Actual functional weapons

[Derren]

Naw, it was firearms that ended the use of plate armor, starting with Gustavus Adolphus's heavy infantry, who would actually discard their breastplates if issued them. By the Napoleonic era, most "cuirassiers" were nothing of the sort.

Thats a common but wrong misconception.
Guns and plate armor existed side by side for several centuries and they were made bullet proof. Also the downfall of plate armor was not (only) because of guns but also because of pikes, which replaced knights on the battlefield, and the high cost of them in a time where the size of armies increased a lot.

That the Swedish infantry dismissed their armor was likely more do to Adolphus himself refusing to wear armor trusting instead in faith to protect him. The result was a bullet in the shoulder which caused permanent damage.

Just about every weird, wacky configuration of stick and sharp metal has been tried historically. Typically you'll find that the weapons that are used the longest and most effectively are those that offer long-range stabbiness or close-range cuttiness or choppiness. This is a guideline, not a rule, mind you, and lasts only until the age of gunpowder. Foot lance had its last hurrah in the tercios of the 30 years war. After that, all reach weapons were either mounted lance or guns on foot.

You make it sound like weapon usage was pretty much random which is far from the truth (Except for maybe peasants who had no access to real weapons).
Creating weapons was a science as much as creating armor and as the Jester said they were in constant competition against each other. Armor was designed to stop the common weapons of the time and weapons were created to penetrate the armor people wore.

And you are wrong about lances. While the 30 year war was the last high point of tis weapon, pikes were still used till the 17th, in some cases 18th century (Sweden and Russia).

 

[Umbran]

Naw, it was firearms that ended the use of plate armor

Ultimately, yes. But early, crappy firearms did motivate some armor development in real history. When firearms got good enough and common enough, the armor became superfluous until bullet-proof vests came into the picture...

 

[tomBitonti]

A large selection of "real" weapons started out as farm implements or improvised weapons.

flail - used to thresh wheat
pick - modified from the mining instrument
trident/fork - pitchfork modified for war
battleaxe - modified wood chopping axe
mace - a tree limb, replaced with a metal stick
spear - putting your dagger on a long stick
bow - shooting your dagger at a foe
sword - a dagger-polearm
sling - using your belt to throw a rock

The fact is, the scythe being used for war was never designed for cutting plants, just as a battleaxe was never designed to cut wood. The war scythe is probably reinforced - with a better tempered blade - and used for beheading or gutting foes. The idea for a war scythe probably came from the farm implement, but the one listed on the weapon table in D&D is designed for combat - and would probably be unwieldy and awkward if used on the farm.

Hi,

I don't dispute the origins of particular weapons. My issue is with the trip and x4 critical modifier that are given to scythe in 3.5E, and the general invention of weapons that don't actually work (regardless of the system or edition of that system):

Scythe 18 gp 1d6 2d4 ×4 — 10 lb. Piercing or slashing

A scythe can be used to make trip attacks. If you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can drop the scythe to avoid being tripped.

And I was mistaken: The scythe is not an exotic weapon!

TomB

 

[Halivar]

Also the downfall of plate armor was not (only) because of guns but also because of pikes, which replaced knights on the battlefield, and the high cost of them in a time where the size of armies increased a lot.

Pikes have been in regular use on the battlefield for most of our recorded history. I wouldn't say they replaced heavy infantry, so much as heavy infantry just stopped being really useful.

You make it sound like weapon usage was pretty much random which is far from the truth (Except for maybe peasants who had no access to real weapons).

I'd hoped to say the exact opposite. I said everything was tried (it was) but only a few designs stuck as useful and thus widespread. Sorry if I miscommunicated.

And you are wrong about lances. While the 30 year war was the last high point of tis weapon, pikes were still used till the 17th, in some cases 18th century (Sweden and Russia).

