough of lethality. People would have arrows stuck in their armor, but the padding beneath worked.

That steel in superior in every way to iron which is superior in every way to bronze. Certain alloys of one could surpass alloys of another.

Not quite related, but the idea that a single tactic, weapon or condition is enough to assure victory, while particular circunstances could turn the whole thing around, and did in the same battle. The problem is that "depends" is really an unsatisfying answer.

>>50130880
I figured there was a near infinite amount of russian aks

>>50130939
More importantly is how the longbows could butcher the horses, fucking up cavalry. A knight isn't half a useful when he's slogging through the mud on foot.

>>50130973
Probably, but Russian AKs aren't the only ones in circulation or production, nor do all countries allow imports of Russian-made firearms, nor are all Russian AKs the exact same model with the exact same internal gubbins. Other countries, including the USA, have manufacturers that produce knockoffs, variants, parts, accessories, and ammunition of varying quality.

>>50126369
>The English clung to their bows while European warfare was adopting pike and shot

I suspect a lot of this was because bows were a peasant militia weapon, and a lot of the contracts involving land leases also dictated that the people the land was leased to would fight for the nobles when needed. Quite often even the weapons said peasants would use were in the contracts, leading to one amusing case where one such peasant was called to fight with "bow and arrow"; he showed up with his bow and one arrow, fired the arrow, missed, and buggered off afterwards.

There's also an issue of population control in there: imagine a rather annoyed peasant militia with access to gunpowder weapons. Its one thing to have a peasant militia with bows and arrows that's annoyed with you, it's another thing entirely when they have muskets.

Of course, I'm no history scholar or anything like that, so take this all with a pinch of salt.

>>50131351
>peasant militia

That's really the wrong terminology given that the longbowmen of England and Wales were largely freeholders running under what could quite reasonably be deemed to be mercenary contract, not feudal levy. they were peasants only in that they were not of the nobility, and pretty much as close to professional soldiers as you can get for the time (1300s onwards was when it really came to the fore as the predominant armament for archers in England)

Really though population control has nothing to do with it, gunpowder weapons and the mercenaries that used them were acquired rapidly by those that could, and used in basically every notable fight England had during the 1400s onwards.

>>50127812
And their own foolishness, let's not forget that.

>>50126369
The longbow reigned supreme on the battlefield until milanese tempered steel spread across europe.

What really gets me is the Legolas/Robin hood bullshit of loading multiple arrows in the bow or hitting an a moving enemy in the eye at 200 yards.

>>50127812
Arguably it did kill men in mail and leathers by the thousand. Granted the plated knights did better.

>>50130950

Out of curiosity, what does bronze alloy have over iron/steel? is it primarily an economic advantage? weight? ease of creation?

File: Even God is dissapointed with you.png (145KB, 509x368px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 509x368px

>>50130666
And how does that have any context with enjoying this hobby that rely on old pure fiction and game mechanics to generate pure fiction again?

Again, take your pills before you hurt yourself, gramps.

File: 1463438567763.jpg (38KB, 243x311px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 243x311px

>>50126369
>By the end of the 16th century any man showing up to muster with a longbow was listed as an unarmed man.

That's pretty brutal.

>>50128805
The problem is that we tend to compare the older firearms to modern ones and hold them to a higher standard.
Most people don't do that for other weapons, especially bows. They just look at the fact that it has a faster rate of fire while not looking at all the drawbacks.
I mean there has to be a good reason militaries were very quick to adopt the weapons.

>>50126369
>Yewaboos
This one innovation in banter has made this thread worth it.

File: athena1.jpg (238KB, 1240x1754px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 1240x1754px

>>50131861
Bronze could be worked easier than the others.
It could be cast and cold hammered with good results. The others needed more sophisticated methods. So bronze plates could be cast in the Bronze Age where steel ones took another three millenia or so to be created with different methods.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvqanOEiGho&list=PLkMIaCcWSxvxhsuJvH70MgTlIV-gUAH2w&index=58

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmKKWmnPWaI&list=PLkMIaCcWSxvxhsuJvH70MgTlIV-gUAH2w&index=61

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Wp17o1lK4E&list=PLkMIaCcWSxvxhsuJvH70MgTlIV-gUAH2w&index=64

http://www.bronze-age-craft.com/

http://www.bronze-age-swords.com/

The dificulties of finding sources of tin and copper near one another wouldn't mean anything in fantasy. One could make a Bronze Age setting where the better availability of bronze meant iron was also used, but nowehere as developed or favored, the mongrel's choice, fitting for barbarians searching lumps in the bog.

