The Mystery of The katana

[Hussar]

I think the answer to that would be similar to how a sword is held - depends on what you're trying to do.

I mean, how often do we actually see someone grab a sword half way up the blade and stab forward like a spear? But, this was done fairly often apparently. Or, and I forget what this is called, grab the blade with both hands and whip the sword over and down, bringing the pointed cross guard down onto someone's head, punching through like a pick. Again, apparently a fairly common sword fighting tactic.

Most of "how do we hold it" comes from Hollywood and, let's be honest, most actors hold a sword like a baseball bat. Or, out from the body like a fencing foil - which is also completely wrong.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It's definitely under-represented in D&D. And I think even including realistic mechanical advantages to their use might not even be enough to convince most players to use them. The sword just seems to be too entrenched in our cultural preconceptions.

Personally, once 3.5 rolled around*, I played more polearm-equipped PCs than ever before- and the Greatspear is my fave.









* Especially after the Combat Reflexes feat tree was expanded and DCv1 and PHB2 were released.

 

[Dausuul]

I think the answer to that would be similar to how a sword is held - depends on what you're trying to do.

Indeed. There were a heap of different types of spear, from the light javelins of the Roman legions to the massive sarissae of the Macedonian phalanges to the lance of a medieval knight, and each one could be used in various ways.

I'm not sure D&D needs to have better spear mechanics, though. The spear really shines when you're fighting in formation, with a hundred other guys next to you; because spears don't need much horizontal space to use, you can pack a lot of spearmen close together and create a very formidable front. But when was the last time your D&D fighter went into battle with a hundred allies?

Generally speaking, D&D characters are fighting in a much more chaotic, small-scale environment. It's rare that a party has more than two or three front-line fighters, and they're seldom in a position to lock shields and hold the line together. You're facing a wide variety of enemies, everything from tiny goblins to lumbering twelve-foot-tall giants to airborne enemies like wyverns, and you're fighting in an equally wide variety of environments.

What all of this means is that a D&D fighter will be using much looser, more duel-like combat techniques. You'll need a versatile weapon, suited to a variety of maneuvers, and balanced for a quick change in direction. You'll want the ability to deal wide sweeping strokes to keep numerous small foes at bay, and deep stabbing blows to pierce the vitals of big foes. At the same time, you'll usually have more room to move around and swing your weapon than if you were a spearman in phalanx.

What's the logical weapon for a guy in that situation? Well... a sword is a pretty darn good choice. Historically, the sword was your go-to weapon for when the battle lines had broken down and the fight had devolved into a chaotic melee. Not that a spear would be useless, but the prevalence of the sword is not unreasonable given the situations D&D fighters often find themselves in.

 

[Silverblade The Ench]

Good thread!
I had posted but it got "eaten" by IE8 somehow, I fear :/

1) The best weapons are also tools.
The Spear, the axe, the dagger were in most cultures far more common because you could hunt with them, chop firewood, etc etc.

Oh want to know what the VERY best weapon is? THE ONE YOU HAVE IN YOUR HAND!!! no other weapon counts because you don't have it!

2) Axes were far more common than is shown in gaming etc, axes could cleave through armour and shields, but weren't the hugely headed, unbalanced things seen in much fantasy

Well, "Snaga" the weapon of Druss the Axeman, made of solid steel, could only be wielded a by truly incredibly strong AND *big* person (needs mass to control it), as swinging 15lbs of steel most folk have no damn clue how hard that would be. Sledgehammers run 9 to 15 lbs by comparison.

this is a pic of Raven Armoury's "Snaga"

[sblock="SNAGA, the Sender"]

[/sblock]

often axes were held close to the head for up close-in work

Celts and Vikings favoured the axe.
The axe, like the spear also had another huge advantage over the sword: toughness and cheap.
Only a small part of the it's size was metal (so cheap/easy to make), that metal was thick, thus it was hard to break, unlike swords.

IMHO, a handaxe would be THE weapon most adventurer's would certainly carry, as much for helping to cut down old doors, small trees, making camp etc covering trails, etc.
For similar reaosns, cutlasses would also be favoured and obviously, daggers. Cutlasses evolved from machetes.
spears and bows/slings can get game for dinner, you don't use swords to hunt

Handaxes can also be thrown, and it doesn't matter WHAT part hits you, hehe.

