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.

 

[Celebrim]

It is weird D&D now has no official 1-handed arming sword type weapon though!

It's another nomenclature problem similar to 'chain mail' and 'plate mail' and the whole misunderstanding that led to 'studded leather'. The 'longsword' of D&D was always meant to represent be an arming sword, but the naming conventions got messed up and now they've become conventional.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Mother Nature issued us with a pretty inconvenient number of fingers for mathematics, truth be told. If the Revolutionary French had been smart, they would have created a dozenal system rather than a decimal one. (And also done a few other things differently, but that's clearly the most important issue.) A dozenal meter can handle sixths and thirds as easily as fourths and halves, and eighths aren't so bad. It still can't handle sevenths (seven is just a real ornery number), and it loses fifths, but overall it would be a tremendous improvement in usability.

Or if they were feeling ambitious, there's always the Babylonian base-60 system. Look at all the divisors on that bad boy!

I think there’s more to why base 10 is so universally embraced by humans than just the number of fingers we have. If base 12 was really superior, we could just as easily count our knuckles.

If we are want something truly universal we're stuck with binary.

 

[Sacrosanct]

If we are want something truly universal we're stuck with binary.

There are 10 types of people: those who understand binary, and those who don't

 

[Vael]

I don't like that idea. Feet are easier to grasp.

Maybe, but I'm ticklish

 

[PsyzhranV2]

IMO:

Shortsword: a sword with a grip that can only be held with one hand, and light enough to match. Can range from long daggers to gladii to medieval arming swords.

Spoiler: Shortsword examples

Longsword: a sword with a two-handed grip but still light enough to be wielded (semi)-comfortably in one hand. "Bastard swords" or "hand-and-a-half swords".

Spoiler: Longsword examples

Greatsword: a sword that can only be effectively wielded with two hands. "Two-handed sword".

Spoiler: Greatsword examples

 

[GMMichael]

So yes, have no problem with that you can injure someone 1.5 meters away from your body, depending on how far you extend your arms.

Does no one care that that "someone" could be your allied bard or wizard in the next 5-foot-square? Or that some moves would be exceedingly difficult with said bard or wizard also swinging around their lutes and quarterstaves nearby?

 

[Kobold Avenger]

The Aztecs apparently used a base 20 numeric system, but it's one I still think is still based on fingers.

Also my rapier is a bit longer than many longswords of the hand and a half variety. I choose my blade length of my rapier to be based around the height of my belly button when standing straight.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I propose the following solution. Create a new weapon property, “Warding.” When a creature enters the reach of a weapon with the Warding property, it provokes an Attack of Opportunity (and change the wording on the Sentinel Feat to say that you treat all weapons as Warding). Now you can have four categories of weapon length: Reach and Warding, just Reach, just Warding, and neither. Pikes and Lances fall into the first category. Glaives and halberds fall into the second. Longswords, Greatswords, Greataxes, Quarterstaves, and Spears fall into the third.

With that rule, longswords would be in the second category (just Reach), because they can hit someone further away if you try, but they don't generally threaten further away while you're not swinging.

Even then, it adds significant complexity to combat, because now we have to worry about making melee attacks into the second row of enemies. That was something that previously only came up if someone was using a long spear. I don't even remember, off the top of my head, whether the first row can provide cover to the second row when you're dealing with melee attacks.

Ideally, we want the most common weapons that everyone uses to have no special properties, so that we only have to deal with special rules in special situations.

 

[S'mon]

IMO:

Shortsword: a sword with a grip that can only be held with one hand, and light enough to match. Can range from long daggers to gladii to medieval arming swords.

Spoiler: Shortsword examples

Longsword: a sword with a two-handed grip but still light enough to be wielded (semi)-comfortably in one hand. "Bastard swords" or "hand-and-a-half swords".

Spoiler: Longsword examples

Greatsword: a sword that can only be effectively wielded with two hands. "Two-handed sword".

Spoiler: Greatsword examples

But why would a sword designed for 1 handed use be less effective (d6) than 1 handed use of a sword designed for 2 handed use (d8)? I'm fine with machete & cinquedea as d6 weapons, but an arming sword with the same blade length as a bastard sword (small longsword), and better optimised for 1 handed combat, ought to be at least as effective IMO.

 

[Charlaquin]

With that rule, longswords would be in the second category (just Reach), because they can hit someone further away if you try, but they don't generally threaten further away while you're not swinging.

Sure, whatever works. Honestly, I’m not convinced longswords need 2 squares of Reach even in a 1 square = 1 meter/yard system. Two squares away in such a system is up to about 6 feet, abs yeah, you could reach that far with a longsword, but that’s definitely not it’s optimal range.

Even then, it adds significant complexity to combat, because now we have to worry about making melee attacks into the second row of enemies. That was something that previously only came up if someone was using a long spear. I don't even remember, off the top of my head, whether the first row can provide cover to the second row when you're dealing with melee attacks.

It can. You have half cover if half of your body is obscured, and another creature is given as a specific example of a source of such obscuration.