>>50131861

it doesnt rust quite as badly, and its easier to work, but that is about it

it is soft and easilly bent or broken and it doesnt hold an edge as well as iron, which is why iron replaced bronze

>>50127189
>not wanting to experience art

When we are too afraid to criticize and be criticized, then it all falls apart

>>50126711

That's a whole lot of subjective baggage you're loading onto the term 'game' there, anon.

Stop trying to crowbar your opinion into being a fact. It can never be done and isn't necessary anyway.

>>50130686
>>50130760
>>50130880
>>50130973
>>50131130

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAneTFiz5WU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX73uXs3xGU

>>50127399
While I agree with most that you said, bronze was far superior to iron when the transition began - it was just that bronze was expensive as fuck to make, since you could never really get copper and tin in the same place in any great quantity. Since iron was cheaper to make, it made sense to switch to that, and developments in iron forging and eventual steel usurped bronze as the material to use. Plus bronze armor was heavy.

>>50127812
If you die because an arrow knocks you off your horse and you break you kneck hitting the ground at an odd angle or you get trampled by your friends, then that arrow just fucking killed you.

Longbows were exceptionally good at what they did, which is putting hurt on people far away for a relatively low cost.

>>50126369
>What are some weapon and armor misconceptions and myths that get to you?
Shotguns are useless passed 10ft and have a massive spread.

Look, I get in video games, especially competitive ones, that you've got different balancing factors to worry about, but when that shit spreads to tabletop games, shit when people believe that bullshit IN REAL LIFE, my inner /k/ fag starts getting cranky.

>>50126369
>longbows are bad because weapons developed later were better!

Dude, are you for real? Of course the shot and pike was more effective. You might as well be telling us that bows were found to be more effective than thrown rocks like it's meant to blow our minds somehow.

Also that video is highly misleading. What armor you could pierce with a bow often depended on what arrowhead you were using, and there were indeed types designed to fuck with people wearing gambeson. Not that it often mattered - you sure could survive getting hit by an arrow, but that doesn't mean you're still in the fight. Nor does it matter when you're under a volley and sheer probability dictates that a few peeps are going to be hit where their armor is less effective (i.e. how longbows were meant to be used).

Longbows weren't magic but they had their place in war for a good long time before being pushed aside by new technologies. Just like every effective weapon ever.

>>50126369
That muskets did away with armor.
Upkeep cost did away with it.

>>50127236
>in my setting the bows are made of a particular kind of tree which is a lot better than regular wood
that's not how bows work

>>50136292
this

>>50136049

This especially. Most of the time the hand wave is "something something buckshot" but even buckshot doesn't have a 108 degree blast radius.

>>50136705
... What are you talking about? of course it is.

If you had a Magic wood and magic string than could withstand tons of force of being drawn by a superhuman force, a Bow would do soem massive damage.

>>50137296
You will also need a magic arrow.

Realistically, bows don't exactly work like they do in games such as Diablo 2 where bonuses are tied entirely to the bow itself rather than either the ammunition or both.

>>50137376
No you wouldn't.

Hurricanes can send small branches through car doors by sheer velocity.

You don't need Magic arrows if you have a super strong bow.

>>50137428
>I have no idea what I'm talking about

File: Hurricane damage.jpg (134KB, 633x720px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 633x720px

>>50137452
>Hurr duur

Bullets today are not made out of super dense special alloys.

You don't need Ammunition to be magic or special, only the device that delivers the actual power.

>>50137494
Please answer this question for me so I can determine how much of a retard you are.

How does a longbow arrow hit its target?

>>50137530
You draw the string back on the Longbow and the tension strength fires the arrow.

What are you trying to draw here retard? because it's sure as hell not a logical reason as to why you need a magic arrow for a bow that's super strong being fired by a super strong person.

>>50126369
Probably all of it. When I look a medieval weapon rules in a TRPG I feel like someone trying to figure out what a dinosaur sounded like by studying sediment layers.

>>50137559
Thank you for letting me know that you're not only smug, you're also a moron.

