ITT: we correct misconceptions

ITT: we correct misconceptions

Rapier is a Dex weapon

Jerking off your RPG manual is sad

Tarrasque is from Provence

Also, Goblin Slayer is shit. Read Dungeon Meshi, instead.

Analpain isn't lethal and can be ignored.

Shitposting about shitposting is still shitposting.

A thread died for this

It was a MTG thread though, so nothing of value was lost.

It was just a shitty general or another shitposting thread.

I don't understand the purpose of this thread.

...

But I needed advice on my Death Race 2000 list. How am I supposed to compete with Spells! Spells! Spells! or Raymond Scott's Powerhouse in E-flat?

>ITT: we correct misconceptions

there should be no fucking reason for wizards to not use armor, at least light armor

We sure needed to get rid of quests for threads like these, guys. Yep.

Can't you take your butthurt back to the board specifically designed to accomodate, with lots of fancy tools to optimize your assblastedness?

There's never been as many women fighters as men, but it's ridiculous when people insist that there literally haven't been any ever when there have been some and are even some today!

Dual wielding isn't a hollywood creation or completely unrealistic. Having a second piece of metal in your hand to parry is actually pretty useful.

Sure, a shield is better, but a second weapon is easier to carry, easier to conceal and more socially acceptable to have on your person.

I agree.

With heavy armors, the weight might hinder appropriate movement for somatic components. Plate in particular might prevent unorthodox movements necessary for some spells, because plate is geared towards allowing feats of general athleticism.

Light armor however makes little sense. I can understand the argument that the leather clothes might be constrictive, but so can big ass robes and those don't have a penalty.


Now, gameplay-wise, its purpose is pretty straightforward for chainmail and that pretty directly transitioned to DnD from whence it has passed on to other materials. It made artillery (magic users) more delicate in close combat meaning you had to use strategy to insure they never entered melee. This does work in DnD as a way to add a hurdle to combat, so I always enforce this to keep my players careful.

Also, some parying knives were better for wrenching the weapon from a parried opponent than a shield would be.

Dual-weilding for offense is still silly though.

>go bad to the place people who don't actually run or play quests made because they listened to butthurt crybabies on /q/
No.

>Also, Goblin Slayer is shit.
Bitch, I will fight you.

>quests
I'm suddenly content with this thread.

and lose judging by your obvious mental handicap

>Dual-weilding for offense is still silly though.

Depends on circumstance I guess. If I could score with my left hand I'd be a lot better fencer (I know sport isn't combat, but still)

The real shit is, like, double scimitars. What do you think you are even doing there?

Okay my fat neckbeard edgelord friend :^)

Having quest threads didn't get rid of these threads. It was just burying shit with more shit, but the shit was still there.

Hey, retard strength is a thing.

>board has lots of neat tools to run quests
>eternally butthurt about it

Goblin Slayer is okay. It's just the people who insist that all settings should be that kind of gory grimdark bullshit are retarded.

Sometimes you want Zelda, sometimes you want Berserk. But don't try to make literally everything one or the other. Variety is the spice of life, y'all.

>The real shit is, like, double scimitars. What do you think you are even doing there?

It's my backup, for when the first one is lodged sideways up someone's asshole.

This is a way to enforce in game something that would be culturally enforce. Wizards have no reason or interest in purchasing armor because they aren't meant to be prancing around excavating dungeons. They usually do so in fiction as part of an exception, to help younger heroes solve some arcane mystery, but otherwise stay in their ivory-tower equivalent. Wizards -should- be physical frail and need to be protected, at least as part of their traditional role and representation (if you dislike traditional roles that's a valid opinion, but good or bad as a reason, tradition is still a reason.). The wizard is the modern equivalent of those scientists you see in action movies that although are going to a warzone to investigate something, don't put on a kevlar vest and at best carry a pistol. Sure they could go full armored without hindering scientific research, but that sorta screws their narrative role in the story.

The problem here is that all examples that >muh womyn warriorsfags tend to list are memes like Jeanne d'Arc or Boudica.

A rapier is a weapon meant for thrusting.

Thrusting takes strength. Strength will make your thrust faster. Having nimble fingers just makes it easier for you to find and exploit a hole in your opponent's defenses.

So a rapier is a STR weapon. It's hit chance just benefits from a high DEX.

Dual wielding full-length swords is retarded, though. Yes, there was a manual written about dueling with two rapiers, but it was purely for showing off and was generally accepted even at the time as an inferior fighting style.

It's also not that difficult to carry around a buckler day-to-day.

