Advice/Help Can staff wielding martial artist defeat an enemy in full plate?

[Grey]

Depending on how fantastical and acrobatic you get, there's a pleasing image in tripping a knight and vaulting into the air to put your whole bodyweight into driving the tip of the staff into the head or chest. Part of what makes a pollax effective is concentrating the force into a more focused area.

 

[Beckoncall]

A staff wielding opponent in light armor has plenty of opportunity to win such a fight.

one advantage is range... a knight would need a claymore or greasword to match your range and it could be argued you could even maintain a safe distance being lighter with this range. Also the weight of the knight could be used against it... I’d say thematically and actually I would mind the distance advantage of the weapons, lever the knights legs with your staff, then once they’re on the ground flip the visor up and smash the face.

if you roll really high you can flip up the visor and hit between the eyes while your foe is still standing!

 

[M.J. Saulnier]

A staff wielding opponent in light armor has plenty of opportunity to win such a fight.

Using a staff, all you really need is shin and forearm guards. Anything more would get in my way and hinder forms.

one advantage is range... a knight would need a claymore or greasword to match your range and it could be argued you could even maintain a safe distance being lighter with this range.

Without proper footwork, that gap can easily be closed by a clever swordsman. Part of what makes the spear great is the ease and speed with which one can both attack at full power using thrusting strikes, and either advance or retreat at the same time.

if you roll really high you can flip up the visor and hit between the eyes while your foe is still standing!

Against an NPC that's being downplayed, sure. But this is a rather fantastic nurfish move that makes the assumption that your opponent has horrific reaction timing and warfare awareness. It's very easy to grab, push away, or even dodge attacks that linger around the face for even long enough to fully, properly open the face guard of a full helm.

Quick, snapping shots to the faceguard similar to jabs might work, but if you're risking actually opening up his face guard, we're into anime territory with it.


My critical strike strategy would involve constant, vexing movement. Every time that tin can so much as fucking flinches, I'm stepping to either side. The moment I get a decent window to strike by surprise from the blindside, I'm throwing a full power swing to the face, which will disorient and snap the head back momentarily. Coming out of that swing, allowing it to glance over the shoulders, I'm transitioning into another full power swing coming back the other way, across the back of the knee. This will hopefully create enough of a combination of disorientation and imbalance to get him off one or both feet.

Full plate mail only weighed about 55 pounds tops. It's not like you had to fight in 100lbs of metal. It just takes more energy long-term to actually fight in. It took skill to swing thrust and cut at full power when in full armor. As a result, knights trained relentlessly in that armor, making sure they could swing full power for long enough to fight. But even still, if you are trapped inside of a steel exoskeleton, you will tire out quicker than anyone who is not in full plate.


The main issue with combat, any type of RP physics, really, is relativity. Some people have never actually been in a fight. Most people don't actually know how to fight. So their conceptions of what it's like to fight, what the physics of it are like, what is actually practical and what is fiction, vary so greatly in nature and degree, that getting to the bottom of "practical" is a very long, difficult road for the average player.

 

[Vordak]

Surprised nobody mentioned this, but one on one, with a backup dagger, the staff makes for an excellent tool to transition into grounded grappling - where you can start to apply pins and holds to open up the opponent for a stab under the armor or a maiming jointlock. Considering how much of a staff's punch is taken away by armor, it makes sense to instead rely on all the rest of its advantages: great range control and transitions, quick high-low transitions, additional leverage for grappling/trips, sheer length that allows you to go for trips and sweeps without lowering your stance and hindering mobility, lots of surface area to bind with against the opponent's weapon for, once again, control and a potential grappling entry.

It might not be a core strategy, but all things considered, it's high priority to use as soon as the opportunity shows itself.

