Top 10 odd D&D weapons

[shilsen]

How long is it, though? The article said 5 1/2' at most. Perhaps this is one of those areas where D&D physics (where a greatsword or rapier has no reach) has to outweigh RL physics for game consistencey? (I could certainly be persuaded otherwise on this, however.)

I've seen longer, with the ribbon-like blade capable of extending to about 8' or so. A skilled user could probably hit someone 10' away with one easily enough. I'm all for D&D physics trumping RL physics, but this is one weapon that I think in D&D terms works well to replicate what the spiked chain does.

 

[Imp]

1d8/x2, one-handed, slashing, reach, threaten both adjacent and 10' seems like it'd be a pretty solid exotic weapon, and one worthy of the name. I think I'm introducing the urumi to my setting.

(I nerfed the spiked chain a bit; mainly, I made it so it can reach 10', but doesn't threaten that far, the logic being that it requires too much momentum to react to openings that far out. The urumi looks more responsive than all that, and wouldn't get all of the spiked chain's bazillion other abilities.)

re double weapons, the double axe isn't hopelessly, ridiculously stupid if you make it so the axes on either side aren't double-bitted... then it's easier for the wielder to keep the choppy parts on the good side. It's still goofy, but it and the double sword occupy the niche of "weird gladiatorial weapons" in my setting, so there's room for it.

 

[Zander]

The mercurial sword is, to put it bluntly, a weapon designed by someone who knows next to nothing about weapons...

Why? I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm just curious as to why you think that. Too difficult to make? Too fragile? Not heavy enough? What?

 

[Huw]

Finally found my "A Glossary of the Construction, Decoration and Use of Arms and Armor" (George Cameron Stone). This should settle some of the outstanding questions:

No mention of urumi or siangham (or indeed many other well known martial arts weapons), but for some others I've quoted directly from the book, so copyrighted but this is fair use.

Boomerang: ... The returning boomerang is mainly a plaything, though it is sometimes used to kill birds ... (He goes on to list several types of hunting and war boomerangs)

Chakram (Xena's frisbee): ... It is a flat steel ring from five to twelve inches in diameter ... the outer edge is sharp ... Several of different sizes were often carried on a pointed turban, the dastar bungga ... it is thrown with sufficient force and accuracy to cut off a green bamboo three-quarters of an inch in diamater at a distance of thirty yards.

 

[RangerWickett]

Why? I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm just curious as to why you think that. Too difficult to make? Too fragile? Not heavy enough? What?

As a quick example, find a tall water bottle, maybe about a half-gallon. Preferably one with a small top so you can hold it in one hand and swing it. Fill it with water fully and swing it around. Then fill it half with water and swing it around.

The theory of a mercurial weapon is that the half-filled one is better. After trying this practical experiment, how do you feel?

 

[Zander]

As a quick example, find a tall water bottle, maybe about a half-gallon. Preferably one with a small top so you can hold it in one hand and swing it. Fill it with water fully and swing it around. Then fill it half with water and swing it around.

The theory of a mercurial weapon is that the half-filled one is better. After trying this practical experiment, how do you feel?

Sure, a solid weapon might be better in general, but not always. If it were always the case that a solid weapon was superior, ones with a moving weight would never have been invented. But they were (see my post here).

 

[genshou]

As a quick example, find a tall water bottle, maybe about a half-gallon. Preferably one with a small top so you can hold it in one hand and swing it. Fill it with water fully and swing it around. Then fill it half with water and swing it around.

The theory of a mercurial weapon is that the half-filled one is better. After trying this practical experiment, how do you feel?

Shouldn't that comparison be between a half-full bottle and an empty bottle? The whole point of the mercury is that it's a lot denser than iron, its density at room temperature measuring at 13.534 g/cm³. Adding a channel for mercury actually makes the entire weapon heavier, and the idea behind the weapon is that the extra shifting weight is supposed to make a telling blow be more telling, but it's more difficult to get that blow in due to the shifting mass (high critical multiplier, low threat range). It's also more difficult to use than a regular sword for those who aren't trained to use it (extra nonproficiency penalty).

New experiment: Take two durable plastic bottles. Fill one completely with water, then fill the other 2/3 of the way with water and add 1 kg of mercury. Try swinging them around to feel how the shifting weight affects ability to use effectively as a weapon, then find some trusting dupe to get whacked a few times and report which hurts more. I'd be interested in hearing the results of that.

 

[lukelightning]

Sure, a solid weapon might be better in general, but not always. If it were always the case that a solid weapon was superior, ones with a moving weight would never have been invented. But they were (see my post here).

But if these moving weights were a significant advantage they would have been common. and I haven't seen any reliable source for these other than "I saw somewhere...." posts.

 

[Nyaricus]

But if these moving weights were a significant advantage they would have been common. and I haven't seen any reliable source for these other than "I saw somewhere...." posts.

Just becaus esomehting is a good idea, doesn;t mean it has to be common. There was an astrologist in the 13th century (IIRC) with a working elevator - pretty crazy stuff back then, but there are plenty of deadends for perfectly good ideas. Liek DVORAK keyboards

 

[Hussar]

Nyaricus, this is true, but, in the case of a mercurial sword, I'm thinking that physics tends to get in the way. A sword is what, about three quarters of an inch thick at its thickest? Give or take anyway. If you core a sword and then hit something with it, it will be so weak that it will snap off very, very easily. Plus, while mercury IS heavier than steal, the amount you could add to a sword wouldn't drastically change the weight of the sword anyway.

Sure, you can core a club and add steel to the inside - that works quite well. But, the fact that a sword is flat means that there simply isn't enough volume to make any appreciable difference.

This is all IMO BTW.