Using a shield despite wearing full plate

I see Merlin was lifting.

>using a longsword
>not using the superior katana which i've been practicing with for years and can slice through a solid foot of steel

eh that's possible if you hit the right spot. Or have superhuman strength.

No it's not possible you underage fucking faggot who watched too much Game of Thrones, people were aiming for the gaps in armor they didn't try to directly stab the goddamn breastplate. I bet you believe in ''le swords were heavy'' meme too you fucking kidtard.

You're all wrong. A longsword could pierce plate only if it was poorly constructed. This was fairly common, as plate has always been expensive so people cut corners.

b8

No, no it couldn't. The only way a longsword could piece plate is of it's paper thin. Even if it's just 2mm thin it can stop a longsword or any sword from puncturing it, assuming it was hardened which wouldn't affect the cost much, I mean.

Shit plate wasn't ever common because guess what, you make shit plate, no one buys your shit because everyone who wears it gets deaded within the first hour of wearing it.

that was lazy

>using a weapon
>not using your natural hands which you've been practicing with for years and can rip and tear all guts out

...

>fairly common

not at all

I'm confused is this show a comedy or action? I see it everywhere but didn't get to watch it yet.

Neither, it's shit.

Over the top action, so it's comedy if you don't take it seriously.

It has both and something else as well.

>wearing clothes
>not turning reality into your magical realm

A longsword could pierce plate...
if it was made of Damascus steel.

A sword made of Damascus steel could easily cut through plate, but you'd have to sell your castle to afford it.

Noice b8.

You are retarded.

Here's your (You).

>be adventurer
>a damn fine archer at that
>in a big fight, shooting where you can when a monster dodges and approaches!
>it's too close to rely on your bow, so you reach to your belt where your trusty war axe lies
>simple to use and sturdy, you never learnt how to use the sword and instead practiced marksmanship
>suddenly, OP arrived in a shower of glitter and dildos
>started shouting that you're rich enough to afford a sword and shouldn't be using the axe you're used to
>you and fighterbro give each other glances, and OP starts screaming something about his armor
>shield and plate make sense for what you have to fight on a weekly basis, not sure what's going on
>even the monsters seem a bit affronted by all this, before OP turns to them and starts saying something about halberds

Do you fantasize about me often?

>Your faith disparages the creation and fetishization of 'weapons'.
>Particularly well made and deadly tools are perfectly acceptable and expected

That's a bick pickaxe.

>sword demand more skill than an axe
this meme is even worse

>using hands
>not using your mind which beholds unspeakable powers

It's a tabletop game where the GM insists on legacy campaigns and fucking loves 80s music

Never said that. Just said that the adventurer never bothered to learn swordsmanship and focussed on what he knew.

>Calling your son Moxie Crimefighter

Or if the sword is magic, or made of a material that's considerably stronger than the armor.
I'm pretty sure an ordinary buff guy could put an adamantine sword through steel plate.

A shield wouldn't do you any good in that situation either.

We should get someone else, then. I'm not trusting my life to a lazy idiot.

If it could cut through plate, it will sure as fuck cut through some wood and leather, which is what shields are made of.

>practiced using bow and axe
>lazy because he didn't also buy a sword and learn how to use that

It's fucking kafka-eqeus

>the quintessential military sidearm of middle ages and renaissance
>fucktons of martial arts dedicated to its myriad forms
>easier to use than anything else
>easily affordable even for a common punch-clock mercenary
>everyone around you is using one and could at least give you pointers
>hurr ima ax bcus i practise ax, lemme come along on a deadly venture into the unknown and watch your back with me hurrax
At least I hope it was a battle axe and not a woodsman's axe. The two are not the same are not used in the same way.

>using mind
>not using your loyal servants which you've been training for years and can do any job for you

>Having full coat of plates negates the need for shields
>Implying all shields work the same
>Implying shields aren't the safest and tactically most advantageous way of feeling out your enemy's movement when you're in a bind
>Implying Shields aren't a perfect weapon in their own right with superior blocking capacity, making you essentially dual-wielding but not the faggoty kind
>Implying plate isn't just there to complement the shield
>Implying plate and shield combo has no value despite the fact that it makes you virtually untouchable by arrow volleys and even small arms fire from shitty medieval guns

No, OP, you are who goes into the trash.

I'm not a complete moron. Of course a purpose built axe for fighting.