Also, headshots. Under the given circumstance, it's either strikes to the arms to stuff their attacks, or just go straight for the head: concussions, potential to control the opponent by binding the staff against their neck if you miss, large chance of landing on the shoulders/chest/arms instead to at least disrupt their balance or guard, always keeps your own guard up high, defending your own priority targets; finally, draws the opponent's guard up high too, so that you can transition from a strike to an unobstructed sweep.
Going to the body is practically useless, as not only will armor absorb the strike - it will also deflect it, leaving you vulnerable. Going to the legs opens you up high - which is high risk for a reward as small as momentarily disturbing their balance with a small chance of actually landing to the knee (remember that all the opponent needs to do is either lift their leg to take it on the armored shin, or just spring their leg back to evade entirely) - the power of which would still be severely mitigated by the armor's function to not only dissipate, but also redirect force.

 

[M.J. Saulnier]

Because if I'm holding a sword, the last thing you want to do is try BJJ...

Like I see exactly what you mean, but there's a reason grappling and submissions weren't prominent, even on the battlefields of ancient Asia. I would not want to try jiu jitsu work on someone clad in full plate. Just no. The energy required to properly grip curved armor pieces, and manipulate body parts from under all that steel or iron - hell to the no. Not very practical in the scope you're describing.

 

[lnbb2rptj6]

It all depends if there is cocaine in this story setting, and whether or not the staff wielder has access to an excessive amount of it before or during this event. Say you get a high dice roll on taking cocaine versus a low dice roll on taking cocaine and it might be the deciding factor in this considered matchup, but it really depends on the grade and amount of coke, so leave that to debating to figure out and take it from there.

 

[Ganryu]

It'd be a huge disadvantage if we're going realistically. Knights are basically walking tanks back in the day. Very little would get through all that armor, best money could afford. A sword is nearly completely freakin' useless without Mordehau/Halfswording, spears aren't piercing many areas, and a lot of padding is preventing alot of blunt damage. I can not stress how much of a freakin' juggernaut they were. The gambeson alone was damn good armor that could stop most weapons, and that was just the padding, forget the metal ontop. They have 1-3 layers ONTOP of that. Knights are tanky, knights are tanky, Knights are tanky!

And if you're character is going in unarmored, they have to just hit you once.

That said, quarterstaff's actually a pretty decent weapon if you're picking against antiarmor. I said they had a ton of padding, and this is true. You could hit them in the chest til the cows come home. However, helm shots are a great idea. You can only take so many blows to the head before things start to get blurry. Its probably a better option than many other traditional thoughts if its against full plate.

A hammer or halberd would be a lot better, or a club.

A quarterstaff is fast, hard to stop, and has reach. So why wasn't it popular? It didn't do a ton of damage. Yes you're likely to hit someone with it, but imagine taking a sword to chest chest vs taking a staff blow to one. It'll hurt, but you'll probably live and recover. (Fun fact though, even if you 'kill them' with a sword, they might not go down. Human body is weird and bleeding out takes time.)

Now, another fun thing, what weapon probably killed the most knights? Probably a dagger. It was a popular side arm because once you'd toppled one over, stab. Alot easier than messing with armor.

Also, another misconception addressed earlier. Knights were not slow. Armor sucked to wear, true. It was hot, it tired you out, pain in the ass to go to the restroom if you had it on, hard to don/doff without help. But there was a reason it was used. If there was a single disadvantage to it in combat, people would have looked for an excuse not to wear it.

But in combat, you're near immortal with it, just as fast as normal, and the added defense gives you added offense. (No shield means two hands, which is great.) You could totally swim with full plate mail on, do somersaults (assuming you could do one in the first place), and run at a brisk pace.

So yeah. Armor's incredible if we're being realistic, but quarterstaff isn't the worst pick. Definitely a disadvantage if you don't have any.

 

[M.J. Saulnier]

Now, another fun thing, what weapon probably killed the most knights? Probably a dagger. It was a popular side arm because once you'd toppled one over, stab. A lot easier than messing with armor.

Actually, no, this is a gross misconception. Another advancement in weaponry resulted in a literal culling of the armored knight, one by one until melee logic was abandoned altogether as a forerunner of warfare.

The firearm probably killed more knights than any singular melee weapon type, as knights ruled the day and crushing the skull of a defeated knight or stabbing deep under the armpit was the most favored way of dispatching them. For a while plate could withstand flintlock shots, but that quickly took a gruesome turn. In time they became viewed as metal coffins.

