Grabbing Sharp and Blunt Weapons
Rip Rock
armed with a bo staff if one can seize the weapon
(without breaking one's finger bones) and break his
grip. Even if the grip cannot be broken, the weapon
can be neutralized and the contest can become a
wrestling match.
Considering that some real-life swords were crushing
weapons rather than slicing weapons, it might be
possible to similarly immobilize a sword blade. Without
gauntlets, however, even if one did not bleed, one could
easily crush one's hand bones.
Hafted weapons like maces and battle axes could be
grabbed by the head or shaft, but would probably
present much more difficulty than grabbing a staff.
Some swords, such as katanas, had very sharp blades
but little crushing power. Those swords would be
excellent targets for immobilization with steel gauntlets.
If one attempts to model such grapples with the D&D
rules, it can get very complicated very quickly. For example,
if an unarmed defender grapples the weapon of an attacker,
the attacker is at a considerable advantage for kicking.
The weapon can be used as a lever to open the defender's
stance and to pull the defender closer to the kick.
I do not know much about medieval martial arts, but I have
read sources which claim that kicks to the knee were used
in real-life historical sword-fights. Successful kicks to the
knee would be devastating to unarmored opponents.
Before 3rd Edition, I would probably not attempt to model
such fights in D&D. If I were the dungeon master, I might
try to wing it. I don't think I could improvise good rulings
in the heat of play. My intuition is that grappling the
opponent's weapon should be a different category than
grappling the opponent, but I'm not at all confident that
the rules support that idea.
For example, suppose you have a polearm grapple. Both
opponents might have their hands near the ends of the
weapon. Obviously the center of the weapon is open,
and might be smacked against someone's head. I would
find it very hard to model such a fight in D&D. I might
say that both opponents were armed with the same 1d6
weapon, but that each had a penalty to strength equivalent
to the other's bonus.
Now that the 3.5 Edition is available, I wonder how many
readers of this group think it is practical to use the
new "crunchy" rules for grappling with weapons. Some
D.M.'s would start assigning penalties (e.g. -0 to grab
quarterstaff, -2 to grab battle axe, etc.) and others would
just refuse to describe the blow-by-blow and insist on
keeping it down to as few dice rolls as possible.
I expect that www.wizards.com probably has worked-out
examples of grappling and disarming, but I can't find them
on their website.
Tim Fitzmaurice
> If one attempts to model such grapples with the D&D
> rules, it can get very complicated very quickly. For example,
Can't you keep it relatively simple by simply requiring a disarm move.
Improved Unarmed combat allows people to function as if armed, which would
cover this sort of thing if you wished. This allows skilled martial
combat people to go for an enemies weapon and remove it, you then leave
the hideous tactical choices of grabbing the oppos wrist or the weapon etc
to the abstract of the system assuming your Nth level martial artist with
relevant feats just knows the best option. An action to recover the weapon
from the floor isnt that different to the same action to free it
Equally varying in sunder to represent knackering the weapon in ways other
that just breaking it (takng the edge of with steel gauntlets, snapping a
handle etc). Bit more permanent.
> I do not know much about medieval martial arts, but I have
> read sources which claim that kicks to the knee were used
> in real-life historical sword-fights. Successful kicks to the
> knee would be devastating to unarmored opponents.
Again the abstract system is your friend - I see no reason for a really
big chunk of HPs taken not to represent this sort of thing or the off
balance response of the fighter who uses his major know how to dodge the
blow. Personally from fencing sticking the blade tip in the same place
does the job nicely anyway so why the need for such specific details
Id go for a keep it simple rather than get into overly complex specific
move actions which I feel all to often are not well implemented in the DnD
background (no, I dont really like called shots if that helps establish
personal biases).
Tim
--
When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart
ICQ: 5178568
Dosey69
>It is possible to disarm a real-life martial artist
>armed with a bo staff if one can seize the weapon
>(without breaking one's finger bones) and break his
>grip.
-------------------------------------------------------
So... you think I'm evil because I take
teenage girls on a camping trip and
I don't touch them???
Tim Williams
news:3a283db1.03090...@posting.google.com...
[snipped long and involved grapple and disarm proposal]
Would it be more realistic--perhaps. Would it slow down the
game--definitely.
What would you think if I said it would be more realistic to determine each
and every movement with a sword. Be it thrust, parry, lunge, slash, bash,
swing to the head, swing to leg, ad naseum. Then lets determine armor
penetration at the hit location, whether vein or artery was severed, perhaps
tendon or muscle damage needs to be modeled.
I think you might see the point I am making. You can keep adding realism all
you want, but each layer of realism comes at a price--more rules
complications. No thank you. I have seen too many games that had huge charts
and tables and you had to make many dice rolls to determine what happened. I
will take to very simple but workable d20 to hit and the useable but not
necessarily realistic hit point system.
If you want to encourage such heroic acts as you describe in your game
simply use the normal disarm, grapple, and attack rolls but give a +1 or +2
circumstance bonus if the player comes up with a novel and/or creative idea
to accomplish the act.
Michael Scott Brown
Improved Unarmed Strike.
Improved Disarm.
Improved Trip.
'Nuff said.
-Michael
Magicalist
<complete snip>
Just a reminder that DnD combats are supposed to be abstract. That when a
Commoner1 makes 1 attack per round, it can mean that it literally takes him
6 seconds to make a well aimed thrust or it could mean he has been swinging
the sword wildly and blindly for 6 seconds. Everything you described is
simply grappling and disarming. Just use your imagination for the imagery
and keep the rules simple.
Rip Rock
> "Rip Rock" <rip...@adres.nl> wrote in message
> news:3a283db1.03090...@posting.google.com...
> [a bunch of rambling and incoherent crap]
>
Actually, I do agree with that.
What I wrote was rambling and incoherent.
Metaphorically speaking, one might call it crap.
Certainly it wasn't high quality writing for which an
editor would pay money. That is why I posted it for free.
> Improved Unarmed Strike.
> Improved Disarm.
> Improved Trip.
>
> 'Nuff said.
>
No, I disagree. Enough has not been said, IMHO.
The rules for feats are not enough.
It is quite possible that the rules for general grappling
are enough and I just don't understand the general
combat system. But it is definitely not the case that
the feats you mentioned are enough. I intend for
these grappling attacks to be performed by monsters
who do not have feats to spare on unarmed combat.
I suspect that the rules for combat are not enough for
the level of detailed story-telling I'm talking about.
However, I have used the considerably simpler White
Wolf rules to story-tell martial arts combat with
grappling attacks against weapons, and I find that
White Wolf story-telling goes faster than D&D D.M.-ing.
So, when I make the time to work through all the
relevant rules, I'll probably be able to claim that D&D's
grappling rules do not suit my players' needs.
Rip Rock
> If you want to encourage such heroic acts as you describe in your game
> simply use the normal disarm, grapple, and attack rolls but give a +1 or +2
> circumstance bonus if the player comes up with a novel and/or creative idea
> to accomplish the act.
I think that something similar would work.
I think I should work up a chart of circumstance
bonuses and penalties for grappling of various sorts. And then I might
photocopy the table and encourage players to use it. If it's not popular,
I can just let my players ignore it. Meanwhile it would give monsters
some more interesting maneuvers.
Incidentally, thanks also to Mr. Fitzmaurice. I attempted to reply to his
post but encountered an internal server error.
Michael Scott Brown
> > Improved Disarm.
> > Improved Trip.
> >
> > 'Nuff said.
> >
>
> No, I disagree. Enough has not been said, IMHO.
And you'll be wrong. You suffer from a fundamental miscomprehension -
that disarming someone when you are unarmed somehow involves GRABBING THE
BUSINESS END OF THEIR WEAPON. This is in many cases beyond foolish - so why
not presume a fighter uses an *intelligent* technique and takes the weapon
by controlling the arm and hand, like competent martial artists are trained
to do even today?
Thankyou for playing, have a nice day, your ignorant post has been
negated.
-Michael
Rip Rock
> "Rip Rock" <rip...@adres.nl> wrote in message
> news:3a283db1.03090...@posting.google.com...
> > > Improved Unarmed Strike.
> > > Improved Disarm.
> > > Improved Trip.
> > >
> > > 'Nuff said.
> > >
> >
> > No, I disagree. Enough has not been said, IMHO.
>
> And you'll be wrong. You suffer from a fundamental miscomprehension -
> that disarming someone when you are unarmed somehow involves GRABBING THE
> BUSINESS END OF THEIR WEAPON.
I am not certain what your claim is.
Do you claim that it is impossible in real life to disarm someoone by
grabbing the
business end of their weapon? If so, I suppose you could cite
real-world authorities
on historical combat or martial arts. So far as I know, you are not
such an authority.
Do you claim that it is impossible in D&D to disarm someone by
grabbing the
business end of their weapon? If so, I presume that you could cite
rules of D&D
published by Wizards of the Coast.
> This is in many cases beyond foolish - so why
> not presume a fighter uses an *intelligent* technique and takes the weapon
> by controlling the arm and hand, like competent martial artists are trained
> to do even today?
Possibly because something that is useless
in many cases is useful in some other cases.
If someone were attacking me with (e.g.) a two-meter or three-meter
spear,
the first tactic that would cross my mind would be to grab the spear's
haft and *pull*.
Now, perhaps you are a black belt, a martial arts instructor, and a
self-defense drill instructor for the U.S. Marines. Perhaps you can
explain to me why grabbing the business end of a spear and pulling
is suicidally stupid.
> Thankyou for playing,
In idiomatic English, "thank you for playing" is generally
said to players after the game is over. I suppose you mean
to suggest that my posting behaviors are a game and that
you are entitled to tell me when that game is over.
> have a nice day, your ignorant post has been
> negated.
>
> -Michael
Clearly I am ignorant of your opinions, but it's not clear to me
that anyone except you gives a hoot about your opinions.
I doubt that your opinions are considered when Wizards of the Coast
publishes rules.
However, it is quite certain that I am ignorant of many fine WotC
publications. If any of them contain actual rules relevant to the
question, you could prove your point by posting the page numbers
of said rules.
Ed Chauvin IV
>"Michael Scott Brown" <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<BAB5b.9113$Lk5....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
>> "Rip Rock" <rip...@adres.nl> wrote in message
>> news:3a283db1.03090...@posting.google.com...
>> > > Improved Unarmed Strike.
>> > > Improved Disarm.
>> > > Improved Trip.
>> > >
>> > > 'Nuff said.
>> > >
>> >
>> > No, I disagree. Enough has not been said, IMHO.
>>
>> And you'll be wrong. You suffer from a fundamental miscomprehension -
>> that disarming someone when you are unarmed somehow involves GRABBING THE
>> BUSINESS END OF THEIR WEAPON.
>
>I am not certain what your claim is.
>
>Do you claim that it is impossible in real life to disarm someoone by
>grabbing the
>business end of their weapon?
