The last sword I know that was made for actual use in combat (against musketeers and the like) was a rapier in the late 17th century to early 18th century. They were used by Swedish soldiers who relied on charging their enemies with swords and bayonettes. So the rapier was a military weapon for a long time, and I suppose they did what they were supposed to do in the military :-/
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Japanes Sword Additions and Corrections
- Thread starter Shadowrun Man
- Start date
Aaron2
Explorer
Re: Weight, not Mass.
Except weapons are the only things whose weight* varies based on some perceived bulkiness factor.
Aaron
*when I say "weight", I mean weight at rest in a non-variable gravitational field. What is the mass equivalent for pounts? slugs?
But this would only apply when you are trying to hold your sword out parallel to the ground. How often does that happen?Planesdragon said:
Except weapons are the only things whose weight* varies based on some perceived bulkiness factor.
Aaron
*when I say "weight", I mean weight at rest in a non-variable gravitational field. What is the mass equivalent for pounts? slugs?
Last edited:
Planesdragon
First Post
Re: Re: Weight, not Mass.
Every time the weapon isn't allowed to swing freely--i.e., pointed down at the ground.
Well, I suspect that the armor weights are a bit off... and other goods are compact enough to be properly stowed on a character.
(The S.I. system doesn't really have good measure of mass--we just use "weight" and "mass" interchangeably. I'm slightly mis-using "weight", but that's what we get for using a system that predates the study of physics.)
Aaron2 said:
Every time the weapon isn't allowed to swing freely--i.e., pointed down at the ground.
Well, I suspect that the armor weights are a bit off... and other goods are compact enough to be properly stowed on a character.
(The S.I. system doesn't really have good measure of mass--we just use "weight" and "mass" interchangeably. I'm slightly mis-using "weight", but that's what we get for using a system that predates the study of physics.)
Xeriar
First Post
Re: Re: Re: Weight, not Mass.
Chain, at least, is right. Plate looks too light and the others seem too heavy, but I've never seen anyone quote lamellar or leather weights :-/
The thing about 'feels like' is that what 'feels like' a 10 pound sword to an average adult male 'feels like' a 6 pound sword to me.
I have a lot of fun with short swords because they don't feel like they way anything. I think I'll get some practice in before I pick up a real one (ie, sharpened) though...
Planesdragon said:
Chain, at least, is right. Plate looks too light and the others seem too heavy, but I've never seen anyone quote lamellar or leather weights :-/
The thing about 'feels like' is that what 'feels like' a 10 pound sword to an average adult male 'feels like' a 6 pound sword to me.
I have a lot of fun with short swords because they don't feel like they way anything. I think I'll get some practice in before I pick up a real one (ie, sharpened) though...
I had plenty to say, but happily others have already said it.
I will reiterate one point though . . .
A 3 pound longsword will feel like 7 pounds to just about everybody, actually. (Some may not notice it, though, because with enough strength, 7 pounds would feel like nothing at all. I just am not one of those people, I need a lighter blade like the katana.) You have just proven, though, that you have obviously never wielded a real sword.
Allow me to demonstrate, and then I'll be back to other more important discussions. First off, EVERYTHING in the books is inaccurate by actual weight, as it is all based on encumbrance. This has always been the case in D&D, after all, they just didn't clarify it this time around.
Anyway, to prove my point about 3 pounds feeling like 7 . . . Well find a barbell. A standard 45 pounds one will do nicely. Now pick it up by the middle, dead lift it with two hands. Simply enough, eh? Well, should be for most people anyway. Now put it down and grab it by the end about one foot in. Try to pick it up now. You'll only be able to pull that off if you're REALLY strong, and even then, I guaran-damn-tee it will FEEL like MUCH more than 45 pounds (closer to 100 actually).
The reason for this is simple physics as it turns out. The further the items center of gravity and balance is from the point you're holding it, the more it weighs relative to you. If you hold a sword straight down, gravity has less an effect because it's balanced by your own position to the ground. Swing it out, though, and gravity will grab it at the other end, resulting in a type of tug-o-war. THAT is why things feel heavier than they actually are, and that's why my swords feel heavier. The longsword IS point-heavy, mind you, but the katana has perfect balance. This actually demonstrates the point better.
The best sword you could have? Technically, the two-bladed sword, as all of it's weight is in the center right where you grab it, meaning it could potentially be faster than any other weapon in existence. This is simply dangerous, and that's why such weapons were rare (if they existed at all).
I will reiterate one point though . . .
Aaron2 said:
A 3 pound longsword will feel like 7 pounds to just about everybody, actually. (Some may not notice it, though, because with enough strength, 7 pounds would feel like nothing at all. I just am not one of those people, I need a lighter blade like the katana.) You have just proven, though, that you have obviously never wielded a real sword.
