I would love to see instantkills or takedowns with a dagger (just in some situations) but at least if the enemy still have not pull his weapon.
The way you say âbow and dagger wielding rogue with an array of poisonsâ gives me assosiations to the fight seen in Game of Thrones between Jon Snow and Karl Tanner ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KhygzMwmt4 ), and the way Karl dual wields knives and parries the swings from a longsword. I find that fight highly ridiculous, and I am very pleased that a game finally doesnât take this kind of approach. And if the game will be skillbased in the right way, I highly doubt that the fighting will become boring, as you suggest.
If you however want poison in the game, so that you for instance can poison someones food in order to assasinate them, Iâm with you. But I hope we can agree that the idea of a super hero like figure armed with a poisoned dagger, fencing off opponents with swords and polearms is stupid, and donât belong in this game:) not saying that was your intention though. I agree that different possible playstyles is a good thing, so I hope they make it possible to knife kill an unsuspecting enemy from behind
By the way, I see you mention dagger fighting techniques dating from 1500, but keep in mind that this game is set in 1403. Even if this technique was present in the beginning of the 15th century, it is obviously not a battlefield tactic, and it would be inferior to larger weapons.
2 Likes
[quote=âAnders_R, post:22, topic:26803â]
The way you say âbow and dagger wielding rogue with an array of poisonsâ gives me assosiations to the fight seen in Game of Thrones between Jon Snow and Karl Tanner
[/quote]First of all, GoT the TV show is bad. They donât know how to choreograph a fight. Most of them have been varying degrees of terrible.
Maybe youâre also unclear on what a dagger is, but they are not pocket knives. They are swords with shorter blades. Some short blades were especially designed to parry with the offhand, so you could strike with the other. Generally this was done with a longer blade in the main hand, but there is no reason why two short blades could not be used.
Why I agree completely with all your other points (especially that ridiculous Snow vs Tanner fight!), I would not play down the existence of dagger fighting in the 15th Century.
Dagger techniques did exist in the Middle Ages and were a standard part of knightly training, for instance. Fiore dei Liberi, an experienced Italian knight and master-at-arms, wrote his fencing treatise Ill Fior di Battaglia in 1410, based on his extensive combat experience. In this treatise, which covers techniques for all the weapons a knight would use, dagger features quite heavily and is a foundational weapon for the knight. Dagger also features (again as a foundational weapon) in most German fencing manuals of the late Middle Ages. The dagger section of Fioreâs treatise even has a few dagger techniques which under the right circumstances can be used against swords.
All that said, in these manuals it was clearly understood taking a dagger against a sword by choice was a stupid thing to do because frankly a sword-wielder has such an overwhelming advantage over a dagger-wielder.
Shortsword and dagger is a great combo, which I use from time to time in HEMA, but the first surviving treatises we get regarding this combat style are in the 16th Century. Manciolinoâs Opera Nova written in 1531 is an example.
Further, taking two short blades into a fight against a shortsword or, worse yet, a longsword, is not the best idea because the difference in distance (weapon range) are so great. The short blade user has to get through (what one of my HEMA instructors calls) the âkilling zoneâ that length of distance in which your opponentâs weapon is in range yet your weapon is still out of range. Once the short blade user enters the killing zone, the sword-wielder can hit the short blade user, without fear of being counter-cut to the body, with a movement of their sword hand (a very fast movement) while the short blade user is trying to move into distance for a strike with his/her feet (a slower movement). Why not impossible, it is a terrible situation to be in, which would require damn good reflexes and solid parry technique to survive. The same issue arises when shorter people fight taller people (with more reach) in HEMA. Until they have really good technique, the shorter people tend to get hit, a lot.
While yes, being ranged by a weapon with longer reach is a problem, if reach was the ultimate weapon, weâd all simply use polearms. Polearms were certainly common weapons, for common people, and were the simplest to use, but were they the most effective?
The problem with reach is that there is also a dead zone. The area where you canât swing your large weapon, but a smaller weapon like a dagger can be used. This is where technique becomes the deciding factor.
The other issue is arrows. This is why large two hand weapons, and dual wielding, were less popular than one hand weapons and a shield.
I think we are on the same page here, I have no HEMA experience myself, but I like to look into it. And what I basically meant was that in an unarmored fight, a person with a longsword or arming sword will have a huge advantage over an opponent using either 1 or 2 daggers (not using a sword and a dagger for parrying). I did not deny that dagger fighting manuals excisted at this time:) I was simply reffering to that âdagger and cloakâ style that seemed to be present in a later period, but maybe it was a technique in 1403 too?
