Posted By Zariel at 12:40 PM - Sat Apr 29 2017
Im lazy didnt read previous comments....Full plate isnt as hindering as people think it is. Ive seen people run around do push ups scale walls and do backflips in full plate it aint hindering its just heavyish
Yeah, heavy armour is just heavy, yet you can't be as agile as an unarmoured fighter, and you obviously burn your stamina way faster.
Posted By AlricJ at 12:36 PM - Sat Apr 29 2017
Armour went through many many refinements to perfect. It had to be carried and maintained. It was incredibly expensive.
Yet people who could wear it, did wear it. Not because they wanted to shift their stats or become a bit stronger here and a bit weaker there. But because fully armed and armoured men have a massive advantage over unarmored men using sidearms or tools (daggers or knives).
Your strikes with a light weapon on an armoured man wouldn't do 1/3 damage. They would do no damage. They simply expose you to counter attack for nothing (and very possible dull or break your weapon).
Yes it's possible to kill an armoured man with a dagger by targeting weak points. Your problem is the weak points are tiny and he knows them better than you do. You are a little lighter on your feet but he has far longer range. He can hit you when you can't hit him so timing is in his favour. He has only a tiny area to protect whereas a hit to you anywhere at all is likely to be lethal or crippling.
Killing a man in full armour with a dagger would very likely be done not with swiftness but with grappling. You take him down, achieve dominant position and then deliver the coup de grace when he can't protect himself.
Point of all of this is that you're at a massive disadvantage. You need to be far more skilled than he is to stand a chance. Sounds good. Except the reason he's in that incredibly expensive war gear is that he's a warrior trained from childhood. Lumbering guys who can't fight wearing full armour are for movies.
Long and short of it, I doubt many people want realistic on this one.
By using so many "if" and "except" I fail to see realism in your post. Armours have many weak points, especially on the rear for fully armoured knights were usually fighting on a battlefield, not duelling. To your warrior trained since childhood to fight one could easily oppose a thief, master in dagger, for being used to survive on his own since childhood...
Experience is not relevant on the matter, thing is dagger should be very hard to use against an armoured target, yet it should be deadly if one manages to hit a weak point.
Also, armoured fighters are well protected against blades but ill protected against blunt weapons (staff, club, hammer and the such, hence the half swording technique) meaning though using daggers would obviously be quite a challenge, yet fully armoured warriors should be far from unkillable by an unarmoured fighter.
PS : I suggest to have a look at the vid on youtube about the hald swording technique by junon armory. It's very interesting about a fight between armoured and unamoured fighters.
