D&D General Here's What A 5' Square Actually Looks Like

Over on imgur, a user called DoofusDad created a real-life five-foot square to illustrate what it actually looks like.

 

[GreyLord]

Dude: chill with the quadposting. The edit button exists for a reason.

Language evolves. Word use and categorization changes to account for new entries in a dataset. In ye olde days of King Richard, swords were "swords" because they didn't have that many types of swords to compare with each other. That was 900 years ago, and today we need more words and terms to categorize all the different kinds of swords that have come into existence across the globe.

Can you accept that nobody will have a clue what you're talking about if you refer to everything from a Spartan xiphos to a Viking sword to a Qing Dynasty jian to an Italian sidesword to a Moro kris to a Napoleonic cavalry sword as just "sword"? If yes, then why is the one-handed knightly sword of the High Middle Ages seemingly this sacred article that nobody can call by any other name lest Saint Maurice rise from the grave and recover his sword to smite you with it? Pretty much everybody knows that when you say "arming sword", you're talking about a straight, one-handed, double-edged sword with cruciform hilt dating from the former half of the 2nd millenium that is to be used from horseback or as a sidearm in conjunction with a shield. Or will you only be happy when you brainwash the entire planet to speak in exclusively Oakeshott typology?

A majority of the population have no idea what an "arming sword" is. In fact, most would still call a sword a sword.

Many swords have specific names or referred to specifically by those who used them or made them. Terms from D&D such as "longsword" or "bastard sword" tend to hang around certain circles in popularity. Ironically, such terms were used, but rarely in the same way that we refer to them in D&D (whether it is AD&D with the one handed double edged, or 5e with the plausible two handed grip [1d10 dmg]). Not trying to brainwash anyone, but make it clear that the some of the references are more to a FANTASY than history.

When using the term longsword it is FAR different than using the term of a specific type of sword or blade.

Of course, when referring to a fantasy roleplaying game, fantasy terms probably have just as much relevance as historical thought. I'm just old school back to when the History Professors would make abundantly clear the real history of swords as opposed to the fictional ideas put out by various organizations on campus at the time. Those types of lectures stuck with me...probably for FAR TOO LONG of a time. Sort of like the old guy who yells at the young kids to get off his lawn.

I like your link to the replica.

 

[Von Ether]

The first thing my players asked, upon seeing this image, is why D&D doesn't clarify multiple characters standing in the same 5' x 5' space, such as back to back fighting, especially for denying flanking. Clearly, because of usage of miniatures, but that's not an answer to be given to realism-focused group.

Coordinated fighting in the same space requires a proper feat investment with worthwhile benefit, but a good house rule for back to back fighting for denying flanking could use some thinking.

They do realize that back-to-back fighting is not literal. That unless they are standing completely still and not moving their feet, they are more likely step on each other or elbow each other than deal a lethal blow to an enemy?

 

[S'mon]

Well, I don't.

OK then!

I think people have laid out current usage to you pretty clearly. Horse, water, drink.

 

[Charlaquin]

Measurements you grew up with make sense to you. Measurements you’re not used to seem dumb to you. News at 10.

While generally true, that’s not what’s happening in this conversation. I grew up with (and still live in a country that uses) imperial, but metric makes way more sense to me.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

The Swords I showed you are NOT CALLED ARMING SWORDS.

Why do you insist on calling them something they are not?

You are going off with D&Disms. (well, maybe not D&Disms, but RPGisms on could say, or modern applications of an item rather than the traditional historical references).

We see it permeate a LOT of historical ideas these days, but when sites start classifying something as a Bastard Sword, you know it has generally been influenced by D&D isms.

Most of the "longswords" that you are talking about were created during the Renaissance (but ironically, an instant giveaway of a site that is trying to change the label of swords will say they were around in the Middle Ages).

Most of the definitions these days that use words such as Bastard Sword, Long Sword or Great Sword are pure D&Disms that have crept in to people's vernacular, but had no real bearing on what they were traditionally considered or called.

Generally in the Middle Ages and times prior to the Renaissance a sword was called...a sword. There was no...Long Sword, Arming Sword, or much less other things people have come up with in modern times.

Particular swords had specific type of classifications at times, specific to that type of sword, but they normally did not have the branching that many here indicate.

Longswords in SOME German and other texts referred to a longer blade or grip but OTHERS that would refer to a long sword or long blade were just talking about a sword or blade that was longer (and sometimes even, an innuendo in reference to other things involved in the pun). Generally, a longsword just meant a SWORD that was longer. It didn't necessarily mean that it had to have a grip with two hands (though you are free to try to reinterpret many historical texts if you desire, though it wouldn't make a LOT Of sense in many instances).

