Forums of the Megaverse®

Posted: **Mon Oct 12, 2020 1:16 pm**

I came across this lovely video today, and I was wondering how one might apply the idea of a sword breaker in the context of a Palladium Fantasy game.

Thoughts?

Posted: **Mon Oct 12, 2020 1:58 pm**

Called shots on the weapon.

Posted: **Mon Oct 12, 2020 2:46 pm**

Sword breakers were more sword catchers than they were breakers I'd use them as entangling or bonus to disarm.

Posted: **Mon Oct 12, 2020 8:17 pm**

Zer0 Kay wrote:Sword breakers were more sword catchers than they were breakers I'd use them as entangling or bonus to disarm.

Agreed. Make them a parrying weapon that can entangle and disarm.

Posted: **Mon Oct 12, 2020 8:51 pm**

Make the parry use an action and only use entangle bonuses to parry, can be done with paired weapons.
every 5 points over the number required to parry damages the opponents sword and gives it a damage token.
The weapon can get either a
-1 strike token
-1 parry token
and these tokens are cumulative until the weapon is repaired. (10gp per token, or successful general repair or blacksmithing check per token and 3gp worth of material)
Only works on small swords.
A roll of 1 to parry gives 2 negative tokens to the swordbreaker weapon. A nat 20 to parry counts as 2 tokens or the normal amount, whichever is higher.

Posted: **Mon Oct 12, 2020 9:07 pm**

Hotrod wrote:I came across this lovely video today, and I was wondering how one might apply the idea of a sword breaker in the context of a Palladium Fantasy game.

Thoughts?

Off the cuff assessment: Takes an Entangle and then a str. roll to break.

Posted: **Mon Oct 12, 2020 10:25 pm**

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
Hotrod wrote:I came across this lovely video today, and I was wondering how one might apply the idea of a sword breaker in the context of a Palladium Fantasy game.

Thoughts?

Off the cuff assessment: Takes an Entangle and then a str. roll to break.

That's a pretty easy way to break a sword then, and the sword in the clip is a rapier and it only bends from a hydraulic machine pulling on it.

Posted: **Mon Oct 12, 2020 11:09 pm**

I personally wouldn't make actually breaking a sword easy via a str roll. But GMs would need to set up their own way to administer a str. roll because there are not any rules covering this.

One way would to be to have the char with the SB roll under their PS score with a % die or more likely two % dies.

Another way would to have a quality score assigned to the sword and have the char roll over the score (sort of like a perception roll). With half (round down if not SHPS/SNPS) the PS bonus to the roll.
SHPS: add two to four to the roll.
SNPS: add five to seven to the roll.

Top of the head target numbers.
poor quality: 14
Med quality: 16
Well made: 18
Exceptional: 22
Superior: 26

options...
Then the other char with their caught sword might be able to Roll with the breaking attempt to ether inflate the % die roll or halve the D20 vs target number.
Or to 'maybe' Jujitsu out of the entanglement without giving the Entangling char a chance to break their sword.
If the char is SNPS the sword breaking rules would still apply to their own weapon. But maybe only if the opponent char also SNPS.

These are just suggestions to GMs based on the mechanics I've seen used in games and int he game books.

FiF PS: the steel the swordsmith uses will move the quality level up or down the scale depending on the quality of the steel. High tech steels can be 'finicky' with their forging and or quenching.

Posted: **Tue Oct 13, 2020 12:12 am**

Zer0 Kay wrote:Sword breakers were more sword catchers than they were breakers I'd use them as entangling or bonus to disarm.

this is the better idea. breaking weapons is kinda goofy in the palladium rules already, and a lot of the time trying to actually break most swords with a swordbreaker was at serious risk of.....the sword breaker breaking off on the sword. bonus to entangle/disarm is great, maybe giving a free disarm on an entangled sword every round they don't try to escape.

Posted: **Tue Oct 13, 2020 12:22 am**

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:I personally wouldn't make actually breaking a sword easy via a str roll. But GMs would need to set up their own way to administer a str. roll because there are not any rules covering this.

One way would to be to have the char with the SB roll under their PS score with a % die or more likely two % dies.

Another way would to have a quality score assigned to the sword and have the char roll over the score (sort of like a perception roll). With half (round down if not SHPS/SNPS) the PS bonus to the roll.
SHPS: add two to four to the roll.
SNPS: add five to seven to the roll.

Top of the head target numbers.
poor quality: 14
Med quality: 16
Well made: 18
Exceptional: 22
Superior: 26

options...
Then the other char with their caught sword might be able to Roll with the breaking attempt to ether inflate the % die roll or halve the D20 vs target number.
Or to 'maybe' Jujitsu out of the entanglement without giving the Entangling char a chance to break their sword.
If the char is SNPS the sword breaking rules would still apply to their own weapon. But maybe only if the opponent char also SNPS.

These are just suggestions to GMs based on the mechanics I've seen used in games and int he game books.

FiF PS: the steel the swordsmith uses will move the quality level up or down the scale depending on the quality of the steel. High tech steels can be 'finicky' with their forging and or quenching.

I think a swordbreaker would almost be a wp itself, but giving entanglement a small chance to do it is a good idea.
Would you change the numbers depending on whether the weapon kobold or dwarf origin, especially if they had bonuses?
and i can easily see a sword bending a bit more than breaking too, but a roll that if was really low got the sword breaker damaged and if really good broke or damaged the other weapon i think would work better.

Posted: **Tue Oct 13, 2020 11:37 am**

It might be that the master dwavish bladesmith can reach the Superior I listed above. But that does not stop a GM from 'filling in the gaps' in my list. Or giving additional bonuses. There may be bonuses for magical blades to resist being broken. But with many PB writings there are places for GMs to put their own spin/style on the text.
--------

Bent blades.....my thinking is that only poor quality and med quality blades should have a chance of bending....for the most part.
After saying that..... as a fan of FiF I have seen a fare few of the finale blades bend that I wouldn't make what I just said a fast and hard rule.