Like blunt weapons, axes versus plate armour cause severe blunt trauma through the armour, so it may not break the armour or skin but you die from a burst spleen or get an arm bone broken. If you hit chain mail, you can literally "nip" an arm off, certainly do severe damage.

Cost, by the way, is why only nobles had swords for the most part. To make a long length of blade, you require damn good skills/metal. So most folk for centuries used shortswords, axes, spears etc.

3) IMHO, spears (as in the common version) in D&D should be allowed Reach, AND close in use, sure as hell the Greeks and Celts could skewer folk with them up close, very well.

The "broadspear", should be another version, these would have 18 inch long heads, 3 inches wide, sort of like the spear mentioned in "Dragonslayer" as someone notes in this thread
these would be an Exotic weapon and do more damage.

4) I HATE seeing artwork or miniatures with spear/axe shafts being very thin...not gonna happen!! you need thick shafts for them. Javelins don't as they are thrown and not much used for melee.
Ideally I'd want an axe handle to be square or somehwat rectangular, then corners rounded down, and leather wrapped. See dwarven axes in LOTR films. reason being this allows more control.

5) Cor Malek did great piece on "Damascus" Steel (but Commies rule! )
A modern swordmaker has created a form of wootz steel using quenching in liquid nitrogen, swords cost $12,000+ dollars a go, but are incredibly tough as well as mad hard, can bend them 90 degrees and they won't break.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MshYDTl6k0[/ame]

In my games, I say "dwarven steel" is +1 quality (masterwork in 4th ed), stainless steel

6) The oman legions stopped using spears so much around the Marian Reforms, iirc? Spears became more about civil guard duties etc, and the pilum was used to thrust, sure but was largely for throwing (especially since it was designed to bend). When using spears (hasta) they guy in back rank would do the hard work, guy in front would hold it and direct his partner's thrusts.

point of using the Gladius was that it was so broad, only a simple short thrust was needed to kill. Broad bladed stabbing weapons are the deadliest, most efficient weapon there is. Seriously, basic Human physiology, a 3inch wide blade stabs you anywhere for even two or 3 inches, you are in DEEP trouble.
Light weapon, so many fast thrusts don't tire so much and will kill the enemy, PDQ! None of this silly swinging you see in movies: thrust thrust thrust thrust! With the shield punching out too in time, 1-2, 1-2.

Used in tight ranks, the Roman formations with the gladius were like a damn quisinart, with 4 or more legionaries ot every "barbarian" they'd puncture them, and not get tired so much, unlike swinging big axes etc.

In "dungeons", thrusting and short weapons would rule, due to tight quarters, so again, spears, handaxes, daggers, shortswords, cutlasses, would have the advantage over the very long blades of katanas, etc.

7) Crossbows can be held cocked almost indefinately, as a poster notes, you CANNOT do that with a bow, try holding a 60+Lb draw weight bow for long and see why...ugh!!
it is more of pain to load the crossbow, so it's best for firing from ambush, or from behind defences which give you time to reload. It's higher velocity, straight shooting (it's far far more accurate than any bow) means it penetrates armour better.
D&D makes reloading a crossbow too quick, really, but hey it's trying to keep the game "fun"


Longbows work best on the battlefield in "clout shooting", that is, fired high, like a mortar, often when the enemy isn't visible, like firing over a hill. Not much use in small combat like adventurers get in as it's not accurate, but catastrophic when used en masse with well trianed bowmen.

Shortbows have one big problem: they pinch the fingers when drawn back so limit you to only two fingers...and/or you have to use less draw weight. (Limbs are short making the angle of the string very sharp)
The Mongols and others over came that by using a ring or a strap to hold the string but that also made it a bit slower to use.
Legends of Mongol archers hitting a man hundreds of yards away through the eye etc are garbage, you cannot hit jack SQUAT from horseback except very close up. But when hundreds of men fired, hey sure, some unlocky sod would get hit in the eye, hence, the legend firing from a moving horse...bah, it makes aiming impossible over distance.