As early as 1522, at the Battle of Biccoca, it was clear that the pike square was an anachronism, completely obsoleted by arquebusiers and cannons. This obsolescence was completed with the invention of bayoneted muskets. Sweden and Russia are the only major powers to use pike after 1700 (most abandoned it far earlier), and even used only for a short time thereafter.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Weapons and armor tended to evolve in response to each other, so depending on what armor you have, you're likely to have different weapons dominating the list.

to which I would add that the availability of materials would occasionally have an effect as well, and often existing implements (farming tools) that were not really great weapons would be used extensively simply because they were readily available. And one more thing is the adaptation of tactics to the weapons.

If you want to flatten the impact of weapons in the game it's easy to do - just drop all those crit bonuses and special effects. Older versions of D&D worked fine using just damage, length, # of hands needed, and bludgeon/slash/pierce to be the sole differentiation between weapons with but a few effects such as setting vs. charge, dismounting, disarming, and movement restriction for certain weapons. You could go the really old route and have all weapons just do the same damage, period. I think many players would say the game is more fun and interesting when there are significant differences between weapons but remember that there are reasons that some weapons stood the test of time longer than others - the bow, the sword, the javelin and spear.

 

[Umbran]

A large selection of "real" weapons started out as farm implements or improvised weapons.

Quibble: spears and bows didn't start out as farm implements. They are hunting tools that significantly predate farming. Heck, as I understand it, javelins predate *language*.

 

[Stormonu]

Quibble: spears and bows didn't start out as farm implements. They are hunting tools that significantly predate farming. Heck, as I understand it, javelins predate *language*.

Well, I did say "or improvised". I don't think the sling or spear started out as a farm tool either.

Tom, which weapons - besides the scythe - are giving you problems? Throughout history, there's been many strange and impractical weapons that have been used on the battlefield, and when you throw fantasy into the mix, it could get even more outrageous.

I believe they gave the scythe tripping qualities as they saw it as an upscaled kama, which is also used in martial arts for tripping. I'm pretty sure the x4 modifier was to make it "scary". It would not surprise me that most of D&D's weapons stats are based moreso on legends and tales, than fact. Which, with this being a fantasy game and not a historical reenactment game, is quite appropriate.

For me, I can't see the spiked chain as ever have been a real weapon (chain and whip, yes - spiked, I have my doubts). And as cool as darth maul's double lightsaber is, I don't think a double sword or double scimitar ever existed before being shown on the silver screen (sure, bo staffs - which was what the double-saber was based on before the effects light - have been around, but I doubt the two-bladed sword was).

 

[delericho]

For me, I can't see the spiked chain as ever have been a real weapon (chain and whip, yes - spiked, I have my doubts).

Obviously, it's fiction, but I'd be inclined to stat up the weapon that Gogo Yubari (from "Kill Bill") uses as a spiked chain. Sure, it doesn't look like the weapon in the PHB, but otherwise it would seem to fit - reach, tripping, lots of damage...

 

[Halivar]

My big problem is the under-utilization of slings in RPG's. Slings were amazing weapons, out-ranged only by the best composite bows or English longbows. They were in constant widespread use up until the age of gunpowder, and were far more deadly than their D&D stats would indicate.

 

[Stormonu]

Obviously, it's fiction, but I'd be inclined to stat up the weapon that Gogo Yubari (from "Kill Bill") uses as a spiked chain. Sure, it doesn't look like the weapon in the PHB, but otherwise it would seem to fit - reach, tripping, lots of damage...

I could see that. Among real martial arts weapons that are on the chain with some item attached at the end (things like the Kusari-gama, Kawanaga, Kyoketsu-shogi, Kau sin ke and a half dozen other weapons), I'll bet you could find one with a spiked thingy on the end. However, it doesn't look anything like the spiked chain as depicted in the PHB (and other pictures, such as the 3.5 vampire). And that's part of the problem - some of these weapons may be feasible, but their depiction in the game is all wrong (D&D maces tend to be a prominent example of this).