Maybe if the SB char will bend the blade if the 'to break' roll is close to the breaking target number. as the quality of the blade gets better the narrower this possible outcome should be.
------

SB WP.....it probably should have a specialized WP for it, but but since a SB is "technically" a knife, the main WP for one should be WP knife. A WP Sword breaker should be more a supplemental skill like the Targeting WP or the Fencing physical skill. And then only giving a + to entanglement. w/o any bonus to breaking.

Posted: **Thu Oct 15, 2020 11:38 am**

There were no records of them actually breaking swords and all modern examples have them bending their contemporaries. To shatter a sword would have to be as rigid as a katana. I guess bending it would still be breaking it as far as combat goes.

Posted: **Thu Oct 15, 2020 2:33 pm**

I was watching a video of a SB in action in a demonstration. What I saw was that it is mostly an entrapment weapon to control the opponent's sword while attacking with their own. *shrugs*

I would stick to my above that a SB WP would only give a bonus to entanglement. The only part I might add this is that it might give a bonus to maintaining the entanglement.

The sword breaking part.....maybe bump all the numbers in the list I presented up by +5. Even then there are too many variables within sword design to really give simple numbers for the actual breaking of swords with a SB.

Posted: **Thu Oct 15, 2020 2:44 pm**

Treat it like other entanglement type attacks that do damage. The damage continues until the object is able to be removed. Treat it like a constrictor attack or bear hug. I think both are written in the books.
Successful roll to parry (maybe bonus from weapon) successfully entraps weapon and does x damage to blade. Maybe instead of a strength check it requires a successful parry in return as you have to out twist the opponent using the sword breaker to free the sword from the teeth which would be a finesse thing not a brute strength thing. Maybe there could also be a brute strength roll to try to pry it out but if successful you cause double damage to your own weapon potentially breaking it. The sword breaker then becomes the attacker but continues to roll with parry bonus to keep the weapon entrapped each turn and each turn causes additional damage. Each turn the defender who is caught rolls either parry to remove it without damage or strength but takes double damage.

Posted: **Thu Oct 15, 2020 4:57 pm**

What i understood of sword breakers was they were design for small weapons like rapiers and maybe shortswords to trap and maybe bend a blade (not that it seems the latter was likely), and sword breaker was coined after when they were commonly used, and the word break back then could be used a bit like parry for breaking certain strikes (see below), it was a lot more likely they were used to capture the enemy blade so you could give him a severe stabbing without him being able to do much about it, and once you had been run through your general fighting ability would be greatly diminished.
Also Steel is strong, wrists aren't really, and to break a blade would require both sides to be strong otherwise the sword would be ripped out of your opponents hand, but i could see crappy civilian rapiers of back then bending and maybe breaking. I'd hate to try it though on something like an arming sword or the like, unless hollywood special effects people had prepared the enemies sword for me.

Also if sword breaking was effective every man and his dog would have had one, which they didn't, so it likely meant lots of training with an unusual weapon to be effective, thus its own wp.

From longswordmasters
http://www.angelfire.com/art2/longsword ... trikes.htm
"Ringeck: The "Parting Strike"
Note: the parting strike is aimed at the face or breast. Do it like this: If he is in the guard Alber, strike vertically downward with the long edge, and while striking, keep your arms up high and move your point to his face.
If you move the point at his face from above with the parting strike and he displaces the point with the (his) hilt up, turn your sword, lift the (your) hilt high above your head and thrust him down into the breast.
When you strike a parting strike and he displaces with the hilt high above his head, then this displacement is called "the crown", from there you can rush in.
If he breaks the parting strike or any other Oberhau with the crown and tries to rush in, cut him in the Arm under his hands and push upward, so that the crown is broken. Then turn your sword from the low cut into a high one and free yourself in this way.

Posted: **Thu Oct 15, 2020 9:53 pm**

Hotrod wrote:I came across this lovely video today, and I was wondering how one might apply the idea of a sword breaker in the context of a Palladium Fantasy game.

Thoughts?

Greetings and Salutations. I had watched that episode a few weeks ago, and was thinking about how to apply the idea to Palladium in general. However, with the design, I really figured it was meant for specific types of weapons (such as rapiers) and wouldn't work well against weapons in general. As a result, I decided not to pursue the idea further. However, since you asked ...

I disagree with the idea of giving it a unique W.P. While it does have a unique design, in the end it's a dagger with a special feature. Palladium doesn't (typicallly) breakdown W.P. to that degree. I mean, Claymores and Sabres are considered the same W.P., and Nunchaku and Mace and Chain are considered the same W.P. So, for me, I'd ask if you use the other side of the Sword Breaker to attack or parry, would it work the same as a dagger/knife? If the answer is yes, then just keep the same W.P.

Now, the idea for Entanglement is a good one, and not necessarily one I had thought of (though I had only given this minimal thought prior). Instead of making the Entanglement bonus part of the W.P. though, I'd just make it part of the weapon. So, for example, the Sword Breaker is +2 to Entangle, and this bonus is a result of design (similar to how Wilks weapons in Rifts get a strike bonus as part of their design). After all, the part of the Sword Breaker that catches an enemy's weapon is literally designed into the weapon. Entangling doesn't typically have a lot of bonuses, so this leaves the weapon in the niche field. Nice feature, but unless you have some additional Entangle bonuses this probably won't be a major game changer in most people's hands.