No, he's claiming that it is stupid to do so.
>If so, I suppose you could cite
>real-world authorities
>on historical combat or martial arts. So far as I know, you are not
>such an authority.
I don't know if Michael is an "authority" or not, but when he has
spoken of such things in the past he has demonstrated that he at least
knows what he's talking about.
>Do you claim that it is impossible in D&D to disarm someone by
>grabbing the
>business end of their weapon? If so, I presume that you could cite
>rules of D&D
>published by Wizards of the Coast.
Well, since the combat system is abstracted enough that you don't
actually specify what's happening, no he can't. Of course, this
doesn't prove anything, because the rules also don't say you can
disarm by grabbing the business end. They also don't say you can
disarm by any specific method. Besides, you can't cite a rule that
says you can't disarm someone wielding a slashing weapon if you are
unarmed.
>> This is in many cases beyond foolish - so why
>> not presume a fighter uses an *intelligent* technique and takes the weapon
>> by controlling the arm and hand, like competent martial artists are trained
>> to do even today?
>
>Possibly because something that is useless
>in many cases is useful in some other cases.
>
>If someone were attacking me with (e.g.) a two-meter or three-meter
>spear,
>the first tactic that would cross my mind would be to grab the spear's
>haft and *pull*.
The haft of a spear is *not* the business end.
>Now, perhaps you are a black belt, a martial arts instructor, and a
>self-defense drill instructor for the U.S. Marines. Perhaps you can
>explain to me why grabbing the business end of a spear and pulling
>is suicidally stupid.
Because the business end of a spear is designed to maim and kill, and
in D&D combat it is being thrust at you by someone who is hell bent on
maiming and killing you. Grabbing the spearhead (also known as the
business end of a spear) is much like sticking your finger in a gun
barrel. Yeah, your finger will deflect the bullet and spoil the aim
somewhat. Yeah, you might be able to actually move the gun so that
it's not pointed at your face. But, you're still going to lose a
finger. Much better to grab the attacker's hand and break his grip.
Ed Chauvin IV
--
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the Beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed,
the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Rip Rock
> >Do you claim that it is impossible in real life to disarm someoone by
> >grabbing the
> >business end of their weapon?
>
> No, he's claiming that it is stupid to do so.
>
We seem to disagree on the definition of a "business end."
Given a six foot spear, of which the final six inches are spearhead,
I would call at least the last foot a "business end."
I was referring to grabbing the smooth wooden shaft on the
final foot, not the sharp metal bit.
>
> >Do you claim that it is impossible in D&D to disarm someone by
> >grabbing the
> >business end of their weapon? If so, I presume that you could cite
> >rules of D&D
> >published by Wizards of the Coast.
>
> Well, since the combat system is abstracted enough that you don't
> actually specify what's happening, no he can't.
He cannot make that citation. Yet that citation would seem to be
the requirement of his unprovable claim.
>
> The haft of a spear is *not* the business end.
>
We seem to have entered acrimonious argument without possessing
a common vocabulary of definitions.
> >Now, perhaps you are a black belt, a martial arts instructor, and a
> >self-defense drill instructor for the U.S. Marines. Perhaps you can
> >explain to me why grabbing the business end of a spear and pulling
> >is suicidally stupid.
>
> Because the business end of a spear is designed to maim and kill, and
> in D&D combat it is being thrust at you by someone who is hell bent on
> maiming and killing you.
Weapons may be *designed* to hurt D&D characters, but they often fail.
They only succeed when they apply enough force to an appropriate
target. If one prevents the spearhead from making a stab wound, one
does not take the customary damage. (One might, of course, get
whacked with the spear shaft as if it were a club and take crushing
damage.)
> Grabbing the spearhead (also known as the
> business end of a spear) is much like sticking your finger in a gun
> barrel.
Whether true or false, that claim is irrelevant to my proposal of
grabbing the smooth, round wooden bit below the sharp, pointy
metal bit.
> Yeah, your finger will deflect the bullet and spoil the aim
> somewhat. Yeah, you might be able to actually move the gun so that
> it's not pointed at your face. But, you're still going to lose a
> finger.
If you would care to read my original post (probably you won't,
but I can dream) -- you will notice that I mentioned that in many
cases an unarmed defender would take damage. So on this score
you and I are in agreement.
> Much better to grab the attacker's hand and break his grip.
>
The general idea was the attacking spearman was at least five feet
away from the unarmed defender. The final foot of the spear would be
within easy grabbing distance without maneuvering. The weapon grapple
can be done without maneuvering closer to the opponent. By contrast,
to grab the hands would require stepping considerably closer.
Ed Chauvin IV
>> >Do you claim that it is impossible in real life to disarm someoone by
>> >grabbing the
>> >business end of their weapon?
>>
>> No, he's claiming that it is stupid to do so.
>>
>
>We seem to disagree on the definition of a "business end."
>Given a six foot spear, of which the final six inches are spearhead,
>I would call at least the last foot a "business end."
The only business end of any weapon is the end which does the
business. The business of weapons is maiming and killing. IOW, the
sharp bits, the pointy bits and the bullets.
>I was referring to grabbing the smooth wooden shaft on the
>final foot, not the sharp metal bit.
That is not the end that does the business. Therefore, it is not the
business end. That you can't distinguish between the business end of
a spear and the rest of it removes any doubt that you might be
qualified to take part in this discussion.
>> >Do you claim that it is impossible in D&D to disarm someone by
>> >grabbing the
>> >business end of their weapon? If so, I presume that you could cite
>> >rules of D&D
>> >published by Wizards of the Coast.
>>
>> Well, since the combat system is abstracted enough that you don't
>> actually specify what's happening, no he can't.
>
>He cannot make that citation. Yet that citation would seem to be
>the requirement of his unprovable claim.
It might seem so to you, but since you've merely constructed a poor
strawman it's not actually relevant.
>> The haft of a spear is *not* the business end.
>>
>
>We seem to have entered acrimonious argument without possessing
>a common vocabulary of definitions.
Finish your ESL class and come back, then.
>> >Now, perhaps you are a black belt, a martial arts instructor, and a
>> >self-defense drill instructor for the U.S. Marines. Perhaps you can
>> >explain to me why grabbing the business end of a spear and pulling
>> >is suicidally stupid.
>>
>> Because the business end of a spear is designed to maim and kill, and
>> in D&D combat it is being thrust at you by someone who is hell bent on
>> maiming and killing you.
>
>Weapons may be *designed* to hurt D&D characters, but they often fail.
>They only succeed when they apply enough force to an appropriate
>target. If one prevents the spearhead from making a stab wound, one
>does not take the customary damage. (One might, of course, get
>whacked with the spear shaft as if it were a club and take crushing
>damage.)
I hope for your sake you didn't think there was a point embedded in
that paragraph.
>> Grabbing the spearhead (also known as the
>> business end of a spear) is much like sticking your finger in a gun
>> barrel.
>
>Whether true or false, that claim is irrelevant to my proposal of
>grabbing the smooth, round wooden bit below the sharp, pointy
>metal bit.
Which is NOT the business end, and thus is IRRELEVANT to your original
claim.
>> Yeah, your finger will deflect the bullet and spoil the aim
>> somewhat. Yeah, you might be able to actually move the gun so that
>> it's not pointed at your face. But, you're still going to lose a
>> finger.
>
>If you would care to read my original post (probably you won't,
Already did.
>but I can dream)
You certainly can.
>-- you will notice that I mentioned that in many
>cases an unarmed defender would take damage. So on this score
>you and I are in agreement.
And you're *still* missing the point.
>> Much better to grab the attacker's hand and break his grip.
>>
>
>The general idea was the attacking spearman was at least five feet
>away from the unarmed defender.
Then you're already wrong.
>The final foot of the spear would be
>within easy grabbing distance without maneuvering. The weapon grapple
>can be done without maneuvering closer to the opponent. By contrast,
>to grab the hands would require stepping considerably closer.
Wrong again.
Michael Scott Brown
miscomprehension -
> > that disarming someone when you are unarmed somehow involves GRABBING
THE
> > BUSINESS END OF THEIR WEAPON.
>
> I am not certain what your claim is.
> Do you claim that it is impossible in real life to disarm someoone by
grabbing the
> business end of their weapon? If so, I suppose you could cite real-world
authorities
> on historical combat or martial arts. So far as I know, you are not
> such an authority.
Rip, get a bloody clue. The best way to disarm someone of a given
weapon depends on the weapon. Catching the blade or edge of a sharp
implement is *stupid* and *dangerous* for all that is is surely
cinematically exciting - so for *these* weapons you disarm the person using
a technique that isn't likely to get your hands cut off; ie - by controlling
the opponent's arm and hand. Against a haft weapon, you have the shaft and
the weilder to attack (whereas grapping the speartips or spikes would be
foolhardy).
Given that the people we imagine in our games are, say, trained
combatants with some sense, it is *stupid* to assume that they're just
running around grabbing swords with their hands when it's inappropriate to
do so, and to therefore make up new rules for disarming based on FUNDAMENTAL
MISCOMPREHENSIONS. They will be using the right technique for the right
weapon, and anything further is pointless micromanaging of experts by the
ignorant.
-Michael
Fitz
<mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> [snipped].......... The best way to disarm someone of a given
>weapon depends on the weapon. Catching the blade or edge of a sharp
>implement is *stupid* and *dangerous* for all that is is surely
>cinematically exciting - so for *these* weapons you disarm the person using
>a technique that isn't likely to get your hands cut off; ie - by controlling
>the opponent's arm and hand. [and again, snipped]
What if the disarmer happens to have massive DR? You have to admit,
having someone casually grab your razor-sharp katana by the blade and
rip it from your grasp would be pretty unnerving.
If I recall correctly (something which is by no means certain)
off-hand gauntlets in the renaissance/reformation period were
sometimes made with chain palms to allow for grabbing at an opponents
blade, though I believe that the idea was to control the blade in
order to more easily open him up from nave to chaps rather than to
take the weapon away from him.
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Fitz
http://fitz.jsr.com
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Rupert Boleyn
<mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Rip, get a bloody clue. The best way to disarm someone of a given
>weapon depends on the weapon. Catching the blade or edge of a sharp
>implement is *stupid* and *dangerous* for all that is is surely
>cinematically exciting - so for *these* weapons you disarm the person using
>a technique that isn't likely to get your hands cut off; ie - by controlling
>the opponent's arm and hand. Against a haft weapon, you have the shaft and
>the weilder to attack (whereas grapping the speartips or spikes would be
>foolhardy).
I always favoured simply cutting the wielders hand off if I was armed,
and turning the fight into a wrestling match if I wasn't. Playing
'grab the weapon' is too likely to fail, IMO - even with a blunt
weapon you have to grab it fairly close to the weilder or the momentum
of the weapon makes it likely you'll get a busted hand (it's not like
the weapon's owner is going to leave it stationary for you to grab,
afterall).
