Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FitzTheRuke" data-source="post: 8991325" data-attributes="member: 59816">I mean, that's cool and all, but don't mistake that anything like that was used in battle in the real world. There are two things we need to understand when thinking about "real" weapons (assuming that we enjoy that sort of pastime):1) A LOT of weapons exist that were made purely for show. To hang on walls, to dance around with in front of spectators, to do mock-battles, etc. I've read that most of the craziest looking African weapons were made to sell to Europeans during colonial times, because the locals quickly realized that they could make money off the foreigners who were amazed by the novelty of their "weird" weapons. Sounds like humanity to me.2) Gladiators and kung-fu pit fights were for show. In fact, almost all historical "dueling" was for show, even if it could result in the death of one or more participants. Therefore, people often invented and used weapons that were impractical for killing, but looked awesome while doing it. Don't get me wrong - this style of weapon worked (or no one would use them for long) but there's a big difference between them and a weapon built for WAR.Now, I'm not remotely advocating for D&D to only use practical weapons. That would be silly. If anything, I wish the game opened its collective mind to weapons that actually existed and were crazy. It seems to me to often be the worst of what I would call "low-level weapon research". At the same time it tries to say, "nah, a net would be so difficult to use!" AND YET makes the double-axe or worse, the spiked-chain.(My only problem with the spiked chain is, well, the art that makes the chains look like anchors, and the fact that in 3.5 it was by far one of the "best" (read: most powerful) weapons).</blockquote>

Verification