Re: (TFT) Attribute ratings for real people

[raito@raito.com]

Quoting pvk@oz.net:

> I think the rapier was a response to people wearing less armor because of
> gunpowder weapons.

I kinda disagree. See my previous message. It wasn't a military weapon, 
really.

> I agree the English Longbow seems to have typically required far more than
> an above-average ST, at least in the bow arm. And it seems to have been
> better at getting through plate than 1d+2 is at getting through 5-8 points
> of TFT armor (plate through fine plate plus shield). I'm not sure that
> translated to more overall ST for other purposes. Also the English used
> bodkin arrowheads, which were narrow and designed to pierce armor, though
> they didn't make as big a wound as a broader arrowhead (assuming full
> penetration in both cases).

Well, it certainly requires practice. There seems to be quite a bit of 
academic
disagreement on how effective it was against armour. By the time it's being
used widely in warfare, the armies had expanded from just fully-armoured
knights and retainers to include the less-armoured levies. One researcher
claims that he has never seen a period account of an arrow killing a
fully-armoured person outright, except by striking them in their unarmoured
face. Most everyone agrees that being hit by an arrow was quite unpleasant,
though, regardless of armour.

Look at it this way: if guns punch through armour, armour becomes ineffective,
and people stop using it, regardless of the fact that it protects against hand
weapons. Now substitute archery for guns and see how that plays. (Yes, 
the rise
of the national army changes this equation.)

Neil Gilmore
raito@raito.com
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"