While the Entangle bonus should only work against certain types of weapons, that would add a lot of additional game mechanics to figure out. In this case, I'm willing to accept the fantasy-esque aspect and let the game mechanics symbolize a concept without going into extreme detail. I also wouldn't include any rules for breaking a weapon or having it bend, as that will generally add additional rolls and tables to use during combat, and I think it's better (at least in this case) to keep it simple and fast.

So keeping it W.P. Knife, giving the Sword Breaker a natural +2 (or other bonus) to Entangle, and no additional rules seems like the simple answer that would work best in as a game mechanic, in my opinion.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:Bent blades.....my thinking is that only poor quality and med quality blades should have a chance of bending....for the most part.
After saying that..... as a fan of FiF I have seen a fare few of the finale blades bend that I wouldn't make what I just said a fast and hard rule.

True, but in Forged in Fire (FiF), those weapons are often still rushed and can be unfamiliar designs. In addition, those generally bend (or even break) during testing. So if the weapon was a rush job (or an inexperienced smith) and freshly forged and never used, then I think this is more likely. But if it's been used in the field, I think this is less likely. Just my take, as a watcher of the show as well (though I'm only about half way through season 5).

Anyways, just my thoughts on the matter. Farewell and safe journeys.

Posted: **Fri Oct 16, 2020 12:49 am**

It is in second ed almost already, the trident dagger and the main gauche, the more common version of the sword catcher come under wp forked, which comes with entanglement bonuses already. i'd just put it under that category.

Posted: **Fri Oct 16, 2020 4:33 am**

kiralon wrote:What i understood of sword breakers was they were design for small weapons like rapiers and maybe shortswords to trap and maybe bend a blade (not that it seems the latter was likely), and sword breaker was coined after when they were commonly used, and the word break back then could be used a bit like parry for breaking certain strikes (see below), it was a lot more likely they were used to capture the enemy blade so you could give him a severe stabbing without him being able to do much about it, and once you had been run through your general fighting ability would be greatly diminished.
Also Steel is strong, wrists aren't really, and to break a blade would require both sides to be strong otherwise the sword would be ripped out of your opponents hand, but i could see crappy civilian rapiers of back then bending and maybe breaking. I'd hate to try it though on something like an arming sword or the like, unless hollywood special effects people had prepared the enemies sword for me.

Also if sword breaking was effective every man and his dog would have had one, which they didn't, so it likely meant lots of training with an unusual weapon to be effective, thus its own wp.

From longswordmasters
http://www.angelfire.com/art2/longsword ... trikes.htm
"Ringeck: The "Parting Strike"
Note: the parting strike is aimed at the face or breast. Do it like this: If he is in the guard Alber, strike vertically downward with the long edge, and while striking, keep your arms up high and move your point to his face.
If you move the point at his face from above with the parting strike and he displaces the point with the (his) hilt up, turn your sword, lift the (your) hilt high above your head and thrust him down into the breast.
When you strike a parting strike and he displaces with the hilt high above his head, then this displacement is called "the crown", from there you can rush in.
If he breaks the parting strike or any other Oberhau with the crown and tries to rush in, cut him in the Arm under his hands and push upward, so that the crown is broken. Then turn your sword from the low cut into a high one and free yourself in this way.

A possibility for the rarity of the sword catcher type weapons was the advent of the gun. The type of people who would likely train in the main gauche style were the same that would take to flint locks in the off hand. Why bother catching your opponents sword when you can shoot him before he gets to you. And then some nimrod trying to fight change develops the dagger/pistol a heavy dagger and a low calibur, short barreled gun. The worst of both worlds. Just think continuing to fight the trend may have developed a main gauche style with a gun sword and a gun dagger... uh, hello Cloud?

Posted: **Sun Nov 01, 2020 1:38 am**

Zer0 Kay wrote:There were no records of them actually breaking swords and all modern examples have them bending their contemporaries. To shatter a sword would have to be as rigid as a katana. I guess bending it would still be breaking it as far as combat goes.

Katana aren't as rigid as you seem to think.

Posted: **Sun Nov 01, 2020 4:35 am**

Fenris2020 wrote:
Zer0 Kay wrote:There were no records of them actually breaking swords and all modern examples have them bending their contemporaries. To shatter a sword would have to be as rigid as a katana. I guess bending it would still be breaking it as far as combat goes.

Katana aren't as rigid as you seem to think.

They're more rigid than most European swords. There soft core is a shock absorber it isn't spring steel and it isn't Damascus. The low carbon can bend but the high carbon will snap and depending on the technique of its manufacture it may be the whole blade that breaks or just the edge.

Posted: **Sun Nov 01, 2020 1:52 pm**

Zer0 Kay wrote:
Fenris2020 wrote:
Zer0 Kay wrote:There were no records of them actually breaking swords and all modern examples have them bending their contemporaries. To shatter a sword would have to be as rigid as a katana. I guess bending it would still be breaking it as far as combat goes.

Katana aren't as rigid as you seem to think.

They're more rigid than most European swords. There soft core is a shock absorber it isn't spring steel and it isn't Damascus. The low carbon can bend but the high carbon will snap and depending on the technique of its manufacture it may be the whole blade that breaks or just the edge.

Damascus swords are quite rare, and often confused with watered steel.
It also depends on the time-period and type of European sword.

Posted: **Mon Nov 02, 2020 7:31 pm**

Fenris2020 wrote:
Zer0 Kay wrote:
Fenris2020 wrote:
Zer0 Kay wrote:There were no records of them actually breaking swords and all modern examples have them bending their contemporaries. To shatter a sword would have to be as rigid as a katana. I guess bending it would still be breaking it as far as combat goes.

Katana aren't as rigid as you seem to think.

They're more rigid than most European swords. There soft core is a shock absorber it isn't spring steel and it isn't Damascus. The low carbon can bend but the high carbon will snap and depending on the technique of its manufacture it may be the whole blade that breaks or just the edge.