Orc quest was ousted, so I will be butthurt eternally.

That's because there are fairly few that are culturally recognized. Realistically, most women involved in combat would've been random asshole grunts.

It doesn't have the one thing needed to have successful quests. Tools that have no purpose aren't good tools, they're useless.

>I don't understand the purpose of this thread.
OP got so upset that someone made a thread that he had to make a SAVAGE PARODY of that thread when in reality he just made a sign that says "I AM BUTTHURT" and paraded himself around the board.

Inferior in capability, but superior in awe.

Fighting with two full-length swords was just advertisement for your martial school.

>hey dude, have you heard? giovanni defeated immanuel with two swords!
>wait what? two swords?
>yes! this means that the milan school totally is better than the rome school! fuck yeah, eat shit rome!

Thrusting takes less strength than swinging. Aiming, on the other hand, is what is necessary for a rapier to score a penetrating hit in a place that matters, because thrusting does less damage than swinging.

And if you think strength has everything to do with aiming, well, you're an idiot.

Physical attributes are a mess. You cannot be fast, nimble and gracious while your muscles are atrophied. You can be muscular and slow, but that comes from your training's focus on weightlifting. Being strong, yet easily overcome doesn't make much sense either, even if you never trained your stamina specifically.

I would argue that it takes more of a dancer's strenght than a bodybuilder's strenght

This is....a rather sensible argumentation. Kudos to you, user

>Thrusting takes strength
It doesn't. I guess it would if you were trying to thrust through mail, but then you wouldn't be using a rapier because it's a dueling weapon, not a combat or self-defense weapon. If you show up on the morning of your duel and your opponent arrives in full Gothic plate armor with a sword taller than he is, you just call him a faggot and walk off.

This is a bad argument. 99.9% of warriors on history were nameless grunts, and I doubt the occasional woman warrior made more than perhaps, 1 or 2% of a fighting force at any time in history (except like, Dacians). And women historically were frowned upon when doing something that was not their place to do, like fight, so yes, any woman soldier in history would be most likely a nameless grunt and nobody would write about her, and even if one was to stand out, people would still be hesitant or not want to write about her because she was doing something that wasn't expected/wanted from women. So maybe less than 0.01% of warrior got their names/stories written down on history and maybe less than 1% of all warriors were female, maybe much less, like 0.1%...I dont even know. And people would not be eager to write about them without a solid good reason. So yes, there's very few warrior women of note, it's normal that the ones that are known would be referenced often.

It's not like the same mythological male heroes don't come up everytime a caster vs martial thread starts (cuchulainn and heracles, for one). People can only use the references they know. And the field is scarce.

Scarce =/= non-existent.

>thrusting doesn't take strength
Here's a rapier. Here's a pig carcass. Push it in without using strength. Do it in a dextrous manner.

Easily. Here's a human body. Here's a knife. Push it in as fast as you can, see how much resistance there will be.

Take a pig carcass, set the rapier point down on top, let go, and then shit yourself as its own weight is enough to drive it all the way through the pig and into the ground. It takes something like 2 pounds of force to stab someone through and through.

Not saying it doesnt require 'any' strength, but the triangular shape of the rapier blade and a properly sharp point actually means once you break skin, if you are dextrous enough to make a fast, straight motion, you will put all force into a very small point and the pressure will be big enough to cut/break flesh at that point, while the triangular shape of the the blade pushes it away when it passes. You have attrition with the flesh and all, but it's not a significant force holding you back. Just like, take a stilleto or a nail, stack several slices of meat and see how easy you can thrust through them without using a lot of force, just speed+momentum.

You're talking out of your ass. The assumption of male only fighters has been going on for so long that a lot of archaeological finds are only now being investigated re: gender. Women have always been a significant part of war

You guys do realise that the strength you need for using a rapier is ensuring that your attack is fast?

Weapon speed in real life is determined by your strength. More strength, more force. More force, more speed.

Whatever dude. I wasn't even saying otherwise, and was merely saying why there were significantly fewer, well known female warriors. You missed my point entirely, but if you feel the need to be a douche to random people on the internet without even taken into account what they are saying and/or trying to say, be my guest.

Your last claim is unsubstantiated and doesn't follow the premise.

It's a lot easier than swinging a sword and hopping into it, and the strength a thrust needs isminimal. the issue is that piercing wounds aren't necessarily quickly fatal - there is less damage, less bleeding, and less reduction in effectiveness. You need to be dexterous because a) you have to be able to get your rapier out of your oppoenent's way instantly so they can't make an opening in you first and b) you MUST aim for specific and very vital points to win unequivocally. Unlike sword work, whcih can be finessed but does not require finesse, rapier, saber, and epee fights require a lot of control over where the blade goes compared to a lot of force to get through the defenses of the enemy.