Here's why you're stupid: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer%27s_paradox

>>50126369
Muskets were pretty god damn unreliable though. Battlefield accounts from varying officers of varying nations usually say that for 1 casualty, anything between 50 and 400 shots were fired (including misfires etc.). Also they were a shit ton easier to train people with, since to fire a proper warbow you actually needed to be pretty damn strong for a poor peasant (well over 100 pounds of draw weight, biggest bows had closer to 200).

>>50137630
To be honest he's not exactly wrong, he's just missing the bit about the paradox.
Besides, I think he's referring the actual force BEHIND the hit and not the actual hit in and of its self.
Sure without a magic arrow to ensure you got the hit it would mean nothing, but that arrow would also mean nothing if the bow doesn't have enough power to propel it far enough or pierce whatever it hits.

>>50137632
How many arrows do you think needed to be fired to get one casualty?

>>50137181
Fucking bird shot doesn't even spread more than several inches at its longest range. But for some reason people still think that shit spreads out like a wall at five feet.

>>50138243
That one is pretty much all down to vidya games (probably Doom specifically, or rather Doom 2 for at least popularising it) doing it for the sake of giving each weapon a particular niche, but it kinda stuck in places where it wasn't actually needed to do that to have a suitable niche.

>>50138305
Doom? What? The shotgun in Doom is almost always used for long ranged shots.

>>50137632
I'm pretty sure 200 pound draw weight is an exaggeration. Warbows were usually 100+ in draw weight but nothing close to 200.
Funny that you bring the shot for casualty record.
English military veteran and writer Humphrey Barwick who fought against the Spaniards in the Netherlands wrote that he had seen hundreds of men fall to firearms for every one killed by a bow or crossbow.
Again, you're not looking at the whole picture. Bows might have a faster rate of fire but they lack the killing power of muskets. The fact that they were easier to handle was a plus.

>>50138382
Your're right, definitely not Doom 1, I forgot just how tight the spread was on that shotgun. Still Doom 2 though because super-shotgun. Most game shotguns followed its model rather than the regular shotgun.

Ranges also got even shorter with the move to full 3d leading to a lot of shrunken environments by the late '90s, which lead to the contrast between shotguns being short ranged and spreading like something that spreads really wide and other short ranged guns like SMGs and pistols got even more amplified. And the damn thing stuck. Despite games focusing on real equipment a hell of a lot more.

>>50137376
While this is usually true, a lot of games have bows granting bonuses to loosed arrows because the alternative (tracking special ammunition types) is harder and perceived to be less fun. There's also the case where bows somehow generate their own arrows (such as one in the Might & Magic series which coalesced ice arrows out of thin air when it's drawn).

Literally everyone misses the point of bows. The point isn't to be a super-awesome, hit anything sniper. If you want to do that, pick up a crossbow. If, on the other hand, you want to deny an enemy force an area, the bow is the way to do it.

>>50126689
>D&D
>Game balance
Pick none

>>50130686
But shermans are shitty, paper-thin deathtraps.
What's the meme is their flammability, but other than that the tank was below average in just about every single department... aside ability to churm up thousands of those motherfuckers

>>50139135
>below average in just about every single department
>"The vast majority of German tanks encountered in Normandy were either inferior, or at least, merely equal to the Sherman."--Historian John Buckley

Compared to other medium tanks of its time, the Sherman was above-average. Above-average crew comfort and space, above-average effective frontal thickness at the time of release due to the sloping, and its initial main gun didn't have much trouble defeating Panzer IV and III armor. It also didn't break down nearly as often as Panthers, Tigers, or King Tigers. Even Panthers and Tigers had to get in close to actually penetrate a Sherman's front, according to German reports.

>>50137632
>>50138223
>>50138739

Common archers used bows with 30 to 45 pound draw weights and were considered useful only as harasser, skirmishers and cheaply trained and equipped troops. Outside of defensive works it was expected they would flee from battle at the first threat of charge.

English yoeman archers were far from that. They trained literally for years to develop the skill and strength needed for a large longbow. In favorable ground they could be quite effective, though most longbows could not defeat and armored man. They were men of means and owned small estates.

As to guns: They were relatively cheap and required only a few weeks of training to use. Blocks of men armed with firearms supported blocks of pikemen with gunfire, but the pikes were almost always what deiced battles in the pike and shot era, until the development of field guns and more effective muskets with bayonets.

>>50126369
I bet you don't even own a longbow from the middle ages, and if you do you probably can't even do a 250 lb draw, fucking manlet. They can pierce armor easily.