Damascus swords are quite rare, and often confused with watered steel.
It also depends on the time-period and type of European sword.

But at no point in European history did they purposefully manufacture swords made from high carbon steel.

The Katana on the other hand ALWAYS has high carbon steel in it and it is just a matter of to what degree. Katanas that use the Honsanmai, Shihozume, Wariha Tetsu, Orikaeshi Sanmai and Soshu Kitae techniques would likely survive high torque on a blade (bending) but even then the edge would fracture. Those using Maru would definately snap and those using Kobuse, Makuri or Gomai would definately receive severe damage, possibly even snapping.

As for Damascus and watered steel. As far as I have read the origin is iffy, the technique uncertain but it definitely isn't pattern welded steel and more likely crucible steel. They not even sure if Damascus is named after the city, the pattern or the smith. They do know swords from Damascus were known as Damascene but were not mentioned to have patterns. Ultimately the myth makes it an early equivalent of spring steel. Water steel was a reference to damascus blades not damascene blades and swords from damascus were not called damascus blades. No one else from the period could replicate the pattern and it wasn't until the 70's that someone developed pattern welding and claimed it was damascus. So watered steel is different from modern "damascus steel" but not from Damascus steel. I mean if you have heard different please cite the source so I can learn about it.

Posted: **Tue Nov 03, 2020 8:52 am**

Zer0 Kay wrote:
Fenris2020 wrote:
Zer0 Kay wrote:
Fenris2020 wrote:
Zer0 Kay wrote:There were no records of them actually breaking swords and all modern examples have them bending their contemporaries. To shatter a sword would have to be as rigid as a katana. I guess bending it would still be breaking it as far as combat goes.

Katana aren't as rigid as you seem to think.

They're more rigid than most European swords. There soft core is a shock absorber it isn't spring steel and it isn't Damascus. The low carbon can bend but the high carbon will snap and depending on the technique of its manufacture it may be the whole blade that breaks or just the edge.

Damascus swords are quite rare, and often confused with watered steel.
It also depends on the time-period and type of European sword.

But at no point in European history did they purposefully manufacture swords made from high carbon steel.

The Katana on the other hand ALWAYS has high carbon steel in it and it is just a matter of to what degree. Katanas that use the Honsanmai, Shihozume, Wariha Tetsu, Orikaeshi Sanmai and Soshu Kitae techniques would likely survive high torque on a blade (bending) but even then the edge would fracture. Those using Maru would definately snap and those using Kobuse, Makuri or Gomai would definately receive severe damage, possibly even snapping.

As for Damascus and watered steel. As far as I have read the origin is iffy, the technique uncertain but it definitely isn't pattern welded steel and more likely crucible steel. They not even sure if Damascus is named after the city, the pattern or the smith. They do know swords from Damascus were known as Damascene but were not mentioned to have patterns. Ultimately the myth makes it an early equivalent of spring steel. Water steel was a reference to damascus blades not damascene blades and swords from damascus were not called damascus blades. No one else from the period could replicate the pattern and it wasn't until the 70's that someone developed pattern welding and claimed it was damascus. So watered steel is different from modern "damascus steel" but not from Damascus steel. I mean if you have heard different please cite the source so I can learn about it.

Crucible steel of the middle ages wasn't as good as crucible steel of today.
The plural for of katana is katana.
There are a lot of legends and myths about Damascus steel; the most likely is that it was meteoric metal that, once it ran out, couldn't be duplicated any more. But the family who forged those blades never wrote down the "recipe" and technique, and apperantly died out.

Posted: **Fri Nov 06, 2020 4:43 am**

Fenris2020 wrote:Crucible steel of the middle ages wasn't as good as crucible steel of today.
The plural for of katana is katana.
There are a lot of legends and myths about Damascus steel; the most likely is that it was meteoric metal that, once it ran out, couldn't be duplicated any more. But the family who forged those blades never wrote down the "recipe" and technique, and apperantly died out.

Your point? Doesn't change that it was crucible steel and not pattern welded.

As for plural for Katana both Katanga and Katanas is acceptable. Japanese does plural different. You claiming Katanas is wrong is like telling me "radios" or "TVs" is wrong as radio and TV is used for both plural and singular in Japanese. Are they wrong not to add an s when they speak of them in plural? No, because they are adapting the word to their language. Katanas is adapting the word to English.

Back to Damascus, so then your going by the "Damascus" is named after the smith not where the sword was made nor the appearance of the blade?

Posted: **Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:13 pm**

Zer0 Kay wrote:
Fenris2020 wrote:Crucible steel of the middle ages wasn't as good as crucible steel of today.
The plural for of katana is katana.
There are a lot of legends and myths about Damascus steel; the most likely is that it was meteoric metal that, once it ran out, couldn't be duplicated any more. But the family who forged those blades never wrote down the "recipe" and technique, and apparently died out.

Your point? Doesn't change that it was crucible steel and not pattern welded.

As for plural for Katana both Katanga and Katanas is acceptable. Japanese does plural different. You claiming Katanas is wrong is like telling me "radios" or "TVs" is wrong as radio and TV is used for both plural and singular in Japanese. Are they wrong not to add an s when they speak of them in plural? No, because they are adapting the word to their language. Katanas is adapting the word to English.
...snip

So you're saying that Katanga is the japanese language plural of katana? hummm

Lets look at Wikipedia....

As Japanese does not have separate plural and singular forms, both katanas and katana are considered acceptable forms in English. Pronounced [katana], the kun'yomi (Japanese reading) of the kanji 刀, originally meaning dao or knife/saber in Chinese, the word has been adopted as a loanword by the Portuguese.

another place in Wikipedia...