And there's something to be said for using the in a homogenous space. Everyone uses swords. They expect to fight swords. They've trained against swordsmen. They know swords. They've pranced around with rapiers, dashed around with sabers and stomped around with claymores.
So I'm going to use an axe. And they're just going to have get used to it.

>implying fighting against a chopping implement with shit range is something a swordsman can't defend against

>implying people only trained how to use one weapon instead of multiple weapons

Historically speaking once plate became good enough knights and men at arms discarded shields. So yeah you're retarded.

There's a reason why everyone pranced around with rapiers, sabers and claymores, and expected to fight other armed with rapiers, sabers and claymores when going against a serious enemy.

>wearing full plate while on an adventure

Durr what's a buckler

Or a Pavise for that matter; shields just evolved.

Once plate armor comes into play, you have two surviving roles for shields - big huge metal things used in boarding actions, and bucklers that will be paired with stabbing swords in some schools.
>Implying shields aren't the safest and tactically most advantageous way of feeling out your enemy's movement when you're in a bind
What does that even mean. If your opponent is improvising his attacks and defense on the spot you're probably winning this one, shield or no shield.
>Implying Shields aren't a perfect weapon in their own right with superior blocking capacity, making you essentially dual-wielding but not the faggoty kind
Shields suck at being used as bucklers, and bucklers can't be use as shields. It's not a very good idea to block attacks directly with either of them unless you want your arm broken.
>Implying plate isn't just there to complement the shield
Shields have no place in the context for which plate armor was developed and used.
>Implying plate and shield combo has no value despite the fact that it makes you virtually untouchable by arrow volleys and even small arms fire from shitty medieval guns
Bait?

While this holds merit, I would like to point out that people then quickly started to figure ways how to fuck plated warriors now that their shields were gone. Now in engagements where people cannot avoid being visible to the enemy, such as riotpolice, we still use shields, again, even though modern high quality fabric and body armour could potentially surpass a medieval coat of plate in protective value against peasants hitting you with rocks, bats and knives.

Now in a ficzional adventurer's group, people will attack you with all kinds of shit, and you want al of it as far away ftom you as possible. Shields provide that extra cover that you need to not grt instaroasted by that fireball.

Shields will always be rght there at humanities side, no matter how mich we make better clothing to protect us. They aren't jst armour- they're a form of shelter and safety that has yet to be surpassed by anything with the same simpicity and accessibility.

No one would ever fucking use plate if you could just stab through it.

4 use in the mines, as well as on the battlefield

Don't fool with Mister Jillette, he's a wizard!

It's one of those shows where shit becomes so over-the-top and absurd, it actually becomes awesome.

For reference, it starts off with an English gentlemen learning how to channel the power of the sun in order to punch vampires in the face.

And shit just ramps up from there.

>using a shield despite wearing full plate
>using an axe even when the adventurer can obviously afford a sword

Not entirely unknown. Mounted men-at-arms often used a shield and lance (and sword) while wearing a full harness. Maces and axes plus a shield were used too.

Axes were pretty common in medieval eastern Europe and Asia Minor.

Munition plate. Munition plate was low quality steel that was little better than iron. It was used as a cheap means of armouring militia and levied troops. The poorest men-at-arms might wear it too, plus the retainers of cheapskate lords. A strong man with a longsword - by which we mean a two-handed sword - could pierce thinner sections if he struck them at near 90 degree angle, though probably not the breastplate.

The anime is pretty shitty. The manga is a lot better, considered a classic fighting manga like Fist of the North Star.

>What does i mean?
It means what this guy says
m.youtube.com/watch?v=dkhpqAGdZPc
>Blocking
Again, this dude. I agree that just standing there and taking it is stupid, that's why you reach out and stop your enemy in his swing and make yourself inaccessible
>Context
Thr context is that OP tries to smacktalk a tried and proven method of playing pretend in a magical swordfightland. Regarding how long shields of various form existed and bodyarmour was mainly protection against cuts and glancing blows, or so I interprete what I'm told, I can very well imagine that a culture would develop around the shield, starting with limbprotection due to them being exposed most of the time, while the rest of the body can be covered with a shield fairly easily. So complementing the shield instead of replacing it could very well be a circumstance.
>Bait
I realise I'm reaching fot straws with that one, however I believe it's save to say that, considering gambeson+chain+plate is apparently already a formidable protection against arows, adding a shield is another layer that would have to be pierced, taking away a lot of force from medieval leadballs flying at your face.

>he fell for he "hurr the anime is shit, mangos are better" meme
>on a series where the show is an almost fucking 1:1 perfect adaptation

Have a (You), don't spend it all in one place.