As I understand it polarms IS the ultimate weapon in most cases, but these are battlefield weapons. Longswords are considered sidearms that you would be able to carry in a civillian situation too, but in a battlefield a knight or man at arms would often use a polarm as primary weapon. Polarms were not only dedicated to the common people as you say. A pollaxe was considered a knightly weapon.
1 Like
If that were true, other weapons wouldnât exist. Apart from the deadzone up close where they become useless, thereâs also the issue of arrows.
As I said, it is the ultimate weapon in most situations. If you are fighting in a very confined space, other weapons might be better. And a shield would of course be preferable if you are facing a storm of arrows, especially if you arenât wearing full plate armor. But that other weapons wouldnât exist isnât true. Imagine how it would be to carry a halberd around in public.
Arrows are only a limited nuisance against full harness. The Polearm or hammer and shield was the primary anti-armour weapon. Swords were side arms (hence the term âarming swordâ something one puts on as a part of arming for battle, not the weapon that you carry into battle. They could also be worn with minimal inconvenience at all times.
With spears and pole weapons there is no âclose in deadzoneâ as you can shorten the grip (i.e. move hands & hold differently) at need, but they are just awkward to use in tight confines, or to carry around at all times.
1 Like
At point blank range, there is a deadzone on a two handed weapon. You canât simply shorten your grip. You can drop the weapon and use something else obviously, but it would be impossible to use and very easy to avoid being hit by. A smaller one hand weapon would be usable.
1 Like
Dunno. With a shortened grip and with the forehand at the body with the trailing hand behind the point is only slightly ahead of the body. That is technically a deadzone, but not one that needs bridging - a dagger has far greater reach than this minimum distance for a pole weaponâŠ
With minor adjustment of grip you again gain back some of the maximum reach and ease of use.
1 Like
I agree. While what Aradiel has referred to as a âdeadzoneâ exists for weapons like the rapier (not of KCD period), it is not so much for other weapons.
Other weapons do have other offensive options once a person gets in very close distance, sometimes referred to as âgrappling distanceâ:
- Polearms: not only can one adjust his/her grip, but also if an opponent gets past one end of your polearm, one can whack the opponent with the other end of the polearm (In some German polearm systems, some of the guards present the butt of the polearm to the enemy). These blows are not to be laughed at either because they use the incredible amount of leverage you have due to the long shaft of the polearm.
- Longswords: if an opponent get past your point and/or point of percussion on your sword, you can strike them with the pommel of the sword. In Fioreâs treatise these pommel strikes mirror certain dagger techniques, with the combatant using the pommel of the sword like the point of a dagger with a bit more percussive force.
- Shortswords: shortswords tend to be what the English swordsman George Silver called âperfect lengthâ. That is they are of a length where the swordsman, if in a sword-crossed bind at grappling distance with his/her opponent, could uncross and draw back their blade from the bind, and then stab the opponent with the point (even if the opponent is right up against them!). Hence, if one pulls his/her sword arm back, the point of the shortsword can be used at grappling distance. You can also pommel strike with the shortsword as well.
All this said, while these weapons have options at grappling distance, they are not optimised for it, while the dagger is optimised for it. The dagger or short blade is simply faster and more effective at delivering the deadly force at grappling distance.
As I mentioned before the issue is getting to that distance. Because distance (weapon range) is a factor in KCDâs combat system (try using a shortsword by itself against a longsword-armed advanced fighter in the arena), this is an issue for a dagger or any other short blade.
But back to this topic, about arming a rogue character in KCD, I think it would not hurt to take some inspiration from Garrett in Thieft II: Bow for shooting, daggers for backstabbing and a shortsword for fighting. The shortsword with no shield has a fairly low encumbrance and can hold its own against the other weapons (if not with some difficulty sometimes).
1 Like
Since you seem to have a large amount of knowledge on weapons I wanted to know why a knight might grab his blade and use the hilt of his sword as the weapon. Would it serve as a make shift hammer for fully armored enemies or is it for another reason?
What happened to half-sword technique?
that is grabbing the swordâs blade in the middle and using the rest of the blade in close combat?
Pretty much, that was the reason. Holding the blade, aiming the point at a weak point between the armor, and using both hands to drive it through was also used.
A lot of people obsess over half swording, which I donât quite understand the modern fascination for.
If you mean in the game, itâs there in combo form.
2 Likes
Thank you Aradiel
I like the idea of a stealth gameplay. Takedowns/ Instakills would be fine.