Noun
katana (plural katana or katanas)

A type of Japanese longsword or 日本刀 (nihontō), having a single edge and slight curvature, historically used by samurai and ninja.

Looks to me that using the japanese language rules the plural of katana is katana.
(there is a parallel in English with he word 'sheep')
And when it is pluralized by english speakers they follow the English rules and add an 's' to the end.

This is sort of like the the 'what is the plural of octopus?' question. following the rules in the language of Origen it is octopi, but when English speakers get their hands on it they use octopuses. Even thou the word octopuses sounds like a cats with 8 legs.

Posted: **Sat Nov 07, 2020 6:43 pm**

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
Zer0 Kay wrote:
Fenris2020 wrote:Crucible steel of the middle ages wasn't as good as crucible steel of today.
The plural for of katana is katana.
There are a lot of legends and myths about Damascus steel; the most likely is that it was meteoric metal that, once it ran out, couldn't be duplicated any more. But the family who forged those blades never wrote down the "recipe" and technique, and apparently died out.

Your point? Doesn't change that it was crucible steel and not pattern welded.

As for plural for Katana both Katanga and Katanas is acceptable. Japanese does plural different. You claiming Katanas is wrong is like telling me "radios" or "TVs" is wrong as radio and TV is used for both plural and singular in Japanese. Are they wrong not to add an s when they speak of them in plural? No, because they are adapting the word to their language. Katanas is adapting the word to English.
...snip

So you're saying that Katanga is the japanese language plural of katana? hummm

Lets look at Wikipedia....
As Japanese does not have separate plural and singular forms, both katanas and katana are considered acceptable forms in English. Pronounced [katana], the kun'yomi (Japanese reading) of the kanji 刀, originally meaning dao or knife/saber in Chinese, the word has been adopted as a loanword by the Portuguese.

another place in Wikipedia...
Noun
katana (plural katana or katanas)

A type of Japanese longsword or 日本刀 (nihontō), having a single edge and slight curvature, historically used by samurai and ninja.

Looks to me that using the japanese language rules the plural of katana is katana.
(there is a parallel in English with he word 'sheep')
And when it is pluralized by english speakers they follow the English rules and add an 's' to the end.

This is sort of like the the 'what is the plural of octopus?' question. following the rules in the language of Origen it is octopi, but when English speakers get their hands on it they use octopuses. Even thou the word octopuses sounds like a cats with 8 legs.

I've only ever heard small children say 'octopuses"; I guess anyone who isn't 6 or under knows better?

Posted: **Sat Nov 07, 2020 7:59 pm**

it was literally argued over here on this site (not sure if BBS or Chat) ages ago. octopi-octopuses. thank you for bringing a smile to me.

Posted: **Sun Nov 08, 2020 5:48 am**

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
Zer0 Kay wrote:
Fenris2020 wrote:Crucible steel of the middle ages wasn't as good as crucible steel of today.
The plural for of katana is katana.
There are a lot of legends and myths about Damascus steel; the most likely is that it was meteoric metal that, once it ran out, couldn't be duplicated any more. But the family who forged those blades never wrote down the "recipe" and technique, and apparently died out.

Your point? Doesn't change that it was crucible steel and not pattern welded.

As for plural for Katana both Katanga and Katanas is acceptable. Japanese does plural different. You claiming Katanas is wrong is like telling me "radios" or "TVs" is wrong as radio and TV is used for both plural and singular in Japanese. Are they wrong not to add an s when they speak of them in plural? No, because they are adapting the word to their language. Katanas is adapting the word to English.
...snip

So you're saying that Katanga is the japanese language plural of katana? hummm

Lets look at Wikipedia....
As Japanese does not have separate plural and singular forms, both katanas and katana are considered acceptable forms in English. Pronounced [katana], the kun'yomi (Japanese reading) of the kanji 刀, originally meaning dao or knife/saber in Chinese, the word has been adopted as a loanword by the Portuguese.

another place in Wikipedia...
Noun
katana (plural katana or katanas)

A type of Japanese longsword or 日本刀 (nihontō), having a single edge and slight curvature, historically used by samurai and ninja.

Looks to me that using the japanese language rules the plural of katana is katana.
(there is a parallel in English with he word 'sheep')
And when it is pluralized by english speakers they follow the English rules and add an 's' to the end.

This is sort of like the the 'what is the plural of octopus?' question. following the rules in the language of Origen it is octopi, but when English speakers get their hands on it they use octopuses. Even thou the word octopuses sounds like a cats with 8 legs.

Doh... No. Katanga was a auto correct error. For some reason every time I put katana in it is auto correcting it to Katanga or Katanga's if I try katanas. I switched to the bitmoji keyboard recently and apparently it carried with with it the Katanga auto correct. I thought I had gotten all of them.

Posted: **Sun Nov 08, 2020 5:50 am**

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:it was literally argued over here on this site (not sure if BBS or Chat) ages ago. octopi-octopuses. thank you for bringing a smile to me.

I thought octopuses was like saying a couple of cats but for specifically 8 of them.

Posted: **Sun Nov 08, 2020 6:14 am**

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
Zer0 Kay wrote:
Fenris2020 wrote:Crucible steel of the middle ages wasn't as good as crucible steel of today.
The plural for of katana is katana.
There are a lot of legends and myths about Damascus steel; the most likely is that it was meteoric metal that, once it ran out, couldn't be duplicated any more. But the family who forged those blades never wrote down the "recipe" and technique, and apparently died out.

Your point? Doesn't change that it was crucible steel and not pattern welded.

