Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mouseferatu" data-source="post: 4251102" data-attributes="member: 1288">Well, can't please everyone all the time. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Here's the problem. A lot of terms to which D&amp;D assigns specific meanings aren't always as clear-cut, historically. Ask a dozen historians where the line is between a &quot;zweihander&quot; and a &quot;hand-and-a-half (bastard) sword,&quot; you'll probably get a dozen different answers.Especially since, at least in part, it depends on the person. I have a friend who's quite capable of wielding a full-sized Scottish claymore one-handed without the slightest bit of effort. A lot of what we think of as &quot;two-handed swords&quot; actually qualify as bastard swords for large and/or strong and/or trained soldiers. (And let's face it; most D&amp;D fighters are at the upper end of the strength scale. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />) Plus, a lot of historical two-handed swords were meant eitherA) purely for cleaving pole-arms, not for the sort of sword fights we think of, orB) ceremonial purposes.So while it's very different from past editions, I don't think it's actually any more historically inaccurate to equate the greatsword and the bastard sword. Either way, the game's blurring the line; in this case, it's just blurring it in the opposite direction from past editions. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mouseferatu, post: 4251102, member: 1288"] Well, can't please everyone all the time. ;) Here's the problem. A lot of terms to which D&D assigns specific meanings aren't always as clear-cut, historically. Ask a dozen historians where the line is between a "zweihander" and a "hand-and-a-half (bastard) sword," you'll probably get a dozen different answers. Especially since, at least in part, it depends on the person. I have a friend who's quite capable of wielding a full-sized Scottish claymore one-handed without the slightest bit of effort. A lot of what we think of as "two-handed swords" actually qualify as bastard swords for large and/or strong and/or trained soldiers. (And let's face it; most D&D fighters are at the upper end of the strength scale. ;)) Plus, a lot of historical two-handed swords were meant either A) purely for cleaving pole-arms, not for the sort of sword fights we think of, or B) ceremonial purposes. So while it's very different from past editions, I don't think it's actually any more historically inaccurate to equate the greatsword and the bastard sword. Either way, the game's blurring the line; in this case, it's just blurring it in the opposite direction from past editions. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification