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.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

I think farenheit covers a better range of 0ish to 100ish of human livable conditions than Celsius. From a scientific perspective I get Celsius. But from an everyday perspective farenheit covers the really cold for humans to the really hot for human range very well.

 

[GreyLord]

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.

Do you want to go to the museum???

They have pictures of some of them, some they do not.

UNLIKE YOURS they tend to be actually FROM the time period. If you actually studied them you would note that the handles are normally FAR too short for two hands.

Many are specific to the museum and they do not put pictures up of all the weapons.

I could post links to replicas...for example...here's a replica of King Richard's sword...

Replica Richard the Lionheart's sword

for non-replicas....here's another time period appropriate one

British Museum 13th century sword

These are typical examples of swords of the time. NOTE...you are NOT going to get two hands on that, unless your hands are smaller than small.

That's because they are meant to be wielded with a shield. This nonsense of these swords being mostly having two handed grips is something that came out of...I don't know to be honest...some sort of modern fantasy or something???

The problem is that D&D wasn't historically accurate. The longsword as per D&D would have typically been what you called the arming sword, or sometimes they had it as a broadsword type as well. Obviously an Arming sword was FAR DIFFERENT than a short sword, and in many cases was just as long as what some see a longsword as being in D&D (because in AD&D that's what was integrated into it ironically, accurate or not).

This was differentiated from the two grip longswords (which is a particular category, rather than ALL longswords) which AD&D (and BECMI) called the Bastard Sword.

However, not all of these "longswords" are the two grip type or "Bastard Sword" (who gave it that name anyways...interesting story).

You also have larger swords.

However, the D&D names for swords did not necessarily align with the historical idea of swords.

Many of the swords are actually broken down into even smaller categories of the type of swords...not merely shortsword, longsword, bastard sword, greatsword...but a LOT of different categories.

So, labeling all longswords as having two handed grips...yeah...not really going to agree with that one.

You are going with D&D isms...and if you are going with D&D isms than the longsword is typically identified with the one handed grip types, while the Bastard Sword is the two handed grip longsword.

IN 5e it's even more nebulous with ANY sword that isn't a shorter type classified as a Longsword...unless it's a rapier...which....ironically is another interesting side topic where such a differentiation probably shouldn't be as noted between the two as there were larger differences between what is called a longsword in 5e and many of it's subtypes and the rapier and longsword.

You are wanting to classify the classic longswords that are made for two handed grips from the Renaissance (in which case you would probably want to start talking about longswords and Rapiers and the rest as well, which have a GREAT DEAL of overlap), rather than the longsword that was traditionally used (some call them arming swords, but the length of many of these "arming swords" were actually longer than some of the longswords made with grips for two hands) because they were ALSO longswords of the time.

The term LONGSWORD is an interesting term in and of itself, but historically has meant something different than how it has been utilized in gaming terms...and is far broader and yet less broad than used in games as well.

Modernly, some of that gaming terminology have bled over to modern sword making and replicas, but that doesn't mean that we should try to distinguish the weapons in terms of gaming.

 

[DND_Reborn]

However, the D&D names for swords did not necessarily align with the historical idea of swords.

Exceedingly true!

 

[GMMichael]

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.

Well, considering that if DorkDad extended his arm, he could almost touch the edge of his square (before considering the length of any weapon he might wield), ANY move besides a spear-like thrust would intrude on neighboring squares. Add in the concept of maneuvering within the square, and how unruly those wizards are with their staves (or where your Dragonborn friend's wings and tail are flopping), there could be a LOT of allied weapon clanking going on.

I think what you're calling "wild swings" are better called "moves less predictable than constant forward stabs."

 

[S'mon]

Do you want to go to the museum???

They have pictures of some of them, some they do not.

UNLIKE YOURS they tend to be actually FROM the time period. If you actually studied them you would note that the handles are normally FAR too short for two hands.

Many are specific to the museum and they do not put pictures up of all the weapons.

I could post links to replicas...for example...here's a replica of King Richard's sword...

Replica Richard the Lionheart's sword

for non-replicas....here's another time period appropriate one

British Museum 13th century sword

These are typical examples of swords of the time. NOTE...you are NOT going to get two hands on that, unless your hands are smaller than small.

That's because they are meant to be wielded with a shield. This nonsense of these swords being mostly having two handed grips is something that came out of...I don't know to be honest...some sort of modern fantasy or something???

The problem is that D&D wasn't historically accurate. The longsword as per D&D would have typically been what you called the arming sword, or sometimes they had it as a broadsword type as well. Obviously an Arming sword was FAR DIFFERENT than a short sword, and in many cases was just as long as what some see a longsword as being in D&D (because in AD&D that's what was integrated into it ironically, accurate or not).

This was differentiated from the two grip longswords (which is a particular category, rather than ALL longswords) which AD&D (and BECMI) called the Bastard Sword.