 

[TPBx]

Ngl this should have been a /thread ages ago.

At the end of the day this is all about how you and the GM decide to write the fight and what the result should be. And if you enjoyed it. Who gives a shit about realism. Hollywood doesnt. Most books dont. Comics pssh dont get me started.

Real fights suck and arent pretty nor dramatic. You swing a few punches. Get tossed to the ground and either you get beaten up or the other guy does. And this hasnt changed since the evolution of weapons beyond just our bare fists. One guy gets stabbed and dies the other lives. One guy outguns the other and the other guy lives. There is no battle of morals or ideals in real combat. No flashy anime powers with crazy names. No secret martial arts techniques or styles. No crazy sequences of blocks parries, dodges, and reactions. There is just the one still standing and the one who isnt.

Should a plate wearing knight win against a girl wielding a staff trying to fight them hand to hand. 99 times out of 100 yeah. In a realistic fight women are at a biological disadvantage due to lack of muscle mass that even the most unathletic average man can outperform an above average athletic woman in strength exercises. This is just biological truth. And wearing full plate and being a knight trained in combat since the tender age of 10 almost guarantees the knights victory. That is reality.

The real question then is "Do you need to adhere to this reality?" F*** no. If you want girl to be a badass staff wielder that shits on the knight go for it. If thats what you want and its part of the story go for it

 

[Ganryu]

Actually, no, this is a gross misconception. Another advancement in weaponry resulted in a literal culling of the armored knight, one by one until melee logic was abandoned altogether as a forerunner of warfare.

The firearm probably killed more knights than any singular melee weapon type, as knights ruled the day and crushing the skull of a defeated knight or stabbing deep under the armpit was the most favored way of dispatching them. For a while plate could withstand flintlock shots, but that quickly took a gruesome turn. In time they became viewed as metal coffins.

Alright, melee weapon. Even without guns, steel crossbows, warbows, had ridiculous p enetration power

 

[M.J. Saulnier]

TPBx Women are actually better at martial arts, though. It may not be as common historically speaking, and of course it will vary with the individual, but they are more flexible, and have a higher pain threshold - on average, of course. Being small (both in height and shape) has many benefits as well.

It's common knowledge that Chinese farmers and villagers developed martial arts initially simply to protect themselves from raiders and soldiers, who were almost always bigger, better trained and equipped. They took or modified simple tools for daily life, and taught themselves to use them as weapons. Most of it focuses on how you use what you have, vs cultivating raw power to toss around.

Strength means very little in a fight, unless the wielder of that strength is very good at not only using it, but dealing with their opponents avoidance of/answer to it. This is what drives me nuts about combat in RP. Subjective awareness is so rare to find.

 

[Ganryu]

TPBx Women are actually better at martial arts, though. It may not be as common historically speaking, and of course it will vary with the individual, but they are more flexible, and have a higher pain threshold - on average, of course. Being small (both in height and shape) has many benefits as well.

It's common knowledge that Chinese farmers and villagers developed martial arts initially simply to protect themselves from raiders and soldiers, who were almost always bigger, better trained and equipped. They took or modified simple tools for daily life, and taught themselves to use them as weapons. Most of it focuses on how you use what you have, vs cultivating raw power to toss around.

Strength means very little in a fight, unless the wielder of that strength is very good at not only using it, but dealing with their opponents avoidance of/answer to it. This is what drives me nuts about combat in RP. Subjective awareness is so rare to find.

Alright, the pain tolerence thing is an urban myth. There's been a few studies, and while pain being subject, and therefore nothing conclusive, none of them show women being more pain resistant.

While I can't disprove the martial arts thing, I can show two areas where it does matter. Grappling, and archery. Grappling, if two people are in armor, either you have to do enought damage to hurt someone through the armor (you aren't breaking it, but you can transfer damage through it. Like I said with the dagger, often easier just to knock them over and stab. Strength matters then. And Archery. Arrows aren't weak. You need a ton of freakin' muscles for warbows, dainty regular bows aren't piercing anything. It took so much strength it warped bones and developed muscles in weird ways. Both require strength. Now if both are unarmed and armed, gender isn't going to matter too much. A sword's a sword's a sword.