File: 1445540181284.jpg (45KB, 426x454px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 426x454px

>>50127549
>But what if the joints are also made out of super material that blocks all sorts of shit
Do you not understand what a joint is? By definition they cannot be "made" out of anything, because they're empty space. You know, the empty space that's required for the armor to move in the first place?

>>50139334

Ergonomics, communication, sights, weapon accuracy and mechanical reliability were all quite good for the Sherman, and the 75mm gun, while anemic for anti-armor performance, was brutal for clearing hard points and attacking dug in infantry.

Tank-on-tank performance is a wonderful thing, but for infantry support the Sherman really was very good.

>>50139574
>He doesn't know

What's the modern equivalent of the katana/longbow with regards to how hard people meme the shit out of its powerlevel?

I'd guess the Desert Eagle.

>>50139698
The GAU-8?

File: 91995121.jpg (60KB, 307x556px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 307x556px

>>50139574
You can put flexible armor, like mail, under the joins in rigid armor. Gussets like this attached to an arming coat were standard.

>>50139698
Orbital railguns.

File: IMG_6332.png (1MB, 1920x825px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x825px

>>50139698
>dude it's invincible

>>50139457
Guns weren't cheap. These are the prices from 16th century england
A good quality longbow: 6 shillings and 8 pence
Quality yew bow: 3 shillings and 4
Bow of English Yew: 2 shillings

For guns:
Caliver: 12 to 30 shillings
Musket:18 shillings to 2 pounds

Firearms were considerable much more expensive than bows. For a shot to arrow basis the ammunition was cheaper but a longbow archer would have to fire a shit lot of arrows to break even.

I don't doubt that longbowmen were useful troops. Especially when properly defended by fortifications and terrain but their power is often exaggerated. Even the triumph of Agincourt was decided by melee. The English took in a lot of prisoners which they decided to kill in fear of retribution.
Again, I cite back to Humphrey Barwick who did train to use a longbow from childhood and he considered himself a good shot with it too. He and other advocators of firearms got their experience when they fought in the Low Countries against Spain. They universally agreed that the longbow was an obsolete weapon in the modern battlefield. Even the moderates changed their mind and peddled that the longbow could fill in some niche purpose in battle. The fact that longbowmen were being listed as unarmed men when showing up for muster should tell you how obsolescence the weapon was for the English.

>>50131351
Guns were every in England up until the 20th century though.

>>50139750
>mail
Which is flexible precisely because of--you guessed it--empty space.

>>50126369
Peasant levees annoy me.
Modern era economies in a setting where the population and technology isn't there to properly set is up annoys me.

>>50138243
Uh, yeah, it does. Having shot #7 shot through both a 28" full choked barrel and an 18.5" cylinder bore it spreads out qite quickly. Much faster than 00 buckshot, which spreads about 1" per yard. So at about 7 yards the shot will pattern within about a 7" circle.

File: 1428654817821.jpg (752KB, 1152x1600px) Image search: [Google]

752KB, 1152x1600px

>>50139820
Good point, and well taken.

In the same time period wool was about 5 shillings a yard. In the 17th century 40 shillings was close to the enlistment bonus for infantry.

It's not that guns were overwhelmingly expensive. It's that bows were cheap as shit, being quite simple to make, with a single good sized tree providing material for dozens. A gun was more expensive then a bow, pike or axe.

>>50139793
Defiantly a meme. The AK-47 is a decent firearm and one that is iconic but it will fail if treated badly, used with poor quality ammo or exposed to harsh conditions.

>>50126369
You people are straight up cancerous to play with. You derail sessions and just dampen the experience with your constant musing about how unrealistic the weapons are. I don't get all fussy that shadowrun doesn't accurately portray how computers works but for some reason when a game tries to use weapons in an unrealistic way people's autisms start flaring up

>>50140620
Pretending to know a lot about weapons will make me seem more manly, and then someone will finally love me

>>50140645

The mudercube will never love you, anon.

>>50140068
You know you just proved yourself wrong in your own post, right?

7" spread at 7 yards is hardly "a wall (of shot) at 5 feet."

>>50127846
This got me so anus annihilated that I had to dissect it just for being so goddamn wrong.