As for plural for Katana both Katanga and Katanas is acceptable. Japanese does plural different. You claiming Katanas is wrong is like telling me "radios" or "TVs" is wrong as radio and TV is used for both plural and singular in Japanese. Are they wrong not to add an s when they speak of them in plural? No, because they are adapting the word to their language. Katanas is adapting the word to English.
...snip

So you're saying that Katanga is the japanese language plural of katana? hummm

Lets look at Wikipedia....
As Japanese does not have separate plural and singular forms, both katanas and katana are considered acceptable forms in English. Pronounced [katana], the kun'yomi (Japanese reading) of the kanji 刀, originally meaning dao or knife/saber in Chinese, the word has been adopted as a loanword by the Portuguese.

another place in Wikipedia...
Noun
katana (plural katana or katanas)

A type of Japanese longsword or 日本刀 (nihontō), having a single edge and slight curvature, historically used by samurai and ninja.

Looks to me that using the japanese language rules the plural of katana is katana.
(there is a parallel in English with he word 'sheep')
And when it is pluralized by english speakers they follow the English rules and add an 's' to the end.

This is sort of like the the 'what is the plural of octopus?' question. following the rules in the language of Origen it is octopi, but when English speakers get their hands on it they use octopuses. Even thou the word octopuses sounds like a cats with 8 legs.

According to Japanese rules katana is not the plural of katana. Technically the word would be accompanied by a number...

Here from wikibooks
The Japanese language lacks plurals in the normal English sense. Plural words are usually either preceded with a number and a counter, or simply made understood through context. A few nouns can also suffix a pluralizing word, such as "たち" or "ら". When referring to a person, "たち" indicates company.

So if we are going to be super obtuse about it katana is not the plural but two katana or there were many katana but one can not say it was definitely katana we found and not Katanga or I need you to get the katana, not the katana.

So as you sited multiple sources say katanas is an exceptible English plural of katana. As there is no true plural rule for Japanese while there is for Latin with octopi or as there isn't with moosen, meece or boxen... WAIT huh??? was the point of this thread?

Oh yeah a sword breaker should just get a parry bonus and cause "bear hug like" damage to the sword unless the swordist

is able to beat the parry with a parry (essentially finnestigating their sword out of the grip) or a comparitativly easierish contestimigated PS roll to bruteforcimize the blade free at the cost of doubleicated damageation to the blade. So if your good at swordificating you should be able to get your blade free with minimalisticish damagification but if your just good and the wakifiery and the bashification then you can pryificate your blade out but will certainly damage it. Hope the funification of the wordions was enjoyableistic.

Posted: **Sun Nov 08, 2020 11:39 am**

...The hell is a swordist?
Do you mean swordsman or swordswoman?
Anyway, the sword-breaker is simply a type of dagger, so you'd just use WP: Knife; I'd rule using the Disarm bonus to attempt to break the blade, which was a technique used against small-swords. It wouldn't be a particularly useful technique against an actual Rapier (you'd attempt to Disarm, instead), and pretty much useless against anything heavier. A small-sword blade would be light enough to potentially snap.

Posted: **Sun Nov 08, 2020 12:14 pm**

swordist...by grammatical construction is someone who uses swords. He just used the -ist suffix.

Ventriloquist is an example of the '-ist' suffix. It is also a gender neutral way of saying 'a user of....."

Posted: **Sun Nov 08, 2020 4:25 pm**

Zer0 Kay wrote: Hope the funification of the wordions was enjoyableistic.

It certainly was. Thank you.

Posted: **Sun Nov 08, 2020 5:12 pm**

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:swordist...by grammatical construction is someone who uses swords. He just used the -ist suffix.

Ventriloquist is an example of the '-ist' suffix. It is also a gender neutral way of saying 'a user of....."

Guys you are looking waaaaay to into this. I was just having fun. The point is we were distracted by words from the point of the post.

My opinion is that sword breakers should be handled like.

P1 Attack
P2 Parry (successful) weapon is locked and takes damage to the blade (listed damage of sword breaker)
P2 is likely using paired weapons and so he also attacks
P1s weapon is locked so he can either roll parry to compete against another roll to parry by P2 or roll under his PS and pry it away but take double the sword breakers listed damage to his sword.
If P1 is uncessful his sword is still caught and takes listed damage from the sword breaker.
P2s sword breaker is effectively caught up so P2 may only use the second of his paired weapons.
Rinse was and repeat until P1 frees his sword or drops it in favor of some other tactic.

Posted: **Sun Nov 08, 2020 5:18 pm**

Fenris2020 wrote:...The hell is a swordist?
Do you mean swordsman or swordswoman?
Anyway, the sword-breaker is simply a type of dagger, so you'd just use WP: Knife; I'd rule using the Disarm bonus to attempt to break the blade, which was a technique used against small-swords. It wouldn't be a particularly useful technique against an actual Rapier (you'd attempt to Disarm, instead), and pretty much useless against anything heavier. A small-sword blade would be light enough to potentially snap.

Well I hope so as the main gouache style was popular during the period when rapiers and sabers and the like were preferred instead of the arming, bastard, long, great or short swords which all had a wider blade profile reducing the amount of grip the sword breakers tines would provide vs. The lighter, narrower "duelist" type swords.

Posted: **Sun Nov 08, 2020 8:47 pm**

Zer0 Kay wrote:
Fenris2020 wrote:...The hell is a swordist?
Do you mean swordsman or swordswoman?
Anyway, the sword-breaker is simply a type of dagger, so you'd just use WP: Knife; I'd rule using the Disarm bonus to attempt to break the blade, which was a technique used against small-swords. It wouldn't be a particularly useful technique against an actual Rapier (you'd attempt to Disarm, instead), and pretty much useless against anything heavier. A small-sword blade would be light enough to potentially snap.

Well I hope so as the main gouache style was popular during the period when rapiers and sabers and the like were preferred instead of the arming, bastard, long, great or short swords which all had a wider blade profile reducing the amount of grip the sword breakers tines would provide vs. The lighter, narrower "duelist" type swords.