I have fenced and I've used swords alike, and the idea that strength is all you need is stupid.

No, realistically, women wouldn't be involved in combat at all.

First of all, men are biologically and culturally stronger and of higher endurance.

Second of all, men are idiots who will sacrifice themselves to save women, to the point that mixed gender units can easily have a 200% higher casualty rate.

In short, having female combatants drags overall quality down and makes your men die. If you are anything but a feminist memelord that thinks opinions outweigh facts, you shouldn't want women in your fighting force. Ever.

You don't need much speed to run through a body with a rapier.

Speed =/= strength.

You need the latter to generate the former, but having lots of strength doesn't necessarily mean you are faster than someone who has less. Just that you are likely faster than someone who has none. Speed is about having the force to move something fast yes, but also the muscular memory and coordination to do it properly. A very strong guy without those won't be faster than someone with less strength but who focused their practice into speed.

I'm in a HEMA group and the fact is, people who train a lot of a one handed sword and shield have less muscle and mass and can bench less than most of the guys who prefer halberds and two handed swords, but you put them both with a longsword and the guy used to a lighter weapon, although weaker, is still faster than the guy used to a big weapon, although the latter is stronger.

Sabers don't need the same precise control as rapiers. They cut, they slash, they weigh more than academic fencing sabers.

How many of those casualties were caused by arcane energy or dragons, out of curiosity?

The fact that you think that "Women NEVER fought in military units and never should" isn't a meme is glaring evidence of you being dumb.

It seems to start of edgy first but the proper plots kicks in later. Like Berserk.

Oh, I'm sure that the soldier girl at the local gym can beat the shit out of your basement dwelling autist virgin ass.

>the accuracy of a weapon swing is measured by strength
>the power of a weapon strike is measured by dexterity
Really, all physical weapons should use DEX to hit, and STR to deal damage, except for crossbows and firearms which should deal a set amount of damage.

Talking about personal character angst isn't "good roleplaying" and should not get you xp.

Your favorite manga is a steaming pile, your references to which we tolerate because the GM is desperate for players.

Horses cannot consent and it is not ok to have sex with them.

Your favorite game publisher is a money grubbing whore who will gladly stoop to the lowest common denominator as soon as there's a buck to be made.

Weed has ruined your creativity. Keep smoking it so as to maintain that small residual spark of it that remains, which will be extinguished as soon as you quit.

If the girl in the gaming group had a thing for you, everyone would know it.

He's right. Women shouldn't fight on front lines, that's not only an evidence of massively shitty situation the country is in, but also a measured negative factor to unit efficiency. Go look up US Marines experiments on that.

I'm sure after a year in the same gym and three of combat training his pasty basement dwelling ass would be hard to beat for her.

realistic=/=what actually happened

You don't have the facts, because no one has the facts. There are actual female only units because we actually have documentation from the pre-AD calendar dynasties that detail these troops. Europeans never bothered with such record keeping but even they had their exceptions, such as the large portion of female members of the Goth armies who wore male military gear.

History proves your "realistic" viewpoint wrong.

Fast attack is meaningless if your enemy has the coordination to beat your blade out of the way before he skewers you - and it doesn't take much strength to put a rapier's point out of alignment with your entire body - a gentle tap will do the trick, and in fact MUST do the trick, because if you hit too hard your blade will ALSO be out of alignment with your opponent's body.

>Goblin Slayer attempts realism but fails hard
Surprisingly accurate to the LN/Manga.

>Goth armies
As in roman auxillaries?

>First of all, men are biologically and culturally stronger and of higher endurance.

And I bet that you are a sad, lazy edgelord, who can't even lift a finger to protect its own ass, and who spends too much time on /pol/.

See pic related ? Mother of two, graduated West Point, became Army Ranger and can probably stick your nose in the mud any time she wants.

So put your misogyny up your asses, stop blaming SJW's for being such a bunch of faggots, and start doing something useful with your lives instead. Holy shit, I mad.

But user, he might not survive the training.

ignoring the majority of your shitty bait because I'm not gonna waste my time on a counterargument for something this dumb, I gotta ask

>men are biologically and culturally stronger

what does "culturally stronger" even mean? I honestly can't even parse this one

>Female soldiers have been shown time and again to excel in a variety of military and combat fields, including marksmanship and team building, but carrying a stretcher with an injured soldier on it 50 kilometers (30 miles) is not one of them.