>>Implying a 20th level Barb isn still weaker than an olympic athlete
This is somewhat true, but only because there isn't rules for "heft once". A 20th level Barbarian can heave 720 lbs over their head, and walk around with it over their head all day long. No human could do that.
>>Implying a 20th level Monk isn't still slower than Usain Bolt
Usain Bolt is a sprinter who runs on flat straightaways with no wind. He cannot maintain that kind of speed for more than 15 minutes. Compare instead to a marathon runner--elite marathon runners can keep 12 MPH even for hours at a time. A 20th level monk manages 13 MPH and can run the entire length of a day. (Granted, every PC can Dash-move all day long without any penalty even from level 1.)
But guess what? A monk can maintain that speed on a vertical surface or over water. Fuck you.
>>Implying a 20th level Fighter can't throw at best 2 knives per 6 seconds
A 20th level Fighter can throw 4 knives per 6 seconds. If they add in their wealth of stamina, 8 knives. However, the knives must be at the ready, not stowed.
>>Implying a 20th level whatever martial isn't still below olympic athletes at long jump
This is correct, though a strangely built monk could smash the record with using 1 ki for Step of the Wind. Conversely, a level 20 barbarian passes the olympic high jump record by 25%, clearing an unreal 10 feet off the ground. A variant rule allows for even greater heights.

>>50139574
An armor was made for Richard III for a tournament that had no exposed joints, the parts were all flush with each other and still offered total articulation, they just slid past each other in the moving.

So it was possible, but I've never seen or even heard of an example aside from that one suit of tournament armor, so it probably wasn't common.

>>50127593
>If they can cleave through your armor, their strike will most likely throw you a few meters away.
Funny how bullets don't do that.

This isn't really a weapon myth but can we stop pretending Samurai were honourable noble warriors of virtue?

They would regularly team up into small groups on the battlefield so one could engage and enemy from the front while the other one crept up and slit the fuckers throat. Hardly the pinnacle of honorable battle.

>>50127636
Only 3.PF is really bad for Martials.

In all other editions they perform fine as adventurers even outclassing pure casters in many instances (tankiness, damage output, sustainability, lack of real hard counters etc) 'but' mediocre in PvP, which is best avoided or won by roleplaying/tactical choices.

Which weapon is more wanked, longbow or katana?

>>50141882
Katana, but it's wank is so overdone it's endearing.

Bows and crossbows are over wanked as people romanticize them and imagine them to be a bit more like modern firearms than what they're really like.

File: maxresdefault[1].jpg (946KB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

946KB, 3840x2160px

>>50135972
>Plus bronze armor was magnificent.
FTFY

>>50139457
>Common archers used bows with 30 to 45 draw weights
Bullshit, that's way too low for battlefield use.

File: fd1a7bddb43a714e2f70a180bc6a0ae0049fcb0d2a1f9592d4b5f7ea3ebe3a15_1.jpg (37KB, 547x330px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 547x330px

>>50141882
C) Deagle brand deagle

>>50126426
>I myself commissioned a genuine crossbow in Italy for 4,500 Euro (that's about £2000)

That really dates this pasta, doesn't it.

>>50137376

There's no reason a bow can't pass its enchanted might on to any arrow loosed from its string.

>>50130660
>Only if they're all sheathed. Ever see a knife thrower throw knives?
You can only draw two weapons per turn (and that assuming you have dual wielder feat) so you end throwing only 2 knives per turn. Also you can only have one weapon in hand. Rules are rules, you're free to ignore them but that doesn't make the system flawless.

>>50130660
>>50142305
Also darts don't have the ammunition property in 5e

>>50142305
>You can only draw two weapons per turn
Read his fucking post, that's what he said. If you have unsheathed daggers then they're not drawing.
>Also you can only have one weapon in hand
No, you can only WIELD one weapon in hand. You can HAVE as many weapons as your DM permits. Holding a cluster of 7 unsheathed daggers for your other hand to lob is 100% legit.

>>50141072
>Conversely, a level 20 barbarian passes the olympic high jump record by 25%, clearing an unreal 10 feet off the ground.
No it doesn't. world record is 29.97ft, 20th level barb jumps 24 ft because in 5e your long jump distance is your Str

As for the knives situation, you can only draw 2 knives per turn, so you will be throwing 2 knives per turn, 4 in the first turn if you already started with a knive in each hand

>>50142353
>No it doesn't. world record is 29.97ft, 20th level barb jumps 24 ft because in 5e your long jump distance is your Str
Reading comprehension: high jump, not long jump.
>you can only draw 2 knives per turn
Reading comprehension: however, the knives must be at the ready, not stowed.