--
Rupert Boleyn <rbo...@paradise.net.nz>
"A pessimist is simply an optimist with a sense of history."
Michael Scott Brown
news:km6nlvo5ifu6oaqd7...@4ax.com...
> > [snipped].......... The best way to disarm someone of a given
> >weapon depends on the weapon. Catching the blade or edge of a sharp
> >implement is *stupid* and *dangerous* for all that is is surely
> >cinematically exciting - so for *these* weapons you disarm the person
using
> >a technique that isn't likely to get your hands cut off; ie - by
controlling
> >the opponent's arm and hand. [and again, snipped]
>
> What if the disarmer happens to have massive DR? You have to admit,
> having someone casually grab your razor-sharp katana by the blade and
> rip it from your grasp would be pretty unnerving.
Clearly, that reinvigorates options that would ordinarily be unavailable
to you. But since DR isn't certain ...
> If I recall correctly (something which is by no means certain)
> off-hand gauntlets in the renaissance/reformation period were
> sometimes made with chain palms to allow for grabbing at an opponents
> blade,
Sure - but you don't catch the downstrokes with one of those!
> though I believe that the idea was to control the blade in
> order to more easily open him up from nave to chaps rather than to
> take the weapon away from him.
Right again. You haven't exactly got the greatest grip on a weapon
you're holding by the blade with your left hand with a mailed glove ...
-Michael
Rip Rock
>
> That you can't distinguish between the business end of
> a spear and the rest of it removes any doubt that you might be
> qualified to take part in this discussion.
>
Well, suppose you say that I'm not qualified to post articles on this
thread. Unfortunately, as long as Google keeps taking my data
and posting it, my articles will keep showing up.
Thus, as far as Google is concerned, I am qualified to post.
Perhaps every D&D player who reads this group other than myself
is convinced that I am not qualified to post articles on this thread.
In that event, I expect that they will killfile me rather than attempting
to intimidate me into shutting up.
Perhaps every human on this planet other than myself is convinced
that you are the sole arbiter of proper English usage, and that my
failure to satisfy you disqualifies me from attempting to use the
English language. Nonetheless, I still attempt to write in English.
It is truly tragic that you have such omniscient insight regarding
What Ought To Be but that you have no power whatsoever to
change What Is.
Then again, perhaps when you say that I am not qualified to
discuss this matter with you, what you mean is that you are
going to stop posting articles, and that the rest of the readers
of this newsgroup will interpret your silence as the hauteur
of a victorious champion.
Rip Rock
> "Rip Rock" <rip...@adres.nl> wrote in message
> news:3a283db1.03090...@posting.google.com...
> > > And you'll be wrong. You suffer from a fundamental
> miscomprehension -
> > > that disarming someone when you are unarmed somehow involves GRABBING
> THE
> > > BUSINESS END OF THEIR WEAPON.
> >
> > I am not certain what your claim is.
> > Do you claim that it is impossible in real life to disarm someoone by
> grabbing the
> > business end of their weapon? If so, I suppose you could cite real-world
> authorities
> > on historical combat or martial arts. So far as I know, you are not
> > such an authority.
>
> Rip, get a bloody clue.
There are many issues about which I would desire clues.
For example, when you say that I have a fundamental miscomprehension,
do you mean that the rules spell this matter out, and that I have not
read the rules carefully enough? Or do you mean that you are the self-
appointed authority for interpretation of ambiguous rules and that I have
not studied your pronouncements closely enough? Could you possibly
mean that I understand melee combat less than the other readers of this
newsgroup?
I am willing to accept summary corrections from acknowledged authorities.
When a professor of Physics says that my physical theory is wrong and
he will stake his reputation on it, I shrug and concede that he is the expert
and that he is better at Physics than I am. But professors' reputations only
extend to well-defined areas. If a professor of Physics were to make a
professional claim about Oncology, I would show him up in front of his
Dean, and he would be reprimanded for irresponsible scholarship.
So if Michael Scott Brown offers summary denials of my claims, I would
possibly accept that Brown is an authority on D&D rules. I would, of course,
demand specific page numbers and rule citations; I would regard Brown
as a master of memorizing the rules published by others. I would not
regard Brown as a game designer whose opinions and value judgements
were of note; I would regard him as a source of factual claims.
However, Brown makes claims which seem entirely unsupported to me.
He does not cite authorities on history, or martial arts, or D&D rules.
Furthermore his claims seem to phrased quite ambiguously. If he says
it is impossible that disarming someone can involve grabbing the
weapon, I am not certain whether he is referring to the game only,
to real life martial arts, or to some other field.
Now, I admit to poor planning. I had a nebulous notion and I posted
to a D&D group without doing basic research by posting to a
martial arts group. I am sorry to say that I neglected to do this --
it was sheer carelessness on my part. However, I have posted
similar questions to the rec.martial-arts group and the martial
artists have been most kind in offering reading suggestions,
including "Classical fighting arts of Japan"
by Sergei Mol, and Henry Angelo's book, "the School of Fencing."
If I may be permitted to quote Eric Berge:
<quote>
On 6 Sep 2003 09:06:06 -0700, rip...@adres.nl (Rip Rock) wrote:
>Historically, I read that many Western
>swords did not have very sharp blades,
>and that many medieval combatants had
>gloves, gauntlets, etc. that protected
>the palms of their hands. Can anyone
>point me to historical sources which
>mention medieval combatants grabbing
>sword-blades as a defensive measure?
>I am well aware that a loose cloak was
>sometimes used a defense against
My Maītre d'Armes for foil in '71 or so had a glove he had inherited
from his teacher with a triple-thickness leather palm - it was scored
deeply a couple of times. I also gathered that his teacher had fought
a duel, though I am hazy on the details; the actual event must have
taken place before WWI, since my teacher was then 70ish, and had
started training in 1910 or so.
There are pictures from 18th C. smallsword and rapier manuals
illustrating blade trapping and seizing techniques <checks library>
try Henry Angelo's book, "the School of Fencing" which has several
illustrations of disarms and parrys using the gloved left hand.
</quote>
So it seems that in history, grabbing the blade of a sharp weapon
required only a stout leather glove. Armed with this knowledge,
I feel a little more secure in my claim that D&D should have
maneuvers at least as exciting as history.
> The best way to disarm someone of a given
> weapon depends on the weapon.
I concur. That is why I titled this ill-starred thread "Grabbing Sharp
and Blunt Weapons." I had hoped to hint that grabbing a sharp
weapon would be a different situation than grabbing a blunt weapon.
Of course, the thread is not concerned solely with disarming.
Take the case of an attacker with a blunt staff who is stabbing forward
with the staff. (I imagine this sort of attack might be used because
I have seen demonstrations of Isshin Ryu karate where the bo staff
was used to stab.)
If an unarmed defender against this stab attack were to sidestep
the end of the staff, seize it, and pull, I consider it possible that
the attacker might retain his hold on the staff but lose his footing.
(I imagine this might happen because I have seen students of
Isshin Ryu karate fall in similar situations while practicing
staff katas.)
Now I engage in a flight of fancy. I imagine that the real-life
student of karate in my memory is a D&D character armed
with a spear. I imagine that his overextension of the staff is
due to an external force pulling him past his center of gravity.
I imagine that the external force is due to his opponent
grabbing the end of his weapon -- for the moment I am not
concerned with whether the opponent grabs the blade or the
shaft below the blade.
For the moment, I am only trying to determine whether such
an action is possible. I know very well that it is not an
optimal action. But based on the evidence from the
rec.martial-arts thread, I believe that such things are
within the realm of real life possibility.
> Catching the blade or edge of a sharp
> implement is *stupid* and *dangerous* for all that is is surely
> cinematically exciting
It may surprise you to know that while I generally throw
monsters at my players who fight as intelligently as possible,
I sometimes also run monsters who use bad or self-sacrificing
strategies.
Monsters in D&D are shallow fictional characters who mostly
exist solely to be killed by player characters in entertaining ways.
I would not hesitate run monsters who get killed stupidly if
I were to think my players would be entertained. Players claim
to want a challenge all the time, but in my experience they like
to have unexpectedly easy successes sometimes.
I agree that if an untrained character or monster attempts this
sort of weapon-grabbing, damage will likely ensue to the grabber.
I do not regard this an a show-stopping problem.
My players often attempt risky maneuvers. Sometimes their
characters die in these attempts. But it is all done in the name
of cinematic excitement -- which my gaming group regards
as a very appropriate element of D&D.
>- so for *these* weapons you disarm the person using
> a technique that isn't likely to get your hands cut off; ie - by controlling
> the opponent's arm and hand. Against a haft weapon, you have the shaft and
> the weilder to attack (whereas grapping the speartips or spikes would be
> foolhardy).
As mentioned above, both my players and my monsters are foolhardy.
And it seems that the 18th-century smallsword fencers cited by Eric
Berge were similarly foolhardy.
I would love to be foolhardy in real life, but I don't have the hardiness
quite right. I do have the foolishness down pat, however.
> Given that the people we imagine in our games are, say, trained
> combatants with some sense, it is *stupid* to assume that they're just
> running around grabbing swords with their hands when it's inappropriate to
> do so, and to therefore make up new rules for disarming based on FUNDAMENTAL
> MISCOMPREHENSIONS.
So, the 18th century smallsword fencers and the 19th century duellist
who were mentioned above clearly suffered from the same fundamental
miscomprehensions. Unfortunately, even though they did not do it the
right way, they did it anyway.
> They will be using the right technique for the right
> weapon, and anything further is pointless micromanaging of experts by the
> ignorant.
>
> -Michael
I think I understand now. The real-life duellists who grabbed sword blades
were wrong, even though they were real-life duellists, and the fictional
characters who abstain from grabbing blades are right, even though they
are fictional characters. Fiction is much easier than history.
This kind of discussion (for which I am not qualified, according to the
eminent Chauvin) teaches me more than I could easily express. The process
starts when my overheated imagination is stimulated by someone posting
links to "Le Jeu de la Hache." From there I imagine exotic combat and
post about it. I am flamed and I flame in return. But out of those flame
wars come the titles to new historical sources.
If M.S.Brown is right about the possibilities of D&D, then D&D
is much less exciting than reading historical fencing manuals.
But it was still worth the money I spent on the books, since those D&D
books led me to the history of medieval combat, and the history of
medieval combat is downright fascinating. I owe a debt to those
who flame me. Perhaps it is even deeper than the debt I owe to the
gentlemen who discussed "Le Jeu de la Hache" and "English Martial Arts."
Without the histrionic gabbling squabbles of flame wars, I would not
have been stimulated to ask for information on rec.martial-arts.
The whole adventure has drawn to a close, and I am left with a
humbling sense that I need to acquire many more details of
medieval history before I can write really good weapon-grappling
rules. However, I do not intend to limit myself to history: the
first book on my reading list will be Eiji Yoshikawa's "Musashi,"
which was recommended to me by gaming friends as a fun work
of fiction.