 

[The Shaman]

4e does make spears pretty useful, if you invest in the right character build.

1e AD&D makes spears and polearms most effective if you use the rules regarding setting weapons against charges and the weapon v. armor type bonuses - polearms are serious can-openers in 1e.

If you ignore those rules, then it's easy to get the impression that swords are the best weapons.

 

[gamerprinter]

bah, it makes aiming impossible over distance.

While having witnessed Japanese mounted archery contests, while in Japan, those contests usually entailed shooting at targets in relatively short range.

Still historically its been recorded of mounted archers hitting small targets at great range - so impossible? I'm none too sure about that.

There's a story from the Genpei War. After having defeated the Taira at their castle of Yamashiro on Shikoku by the Minamoto forces, the main Taira army managed to escape the castle cut round the back to a secret harbor and escaped Minamoto destruction. However the ships were barely in the water when Minamoto archers at shore began mowing the men of the decks. Almost out of reach, mostly for a ploy, someone on one of the Taira ships hoisted a folding fan up the main mast. A folding fan opened is about the size of human face, so was a typical target used for archery practice.

The Taira hope was that that Minamoto would stop attacking them, and aim for the target as some kind of challenge. It worked. One of the Minamoto archers went at full gallop into the shallow waters of the sea, and loosed an arrow at the target fan, hitting and destroying it.

For such a remarkable shot both the Taira on the ships and Minamoto on the shore cheered at the accomplishment. Which is cool in the recognition of the formidable archery skills of that one samurai, even from his enemies.

Both a cool story, and suggests that firing a bow at great range from horseback with appropriate training is more than possible.

Something about controlling one's breathing, and firing at the apex of a gallop when the rider is riding at the highest point - which is when the arrow is loosed.

GP

 

[billd91]

6) The oman legions stopped using spears so much around the Marian Reforms, iirc? Spears became more about civil guard duties etc, and the pilum was used to thrust, sure but was largely for throwing (especially since it was designed to bend). When using spears (hasta) they guy in back rank would do the hard work, guy in front would hold it and direct his partner's thrusts.

point of using the Gladius was that it was so broad, only a simple short thrust was needed to kill. Broad bladed stabbing weapons are the deadliest, most efficient weapon there is. Seriously, basic Human physiology, a 3inch wide blade stabs you anywhere for even two or 3 inches, you are in DEEP trouble.
Light weapon, so many fast thrusts don't tire so much and will kill the enemy, PDQ! None of this silly swinging you see in movies: thrust thrust thrust thrust! With the shield punching out too in time, 1-2, 1-2.

Used in tight ranks, the Roman formations with the gladius were like a damn quisinart, with 4 or more legionaries ot every "barbarian" they'd puncture them, and not get tired so much, unlike swinging big axes etc.

In "dungeons", thrusting and short weapons would rule, due to tight quarters, so again, spears, handaxes, daggers, shortswords, cutlasses, would have the advantage over the very long blades of katanas, etc.

The gladius was the primary arm of the Roman legions long before the Marian reforms. It rose to prominence when the Romans went with more mobile and flexible maniples rather than the phalanx. That was about the 3rd century BCE and explains some of the trouble Pyrrhus and his phalanxes had against the Romans.
Marius got his reforms in 107 BCE.

But props to the thrusting short sword. That's a weapon that simply does not get the respect it deserves in D&D.

 

[gamerprinter]

The gladius was the primary arm of the Roman legions long before the Marian reforms. It rose to prominence when the Romans went with more mobile and flexible maniples rather than the phalanx. That was about the 3rd century BCE and explains some of the trouble Pyrrhus and his phalanxes had against the Romans.
Marius got his reforms in 107 BCE.

But props to the thrusting short sword. That's a weapon that simply does not get the respect it deserves in D&D.

The gladius was borrowed from the Celtiberians which they called a 'gladio'. From recent research I've learned that almost all the weapons, shields and armor worn by the Romans were all borrowed from the Celts. Although the Celtic forces were no match for the disciplined troops of Rome, they often had superior weapons. It took 200 years for Rome to conquer the Iberian peninsula due to having to deal with such weapons.

