Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
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!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Battle Cleric Options is up
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5614146" data-attributes="member: 82106"><p>Yes, I spent many years in the SCA beating on people with rattan weapons too... Sorry, I disagree with much of this. There are certain general conclusions you can draw. Reach is quite important. Swords, in general, are better defensive weapons than most anything else, with shorter and longer versions having various advantages (reach, utility in tight quarters, etc). Maces and similar weapons provide a somewhat superior offense (go ahead, block the blow from my 3.5 pound headed war mace with your sword, good luck). Shields are however quite a bit more useful defensively than any sword, and really are far more critical than all but the very heaviest armor. In general in basic one-on-one melee someone equipped with a shield and a one-handed weapon will beat out almost any other permutation overall. This is why a sword/spear/mace/club plus shield and a helmet was the most ubiquitous type of style in most periods. </p><p></p><p>Staves are actually QUITE effective, and you cannot achieve the same balance with a spear, which requires a reasonable amount of mass in the head. Not that spears were particularly ineffective, quite the contrary, but they weren't any more effective one-on-one than staves (and this can be verified by a quite extensive contemporary literature). In fact a skilled staff user was considered to be at a significant advantage over your average 'longsword' (a nonhistorical term, D&D's weapons are actually rather nonsensical).</p><p></p><p>Personally I've never played with axes, picks, or flails. I suspect in some forms axes were quite deadly, picks were really a late medieval specialist weapon, and I'm skeptical of flails in general, though no doubt they COULD be dangerous.</p><p></p><p>In any case, in the hands of skilled users the differences between weapons are mostly situational and I will say it again, there's little to no justification for making some of the significantly less effective than others. Daggers and shortswords in general wouldn't be a first choice of weapon and suffer reach disadvantages, but in a tight situation will actually be superior to longer weapons. </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>Well, since all pole weapons had butt-spikes I never understood why the urgrosh was justifiable either. Daggers are actually a weapon type which is highly specialized and skilled dagger fighters are exceedingly deadly close combat opponents. Things like scythes and simple clubs, sure they aren't primary weapons, but why should they be 'simple'? Same with the staff, staff fighting being historically a high art at least on a par with swordsmanship. I think we agree on other weapons.</p><p></p><p>Anyway, the point was that the whole 'simple weapon' thing was totally gamist and arbitrary. It is ludicrous to believe that staff is magically something that most characters would be able to master when it was a weapon used by some of the most highly trained martial artists in history (as an example). </p><p></p><p>I think plenty of the superior weapons just don't need to exist even if they COULD. Why do we need a 'great bow', there is already a longbow, which is absolutely historically a high draw self bow. If it needs to do d12 damage, then it should do d12 damage (why rangers need this I have no idea). </p><p></p><p>In any case, 4e (and D&D in general) has such utterly ahistorical and inaccurate weapons to start with it rapidly gets difficult to even talk about which one should do what.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 5614146, member: 82106"] Yes, I spent many years in the SCA beating on people with rattan weapons too... Sorry, I disagree with much of this. There are certain general conclusions you can draw. Reach is quite important. Swords, in general, are better defensive weapons than most anything else, with shorter and longer versions having various advantages (reach, utility in tight quarters, etc). Maces and similar weapons provide a somewhat superior offense (go ahead, block the blow from my 3.5 pound headed war mace with your sword, good luck). Shields are however quite a bit more useful defensively than any sword, and really are far more critical than all but the very heaviest armor. In general in basic one-on-one melee someone equipped with a shield and a one-handed weapon will beat out almost any other permutation overall. This is why a sword/spear/mace/club plus shield and a helmet was the most ubiquitous type of style in most periods. Staves are actually QUITE effective, and you cannot achieve the same balance with a spear, which requires a reasonable amount of mass in the head. Not that spears were particularly ineffective, quite the contrary, but they weren't any more effective one-on-one than staves (and this can be verified by a quite extensive contemporary literature). In fact a skilled staff user was considered to be at a significant advantage over your average 'longsword' (a nonhistorical term, D&D's weapons are actually rather nonsensical). Personally I've never played with axes, picks, or flails. I suspect in some forms axes were quite deadly, picks were really a late medieval specialist weapon, and I'm skeptical of flails in general, though no doubt they COULD be dangerous. In any case, in the hands of skilled users the differences between weapons are mostly situational and I will say it again, there's little to no justification for making some of the significantly less effective than others. Daggers and shortswords in general wouldn't be a first choice of weapon and suffer reach disadvantages, but in a tight situation will actually be superior to longer weapons. Well, since all pole weapons had butt-spikes I never understood why the urgrosh was justifiable either. Daggers are actually a weapon type which is highly specialized and skilled dagger fighters are exceedingly deadly close combat opponents. Things like scythes and simple clubs, sure they aren't primary weapons, but why should they be 'simple'? Same with the staff, staff fighting being historically a high art at least on a par with swordsmanship. I think we agree on other weapons. Anyway, the point was that the whole 'simple weapon' thing was totally gamist and arbitrary. It is ludicrous to believe that staff is magically something that most characters would be able to master when it was a weapon used by some of the most highly trained martial artists in history (as an example). I think plenty of the superior weapons just don't need to exist even if they COULD. Why do we need a 'great bow', there is already a longbow, which is absolutely historically a high draw self bow. If it needs to do d12 damage, then it should do d12 damage (why rangers need this I have no idea). In any case, 4e (and D&D in general) has such utterly ahistorical and inaccurate weapons to start with it rapidly gets difficult to even talk about which one should do what. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Battle Cleric Options is up
Top