Until the 1918 pattern, sabres were rarely narrow, and even the more narrow ones before then weren't something you could break with a sword-breaker.
Rapiers really varied as well; the heavier military rapiers were pretty much like arming swords, and the civilian dueling rapiers weren't as narrow as the small-swords a lot of people confuse them with these days.

Posted: **Mon Nov 09, 2020 11:09 pm**

Fenris2020 wrote:
Zer0 Kay wrote:
Fenris2020 wrote:...The hell is a swordist?
Do you mean swordsman or swordswoman?
Anyway, the sword-breaker is simply a type of dagger, so you'd just use WP: Knife; I'd rule using the Disarm bonus to attempt to break the blade, which was a technique used against small-swords. It wouldn't be a particularly useful technique against an actual Rapier (you'd attempt to Disarm, instead), and pretty much useless against anything heavier. A small-sword blade would be light enough to potentially snap.

Well I hope so as the main gouache style was popular during the period when rapiers and sabers and the like were preferred instead of the arming, bastard, long, great or short swords which all had a wider blade profile reducing the amount of grip the sword breakers tines would provide vs. The lighter, narrower "duelist" type swords.

Until the 1918 pattern, sabres were rarely narrow, and even the more narrow ones before then weren't something you could break with a sword-breaker.
Rapiers really varied as well; the heavier military rapiers were pretty much like arming swords, and the civilian dueling rapiers weren't as narrow as the small-swords a lot of people confuse them with these days.

... Here we go again. Turko Mongol Sabers (the first recognized sabers) were about an inch and a half from the back of the blade to the edge. Pretty thin when compared to the euro style swords. Swords from side to side (which may have been what you thought I was referring to when I said thick) doesn't vary much. But I have been talking about/meaning from edge to spine. Which is the direction that would make a difference between a sword breaker's tines being able to catch the blade within the groove instead of just grabing or biting the blade by applying torque to the sides.

BTW for Katana's being stiffer than other swords... http://swordstem.com/2020/08/05/sword-cross-sections/

Posted: **Mon Nov 09, 2020 11:12 pm**

Fenris2020 wrote:
Zer0 Kay wrote:
Fenris2020 wrote:...The hell is a swordist?
Do you mean swordsman or swordswoman?
Anyway, the sword-breaker is simply a type of dagger, so you'd just use WP: Knife; I'd rule using the Disarm bonus to attempt to break the blade, which was a technique used against small-swords. It wouldn't be a particularly useful technique against an actual Rapier (you'd attempt to Disarm, instead), and pretty much useless against anything heavier. A small-sword blade would be light enough to potentially snap.

Well I hope so as the main gouache style was popular during the period when rapiers and sabers and the like were preferred instead of the arming, bastard, long, great or short swords which all had a wider blade profile reducing the amount of grip the sword breakers tines would provide vs. The lighter, narrower "duelist" type swords.

Until the 1918 pattern, sabres were rarely narrow, and even the more narrow ones before then weren't something you could break with a sword-breaker.
Rapiers really varied as well; the heavier military rapiers were pretty much like arming swords, and the civilian dueling rapiers weren't as narrow as the small-swords a lot of people confuse them with these days.

What is a "small sword"

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2020 2:48 am**

Zer0 Kay wrote:
Fenris2020 wrote:
Zer0 Kay wrote:
Fenris2020 wrote:...The hell is a swordist?
Do you mean swordsman or swordswoman?
Anyway, the sword-breaker is simply a type of dagger, so you'd just use WP: Knife; I'd rule using the Disarm bonus to attempt to break the blade, which was a technique used against small-swords. It wouldn't be a particularly useful technique against an actual Rapier (you'd attempt to Disarm, instead), and pretty much useless against anything heavier. A small-sword blade would be light enough to potentially snap.

Well I hope so as the main gouache style was popular during the period when rapiers and sabers and the like were preferred instead of the arming, bastard, long, great or short swords which all had a wider blade profile reducing the amount of grip the sword breakers tines would provide vs. The lighter, narrower "duelist" type swords.

Until the 1918 pattern, sabres were rarely narrow, and even the more narrow ones before then weren't something you could break with a sword-breaker.
Rapiers really varied as well; the heavier military rapiers were pretty much like arming swords, and the civilian dueling rapiers weren't as narrow as the small-swords a lot of people confuse them with these days.

What is a "small sword"

an argument between military historians, i think

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2020 5:38 am**

Orin J. wrote:
Zer0 Kay wrote:
Fenris2020 wrote:
Zer0 Kay wrote:
Fenris2020 wrote:...The hell is a swordist?
Do you mean swordsman or swordswoman?
Anyway, the sword-breaker is simply a type of dagger, so you'd just use WP: Knife; I'd rule using the Disarm bonus to attempt to break the blade, which was a technique used against small-swords. It wouldn't be a particularly useful technique against an actual Rapier (you'd attempt to Disarm, instead), and pretty much useless against anything heavier. A small-sword blade would be light enough to potentially snap.

Well I hope so as the main gouache style was popular during the period when rapiers and sabers and the like were preferred instead of the arming, bastard, long, great or short swords which all had a wider blade profile reducing the amount of grip the sword breakers tines would provide vs. The lighter, narrower "duelist" type swords.

Until the 1918 pattern, sabres were rarely narrow, and even the more narrow ones before then weren't something you could break with a sword-breaker.
Rapiers really varied as well; the heavier military rapiers were pretty much like arming swords, and the civilian dueling rapiers weren't as narrow as the small-swords a lot of people confuse them with these days.

What is a "small sword"

an argument between military historians, i think

Dang there is no spit take emoji.