Ironically, the reason I have not yet read Yoshikawa's fiction is
because I have been reading Miyamoto Musashi's "Book of Five
Rings." The "Wind Scroll" in that book has an interesting
discussion of why extra-long weapons are not necessarily
better. Many of my players have a great respect for the "Book
of Five Rings," and Musashi's achievements as a martial artist.
Musashi wrote: "There are some other schools that are fond of
extra-long swords. From the point of view of my martial art,
I see them as weak schools. The reason for this is that these
other schools do not know about prevailing over others by
any means necessary..."
I regard the recent trend toward D&D combat with long-reach
weapons to be undesirable. In my opinion, the D&D character
who extends his weapon is projecting vulnerability along with
strength.
Bradd W. Szonye
> I am willing to accept summary corrections from acknowledged
> authorities.
Between this, your semantic waffling, and your writing style, I accuse
you of being the love-child of Marcq and Sorcier.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Bradd W. Szonye
> Well, suppose you say that I'm not qualified to post articles on this
> thread. Unfortunately, as long as Google keeps taking my data and
> posting it, my articles will keep showing up.
I must agree with Ed. You ramble too much, and your posts often seem to
thinly conceal a hidden agenda while presenting few reliable facts.
Sometimes, you seem to approximate a sane poster, and occasionally
you're even helpful, but overall you seem more like a troll. Also, even
when you're being helpful, you waffle so much that it's difficult to
make use of your help.
> Thus, as far as Google is concerned, I am qualified to post.
Google is blind, deaf, and mute. It's in no position to judge your
qualifications.
Rupert Boleyn
>My Maītre d'Armes for foil in '71 or so had a glove he had inherited
>from his teacher with a triple-thickness leather palm - it was scored
>deeply a couple of times. I also gathered that his teacher had fought
>a duel, though I am hazy on the details; the actual event must have
>taken place before WWI, since my teacher was then 70ish, and had
>started training in 1910 or so.
>
>There are pictures from 18th C. smallsword and rapier manuals
>illustrating blade trapping and seizing techniques <checks library>
>try Henry Angelo's book, "the School of Fencing" which has several
>illustrations of disarms and parrys using the gloved left hand.
></quote>
>
>So it seems that in history, grabbing the blade of a sharp weapon
>required only a stout leather glove. Armed with this knowledge,
>I feel a little more secure in my claim that D&D should have
>maneuvers at least as exciting as history.
Neither late rapier, nor smallswords normally had particularly sharp
edges.
Ed Chauvin IV
>
>>
>> That you can't distinguish between the business end of
>> a spear and the rest of it removes any doubt that you might be
>> qualified to take part in this discussion.
>>
>
>Well, suppose you say that I'm not qualified to post articles on this
>thread. Unfortunately, as long as Google keeps taking my data
>and posting it, my articles will keep showing up.
>
>Thus, as far as Google is concerned, I am qualified to post.
There are no "qualifications" for posting to Usenet. Any moron is
allowed in, just look for posts by Mr Burke for proof of this fact. I
said you're not qualified to take part in the discussion. The fact
that you've ceased to actually discuss the issue is merely further
proof of my previous statement.
>Perhaps every D&D player who reads this group other than myself
>is convinced that I am not qualified to post articles on this thread.
>In that event, I expect that they will killfile me rather than attempting
>to intimidate me into shutting up.
If you feel intimidated, then perhaps you need to find an adult to
read the messages for you. I'd very much like for you to actually
address the issue. Really. Please, go on, tell us how the haft of a
weapon is the business end.
>Perhaps every human on this planet other than myself is convinced
>that you are the sole arbiter of proper English usage, and that my
>failure to satisfy you disqualifies me from attempting to use the
>English language. Nonetheless, I still attempt to write in English.
>
>It is truly tragic that you have such omniscient insight regarding
>What Ought To Be but that you have no power whatsoever to
>change What Is.
>
>Then again, perhaps when you say that I am not qualified to
>discuss this matter with you, what you mean is that you are
>going to stop posting articles, and that the rest of the readers
>of this newsgroup will interpret your silence as the hauteur
>of a victorious champion.
Are you on medication? I'm no expert, but I'd hardly be surprised to
discover that you've been (or should be) diagnosed as paranoid and
delusional.
Marcq
> Rip Rock <rip...@adres.nl> wrote:
> > I am willing to accept summary corrections from acknowledged
> > authorities.
>
> Between this, your semantic waffling, and your writing style, I accuse
> you of being the love-child of Marcq and Sorcier.
I sure hope Sorcier is a gal and not a guy in that case. Sorciere?
Marc
Rip Rock
some photos of martial artists
practicing bare-handed defense
against edged weapons, here
are some links:
http://www.geocities.com/ulfberth/Marozzo.htm
http://www.geocities.com/ulfberth/Liberi.htm
Chauvin has claimed that bare-handed
defense against edged weapons is stupid.
If so, it is remarkable that 16th-century
masters of fence wrote books on the topic.
Ed Chauvin IV <ed...@wherethefuckaremypants.com> wrote in message news:<9dcolvgm34d4gp7kr...@news.supernews.com>...
> Mere moments before death, Rip Rock hastily scrawled:
> >Ed Chauvin IV <ed...@wherethefuckaremypants.com> wrote in message news:<6bkllv03et31kqugd...@news.supernews.com>...
> >
> >>
> >> That you can't distinguish between the business end of
> >> a spear and the rest of it removes any doubt that you might be
> >> qualified to take part in this discussion.
It seems to me I'm now in a win-win
situation vis-a-vis Chauvin. If he
responds to my posts, he is continuing
to discuss a topic with someone
who is unqualified to discuss.
If he stops posting, he
will leave the thread open for my
posts of links to history sites. And
as a special added bonus, Bradd is
calling me a troll again. It doesn't
get much better than this.
If I may be permitted to quote :
<quote>
Unarmed defence against a dagger
Techniques from Achille Marozzo, 1536
The most perplexing aspect of Marozzo's, and indeed most traditional
Western dagger techniques, is undoubtedly the bare-handed grabbing of
not only your own dagger blade, but also the opponent's. However, our
experiments revealed that this is a perfectly viable technique for the
kind of dagger involved. There are of course a few important points
that should be adhered to:
Firmly grip the enemy's dagger hand. That way he will not be able to
make a slicing movement, while you
Firmly and without hesitation grasp the blade a good distance from his
hand, so you can
Exert leverage against his grip,
He will be forced to release his grip or risk losing his balance
While a superficial cut is not improbable, people seem to imagine that
their fingers will drop to the floor at the slightest touch of a
knife's edge. We should keep the context of a life-or-death situation
in mind. There is an anecdote in the Chroniques of Jean Molinet,
concerning a Picardian noble at the battle of Guinegate, that seems
apropos: Jennet of Courteville's horse was killed, and he was trapped
under the dead animal. Five French archers came by and were about to
cut his throat, when he was able to wrest the knife from his enemy,
but he received a cut on the fingers. He was then rescued by John of
Wales, who drove off the French, and together they were able to free
Jennet from under his horse. He later remarked that the event had been
'like going through purgatory'. Now I can't think of many techniques
that would still work while outnumbered five to one and with a dead
warhorse sitting on top of me...
Perhaps Vincenzo Saviolo says it best in his advice on grabbing the
enemy's swordblade: "...even without a glove, it is better to hazard a
little hurt of the hand, and master the enemy's sword, than to give
the enemy the advantage by parrying with your sword..."
All defences are against thrusting attacks. While slashing attacks are
preferred among the naked savages, the thrust was undoubtedly found
superior against clothing and armour (I think I may have been reading
too much Richard Burton).
I get frequent messages from readers stating that the techniques only
work because the daggers were stabbing weapons and unsharpened. I do
not believe this argument for several reasons, but the most important
one is common sense: if all it took to defeat these techniques was to
sharpen your dagger, everyone would have sharpened their daggers to
spite (and smite) their enemies, and everyone trying the non-working
techniques would have been killed. In that case we would not find the
techniques repeated again and again in manuals spreading several
centuries. Not to mention the impracticality of lugging around a one
foot knife that you couldn't even use to cut your sandwich...
</quote>
Obviously, the above is only one opinion
from one historian. But there is a great deal of
textual, historical evidence out there, and
there are a great many martial artists who are
happy to stake their reputations on their
claims. So now it seems to me that both the
historians and the martial artists are on my
side of the argument. It remains to be seen
if M.S.Brown and the Supreme Prelate of
English Usage, His Holiness Chauvin, will
continue to post articles to this thread.
Rip Rock
> Rip Rock <rip...@adres.nl> wrote:
> > Well, suppose you say that I'm not qualified to post articles on this
> > thread. Unfortunately, as long as Google keeps taking my data and
> > posting it, my articles will keep showing up.
>
> I must agree with Ed. You ramble too much, and your posts often seem to
> thinly conceal a hidden agenda while presenting few reliable facts.
I have multiple agendas, some of which are publicized better than others.
As for whether my "facts" are "reliable" -- well, I'm tempted to digress into
semantics and ontology, but I won't. I promise you that if I say Yates wrote
"Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition," I'm telling the truth to the
best of my knowledge, but beyond that you'll have to verify my claims.
Of course, you're not willing to actually take the time to read Yates and
write house rules based on the book, so I have to build up my ambition
to do so by writing numerous posts about how lovely it would be if I
cared enough to do it. After I have used Usenet as a sounding board
and a brainstorm-host, I can look back through the book and my notes
from history classes. Finally I will post a few rules and a lot of research.
If someone else finds it useful, I am happy, but I do not base my actions
on the approval of Usenet writers.
> Sometimes, you seem to approximate a sane poster, and occasionally
> you're even helpful, but overall you seem more like a troll.
I am guilty of over-using reductio ad absurdam, which is very much
unsuited to informal arguments. If my intentions were merely to cause
controversy, I would deserve the apellation "troll."
I am happy that you do not approve of me, Bradd, because arguing with
you stimulates me to think in a manner which I find useful when
preparing syllabi for real-life classes. I don't need the approval of anyone
on this group, nor does anyone on this group need mine. That makes
it a refreshing change of pace from the power politics of a classroom.
> Also, even
> when you're being helpful, you waffle so much that it's difficult to
> make use of your help.
>
I actually intend to rectify this tendency by posting copious house
rules on grabbing sharp and blunt weapons. However, I will need
to research them and play-test them. My main contribution will
be a list of historical sources. I am not as creative as Sea Wasp,
nor as systematic as yourself, Bradd.
> > Thus, as far as Google is concerned, I am qualified to post.
>
> Google is blind, deaf, and mute. It's in no position to judge your
> qualifications.