Ideally, we want the most common weapons that everyone uses to have no special properties, so that we only have to deal with special rules in special situations.

Eh, I guess.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

No sir, that looks to be just the right size for a plain ol' longsword to me; if he stood up straight and put the point on the ground (which you really shouldn't do) the pommel would come about to just around his shoulder, which is just right for a longsword (they are called "long" swords for a reason. ) Remember, 5E adjusted the definition of "longsword" to match the real world definition, or what the game used to call a "bastard sword.") Of course, "greatsword" has no actual real world definition so in the game it could mean just any old big-ass sword, but actual Two-Handed Swords used in real life Renaissance warfare were huge ungainly things that were the full length of the wielder or a bit longer, and were used almost more like a polearm than they were other swords.

I'll agree that the weapons in the picture look like longswords, but historical longswords which were almost exclusively two-handed weapons. As opposed to the D&D "longsword" which is a category covering any sword from one-handed but occasionally used in two, to two-handed, but occasionally used in one. A medieval arming sword counts as a D&D longsword, but would be a fair bit shorter than the actual longswords in the picture.

Does no one care that that "someone" could be your allied bard or wizard in the next 5-foot-square? Or that some moves would be exceedingly difficult with said bard or wizard also swinging around their lutes and quarterstaves nearby?

What sort of moves? Unless you're trying to intimidate your opponent by spinning your weapon in flashy display flourishes (which you wouldn't do whilst they were in reach of you to start with), your weapon isn't likely to go far offline from your opponent. If your swings are so wild that they endanger someone standing 5 ft to your side, you're a) putting too much effort into the swing, and b) using a weapon that you're not strong enough for.

 

[GreyLord]

I'll agree that the weapons in the picture look like longswords, but historical longswords which were almost exclusively two-handed weapons. As opposed to the D&D "longsword" which is a category covering any sword from one-handed but occasionally used in two, to two-handed, but occasionally used in one. A medieval arming sword counts as a D&D longsword, but would be a fair bit shorter than the actual longswords in the picture.
What sort of moves? Unless you're trying to intimidate your opponent by spinning your weapon in flashy display flourishes (which you wouldn't do whilst they were in reach of you to start with), your weapon isn't likely to go far offline from your opponent. If your swings are so wild that they endanger someone standing 5 ft to your side, you're a) putting too much effort into the swing, and b) using a weapon that you're not strong enough for.

Swords were typically two handed weapons?

Yeah...right. and I have beachfront property in Oklahoma to sell you.

The ones that I have gotten that show that either those guys had REALLY SMALL hands, or most were made for a sword and shield type fighting...and have space to easily fit one hand, but is very hard to fit two hands in holding it.

Some may have been made for two hands, but a vast majority could be held comfortably with one hand. Two hands and you'd have half of your second hand holding air.

I'm not really connected that much to the conversation, but the idea that all the normal swords (aka, the longsword as it is known in D&D) held by a majority of the swordsmen soldiers in the period after 1100 were two handed swords is pure bunk from what I have seen from the actual swords of the time period.

Some had two handed grips, but a vast majority of them were not created as such.

 

[S'mon]

Swords were typically two handed weapons?

Yeah...right. and I have beachfront property in Oklahoma to sell you.

The ones that I have gotten that show that either those guys had REALLY SMALL hands, or most were made for a sword and shield type fighting...and have space to easily fit one hand, but is very hard to fit two hands in holding it.

Some may have been made for two hands, but a vast majority could be held comfortably with one hand. Two hands and you'd have half of your second hand holding air.

I'm not really connected that much to the conversation, but the idea that all the normal swords (aka, the longsword as it is known in D&D) held by a majority of the swordsmen soldiers in the period after 1100 were two handed swords is pure bunk from what I have seen from the actual swords of the time period.

Some had two handed grips, but a vast majority of them were not created as such.

That's not what he's saying. He's saying the 5e 'longsword' appears intended to cover pretty much everything bigger than a cinquedea and smaller than a claymore.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah, I guess the archetypal one-handed arming sword would be covered under short sword now, alongside your stereotypical gladius? I've wondered about that myself! I went ahead and added "Arming Sword" to the weapon table as just a longsword without the Versatile property. As you implied, there was a continuum of blade lengths without anything approaching standardization. If you were a really tall guy you'd get a longer sword, and vice versa. The only place I've ever seen any in-period person say anything about blade lengths was an awesome-sounding technical swordmaster talking about rapiers, and that was setting a max limit: Gérard Thibault d'Anvers. This guy sounds like the definition of the Battle Master Archetype and a rad person to base a character on!

And before I check, doesn't claymore actually just mean "great sword" in Scotch Gaelic? Or was that a false etymology... I can never keep that straight. checks link Yup, great sword!

I’m pretty sure the 5e longsword is supposed to cover the full arming sword/bastard sword/longsword continuum, and the greatsword is supposed to cover everything from the Scottish claymore on up to the big ol’ Renaissance two-handrers.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Swords were typically two handed weapons?