>“Physiologically, a woman is not necessarily suited for every position that a man is,” Shavtai said.

>“We’re not prepared to open every position no matter the cost,” she added.

>As it is, female combat soldiers suffer from stress fractures and other injuries at a dramatically higher rate than their male counterparts. In the IDF’s mixed-gender Caracal Battalion, 40 percent of the female soldiers had some kind of injury, and in the Artillery Corps, that number was close to 70%, the IDF revealed this summer in the army’s Bamahane magazine. Female soldiers suffered about twice as many injuries as the male soldiers in the same units did.

>“We took each of the professions and we did an analysis for each of the positions. None of them disqualified women, none of them. What it said was this: Here’s the criteria, not for a female combat soldier, but for any combat soldier in Golani, the requirements are X, Y, Z,” Heled said, using the Golani Infantry Brigade as an example.

>While some of those positions were opened up to women, in light of those findings, others could not be.

>“We gave them all the criteria. And anyone who can stand up to those criteria, can be a Golani soldier. The reality is that we don’t have any female combat soldiers in Golani. Maybe in the future there will be, but they’ll need to fulfill those criteria,” Heled said

tldr: Jews look into getting more females into combat roles, find that they have problems fulfilling physical requirements for those positions and that female soldiers are more likely to suffer injuries. So it can be done but it ain't really optimal. And now we just wait for screaming about muh /pol/, SJWs and other shit like that.

You have forgotten that energy is not only speed but also mass.
Pure STR no DEX char would have muscles and fat.
So while overall stronger than pure DEX guy he would have to speed up much greater mass which could result in lower speed but higher hit energy and longer "charge" time for hit.

Overhead hit will have higher speed of blade on impact than thrust but thrust would have much lower preparation time and be in a way "faster".

Fuck off, /pol/tard. This board isn't your shithole.

Concession accepted

Well, not him, but you have to admit that in general, men are taller and stronger than women.

Granted, there are many than could do the same as men, but many more than cannot.

My country (France) has had women in all roles, including combat (except submarine crews, for intimacy/decency issues due to the cramped environment). And it fucking works out fine. The thing is, the army hasn't changed any physical abilities requirements of a given roles for women.

I'd say about 80% men have the physical capacity to become infantrymen with current regs and given proper training, and about 20% women under the same circumstances.

If women can meet the standard requirements for the role they want, I have no issues whatsoever, and any sane person shouldn't either. However, what's stupid is changing those standards.

FYI your pic related had to recycle three times while 99% soliders only get a second chance, and there is serious controversy as to whether or not she was given preferential treatment during the course. Not saying she couldn't wipe the floor with my ass, but then again i'm no Ranger.

TL;DR : men are, in fact, biologically stronger and more enduring than the vast majority of women, and refusing to admit such a fact is basically denying biology.

>men are idiots who will sacrifice themselves to save women
So we should use all female troops, if someone is thinking with his dick in combat situation to a point where he disobeys his orders and puts himself, unit and a mission on the risk.
Well such person is shitty soldier and is unfit for professional military service as most important quality in soldier is to obey orders in stress situation.

Or it is bad drill. If we could drill a man to stand still under heavy artillery/musket fire, force him to go over a top, or hold a pike against cavalry charge we should be able to drill him in a way that he will not drop everything to rescue a damsel in distress

This. Women can fight, but don't give them special treatment. If they keep up with the men, great and give them respect, if not oh well. Also, I believe women have a higher pain tolerance then men, biologically speaking.

So the military is so inflexible that they literally can't figure out how to properly provide positions for women?

Honestly, the best idea is to have all officers and non-combat personnel be women, since men are literally only good for combat with their superior strength, endurance, and spacial reasoning. Perhaps keep a few enlisted men who were able to actually be quick mentally as advisory consultants, but nothing more; they're better suited for the field.

>Conquering Angel of Orleans
>a meme
t. anglodog

>rapier
>triangular
Holy hell. Is it what dnd fags actually believe?

...

>burnt heretic
>not a meme

People who disagree with this are either misogynists or tumblrfags.

Considering how we regularly see people regurgitate facts like European one handed swords weighting 5kgs or so I would say that most people on Veeky Forums are absolutely clueless about everything.

>ITT: we correct misconceptions
>/pol/fags are not capable of refraining from shitting up a thread

Who knew

Your salt makes getting rid of quests worth it.