Precisely. It does not "judge." And yet I am "qualified," because
"qualified" in the context of Google is not the same thing as "qualified"
in the context of Bradd. (And I would like to elaborate on that thought,
but I'll choose a more appropirate group, such as list.linguist. If I
mention de Saussure's theory of arbitrariness in rec.games.frp.dnd,
I might be accused of hidden agendas.)
Perhaps I ought to be more explicit. The only sort of qualification that
matters from my viewpoint is whether I can get the article onto the
group. I am indifferent to approval or disapproval from the readers of
the newsgroup, because my writings here are only rough drafts for
the more important writings that are required for my work.
My real-life work has to please both students and educational
authorities. My Usenet posts only need to reinforce my habits of
scholarship and jog my limited creativity.
Bradd W. Szonye
> And as a special added bonus, Bradd is calling me a troll again.
I dunno whether you're a troll, but you sure write like one. Also, you
ramble even more than I do, and that's not a good thing.
Rip Rock
Let me qualify my previous statement:
It seems that in real life, one can grab the blade of a rapier
if one is wearing a stout leather glove.
A rapier is probably not as sharp as a katana. Nonetheless
it is quite sharp enough to inflict flesh-shearing wounds on
humans.
There are varieties of sharp weapons, including:
1. Razor-sharp katanas made of excellent steel
2. Razor-sharp knives and razors made of inferior steel
3. Tolerably sharp blades such as modern butcher knives
4. Edge-holding sharp blades such as some modern hunting knives
5. Armor-shearing edged weapons such as broadswords and axes
Most combat weapons are not razor sharp, because they are intended to
hold an edge after cutting many things, and a razor can only hold an edge
if it is whetted after each use. (I don't claim to understand how katanas
were maintained: they are an unusual set of weapons.)
Permit me to trot out the link to:
http://www.geocities.com/ulfberth/Marozzo.htm
From the page at that link I conclude that Achille Marozzo wrote a
book in 1536 which claimed that using one's bare hands to grasp
dagger blades was a sensible practice in combat.
Now, perhaps Achille Marozzo lived in a sheltered environment and
he only had experience fighting against unusually dull daggers.
Perhaps daggers were unusually dull starting in 1500, but people
realized that they ought to sharpen them again after reading
Marozzo's book. But I think the fact is that the human hand can
stand to grasp a bare blade in a combat situation because most
bare blades are not razor-sharp.
Note that D&D swords and daggers are presumed to be effective
against armored opponents, so they would probably not have
razor-sharp blades, unless they were comparable to katanas.
They are more likely to be designed to hold their edge after
shearing through armor.
It would be interesting if someone could cite some evidence --
historical or reconstructed -- that katanas could hold their edges
after shearing through heavy Western-style armor. If such an
argument could be constructed, I might be compelled to concede.
But until such a case arises I shall proceed.
Rip Rock
> Mere moments before death, Rip Rock hastily scrawled:
> >Ed Chauvin IV <ed...@wherethefuckaremypants.com> wrote in message news:<6bkllv03et31kqugd...@news.supernews.com>...
> >
> that you've ceased to actually discuss the issue is merely further
> proof of my previous statement.
>
I am continuing to post articles to this thread. I am concerned with
two issues. The first is the intended topic of this thread, namely
"Grabbing Sharp and Blunt Weapons." The second is dealing with
flames, such your pronouncement that I am not qualified.
I might try to prove to you that I am qualified by using formal or
informal logic. I might specify the logic textbooks to which I have
access, and use them as the basis for establishing consensus about
how to argue -- formally or informally. However, that project has
a low priority, since quite a lot of other people are interested in
very kindly supplying me with information on how sharp blades
were in fact grasped with human hands in actual historical
combats. The feedback from those discussions takes priority
over the feedback from your discussion.
> >Perhaps every D&D player who reads this group other than myself
> >is convinced that I am not qualified to post articles on this thread.
> >In that event, I expect that they will killfile me rather than attempting
> >to intimidate me into shutting up.
>
> If you feel intimidated, then perhaps you need to find an adult to
> read the messages for you.
Here is a link to help you understand the meaning of the phrase,
"Proof by Intimidation":
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/aa.htm
Permit me to quote the relevant portion:
<quote>
Appeal to Authority
(argumentum ad verecundiam)
Definition:
While sometimes it may be appropriate to cite an authority to
support a point, often it is not. In
particular, an appeal to
authority is inappropriate if:
(i) the person is not qualified to
have an expert
opinion on the subject,
</quote>
So when I say that you are attempting to intimidate me, I am
not referring to my emotional state, but to the technique of
"proof by intimidation," a.k.a. "Appeal to Authority."
> Are you on medication? I'm no expert,
I concur. You certainly do not seem to be an expert from my
viewpoint.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> Neither late rapier, nor smallswords normally had particularly sharp edges.
Rip Rock <rip...@adres.nl> wrote:
> Let me qualify my previous statement: It seems that in real life, one
> can grab the blade of a rapier if one is wearing a stout leather
> glove. A rapier is probably not as sharp as a katana. Nonetheless it
> is quite sharp enough to inflict flesh-shearing wounds on humans.
Depends on the rapier. Most of them have sharp points and blunt edges.
Grabbing one wouldn't be nearly as dangerous as grabbing the blade of a
slashing sword.
> There are varieties of sharp weapons, including:
>
> 1. Razor-sharp katanas made of excellent steel
> 2. Razor-sharp knives and razors made of inferior steel
> 3. Tolerably sharp blades such as modern butcher knives
> 4. Edge-holding sharp blades such as some modern hunting knives
> 5. Armor-shearing edged weapons such as broadswords and axes
You left off a major category: weapons which are only sharp on some
edges. More importantly, you don't seem to understand the mechanics of
cutting edges very well. Modern butcher knives are not "tolerably"
sharp. They are sharpened to the degree that is most effective for
butchering meat. Likewise, swords are sharpened to the degree that is
most effective at penetrating the armor they're used against.
> Most combat weapons are not razor sharp, because they are intended to
> hold an edge after cutting many things, and a razor can only hold an
> edge if it is whetted after each use.
Durability is only part of the reason. Razor-sharpness is not the best
way to cut flesh. If you could make a blade infinitely tough, you'd
still use a razor edge for some tasks and a chisel point for others,
because chisels are just plain better at cutting some things.
It's similar to the reason you use a coarse rasp for some filing tasks;
you don't always want a fine file.
> It would be interesting if someone could cite some evidence --
> historical or reconstructed -- that katanas could hold their edges
> after shearing through heavy Western-style armor.
Check the HACA. The few comments I've heard on the matter is that
there's no hard evidence, but the katana isn't well-suited to attacking
Western mail and plate armor. It wouldn't penetrate well, because the
edge has the wrong sharpness, and it would likely chip or notch, because
the edge is somewhat brittle.
> If such an argument could be constructed, I might be compelled to
> concede. But until such a case arises I shall proceed.
First, you'd need to recognize that durability is not the only reason
for using a shallower egde, and that "razor-sharp" is not always
sharper.
Ed Chauvin IV
>some photos of martial artists
>practicing bare-handed defense
>against edged weapons, here
>are some links:
>
>http://www.geocities.com/ulfberth/Marozzo.htm
>
>http://www.geocities.com/ulfberth/Liberi.htm
You should look at those pictures some time, Rip. These martial
artists are doing exactly what MSB told you is advisable. They're
controlling the weapon hand. Once you control the weapon hand,
grabbing the blade of the weapon is much safer.
>Chauvin has claimed that bare-handed
>defense against edged weapons is stupid.
First of all, you've confused me with MSB. Secondly, your
misrepresentation of that claim bears a striking similarity to a
strawman.
>If so, it is remarkable that 16th-century
>masters of fence wrote books on the topic.
Yup, it's a strawman alright.
>Ed Chauvin IV <ed...@wherethefuckaremypants.com> wrote in message news:<9dcolvgm34d4gp7kr...@news.supernews.com>...
>> Mere moments before death, Rip Rock hastily scrawled:
>> >Ed Chauvin IV <ed...@wherethefuckaremypants.com> wrote in message news:<6bkllv03et31kqugd...@news.supernews.com>...
>> >
>> >>
>> >> That you can't distinguish between the business end of
>> >> a spear and the rest of it removes any doubt that you might be
>> >> qualified to take part in this discussion.
>
>It seems to me I'm now in a win-win
>situation vis-a-vis Chauvin. If he
>responds to my posts, he is continuing
>to discuss a topic with someone
>who is unqualified to discuss.
There's nothing wrong with discussing topics with those that are
unqualified. It's called teaching.
>If he stops posting, he
>will leave the thread open for my
>posts of links to history sites.
The thread is always open to such posts.
Ed Chauvin IV
>
>From the page at that link I conclude that Achille Marozzo wrote a
>book in 1536 which claimed that using one's bare hands to grasp
>dagger blades was a sensible practice in combat.
*IF*, and ONLY IF, you first "Firmly grip the enemy's dagger hand.
That way he will not be able to make a slicing movement..."
Michael Scott Brown
> Mere moments before death, Rip Rock hastily scrawled:
> >http://www.geocities.com/ulfberth/Marozzo.htm
> >
> >From the page at that link I conclude that Achille Marozzo wrote a
> >book in 1536 which claimed that using one's bare hands to grasp
> >dagger blades was a sensible practice in combat.
>
> *IF*, and ONLY IF, you first "Firmly grip the enemy's dagger hand.
> That way he will not be able to make a slicing movement..."
<shakes head sadly>
Horse, water, etcetera.
-Michael
Rip Rock
If my supporting evidence were limited to Marozzo, you might
dissuade me. It is not, and you do not. I do admit that my use
of the term "sensible" was excessively vague.
First I intend to show the bare hands against daggers can be
reasonable even when one cannot prevent harm to
the hands; second I intend to show how bare hands
against longer weapons such as swords can be reasonable.
From the quoted Marozzo page:
<quote>
Jennet of Courteville's horse was killed, and he was trapped under the
dead animal. Five French archers came by and were about to cut his
throat, when he was able to wrest the knife from his enemy, but he
received a cut on the fingers.
</quote>
In the above quote we see that Jennet received a hand wound,
but saved his life. I regard such as trade-off as reasonable
and sensible in context. From Brown's quote above, it would
seem that he does not.
<quote>
Perhaps Vincenzo Saviolo says it best in his advice on grabbing
the enemy's swordblade: "...even without a glove, it is better to
hazard a little hurt of the hand, and master the enemy's sword,
than to give the enemy the advantage by parrying with your sword..."
</quote>
Additionally, there are numerous sources which include the
use of bare hands against swords, without grasping the wrist.
To cite one Western authority, there is Talhoffer, whose books
appear to show the use of bare hands against sword blades;
however, it is possible that Talhoffer was writing for
tournament athletes rather than killers. Talhoffer's moves,
however, would work against any European sword if the
grappler wore gauntlets.
I'm still researching the Eastern authorities.