The swords in the picture, that appear to be historical longswords, which were typically two handed weapons. Yes.

Yeah...right. and I have beachfront property in Oklahoma to sell you.

Sounds a little too . . . colonial for me thank you.

The ones that I have gotten that show that either those guys had REALLY SMALL hands, or most were made for a sword and shield type fighting...and have space to easily fit one hand, but is very hard to fit two hands in holding it.

Some may have been made for two hands, but a vast majority could be held comfortably with one hand. Two hands and you'd have half of your second hand holding air.

Those swords shown have a total length of what? 54 inches, and grips designed for two hands. You have (non-rapier) swords of the same size but with one-handed grips and would find them effective when used in one hand?
Do you have pictures?

I'm not really connected that much to the conversation, but the idea that all the normal swords (aka, the longsword as it is known in D&D) held by a majority of the swordsmen soldiers in the period after 1100 were two handed swords is pure bunk from what I have seen from the actual swords of the time period.

Some had two handed grips, but a vast majority of them were not created as such.

?
Nooo. I'm saying that the D&D 'longsword' category covers all swords that could be used in both one or two hands, even if they were designed mostly for one of those styles. Everything from arming swords that were mostly used in one hand but occasionally in two, through bastard swords, katana etc right up to (maybe) the historical longsword, that was almost exclusively a two-handed weapon. All fall under that category (unless you want to adjust things a bit like counting a katana as a scimitar, or a langeswert as a two-handed sword etc.)

And yes. This does mean that D&D is not the paragon of historical accuracy that it might appear.
See also Studded leather armour, the 3rd ed Falchion, and Quarterstaves being usable in one hand for more egregious examples.

 

[Aaron L]

I’m pretty sure the 5e longsword is supposed to cover the full arming sword/bastard sword/longsword continuum, and the greatsword is supposed to cover everything from the Scottish claymore on up to the big ol’ Renaissance two-handrers.

Makes sense!

 

[Aaron L]

The swords in the picture, that appear to be historical longswords, which were typically two handed weapons. Yes.
Sounds a little too . . . colonial for me thank you.
Those swords shown have a total length of what? 54 inches, and grips designed for two hands. You have (non-rapier) swords of the same size but with one-handed grips and would find them effective when used in one hand?
Do you have pictures?
?
Nooo. I'm saying that the D&D 'longsword' category covers all swords that could be used in both one or two hands, even if they were designed mostly for one of those styles. Everything from arming swords that were mostly used in one hand but occasionally in two, through bastard swords, katana etc right up to (maybe) the historical longsword, that was almost exclusively a two-handed weapon. All fall under that category (unless you want to adjust things a bit like counting a katana as a scimitar, or a langeswert as a two-handed sword etc.)

And yes. This does mean that D&D is not the paragon of historical accuracy that it might appear.
See also Studded leather armour, the 3rd ed Falchion, and Quarterstaves being usable in one hand for more egregious examples.

Studded Leather armor always makes me laugh. I just assume it's some kind of really light brigandine jack or something. The 3E falchion... I don't even know what the heck that was supposed to be, except for maybe Inuyasha's Tessaiga (which was actually pointed out by the [adult swim] bumps once when they gave the 3E stats for it.) The quarterstaff in one hand I don't have a problem with, though; you just club your opponent with it.

 

[MNblockhead]

As an American myself, when I was overseas for 6 years, I really enjoyed metric better. I wish we would go to that.

I love meters when I live overseas because I like seeing speed limit signs for, and seeing the speedometer hit, 100 when I'm driving.

But I like Fahrenheit because 50 still means a long sleeve shirt and maybe a sweater and not OMG WHY TO PEOPLE EVEN LIVE HERE!!!!

 

[Charlaquin]

I love meters when I live overseas because I like seeing speed limit signs for, and seeing the speedometer hit, 100 when I'm driving.

But I like Fahrenheit because 50 still means a long sleeve shirt and maybe a sweater and not OMG WHY TO PEOPLE EVEN LIVE HERE!!!!

But 0 meaning freezing and 100 meaning boiling makes the whole scale so easy to grokk! Of course 50 would be absurdly hot, it’s halfway to your sweat literally evaporating.

 

[Ulfgeir]

What sort of moves? Unless you're trying to intimidate your opponent by spinning your weapon in flashy display flourishes (which you wouldn't do whilst they were in reach of you to start with), your weapon isn't likely to go far offline from your opponent. If your swings are so wild that they endanger someone standing 5 ft to your side, you're a) putting too much effort into the swing, and b) using a weapon that you're not strong enough for.

You have techniques where you rotate your sword with the flat of the blade parallell to the ground above your head, and then strike with the tip of the sword. A Zwerchhau.
Link of a Zwerchau.

Of course, that is only a viable technique if the opponent is not armoued (wearing plate armour). If he is, well then you get to use half-swording techniques instead, to grip the blade with one hand and thrust into the weak spots of his armour, like joints, the eye-slit...