Police use shields because they use tactics that make shields useful - forming lines to contain huge numbers of unarmed civilians who are being stupid. If police had to tackle organized groups of trained men in combat armor who are going for the kill, they'd start switching to guns and polearms very quickly.

Right, so it depends on the situation, just like in magical D&D wonderland where there be dragons and other weird shit. It's conceivable that shields might be useful despite not being 100% the best option in formation warfare against similarly armed humanoids.

>fantard from /a/

He's a 'fuck you', take it on board and remember it.

You realize they're too different media, right? That you can't have a 'perfect 1:1' adaptation, and even if you could, JoJo wouldn't be it.

I bet you even watched the gg subs.

The anime is corny as hell btw - and not in a good way, in the overly slick 2010s way.

There are several manga adaptions that are just indisputably worse than their source material. Case in point: The latest Berserk anime.

That being said, I haven't watched or read Jojo specifically, so I can't really comment on that. (The whole "flamboyantly dressed musclebound hunks posing coyly for the camera" thing kind of turned me off.)

>and bodyarmour was mainly protection against cuts and glancing blows
Two things.

First, no serious martial art expects you to get hit. Dudes in Talhoffer's manual aren't decked out in dragon age armor, they're fighting in civilian clothes. Yet they are not using shields. Not getting hit is built into the stances, the strikes and the legwork. What armor did was
a)make mistakes and bad luck not immaterially lethal, because it reduces the spectrum of attacks that can disable or kill you, and
b)protected you from threats you are not aware of, which is a big deal in huge pitched battles that open up with arrow volleys then turn into a messy ten-hour melee where men pass out from exhaustion and you can't be sure one of your friends is watching your back and you can't afford to turn around to check.
Shield requires you to be able to respond to threats, and not make a mistake. So, it doesn't help in any situation where you'd depend on your armor.

Second, plate armor is really, really fucking good. It protects from cutting and stabbing better than anything else, AND it's pretty damn good against blunt trauma, which you could only defend against with padding before. Plate, even shitty munitions plate, basically forced all serious armies to switch to large two-handed weapons with spikes and narrow heads that would be good at punching through plate. A shield
a)won't help much against a polearm,
b)means you can't use a polearm yourself.

So you have martial arts that provided adequate defense without the use of a shield, and armor that ushered in an age of wrestling, large weapons and impact warfare, and also kept your bacon safe in the heat of battle, and ranged weapon that were now competing against several millimeters of forget metal, not some light wood with leather stretched over it. Shield might have been of use to a poor levy or an archer who was expected to join the melee with his cutlass and assist the men at arms and dismounted knights.

hahahahahahahahahaha

Yeah, but what situation? Fairy farts that can only be defended against with deflection AC? Containing elves during the Stonewall Tavern riots? Crawling through airvents infested with instadeath crossbow goblins? For characters that want to travel light and kill the monsters as quickly as possible, a defensive weapon that had its glory days in the hands of massed dark age infantry would be a dubious choice.

, doors and chests, specifically.

2e had a line that went something like, "sure, you could open a barred door with a mace, but an axe would be faster." I like to use things like that in my adventures, and have the players need to use gear or things they find in the dungeon to advance further into it. Making sure to leave such an ax lying around for them to do that, of course, in case they don't have one.

You have to consider that its cheaper making this shield, which while big will not have to go far, than making a policeman an expensive suit of all encompassing armour.
Plus its better to have the shield on fire than anything attached to you.
So either conscripts or dragon slaying . To be good for dragons would need to be very big, so not good for an adventurer.

Folding steel had marginal effect, it was only done either for
1) pretty pattern
2)remove impurities+even out carbon if you had impure ore and/or bad refining techniques.
probably bait.

Actually, as noted earlier, battle axes and axes that are good for chopping wood are not the same thing. A battle axe is light and more balanced, because you need to be able to swing it quickly and for long periods of time. That's not good for chopping through three inches of aged oak bound in iron.

>That you can't have a 'perfect 1:1' adaptation
In the case of graphic novels/manga you can.

You are thinking about books, in this case you cant, because books aren't "i can't draw, act, or dont have the tech needed to do it and will make a movie", they are a different thing, unlike some people think

>using a one-handed weapon and nothing else in your other hand instead of using a second very useful weapon, the shield
>not protecting yourself with a shield with your family's crest upon it
>Not using your shield to defend your less-armored comrades, mounts, etc
>Not having a decent first layer of defense against arrows, piercing weapons, etc

>If you have a wooden shield, you've got a weapon that's immune to rust monsters, Heat Metal, and much other dedicated fuck-knights shit
>If you have a metal shield, you have something heavy enough to bash faces with

>19 strength wizard that spent his time bodybuilding

Never got old.