>>50142338
>Holding a cluster of 7 unsheathed daggers for your other hand to lob is 100% legit.
By rules you can't have a torch, candle, whatever and a sword in one hand, by rules you can't have a torch, candle, whatever in your shield hand either, in the errata say your hand is occupied and cant be used for anything else.

Maybe if you have a bag of holdings or a bag with daggers, but that's item iteraction and is free only once per turn

>>50142375
>By rules you can't have a torch, candle, whatever and a sword in one hand, by rules you can't have a torch, candle, whatever in your shield hand either, in the errata say your hand is occupied and cant be used for anything else.
That's with a wielded sword and an equipped shield, you goofball. You can carry a torch and sword in the same hand, but you won't be wielding that sword; it will just be held there.
If you hold seven daggers in one hand, you won't be wielding a single one.
Or do you think you can only grab one gold piece at a time?

>>50142368
>Reading comprehension: high jump, not long jump.
That happens when you introduce something people weren't talking about, that leads to confusion, I thought it was a typo.

>Reading comprehension: however, the knives must be at the ready, not stowed.
I disagree

>>50142386
>Wielding a sword
No, I didn't even mentioned wielding it, I said holding it, of course you can't use it, same with the shield, you can't even drop the candle in combat to use the shield and the sword because you can't even had the candle in those occupied hands to beging with.

>>50142386
As stupid as it's you can't even grab one gold piece at a time as it's now, you're free to change the rules though, and many GMs do, but with knife/dart throwing don't for some fucking reason.

>>50142396
Nothing in the PHB or DMG implies this. Where are you getting these rules?

>>50142431
Errata and sageadvice compendium (wrote by the lead designer Jeremy Crawford)

>>50142437
Also the first errata is in the latest edition of the PHB, though I don't know how much of the errata has.

>>50142437
Neither PHB nor DMG errata have anything to say about it. (The closest I see is acknowledging you can hold a two-handed weapon with one hand, just not wield it)
Thus I figure you must be using sageadvice exclusively, which has always been deuterocanon and even contradictory between Crawford and Mearls.

>>50142449
Not him but Mearls isnt the one who makes the rules so reading his answers and take them as face value is stupid.

>>50141882
In the case of the longbow it's romanticized because it became a symbol of Medieval England. Couple that with propaganda and Anglophiles and you got the brewing of a teaboo.
It's also a weapon that we tend to isolate and we tend to look past the flaws and just point that it can fire faster.
In comparison the Harquebus and Musket that replaced it is the ancestor of weapons we still use to this day and they get taken out of context and compared to their contemporaries.
Longbows in comparison are not used at all in modern day combat and are far removed from present day except for a few hobbyists.
And that's what makes reading the accounts of English soldiers and mercenaries from the 16th century great. You're getting the account of people who don't have this modern bias and who actually used both weapons. If you told these old soldiers that the longbow was a superior weapon to the Harquebus or the heavy Spanish Musket they would have laughed at you.
By the accounts of Barwick he claimed he was a more accurate shot with his Harquebus after four months of use than his longbow. He claimed he could shoot farther and more accurate than the best archer in England.
But since we tend to hold old guns to a higher standard and see them as slow, short ranged and inaccurate weapons compared to modern guns we allow these biases to blind us and neglect the context of these weapons.
In a similar fashion in which uneducated people think Napoleonic warfare was retarded for having people stand in line for combat.
By contrast the Alderney ship from 1592 was packed with firearms while the Mary Rose from 1545 was armed with Longbows, it's obvious which weapon won in England.

As for the Katana it's probably too much animu.

>>50142185
They've exaggerated a bit.

Max difference in the past would put it at about 3000 Pounds, vs just over 4000 now.

File: 1478094984385-tg.png (181KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 480x360px

>>50131008
>all the frenchies reading this

>>50127849
Yeah, the frogs killed themselves out of humiliation.

>when you want to play a teppo ashigaru but no system seems to support this

>>50142820
Sengoku does.

File: 1476148390066_0.png (114KB, 500x387px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 500x387px

>>50126426
Literally the katana arguement

File: kouashit].webm (3MB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1440x1080px

>>50127622
get out spacenoid

>>50126369
>Win a battle, because you face utterly incompetent enemy
>Claim it was all due to your wunderwaffe and tactical prowness
Typical English behaviour

>>50126369
Flails and Morningstars probably never existed and what little we have of them are just recreations based on badly drawn pictures.