Could women fight? Hell yes. More advanced tech got, the less it mattered. Anyone could use siege weaponry, or crossbows for instance. Your gender didn't care where who killed you if they killed you.

Also, martial arts matters relatively little if the opposing side had a bigger stick. Bruce Lee said if his opponent halfway knew how to use a knife he didn't want to mess with them. (I'd have to dig up the quote, and not butcher it. 2nd half probably harder.).

Honestly though, end of the day, bigger stick comment also means melee combat wasn't common. Fights as a whole were rare because seige were the only thing that mostly worked against a castle. Either you starved them to death, or they outwaited you. You could have the best knight in existance (It's LU BU!), a trebuchet isn't picky about how good his ye olde swordsmanship was, or if he was a bad ass with a lance.

For the most part, people aren't idiots. In history, they stuck to what worked. What was weird was generally gimmicky, and if it didn't work, it didn't work

 

[TPBx]

Alright, the pain tolerence thing is an urban myth. There's been a few studies, and while pain being subject, and therefore nothing conclusive, none of them show women being more pain resistant.

While I can't disprove the martial arts thing, I can show two areas where it does matter. Grappling, and archery. Grappling, if two people are in armor, either you have to do enought damage to hurt someone through the armor (you aren't breaking it, but you can transfer damage through it. Like I said with the dagger, often easier just to knock them over and stab. Strength matters then. And Archery. Arrows aren't weak. You need a ton of freakin' muscles for warbows, dainty regular bows aren't piercing anything. It took so much strength it warped bones and developed muscles in weird ways. Both require strength. Now if both are unarmed and armed, gender isn't going to matter too much. A sword's a sword's a sword.

Could women fight? Hell yes. More advanced tech got, the less it mattered. Anyone could use siege weaponry, or crossbows for instance. Your gender didn't care where who killed you if they killed you.

Also, martial arts matters relatively little if the opposing side had a bigger stick. Bruce Lee said if his opponent halfway knew how to use a knife he didn't want to mess with them. (I'd have to dig up the quote, and not butcher it. 2nd half probably harder.).

Honestly though, end of the day, bigger stick comment also means melee combat wasn't common. Fights as a whole were rare because seige were the only thing that mostly worked against a castle. Either you starved them to death, or they outwaited you. You could have the best knight in existance (It's LU BU!), a trebuchet isn't picky about how good his ye olde swordsmanship was, or if he was a bad ass with a lance.

For the most part, people aren't idiots. In history, they stuck to what worked. What was weird was generally gimmicky, and if it didn't work, it didn't work

We are talking about a magical girl attempting to a fight a full armor plated knight right? Kind of an odd strawman to say if she had a gun then she would win. Of course she would lmao. But objectively speaking if she challenges the knight to a hand to hand combat duel without pulling any tricks, using any magic, or any sort of crazy underhanded techniques. She loses 99.99..% of time

 

[TPBx]

TPBx Women are actually better at martial arts, though. It may not be as common historically speaking, and of course it will vary with the individual, but they are more flexible, and have a higher pain threshold - on average, of course. Being small (both in height and shape) has many benefits as well.

It's common knowledge that Chinese farmers and villagers developed martial arts initially simply to protect themselves from raiders and soldiers, who were almost always bigger, better trained and equipped. They took or modified simple tools for daily life, and taught themselves to use them as weapons. Most of it focuses on how you use what you have, vs cultivating raw power to toss around.

Strength means very little in a fight, unless the wielder of that strength is very good at not only using it, but dealing with their opponents avoidance of/answer to it. This is what drives me nuts about combat in RP. Subjective awareness is so rare to find.

Yeah that last bit 100%. Its been kind of a pain to explain to people in the RP I used to run that simply being stronger isnt the end all be all. Being a smarter fighter can and will at times beat raw strength. But strength does matter nonetheless. Especially in a straight combat scenario like the one being discussed

 

[M.J. Saulnier]

Alright, melee weapon. Even without guns, steel crossbows, warbows, had ridiculous p enetration power

The crossbow was such an unholy weapon that Conrad III frowned upon its use in his Holy Roman Empire, and the Magna Carta also banned their use. A big part of this push back against the autobow was because it was dropping their prized, hero knights from significant ranges.