The Celts lacked discipline and training, but often maintained superior arms.

In fact it is known that the 'testudo' or tortoise formation was a Celtic invention and not a Roman one, used by the Gauls against Caesar.

The proof in this is that the original Roman shield was a medium round shield. A round shield cannot form a testudo due to size and gaps where the corners of a rectangular shield would block.

The traditional large rectangular/oval shield of Roman was a Celtic invention.

As well as the pilum... Oh and the Celts invented chain mail too.

Edit: I learned much of this from here... http://www.amazon.com/Celts-History-Peter-Berresford-Ellis/dp/0786712112

GP

 

[Korgoth]

Probably the original 'Roman' style of fighting was similar to the Greek phalanx. This was preserved into the 'Polybian' or "Manipular" legion in the role of the Triarius.

The Manipular Legion, that fought the Celts, eventually defeated the Carthaginians after some false starts, defeated the brilliant Pyrrhus and conquered the Greeks and Seleucids, had essentially four 'layers'. Out in front of the main line you had the "velites" (sing. veles) who had javelins and shields only; these were the skirmishers. They were the youth.

The main line was composed first of the "hastati" (sing. hastatus), who were citizens of lower means. They were usually issued a pectoral plate to protect the vitals, carried a shield and had a pilum (the armor piercing spear; the front half was hollow metal) for throwing and a gladius for close work. The second line were the "principes" (sing. princeps) who generally wore a coat of mail instead of the pectoral plate. They probably provided their own kit and were men of better means.

The last part of the main line were the "triarii" (sing. triarius). They fought like a traditional hoplite phalanx, complete with the long fighting spear. These were the experienced veterans and were well-armored. The phrase "ad triarios redisse", to fall back on the triarii, continued to be a Latin expression for having to pull out all the stops and go to the last resort. The triarii were the fire brigade who would make sure that the line held where there was trouble.

The deployment was in the "quincunx" arrangement, spacing the troops in groups of five in a sort of checkerboard formation.

Just FYI. That complicated arrangement, though militarily successful, was abandoned by Marius. It relied on social strata that may have ceased to exist by that time, or been rendered irrelevant, and there were logistical problems with it. He 'modernized' it into the legionary system that is more commonly known: practically everybody has a shield, good armor, a pilum and a gladius. Ultimately the Marian legion was probably even more successful than the Manipular legion, though they were both great in their day.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

What's the logical weapon for a guy in that situation? Well... a sword is a pretty darn good choice. Historically, the sword was your go-to weapon for when the battle lines had broken down and the fight had devolved into a chaotic melee. Not that a spear would be useless, but the prevalence of the sword is not unreasonable given the situations D&D fighters often find themselves in.

That's only if you think that the only effective use of the spear is stabbing. The entire spear is very effective as a weapon - tripping, blocking, and just clubbing someone upside the head.

But, totally agree with the point Silverblade's point that axes and possibly picks make very, very versatile weapons, particularly for the style of fighting that characters would be engaged in.

1e AD&D makes spears and polearms most effective if you use the rules regarding setting weapons against charges and the weapon v. armor type bonuses - polearms are serious can-openers in 1e.

If you ignore those rules, then it's easy to get the impression that swords are the best weapons.

The problem with setting weapons is it's so situational. How often are the PC's actually charged by opponents? And, if you win initiative, do you really want to give up possible iterative attacks at higher levels (or even at 1st level is you are using Unearthed Arcana rules) for the chance to do double damage?

As far as weapon vs armor, again, this assumes that the creatures you face are using armor, but, ignoring that, the worst a longsword gets is a -2 vs AC 2. Most of the time it's no modifier at all. The only weapons that might be better are the Bec du Corbin (+2 vs AC 2, double the speed factor and double the space required) and a two handed sword.

((Granted, I ignored the mounted lance - that's hands down schweet, but, very, very situational))

So, no, I don't think people were all that wrong in presuming that long swords were king in AD&D. Better damage, faster, all the best magic weapons were swords, and you could use a shield. All for giving up a possible +2 vs a single AC.

Not a very difficult choice to make.