Allow me to demonstrate, and then I'll be back to other more important discussions. First off, EVERYTHING in the books is inaccurate by actual weight, as it is all based on encumbrance. This has always been the case in D&D, after all, they just didn't clarify it this time around.
Anyway, to prove my point about 3 pounds feeling like 7 . . . Well find a barbell. A standard 45 pounds one will do nicely. Now pick it up by the middle, dead lift it with two hands. Simply enough, eh? Well, should be for most people anyway. Now put it down and grab it by the end about one foot in. Try to pick it up now. You'll only be able to pull that off if you're REALLY strong, and even then, I guaran-damn-tee it will FEEL like MUCH more than 45 pounds (closer to 100 actually).
The reason for this is simple physics as it turns out. The further the items center of gravity and balance is from the point you're holding it, the more it weighs relative to you. If you hold a sword straight down, gravity has less an effect because it's balanced by your own position to the ground. Swing it out, though, and gravity will grab it at the other end, resulting in a type of tug-o-war. THAT is why things feel heavier than they actually are, and that's why my swords feel heavier. The longsword IS point-heavy, mind you, but the katana has perfect balance. This actually demonstrates the point better.
The best sword you could have? Technically, the two-bladed sword, as all of it's weight is in the center right where you grab it, meaning it could potentially be faster than any other weapon in existence. This is simply dangerous, and that's why such weapons were rare (if they existed at all).
Planesdragon
First Post
Actually, it's not impossible to balance a sword right at the center of the intended grip. This lessens the striking power of each blow, but it causes the blows to start quicker and recover quicker.
While I'm at it, a variant katana should have a critical of 18-20/x2, not 20/x3. Center of gravity and all that.
Anubis, you have a good grasp on the basics of sword design - yes, the fact that your katana has a center of gravity very close to the grip does make it faster. However, have you ever thought about why european swords were not built this way?
Its not like Occidental weaponsmiths didn't have the abilty to make swords that had balance points well into the grip (the better rapiers have centers of gravity only a inch or so from the quillons). In fact, balancing a sword is often as simple as adding a few ounces to the pommel. But, believe it or not, many occidental swords were forged with a heavy point for a reason.
That reason is power.
Katanas were built to cut through bamboo, flesh, and bone, using speed and an extremely sharp edge to win the day. Occidental blades (long and bastard swords) made during the same period were designed to strike heavily armored surfaces, crease those surfaces, and damage the flesh underneath (by breaking bones, causing internal injuries, etc). If you were to use a katana - of any grade - on a 14 or 16 guage steel armored foe, you'd break the blade in less than a dozen strikes, either because it's extremely brittle edge shattered on contact, or because the blade bit into the metal and snapped due to torque. A comparable (in quality) occidental blade, would instead dent and crease the armor, breaking bones through the steel.
Against unarmored foes, the quick strikes of a katana were king, but against the kind of armor we see in standard D&D, it would be nearly useless. Its just wasn't the right tool for the job.
Its not like Occidental weaponsmiths didn't have the abilty to make swords that had balance points well into the grip (the better rapiers have centers of gravity only a inch or so from the quillons). In fact, balancing a sword is often as simple as adding a few ounces to the pommel. But, believe it or not, many occidental swords were forged with a heavy point for a reason.
That reason is power.
Katanas were built to cut through bamboo, flesh, and bone, using speed and an extremely sharp edge to win the day. Occidental blades (long and bastard swords) made during the same period were designed to strike heavily armored surfaces, crease those surfaces, and damage the flesh underneath (by breaking bones, causing internal injuries, etc). If you were to use a katana - of any grade - on a 14 or 16 guage steel armored foe, you'd break the blade in less than a dozen strikes, either because it's extremely brittle edge shattered on contact, or because the blade bit into the metal and snapped due to torque. A comparable (in quality) occidental blade, would instead dent and crease the armor, breaking bones through the steel.
Against unarmored foes, the quick strikes of a katana were king, but against the kind of armor we see in standard D&D, it would be nearly useless. Its just wasn't the right tool for the job.
Aaron2
Explorer
I'll make my statement one last time.Anubis said:
If made reasonably, a three pound sword feels exactly how a three pound sword is supposed to feel. The only way it would feel "heavy" for its size is if you were used to dealing with weapons that were balanced differently.
For example, a baseball bat is balanced such that most of its weight is far up from the grip. I am expecting this so it doesn't feel heavy. When I'm at the plate waiting for a pitch, I hold the bat almost perpendicular to the ground such that I don't have to fight the weight distribution much. This is similar to a roof guard or, IIRC, the hasso stance. Now, if I were playing tennis, I wait for the serve with the racket almost parrallel to the ground. If I held a baseball bat like a tennis racket, the bat would feel heavy and unbalanced, but that is because I am not using it correctly. Weapon and fighting style go hand-in-hand.
Aaron