 

[TPBx]

Also the main problem with women in a straight combat scenario is that womens biology works against them in many ways. Mens bodies are designed to throw around weight more easily since they have larger arms and legs. Which means more mass behind every kick, punch, slash and stab which means more force which means more energy behind every one of these actions. Like wise women have less mass in these areas thus the opposite. The smaller frame also presents more issues considering physics about handling different weapons as well that is really hard to get into detail. Another factor is bone density as women have generally lower bone density which makes them more prone to fractures and breaks which makes them way more vulnerable in a combat scenario than men. And muscle mass isnt just correlated to strength but also speed as well as most men also are generally faster than their female peers. Also males tend to have faster reaction speeds to visual stimuli than women which also increases their likelihood of winning a fight at human relative speeds.

 

[Ganryu]

I think I went off on an armor tangent...

But to answer OP question, Armor good, bludgeoning weapons good. It can be realistic to take down a knight with staff, but major, major disadvantage (As opposed to taking one down with a sword, which I would laugh at.)

But isn't story all about the underdog anyways? IT makes it more of an epic tale if they struggle. And we all want the hero to win as slightly as possible! Go for it and have fun!

 

[kevintheradioguy]

Finally, my years of researching history of war come in play! For a simple six word reply: in reality? - Not a chance. Unless you can push them off a bridge or something. In a RP, especially with dice rolls? Easy. They don't count on reality as much.

Honestly, if you'd like more about medieval fights, and fantasy views on medieval weapons, I can redirect you towards Shadiversity channel on youtube - this guy innt the best one out there, but he has a unique way of covering things like that in his videos. I do love him for how weapons/armour would work in fantasy setting with fantasy races series. You might just find what you're looking for there.

 

[Ganryu]

Finally, my years of researching history of war come in play! For a simple six word reply: in reality? - Not a chance. Unless you can push them off a bridge or something. In a RP, especially with dice rolls? Easy. They don't count on reality as much.

Honestly, if you'd like more about medieval fights, and fantasy views on medieval weapons, I can redirect you towards Shadiversity channel on youtube - this guy innt the best one out there, but he has a unique way of covering things like that in his videos. I do love him for how weapons/armour would work in fantasy setting with fantasy races series. You might just find what you're looking for there.

I loooove Shadiversity!
Skallagram's another good one

 

[kevintheradioguy]

Skallagram's another good one

Indeed, though I feel like Shad might be a bit better to explain the situation at hand.

 

[Cosmo]

Its an RP, so just do what you will.

I mean, could be worse. She could have a heavily curved blade which would do less then nothing and she'd be better off picking up a rock. A staff is at least a blunt force weapon. But its a staff, I imagine if you have a staff its because you're poor and can't afford a proper weapon or proper weapons are illegal and you are less likely to get in trouble for having one [and polearms are amazing and its easy for people to instinctively use].

If you are playing it realistic, plate armor is fairly light because its spread about your body [for reference, modern soldiers carry more weight on just their back while plate armor is spread out around your body and made for maximum mobility]. Chain is more cumbersome then plate, for reference [restricts your movement more and almost all the weight tends to sit on just your shoulders]. One of the common methods of training was for two knights to wrestle one another in full plate, its very mobile. So 'dancing' around them really only works if.. you know... you ignore how plate armor actually works.

Could you beat a knight with a staff? Sure, I suppose. I know I wouldn't want to use a staff to fight a knight, but at least its a blunt instrument [especially if its made of a nice hard wood like oak with metal ends] so could be worse off but not the worse. But god that'll be a rough fight.

 

[Gundam-kun]

Well from my IRL experience it depends on the material of the weapon and skill level of the wielder, Aim for the uncovered joins or the head region to daze your enemy, metal staffs work the best

 

[Malphaestus]

Good thing the crossbow was banned 500 years before the full-plate existed, then. Lol.