I have no doubt that an estoc or similar sword count pierce the thinner plate on, say, the side of the thigh, upper arm, etc, but I very much doubt that you could pierce it with a regular longsword even with halfswording.

And as I'm sure you're aware, the person wearing said plate would be moving, your blows would almost never be anywhere near 90 degrees onto the plate, and after the plate you still had a thick gambeson.

Do you think you'll get different comments if you post the same dumb greentext three times?

No copypasta, just someone who's used a shield before.

fun fact: axes and spears are the best weapons

What if we're jousting? A shield comes useful then.

You've posted the exact same list of dumb bullshit the thread had already been arguing about twice.
>someone who's used a shield before
I trained kendo for a while, so I'm an authority on using two-handed swords in actual combat?

But that was my first post in the thread.

a situation I'd address by first establishing the door as ax-appropriate, next putting a fireman's ax somewhere nearby, and then allowing the PC with an axe to use his as a concession, since ax wielders might like to smash things for the fun of the game.

And adaptation being 1:1 means jack shit, because anime is a different fucking medium. The sense of pacing is entirely different and with the inclusion of music, voices, colour palette and actual movement is a lot harder to implement properly. An adaptation that's exactly the same as the source material isn't guaranteed to be anywhere as good as an original purely because it might not translate well to a cinematic format.
Conversely, this means that an adaptation could potentially be better than the original while being vastly different because an adaptation is meant to be adapted to the new form, not be a perfect copy of the original.

I can see that happening. It's not like every late-medieval/early modern plate was of royal quality, munition armor was kinda shitty as far as plate goes, iron with some phosphorus.

That said, someone in munition armor is going to a lot of better places to kill its wearer. And even a piercing isn't a guaranteed wound, because padding, specially in case of munition armor, in which the one-size-fits-all demands lots of padding for some.

youtu.be/rO2nM_2iBXA?t=5m9s

A guy I knew had the only specifically wooden shield in all D&D PCs, because he was terrified of rust monsters, and he had already lost fucking good equipment because of them.

>axe&shield + 2h hammer as backup

Do i need anything else as an dorf?

That's mostly an issue of your group not breaking one of DM's fingers every time he uses a bullshit monster for an encounter.

Stilts.

While cheaper armor always existed, often with relatively low carbon content if steel, or actually being composed of iron at times, munition armor is definitely a 15th century and onward thing.

The key thing here is that it was systematically produced and distributed to a definite, affordable pattern after this date.

Also, the later you actually get, the better it is because what constitutes cheap steel as time goes on is simply better than earlier stuff. That doesn't mean it would necessarily save you from a musket, but English Civil War era munitions armor is surprisingly durable to hand to hand attacks, and would virtually require such a blow as you describe, with a good clean hit, by a strong man, probably against thinner parts. Ideally you would really want a pole-arm, or something like a war hammer. (The sort that has a wicked, killing point, and via use of the pointy end)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_hammer

Of course, many examples of munition armor do not actually have the best coverage, with some compromising with a front breastplate and like, some tassets? Even in an example with an actual back plate you would frequently see coverage not extend to the arms and legs, or necessarily having good neck protection.

So you could definitely kill a guy just by going for his arms and legs. In some cases people had another layer of armor that protected their arms and part or all of their legs, although this was hardly proof against harm, and slowed them down. (Although during the 100 years war sometimes well off troops layered cheap coats of plate or later, primitive, cheap, plate over cheap mail, and this was probably a bit more durable than stuff like, say, a buff coat or fabric armor on the arms. Only so much so against piercing wounds though. Pretty fucking good against a slash though. Your arm would possibly get broken, but that's better than getting cut.)

>There are still people who think fire arrows were used in battle
>2016
You should not post on this board. You know who you are.

>wearing a full plate despite using a shield
>using a sword when an adventurer can obviously afford an axe
I agree OP

they were though

>shitposting about fantasy arms and armor

Knights didn't use goddamn bucklers.

>not dual-shielding for maximum protection

Turks noted that crusaders looked like porcupines because they walked despite having so many arrows in them and that was when they wore fucking chainmail you can imagine how much more protective full plate is. Cuts and glancing blows my ass no one would buy armor if it was that useless.