However, in the absence of a more specific claim, I take Brown's
position to be that grappling the weapon bare-handed is possible
if one has first grappled the body of the opponent.
Brown does not seem willing to discuss the impact of gloves
on grabbing sharp weapons.
Regarding Brown's allusion to the proverb, "One can lead a
horse to water, but one cannot make him drink":
Brown seems to imply that he can re-state the facts
informally, but he cannot compel me to derive his conclusion.
The above admission is why I view Brown's reasoning as
less than scholarly. A professional scholar can lay out
the assumptions and means of derivation in his or her
field. He/she can then present the evidence, lead me to
the suggested conclusion, and make me derive the
conclusion.
In formal logic the process is so advanced that one
can input a proof into a computer and have it
checked for correctness without human intervention.
History, anthropology, and similar fields have not
yet reached that level of formalization, but they are
entirely capable of leading the "horse" to "water"
and forcing him to "drink," at least for their less-
controversial claims. (I do not pretend that scholarship
is entirely free from controversy, but some areas of
it are free from controversy.)
I do not claim that the evidence I have so far
presented is overwhelming. At present it is
merely suggestive, and an able historian might
very well find numerous flaws. I do not regard
Brown's arguments to date as scholarly, although
judging from his past comments on acupuncture,
he might be a scholar who is simply unwilling to
exercise his trade for free. For all I know, Brown
might be a tenured Ph.D. in Biology, who simply
refuses to waste mental effort on Usenet.
Rip Rock
> You should look at those pictures some time, Rip. These martial
> artists are doing exactly what MSB told you is advisable. They're
> controlling the weapon hand. Once you control the weapon hand,
> grabbing the blade of the weapon is much safer.
>
A combat tactic can be sensible without being safe.
I agree that it may be desirable to control the hand as well as
the blade.
It seems to me that both you and MSB claim that because
controlling the hand is desirable, that it must be necessary.
I started the thread by saying that the characters (whether
PCs or NPCs) using this tactic would be likely to take some
damage.
However, the evidence is certainly not limited to Marozzo's
manual, and the issue is certainly not limited to grabbing
blades with bare hands.
Note that I will often address the case of grabbing a
sharp blade with a bare hand first, even to the exclusion
of other cases, since if one can show that it is practical
to win a fight by grabbing the opponent's sharp weapon,
I am more easily persuaded that it can be shown that
one can win a fight by grabbing the opponent's blunt
weapon.
Bradd W. Szonye
> If my supporting evidence were limited to Marozzo, you might dissuade
> me. It is not, and you do not. I do admit that my use of the term
> "sensible" was excessively vague.
You pointed to Marozzo as evidence for your claim, when it did not
actually support your claim. Grabbing a blade is only sensible under
certain special conditions, such as when you've already immobilized the
blade.
> Regarding Brown's allusion to the proverb, "One can lead a horse to
> water, but one cannot make him drink": Brown seems to imply that he
> can re-state the facts informally, but he cannot compel me to derive
> his conclusion.
Don't put words in other people's mouths! And are you really that
clueless about what the proverb means, or are you clueless? You quote a
page stating how important it is to disable the weapon *before* grabbing
it, and then you talk about the blade-grabbing as if it's the key
element of the disarm. This clearly shows that you've found good
evidence (*against* your position) but failed to comprehend it: You've
found the water, but you refuse to drink it.
It's because of crap like this that I accuse you of trollery. Ignoring
counterevidence, putting words in other people's mouths, and stating
half-truths with a Cliff-Clavin-like level of know-it-allness.
Rip Rock
> > Rupert Boleyn <rbo...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> >> Neither late rapier, nor smallswords normally had particularly sharp edges.
>
> Rip Rock <rip...@adres.nl> wrote:
> > Let me qualify my previous statement: It seems that in real life, one
> > can grab the blade of a rapier if one is wearing a stout leather
> > glove. A rapier is probably not as sharp as a katana. Nonetheless it
> > is quite sharp enough to inflict flesh-shearing wounds on humans.
>
> Depends on the rapier. Most of them have sharp points and blunt edges.
> Grabbing one wouldn't be nearly as dangerous as grabbing the blade of a
> slashing sword.
Of course you have read Burton's "Book of the Sword" and so you know
that many slashing swords use curved blades to increase their
effective
sharpness. If one were grab such a blade without allowing the curve
to come into play (easier said than done, I know) it would be less
likely to cut.
> More importantly, you don't seem to understand the mechanics of
> cutting edges very well.
You prick my highly inflated ego, sir.
I have some experience of butchering meat. Possibly you have
more, or possibly you've studied the physics of cutting meat. I
don't know.
> Modern butcher knives are not "tolerably"
> sharp.
Perhaps the tolerably sharp knives I used were not truly
modern. They got the job done tolerably.
> They are sharpened to the degree that is most effective for
> butchering meat.
Well, they are supposed to be sharpened to that degree.
Here's one claim: there is a broad variety of edge types in butcher
knives. Some are serrated; some are not; some can be handled
by the blade with less risk than others. Furthermore the state
of the average butcher knife varies according to sharpening
and use.
Here's a second claim: different butchers using the same set
of knives cause them to blunt at different rates: the more
skillful butchers maintain an edge better.
Both of those claims draw on my personal experience, so I'm
not going to cite titles.
>
> Durability is only part of the reason. Razor-sharpness is not the best
> way to cut flesh.
In most cases I would agree. If one holds variables like blade mass,
edge length, etc. equal I might agree. But it's not enough to
define the target, you also have to define the situation. Thus I
prefer the word choice you employ below: "task."
The physics of cutting solid matter with blades can get
insanely complicated. The task-centric description is
probably best for this thread.
> If you could make a blade infinitely tough, you'd
> still use a razor edge for some tasks and a chisel point for others,
> because chisels are just plain better at cutting some things.
I would modify this to "just plain better at some tasks."
It's not the target so much as the situation that makes the
chisel a good choice.
>
> It's similar to the reason you use a coarse rasp for some filing tasks;
> you don't always want a fine file.
I can agree with that whole-heartedly.
>
> > If such an argument could be constructed, I might be compelled to
> > concede. But until such a case arises I shall proceed.
>
> First, you'd need to recognize that durability is not the only reason
> for using a shallower egde, and that "razor-sharp" is not always
> sharper.
I agree -- I oversimplified by using the term "durability."
Now, Bradd, if this interests you so much, you probably have some
opinions about what it's like to grab a knife blade, or a spear blade,
or a sword blade, with or without a glove. Or possibly you want to
forego giving an opinion on grabbing blades, but you're willing to
offer an opinion on grabbing blunt weapons.
My position, briefly, is that historical records seem to indicate
that combatants often grabbed the weapons of their opponents,
whether or not this ran the risk of hand injury, and won the
combats due to the tactic of weapon-grabbing.
Some striking illustrations from Talhoffer Tafel 171 and 182
may not represent mortal combat with razor-sharp weapons.
Certainly the techniques may have been fashionable because
many dagger fights of the day were for sport, and it may be
that such techniques were not used outside of controlled
tournaments and training. But that is speculation. It is
equally persuasive to speculate that blade-grabbing was
a standard tactic in life-and-death combat.
The illustrations may be viewed at:
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Pagoda/8187/Degen.htm
along with this interesting comment from a modern
re-enactor:
<quote>
These are from the techniques included in Hutton's "Cold Steel."
Hutton has (deliberately?) omitted all of Marozzo's techniques that
involve grabbing the opponent's blade and wrenching it out of his
hand, which are actually almost half of them. I have experimented with
this blade-taking with various kinds of knives. As expected, the
sharper the knife, the smaller the margin for error. So far I only got
a small cut disarming a slim Opinel (the scary sharp carbon steel
French knives that rust like hell), probably because I was worried the
1cm wide blade would snap. I've had worse paper cuts. The opponent was
disarmed however. So I think it was a valid technique if you were
unarmed and someone wanted to kill you.
</quote>
The HACA apparently has changed its name to the
ARMA, and offers a tantalizing selection of quite
expensive books.
However it costs zero dollars to peruse the web page at:
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Pagoda/8187/Talhoffer.htm
which says:
<quote>
This long sword was very versatile and could be used to cut, thrust,
trip, lock, throw and bash (holding the blade with both hands, too!).
I'm not even sure what kind of sword it is exactly (due to the
changing length in the drawings). It is wielded with two hands, and
the length of the grip seems to allow at least the width of a hand
between both hands on some drawings. The section on armoured combat
shows one knight wearing the sword on the hip (I don't think this
would work with a 60inch sword), and in later sections a sword used in
one hand is drawn with a very similar hilt, so maybe it's actually a
poorly drawn hand-and-a-half or bastard sword.
Concerning gripping the blade: some believe this means the swords were
unsharpened, others believe the fighters wore reinforced gauntlets.
The first idea seems improbable, but there are no gauntlets in the
drawings.
In his book on medieval swordsmanship, John Clements suggests the
drawings in this chapter represent men training with blunts and the
reader should imagine the armour and gloves. However, this doesn't
seem likely since there is another chapter on fighting in full gear
(voller Rustung). In the judicial duels, combatants are drawn wearing
the special trial outfit. There is no justification for only this one
chapter to appeal to the reader's imagination. Also, with all the
blood and gore and fatal injuries depicted, it looks like a funny way
to train.
To settle the matter I took my spring steel tameshigiri-to (japanese
style sword for cutting practice), grabbed it with both hands and
swung it around some, then bashed with the tsuba (guard) on the tatami
(mat) a few times (in the direction of the flat side of the blade).
I'm still typing and didn't loose a drop of blood. I don't suggest
kids should try this at home though. The biggest risk I think is that
you forget where the sword tip is and stab yourself.
</quote>
Again, let me stress that the above represents the opinion
of only one re-enactor, but it persuades me much more
than the opinions of Chauvin and M. S. Brown. It seems
to me that the evidence contradicts the Chauvin-Brown claim.
Now I shall attempt to state what I understand to be the
shared position of Chauvin and Brown. (I am attempting
to avoid straw men; I am attempting to state my honest
understanding of their posts.) Chauvin and Brown seem
to claim that it is impractical to grasp sharp blades unless
the opponent is grappled.
If that is not their claim, I apologize for misunderstanding
them. If that is their claim, I submit that the re-enactments
persuade me against it.
I admit that my posts have been somewhat rancorous.
The evidence from historians and re-enactors seems
quite persuasive to me. It seems to me that Brown and
Chauvin are discarding it without serious examination.
Bradd W. Szonye
> I agree -- I oversimplified by using the term "durability."
>
> Now, Bradd, if this interests you so much, you probably have some
See, this is another reason I accuse you of trollery. You're discussing
a subject that the other participants have some significant knowledge of
or experience with, and yet you dumb down your argument to the point
that it's inaccurate -- indeed, what you wrote made you sound like a
clueless newbie. This is condescending and counterproductive.