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2020 9:02 am**

Zer0 Kay wrote:
Fenris2020 wrote:
Zer0 Kay wrote:
Fenris2020 wrote:...The hell is a swordist?
Do you mean swordsman or swordswoman?
Anyway, the sword-breaker is simply a type of dagger, so you'd just use WP: Knife; I'd rule using the Disarm bonus to attempt to break the blade, which was a technique used against small-swords. It wouldn't be a particularly useful technique against an actual Rapier (you'd attempt to Disarm, instead), and pretty much useless against anything heavier. A small-sword blade would be light enough to potentially snap.

Well I hope so as the main gouache style was popular during the period when rapiers and sabers and the like were preferred instead of the arming, bastard, long, great or short swords which all had a wider blade profile reducing the amount of grip the sword breakers tines would provide vs. The lighter, narrower "duelist" type swords.

Until the 1918 pattern, sabres were rarely narrow, and even the more narrow ones before then weren't something you could break with a sword-breaker.
Rapiers really varied as well; the heavier military rapiers were pretty much like arming swords, and the civilian dueling rapiers weren't as narrow as the small-swords a lot of people confuse them with these days.

... Here we go again. Turko Mongol Sabers (the first recognized sabers) were about an inch and a half from the back of the blade to the edge. Pretty thin when compared to the euro style swords. Swords from side to side (which may have been what you thought I was referring to when I said thick) doesn't vary much. But I have been talking about/meaning from edge to spine. Which is the direction that would make a difference between a sword breaker's tines being able to catch the blade within the groove instead of just grabing or biting the blade by applying torque to the sides.

BTW for Katana's being stiffer than other swords... http://swordstem.com/2020/08/05/sword-cross-sections/

Some of the later kilij were that thin, most of the earlier ones are thicker. Here's an example of the kilij (Turkic sabre) in use. This one is typical of the type used in the period we're discussing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikVMXhcjbYc

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2020 9:05 am**

Zer0 Kay wrote:
Fenris2020 wrote:
Zer0 Kay wrote:
Fenris2020 wrote:...The hell is a swordist?
Do you mean swordsman or swordswoman?
Anyway, the sword-breaker is simply a type of dagger, so you'd just use WP: Knife; I'd rule using the Disarm bonus to attempt to break the blade, which was a technique used against small-swords. It wouldn't be a particularly useful technique against an actual Rapier (you'd attempt to Disarm, instead), and pretty much useless against anything heavier. A small-sword blade would be light enough to potentially snap.

Well I hope so as the main gouache style was popular during the period when rapiers and sabers and the like were preferred instead of the arming, bastard, long, great or short swords which all had a wider blade profile reducing the amount of grip the sword breakers tines would provide vs. The lighter, narrower "duelist" type swords.

Until the 1918 pattern, sabres were rarely narrow, and even the more narrow ones before then weren't something you could break with a sword-breaker.
Rapiers really varied as well; the heavier military rapiers were pretty much like arming swords, and the civilian dueling rapiers weren't as narrow as the small-swords a lot of people confuse them with these days.

What is a "small sword"

This will help a bit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7zv2gRpgAc

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2020 9:13 pm**

Zer0 Kay wrote:
Fenris2020 wrote:
Zer0 Kay wrote:
Fenris2020 wrote:...The hell is a swordist?
Do you mean swordsman or swordswoman?
Anyway, the sword-breaker is simply a type of dagger, so you'd just use WP: Knife; I'd rule using the Disarm bonus to attempt to break the blade, which was a technique used against small-swords. It wouldn't be a particularly useful technique against an actual Rapier (you'd attempt to Disarm, instead), and pretty much useless against anything heavier. A small-sword blade would be light enough to potentially snap.

Well I hope so as the main gouache style was popular during the period when rapiers and sabers and the like were preferred instead of the arming, bastard, long, great or short swords which all had a wider blade profile reducing the amount of grip the sword breakers tines would provide vs. The lighter, narrower "duelist" type swords.

Until the 1918 pattern, sabres were rarely narrow, and even the more narrow ones before then weren't something you could break with a sword-breaker.
Rapiers really varied as well; the heavier military rapiers were pretty much like arming swords, and the civilian dueling rapiers weren't as narrow as the small-swords a lot of people confuse them with these days.

What is a "small sword"

For those Game of Thrones fans....Needle was a small-sword. (taking this information from Forged in Fire.)

Posted: **Thu Nov 12, 2020 1:47 pm**

Here's a good explanation of the sword-breaker

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUaVFufDiks

Forums of the Megaverse®

Sword Breaker

Sword Breaker

Re: Sword Breaker

Re: Sword Breaker

Re: Sword Breaker

Re: Sword Breaker

Re: Sword Breaker

Re: Sword Breaker

Re: Sword Breaker

Re: Sword Breaker

Re: Sword Breaker

Re: Sword Breaker

Re: Sword Breaker

Re: Sword Breaker

Re: Sword Breaker

Re: Sword Breaker

Re: Sword Breaker

Re: Sword Breaker

Re: Sword Breaker

Re: Sword Breaker

Re: Sword Breaker

Re: Sword Breaker

Re: Sword Breaker

Re: Sword Breaker

Re: Sword Breaker

Re: Sword Breaker

Re: Sword Breaker

Re: Sword Breaker

Re: Sword Breaker

Re: Sword Breaker

Re: Sword Breaker

Re: Sword Breaker

Re: Sword Breaker

Re: Sword Breaker

Re: Sword Breaker

Re: Sword Breaker

Re: Sword Breaker

Re: Sword Breaker

Re: Sword Breaker

Re: Sword Breaker

Re: Sword Breaker

Re: Sword Breaker

Re: Sword Breaker

Re: Sword Breaker

Re: Sword Breaker