Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5613852" data-attributes="member: 87792">Both can kill me, sure.&nbsp; But the guy swinging the mace at my head and using heavy crushing impact simply isn't as fast as the guy with the scimitar trying to lop off my arm.&nbsp; And the guy trying to thrust at me with the mace gets beaten by the guy trying to thrust at me with a longsword.&nbsp;It gets more complex.&nbsp; From my experience of reenacting, sword and shield beats spear three times in four.&nbsp; But three spearmen beat four swordsmen nine times in ten assuming anchored flanks.&nbsp; The reach just allows a massive amount of focus fire.And then it gets simpler again.&nbsp; Spear vs Staff.&nbsp; Same length, same weight.&nbsp; Effectively the same balance.&nbsp; The spear wins by virtue of being able to do everything the staff can and having a much more effective stab (and slash for that matter).&nbsp; Covering argument.&nbsp; The spear can do everything the staff can and it can do many of the core attacks much much better than the staff.&nbsp;Also scimitar vs dagger.&nbsp; Scimitar wins almost every time.&nbsp; As a weapon it's faster (seriously - you don't have to move very far to get the edge to move in a wide arc).&nbsp; It's got a longer reach so it hits first.&nbsp; And it does much more damage per hit.&nbsp;Spear vs Staff.&nbsp; Scimitar vs Dagger.&nbsp; There's a huge difference in play here.&nbsp; The reason is that neither staff nor dagger were ever designed to be primary weapons.&nbsp; The dagger is a sharpened belt knife.&nbsp; The staff is a straight piece of wood.&nbsp; The club is a log off the ground.&nbsp; It loses to a sharpened bit of metal the same length and weight (although the weight of the sword should be lower).That said, with the arguable exception of the greatbow (125lb draw longbow only used by specialists), the superior weapons are all just wrong.&nbsp; If weapons were really that much better it's what everyone would be trained on.&nbsp;&nbsp;Oh no it isn't.&nbsp; Although some are misassigned.&nbsp; Simple weapons are the dagger (a tool or something primarily meant to be concealable), the scythe (a tool), the staff (a tool as much as anything), the greatclub (a tool).&nbsp; The exceptions are the mace and the morningstar - and there are western european historical reasons for this to do with the cleric (which is not a good reason but not arbitrary).&nbsp;&nbsp; Martial weapons are weapons designed as weapons.&nbsp; And superior weapons are either extreme niche weapons (the garrote, the shuriken), weapons that require serious specialist training to use at all (the 125lb draw great bow), silly and kewl weapons (the fullblade, the double sword and double axe), or in the case of the Urgrosh a misidentified martial weapon (call it a poll-axe with a butt spike and you're done).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 5613852, member: 87792"] Both can kill me, sure. But the guy swinging the mace at my head and using heavy crushing impact simply isn't as fast as the guy with the scimitar trying to lop off my arm. And the guy trying to thrust at me with the mace gets beaten by the guy trying to thrust at me with a longsword. It gets more complex. From my experience of reenacting, sword and shield beats spear three times in four. But three spearmen beat four swordsmen nine times in ten assuming anchored flanks. The reach just allows a massive amount of focus fire. And then it gets simpler again. Spear vs Staff. Same length, same weight. Effectively the same balance. The spear wins by virtue of being able to do everything the staff can and having a much more effective stab (and slash for that matter). Covering argument. The spear can do everything the staff can and it can do many of the core attacks much much better than the staff. Also scimitar vs dagger. Scimitar wins almost every time. As a weapon it's faster (seriously - you don't have to move very far to get the edge to move in a wide arc). It's got a longer reach so it hits first. And it does much more damage per hit. Spear vs Staff. Scimitar vs Dagger. There's a huge difference in play here. The reason is that neither staff nor dagger were ever designed to be primary weapons. The dagger is a sharpened belt knife. The staff is a straight piece of wood. The club is a log off the ground. It loses to a sharpened bit of metal the same length and weight (although the weight of the sword should be lower). That said, with the arguable exception of the greatbow (125lb draw longbow only used by specialists), the superior weapons are all just wrong. If weapons were really that much better it's what everyone would be trained on. Oh no it isn't. Although some are misassigned. Simple weapons are the dagger (a tool or something primarily meant to be concealable), the scythe (a tool), the staff (a tool as much as anything), the greatclub (a tool). The exceptions are the mace and the morningstar - and there are western european historical reasons for this to do with the cleric (which is not a good reason but not arbitrary). Martial weapons are weapons designed as weapons. And superior weapons are either extreme niche weapons (the garrote, the shuriken), weapons that require serious specialist training to use at all (the 125lb draw great bow), silly and kewl weapons (the fullblade, the double sword and double axe), or in the case of the Urgrosh a misidentified martial weapon (call it a poll-axe with a butt spike and you're done). [/QUOTE]

Verification