Then you follow up with a comment that comes very close to putting words
in my mouth, and that definitely presumes my motives. That too is
condescending and counterproductive.
If you don't like being called a troll, or you want some respect, then I
strongly recommend that you tighten up your arguments. Quit talking down
to us, and quit drowning us in citations. State your point up front,
with a concise thesis, and then use *relevant* evidence in moderate
amounts. It's very difficult to read on-screen, and any good points you
do make will be totally ignored even by conscientious readers, because
it's just too damn hard to wade through it all on a computer screen.
Rupert Boleyn
>> Modern butcher knives are not "tolerably"
>> sharp.
>
>Perhaps the tolerably sharp knives I used were not truly
>modern. They got the job done tolerably.
The knives used on modern killing chains are kept very, very sharp by
their users. The workers I've seen touch the edge up on a steel every
couple of minutes, because it's so much less tiring using a good sharp
blade.
>> They are sharpened to the degree that is most effective for
>> butchering meat.
>
>Well, they are supposed to be sharpened to that degree.
>
>Here's one claim: there is a broad variety of edge types in butcher
>knives. Some are serrated; some are not; some can be handled
>by the blade with less risk than others. Furthermore the state
>of the average butcher knife varies according to sharpening
>and use.
I've yet to see a professional butcher with a serrated blade. For the
sort of work that one might be useful for they'll use a meat saw. I
suspect this is a regional thing.
Michael Scott Brown
> In the above quote we see that Jennet received a hand wound,
> but saved his life. I regard such as trade-off as reasonable
> and sensible in context. From Brown's quote above, it would
> seem that he does not.
Brown believes that for a technique to qualify as an "Improved Disarm",
it must be repeatable.
You really don't seem to understand the most basic analysis - in D&D,
you *assume* that the combatants do *what makes sense* for their combat
situation. If Joe wants to disarm someone, and his opponent has
conveniently overextended a thrust with a single-bladed sword within reach
of his bare hand, then perhaps he will reach out and control it long enough
to neutralize the sword hand itself and then set about negating the weapon
threafter. If his opponent is currently swinging said weapon full-force
towards his neck, he'd be better off avoiding the blade and trying to get
through to the arm directly - but if the weapon were hafted, he might have a
shot and catching up the shaft just above the fulcrum. In short, there is a
technique (however desperate) available for any combination of man and
weapon - so why not presume that the combatants know which ones to pick
rather than making up a bunch of crap about grabbing the blades of weapons
when it is quite likely unnecessary to do so - and most assuredly
unadvisable - save in the specific situations where it is "safe" enough not
to need special rules in the first place?
-Michael
Ed Chauvin IV
>
>> You should look at those pictures some time, Rip. These martial
>> artists are doing exactly what MSB told you is advisable. They're
>> controlling the weapon hand. Once you control the weapon hand,
>> grabbing the blade of the weapon is much safer.
>>
>
>A combat tactic can be sensible without being safe.
>
>I agree that it may be desirable to control the hand as well as
>the blade.
>
>It seems to me that both you and MSB claim that because
>controlling the hand is desirable, that it must be necessary.
Did you notice that the fencing masters you quoted agree in totality?
Rip Rock
> Rip Rock <rip...@adres.nl> wrote:
> > If my supporting evidence were limited to Marozzo, you might dissuade
> > me. It is not, and you do not. I do admit that my use of the term
> > "sensible" was excessively vague.
>
> You pointed to Marozzo as evidence for your claim, when it did not
> actually support your claim.
Correction: the photographs do not immediately support
my claim. Marozzo publishes a whole book of techniques.
A limited portion of that book is illustrated in photographs
which do no support the claim. That doesn't mean that the
whole book doesn't support the claim. Further, the link
points to a discussion of the issue, including:
<quote>
Perhaps Vincenzo Saviolo says it best in his advice on grabbing the
enemy's swordblade: "...even without a glove, it is better to hazard a
little hurt of the hand, and master the enemy's sword, than to give
the enemy the advantage by parrying with your sword..."
</quote>
Please note that the photographs on the page are from an
amateur historian and martial artist, not from an experienced
knife-fighter. See page:
http://www.geocities.com/ulfberth/Me.htm
<quote>
Eli Steenput ('ulfberth') lives in Flanders (Belgium), is a doctor
ingeniator by education...
...
I'll start by stating that my martial abilities are greatly overrated,
and on no account should you believe everything I say nor stop
thinking for yourself! I have trained only a few years (just since
1992) in a small number of (mostly armed) Japanese martial arts, and
actually have neither talent nor physique for combat. My experience in
the Western martial arts is limited to regular dagger practice with
two friends. I do hold a number of 'dan' grades in a few
organisations (the most significant undoubtedly being a juudan in
Chunen Butori Ryu...
</quote>
So while Eli Steenput cannot grab a dagger blade without
immobilizing his opponent's arm, that doesn't mean that
there is no technique in Marozzo's book to do so, or that
Marozzo's limits are the same as those of Talhoffer.
According to:
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Pagoda/8187/Degen.htm
half of Marozzo's techniques involving grasping the
opponent's blade; that same page claims that Hutton is
an incomplete source because he does not address
Marozzo's techniques of disarming.
It may turn out that all of Marozzo's techniques do involve
immobilization at the arm, but it seems more likely to
me that Marozzo had at least a few techniques where
one hand grabbed and the other retained the hold on
one's weapon. Even if Marozzo didn't, the manuals that
followed in his footsteps certainly did include such
tactics.
I cannot immediately find illustrations of Saviolo's text,
but I can supply an analogous plate from Talhoffer, namely
plate 49:
http://myschwerk.webzdarma.cz/tafel_40-49.html
Plate 49 and similar plates from Talhoffer are cited by
Lawson as evidence for the frequency of blade-grabbing
in fencing manuals.
I encourage interested parties to examine the free works at:
http://www.thehaca.com/manuals.htm
Hutton's works are not enough to convince me, but it
seems that there are quite a few competent historians
at what was once called the HACA and is now apparently
called ARMA.
If you recall my reference to Henry Angelo's manual of
fencing, it seems that by the 18th century, blade-grabbing
was a widespread technique. I don't have physical or
virtual access to all of these works, but I do keep running
across web pages by rather convincing historians who
claim that blade-grabbing happened a great deal.
> Grabbing a blade is only sensible under
> certain special conditions, such as when you've already immobilized the
> blade.
Grabbing the blade seems to be sensible in a very wide variety
of very complicated conditions. The blade might be immobile,
or one might have gauntlets, or one might be willing to risk
injury, or the opponent might be off-balance, etc.
http://www.thehaca.com/manuals.htm
is probably more useful than
http://www.schielhau.org/main.html
>
> You quote a
> page stating how important it is to disable the weapon *before* grabbing
> it, and then you talk about the blade-grabbing as if it's the key
> element of the disarm.
The page states that it is important for one drill. The page goes on
to talk about the general importance and varied manifestations of
blade-grabbing practices.
>
> It's because of crap like this that I accuse you of trollery.
> Ignoring
> counterevidence,
The evidence is complex. The situation is complex.
I am attempting to base my argument on the existing
work of historians. I don't claim that my argument is
airtight: I am trying to account for all the evidence.
>putting words in other people's mouths,
I am doing my best to represent my opponents'
claims accurately. Perhaps you have more skill
at reading an opponent fairly. I don't think my
opponents have articulated their claims in a
scholarly fashion. Perhaps you have different
criteria for scholarliness.
I note again that I have a tendency to overuse
the reductio ad absurdam, which creates more
heat than light in informal reasoning.
>and stating
> half-truths with a Cliff-Clavin-like level of know-it-allness.
I don't understand why you feel confident in
identifying my claims as "half-truths."
I don't claim to know which historians at HACA / ARMA
would support my claim that blade-grabbing, even
with bare hands, was a common technique. I am
reasonably confident that of the eleven historians
linked by ARMA's front page, a majority would support
my claims.
Rip Rock
> If you don't like being called a troll,
Actually, Bradd, when *you* call me a troll, I regard as a good
sign, because it probably means that you're running out of
genuine weaknesses in the argument.
You might be better educated than I am. You're
probably higher on the "emotional intelligence" scale.
And you're good enough to find logical flaws when
they exist to be found. Thus when *you* start
calling me a troll, it generally means that you've
given up trying to find flaws and are trying to
re-frame the argument.
> or you want some respect,
I don't particularly want respect online. In real
life, where I eat and sleep and work in meatspace,
I want enough respect to survive. On Usenet,
I have no social ties, no direct economic
incentives. All I can offer is arguments --
unfortunately they are informal. If there are
obvious flaws in them, I need to know about
them.
I want people to point out my ignorance.
In this case, Rupert Boleyn has done so.
That is productive -- that guides my research.
So when Rupert Boleyn points out that rapiers
were not very sharp, or when Kirk Lawson tells
me that Talhoffer's plates 26, 28, 33, 36-54
and 56 are relevant, I am getting my payoff.
I don't need respect from Usenet, I just need
information. In order to get it, I have to walk
a fine line. I can't be so commonplace and
boring that no one bothers to post. I can't
be so far out that no one stops to think. I
need to provoke both the emotions and the
intellect. Whether it's friendly (as when I was
thanked for posting O'Shaughnessy) or
antagonistic (as in the current thread) doesn't
matter. I just need the information.
Back in meatspace, my players and other
acquaintances are interested in information,
such as Talhoffer 49.
> then I
> strongly recommend that you tighten up your arguments.
I can tighten my arguments only relative to
some outside authority on rhetoric. Show me
a specific book on rhetoric, and I can conform
to it. Then when I start a thread, I will say up
front, "All arguments herein are relative to
standard text X," and people who don't like
that text can avoid that thread. I have yet
to find a Usenet group with such a self-
enforced standard. I have found lists and
boards with moderators.
> and quit drowning us in citations. State your point up front,
> with a concise thesis, and then use *relevant* evidence in moderate
> amounts.
Moderated lists and boards are easy, because there
are moderators to take responsibility for what is
relevant.
> It's very difficult to read on-screen, and any good points you
> do make will be totally ignored even by conscientious readers, because
> it's just too damn hard to wade through it all on a computer screen.
I am sorry for writing such long posts: I have not
had time to write short ones.
Rip Rock
>
> I've yet to see a professional butcher with a serrated blade. For the
> sort of work that one might be useful for they'll use a meat saw. I
> suspect this is a regional thing.
The butcher I observed was working in a under-funded,
low-tech shop without expensive equipment. I didn't
see meat saws, but I didn't see many details of the
operation.
The shop I observed was very different than the meat-
packing plant two of my players worked at, which
serves as the basis for many of my players' arguments
about butchering. I should ask them about the chains
used in a really modern operation.
Rupert Boleyn
>The butcher I observed was working in a under-funded,
>low-tech shop without expensive equipment. I didn't
>see meat saws, but I didn't see many details of the
>operation.