I hear that many modern fencers use the definition you are stating, but historically, it's bunk that a longsword required a longer grip. It simply meant....a longer sword.

Swords with two grips that were referred to by Germans and others are unclear at what they were specifically referring to at times, but some of those references are actually to what YOU are calling a Great Sword.

It sounds like we are referring to two separate things. One where I've seen D&Disms creep in, which is what you seem to be using and is with some of the modern fencing definitions (where yes, a longsword has a grip for two hands, but has no basis in historical reference...except D&Disms which have crept into it)...and the other which deal with the more historical definitions which I seem to be using.

However, the modern fencing definitions are not what the historical definitions are. This is where I think the disagreement comes out, as what we learned in history decades ago, prior to the D&Disms creeping into other sports and such, do NOT coincide with what those types of fencers define swords as today. Thus the historical definitions of these things which I am using do not conjoin with what you are using.

King Richard would have probably been MUCH displeased if you had referred to his sword as a short sword or arming sword I imagine (yes, as with Shakespeare...that can be seen as a slight pun).

OK
It sounds like our disagreement seems to be mostly about the specific terms by which I was referring to distinguish different historical swords.
The links that you posted appear to be to 3ft-3 1/2 ft swords with cruciform guards and one-handed grips. I was calling these 'arming swords'. - What term would you prefer I use when referring to these?

The swords in the picture that this conversation has been about appear to be around 5ft long with a two-handed grip of the type much beloved of the more common schools of HEMA. I was calling these 'longswords'. - What term would you prefer that I use when referring to this type of sword?

I'm using these terms because the others on the board tend to use the same terms to describe them and so would understand the distinctions that I'm making. I'm certainly interested in the correct terminology however.

Coming Back to this, as your post seemed to go two ways on it, and I while I wanted to address the modern ideas you try to retroactively apply to history, there are things that we would agree with.

For example, the concept of the longsword as is perceived in D&D IS mostly a D&Dism. As you said, most of the swords would have just been called swords (though particular swords WERE classified specifically as certain types at times for various reasons). In 5e, the SAME can be said though, where the longsword as listed seems more what D&D typically lists as a Bastard Sword, or could also fall into your idea of the modern fencing definitions of a longsword, rather than the general idea of the past where a long sword is generally just meaning or indicating a sword longer than others (and as that could be general or broad, that could include a VERY LARGE gamut of different swords, both one and two handed).

I think that the 5e weapons table, particularly the 'Longsword' category is deliberately broad, encompassing a large variety of different weapons into it. Its a better strategy than filling the page with names of things that in most cases would have the same or very similar statistics.

In regards to what you say with fighting, I can see your point...enough to divide it from your other posts to say, unless someone says something contrary to convince me (and none have thus far, it could be that I am not versed in HEMA as well as others in regards to fighting and such), I see your point and can agree.

Amusingly, it might be better to look at reenactors or LARPers when it comes to this sort of fighting. HEMA schools tend to concentrate on one-on-one combat, possibly because many of the texts they are based on seem to address duelling or similar situations.

 

[jasper]

Looks about right for the space a human-sized creature can control in close combat.

Really wish D&D would make the switch to metric. Especially cause you could make squares meters and then it would be 1-1. Maps would be a bit smaller, but I think that’s a worthwhile change.

How? It still going to take one square on the graph paper to represent 1 meter. And most play maps have 1 inch squares.

 

[jasper]

Unfortunately, because our country is so damn big, it would be a tremendous (and tremendously expensive) undertaking to make the switch nationwide.

We tried this in the 70s, it went no where.

 

[Oofta]

Not to get into a historical debate about sword categories, but in many cases long sword just referred to anything longer than average. Short sword? Shorter than average ... whatever the average was for that region and time period.

I personally think of rapiers as being some variation of arming sword, saber, etc. Epees are only used for sport and are not real weapons.

 

[Charlaquin]

How? It still going to take one square on the graph paper to represent 1 meter. And most play maps have 1 inch squares.

I just mean a map of the same number of squares would represent a smaller space.

We tried this in the 70s, it went no where.

Huh. I had no idea.

 

[Garthanos]

I can't remember who did them, but I think I got these from Owen K.C. Stephens's social media. It's the same image flipped so you can see the space with two combatants, then photoshopped with sword and shield (though the swords look a bit large, like 2-handed swords being used one-handed).

View attachment 113967
View attachment 113968

Way too close dude you are supposed to have to move inside to hit the enemy those guys are already inside each others weapon reach bad form bad form,

The range is fine for fisticuffs though.