>
>The shop I observed was very different than the meat-
>packing plant two of my players worked at, which
>serves as the basis for many of my players' arguments
>about butchering. I should ask them about the chains
>used in a really modern operation.
It'd be interesting, probably. I've talked to people who worked in
meat works, and I've watched a number of butchers cut up beef
carcases.
I've also helped my parents slaughter, cut down, and cut up probably
about twenty cattle over the years, along with numerous sheep and
probably several dozen or score of pigs (the joys of growing up on a
farm).
We use about three different types of knife: Skinning knives, which
are usually fairly sharp, have little point on them, and ground for
edge holding (skin and hide blunten edges quickly); boning knives,
which are fine, have a sharp point, and are as sharp as possible -
they're used for slicing meat off bones, preferably without hitting
the bone itself; and finally we use 'heavy' utility knives, often with
almost an 'axe' grind for working through joints, especially on
cattle. For cutting down cattle we also use a meat saw and an axe, and
we use a cleaver when cutting the meat up.
BTW, the best way of getting nice even mutton or pork chops is to
freeze the rack and run it through a small bandsaw. Use and old blade
and be sure to clean the sawdust out of the saw before it thaws.
Rip Rock
> "Rip Rock" <rip...@adres.nl> wrote in message
> news:3a283db1.0309...@posting.google.com...
>
> > In the above quote we see that Jennet received a hand wound,
> > but saved his life. I regard such as trade-off as reasonable
> > and sensible in context. From Brown's quote above, it would
> > seem that he does not.
>
> Brown believes that for a technique to qualify as an "Improved Disarm",
> it must be repeatable.
I agree. My intention was not to address the Disarm or Improved Disarm
maneuver, but rather to house-rule a new maneuver, which is not
always used for disarming.
This new maneuver, called "grappling against a weapon," might
immbolize the weapon, or might allow the weapon to be used
by the defender against the weapon wielder. Presumably other
variations could be designed.
>
> You really don't seem to understand the most basic analysis - in D&D,
> you *assume* that the combatants do *what makes sense* for their combat
> situation.
My players have requested a finer grain of detail. They want to
do in D&D what they have done in other systems. Possibly this
level of detail is so pathological that it cannot work well with D&D.
Additionally, I often run monsters who do not do "what makes sense."
I run monsters to be entertaining, even if that means dying
from stupid tactics.
D&D has unarmed strikes, disarms, and trips. I was attempting to
rough out ideas for a new maneuver that would not fit into any of
those three categories. I called this maneuver "grappling against
a weapon."
In many cases "grappling against a weapon" would require at
least one free hand, but in other cases it might be ruled that
one can have both hands holding a weapon and still be able
to grapple.
Consider the case of two opponents armed with pole-axes.
They are on a narrow bridge, and are trying to push each
other back and forth by pushing the hafts of their weapons
against each other. This resembles a grapple more than
the conventional exchange of attacks.
> If Joe wants to disarm someone, and his opponent has
> conveniently overextended a thrust with a single-bladed sword within reach
> of his bare hand, then perhaps he will reach out and control it long enough
> to neutralize the sword hand itself and then set about negating the weapon
> threafter.
I was thinking primarily of the case where Joe would not disarm, but
would make the opponent lose an action while retaining his grip on
the weapon.
I have run such maneuvers in other systems. I have never run
them in D&D. Possibly the D&D combat system is entirely
unsuited for such a new maneuver. I will probably play-test
it first, and if it is a horrible failure, I intend to admit as much.
> If his opponent is currently swinging said weapon full-force
> towards his neck, he'd be better off avoiding the blade and trying to get
> through to the arm directly - but if the weapon were hafted, he might have a
> shot and catching up the shaft just above the fulcrum.
I agree.
> In short, there is a
> technique (however desperate) available for any combination of man and
> weapon - so why not presume that the combatants know which ones to pick
My players have gotten to do their chop-socky in
other games, and they liked it so much that they
want me to house-rule it in D&D. They do not
want Trip, Disarm, and Unarmed Strike: they
want something similar to Sunder, in that it's
an attack against a weapon. However the effect
would be to prevent the opponent from
attacking, while the player attacks.
> rather than making up a bunch of crap about grabbing the blades of weapons
> when it is quite likely unnecessary to do so - and most assuredly
> unadvisable - save in the specific situations where it is "safe" enough not
> to need special rules in the first place?
>
Some people are satisfied with the standard
grappling rules and some people are not. I
make up "crap" because my players and I are
in the second group.
As for the situations:
There are two cases, "safe" and "less than safe."
I want the new house rule to apply to both.
Monsters will use the technique in both "safe" and
"less than safe" situations, because monsters can
die like cannon fodder if it's entertaining.
Players will use the technique in "safe" situations
in order to make combat less routine and more
similar to Renaissance fencing.
Quotes below are from the original post:
Message-ID: <3a283db1.03090...@posting.google.com>
<quote>
Some swords, such as katanas, had very sharp blades
but little crushing power. Those swords would be
excellent targets for immobilization with steel gauntlets.
</quote>
In a fantasy role-play context, allowing the above
hypothetical katana to strike might unleash some
very painful spell. Grappling the weapon might
be ruled to prevent the spell from activating.
<quote>
My intuition is that grappling the
opponent's weapon should be a different category than
grappling the opponent, but I'm not at all confident that
the rules support that idea.
</quote>
I was understating the case. Grappling the weapon
seems to have been completely unimagined by
Wizards of the Coast. I believe Toofy McToof and
others have described the grappling rules as
poorly written, but I can't cite a specific post. In
any event, even if everyone else likes the WotC
grappling rules, my players and I want house
rules to supplement them.
<quote>
For example, suppose you have a polearm grapple. Both
opponents might have their hands near the ends of the
weapon. Obviously the center of the weapon is open,
and might be smacked against someone's head. I would
find it very hard to model such a fight in D&D. I might
say that both opponents were armed with the same 1d6
weapon, but that each had a penalty to strength equivalent
to the other's bonus.
</quote>
The above case refers to an initially unarmed opponent
who has effectively armed himself with the opponents'
weapon. To my knowledge, there is no rule to cover
such as situation in standard d20 D&D.
Michael Scott Brown
> > Brown believes that for a technique to qualify as an "Improved
Disarm",
> > it must be repeatable.
>
> I agree. My intention was not to address the Disarm or Improved Disarm
> maneuver, but rather to house-rule a new maneuver, which is not
> always used for disarming.
>
> This new maneuver, called "grappling against a weapon," might
> immbolize the weapon, or might allow the weapon to be used
> by the defender against the weapon wielder. Presumably other
> variations could be designed.
This is completely covered by *grappling*. Pin immobilizes the
opponent's weapon. Use defender's weapon against himself covers the other.
The game *already does these things*. Which is at the heart of what we've
been trying to tell you from the get go. We don't need to give a flying
fuck whethert he weapons are sharp or pointy or hafted or otherwise; the
combatants will use the right techniques for their kit and their situation
to accomplish their goals.
In D&D terms these are either going to be Trips, Improved Trips,
Disarms, Improved Disarms, Grapples, Improved Grapples, or Sunders.
> > You really don't seem to understand the most basic analysis - in
D&D,
> > you *assume* that the combatants do *what makes sense* for their combat
> > situation.
>
> My players have requested a finer grain of detail. They want to
> do in D&D what they have done in other systems.
Then teach them the bloody rules already. They can do all the things
they want. Just *describe* their maneuver and resolve it according to the
rules for what they're trying to do.
> I was understating the case. Grappling the weapon
> seems to have been completely unimagined by
> Wizards of the Coast.
Then why is "use opponent's weapon" on the grappling list?
> I believe Toofy McToof and
> others have described the grappling rules as
> poorly written, but I can't cite a specific post.
There is *one* vagueness in the PhB grappling rules (a stupid reader may
fail to recognize a reference to TWF), and an oversight about whether to
monk-flurries work in grapples (they do) and an oversight about where
quickdraw and drawing a weapon combine. There are several blatant
oversights on rules for monsters ( no mention anywhere of their use of
primary/secondary weapons to grapple, no mention of how to determine their
grappling damage except for improved-grabbers, and a blatantly incorrect
passage in the description of Rake).
However, the rest of it - and the rules for what PCs can do - is obvious
enough.
> For example, suppose you have a polearm grapple. Both
> opponents might have their hands near the ends of the
> weapon. Obviously the center of the weapon is open,
> and might be smacked against someone's head. I would
> find it very hard to model such a fight in D&D.
Very hard? Just declare that in this situation the polearm's haft is a
light d4-damage weapon in both characters' posession. The opponents are
grappling and may then perform "use opponent's weapon" maneuvers which are
resolved with opposed grapple checks followed by attack rolls if successful.
All of your posts indicate that you simply don't understand how to use
an abstract system.
-Michael
Bradd W. Szonye
>> You pointed to Marozzo as evidence for your claim, when it did not
>> actually support your claim.
Rip Rock <rip...@adres.nl> wrote:
> Correction: the photographs do not immediately support my claim.
> Marozzo publishes a whole book of techniques. A limited portion of
> that book is illustrated in photographs which do no support the claim.
> That doesn't mean that the whole book doesn't support the claim.
Does it, or doesn't it? Quit speculating on evidence that *might* exist.
You keep guessing that Marozzo probably supports your claim, but the
only citation you gave *contradicted* it. You're stating facts not in
evidence that may not be facts at all -- that's poisoning the well.
> Further, the link points to a discussion of the issue, including:
>
> Perhaps Vincenzo Saviolo says it best in his advice on grabbing
> the enemy's swordblade: "...even without a glove, it is better to
> hazard a little hurt of the hand, and master the enemy's sword,
> than to give the enemy the advantage by parrying with your
> sword..."
That was in response to a note that you might get cut even if you
immobilize the blade first. Overall gist is: You could still get hurt
while using this maneuver, but it's lots better than getting killed.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> If you don't like being called a troll ....
Rip Rock <rip...@adres.nl> wrote:
> Actually, Bradd, when *you* call me a troll, I regard as a good sign,
> because it probably means that you're running out of genuine
> weaknesses in the argument.
No, it means that your writing is so muddled that it's not worth the
effort to sort it all out. If you want to communicate successfully,
you've got to put in effort on your end too. Spewing "facts" and
throwing them together in a controversial jumble is not argument; it's
trolling.
>> ... I strongly recommend that you tighten up your arguments.
> I can tighten my arguments only relative to some outside authority on
> rhetoric. Show me a specific book on rhetoric, and I can conform to
> it.
WTF are you talking about? You are familiar with concepts like thesis
statements, terseness, supporting evidence, etc? Your comment here looks
evasive, another sign of trolling.
> I am sorry for writing such long posts: I have not had time to write
> short ones.
Take the time, or quit acting all shocked and defensive when people
accuse you of trolling.