However, not all of these "longswords" are the two grip type or "Bastard Sword" (who gave it that name anyways...interesting story).

You also have larger swords.

However, the D&D names for swords did not necessarily align with the historical idea of swords.

Many of the swords are actually broken down into even smaller categories of the type of swords...not merely shortsword, longsword, bastard sword, greatsword...but a LOT of different categories.

So, labeling all longswords as having two handed grips...yeah...not really going to agree with that one.

You are going with D&D isms...and if you are going with D&D isms than the longsword is typically identified with the one handed grip types, while the Bastard Sword is the two handed grip longsword.

IN 5e it's even more nebulous with ANY sword that isn't a shorter type classified as a Longsword...unless it's a rapier...which....ironically is another interesting side topic where such a differentiation probably shouldn't be as noted between the two as there were larger differences between what is called a longsword in 5e and many of it's subtypes and the rapier and longsword.

You are wanting to classify the classic longswords that are made for two handed grips from the Renaissance (in which case you would probably want to start talking about longswords and Rapiers and the rest as well, which have a GREAT DEAL of overlap), rather than the longsword that was traditionally used (some call them arming swords, but the length of many of these "arming swords" were actually longer than some of the longswords made with grips for two hands) because they were ALSO longswords of the time.

The term LONGSWORD is an interesting term in and of itself, but historically has meant something different than how it has been utilized in gaming terms...and is far broader and yet less broad than used in games as well.

Modernly, some of that gaming terminology have bled over to modern sword making and replicas, but that doesn't mean that we should try to distinguish the weapons in terms of gaming.

You do understand that outside of RPGs, when a Medievalist says "longsword" they mean a large 2-handed straight edged sword which can also be used one handed if necessary? The terminology is pretty consistent these days. Longswords can always be used 2-handed. The typical 1-handed straight edged sword is called an arming sword.

Edit: Longswords start coming in ca 1350, with a few earlier examples (hence arguments about 'could Wallace have wielded a longsword') - they are definitely Medieval not Renaissance. The 6' long Zweihanders are Renaissance, they are 2-handed only.

 

[ad_hoc]

I think farenheit covers a better range of 0ish to 100ish of human livable conditions than Celsius. From a scientific perspective I get Celsius. But from an everyday perspective farenheit covers the really cold for humans to the really hot for human range very well.

0 in Celsius is when water freezes. When it is 0 outside I know that it has gotten cold.

Freezing in Fahrenheit is 32. That is an odd number for something so important.

According to Google:

"Daniel Fahrenheit did not use the freezing point of water as a basis for developing his scale. He called the temperature of an ice/salt/water mixture 'zero degrees', as this was the lowest temperature he could conveniently attain in his lab. "

That's real dumb. I don't need to know the freeezing temperature of a specific ice/salt/water mixture. I want to know if it is freezing outside, and by how much on a linear scale.

Any guess as to what the boiling point of water is in Celsius?

It's a pretty easy one - 100.

In Fahrenheit, 212.

Celsius is far easier to use for daily living.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

0 in Celsius is when water freezes. When it is 0 outside I know that it has gotten cold.

Freezing in Fahrenheit is 32. That is an odd number for something so important.

According to Google:

"Daniel Fahrenheit did not use the freezing point of water as a basis for developing his scale. He called the temperature of an ice/salt/water mixture 'zero degrees', as this was the lowest temperature he could conveniently attain in his lab. "

That's real dumb. I don't need to know the freeezing temperature of a specific ice/salt/water mixture. I want to know if it is freezing outside, and by how much on a linear scale.

Any guess as to what the boiling point of water is in Celsius?

It's a pretty easy one - 100.

In Fahrenheit, 212.

Celsius is far easier to use for daily living.

It's all about what you're used to. People who grow up knowing that the numbers to remember are 32 and 212 don't find it particularly difficult. Or at least, if there's some sort of study out there finding a significant quantifiable difference in temperature comprehension between Fahrenheit-using cultures and Celsius-using cultures, I have yet to hear about it. So I think the statement that Celsius is "far easier to use for daily living" is probably a bit of a stretch. Other forms of metric, yes, for when people have to convert. Celsius, not so much.

The odd thing about the Celsius scale from the point of view of objective ease of use is that it is -- forgive me -- ad hoc just as much as Fahrenheit is. Yeah, it uses the freezing point of water as zero, but that's not actually zero in the physical sense. It's almost as if they'd decided that the meter starts at 37 centimeters, and anything below that is negative. Which can actually mess up your math. If you have a Celsius temperature and you want to do a calculation that involves, say, multiplying that value, you have to remember to convert it to kelvins first.

 

[Morrus]

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

Is this the oldest internet argument? I think it might be. One day people will tire of it!

 

[ad_hoc]

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

Is this the oldest internet argument? I think it might be. One day people will tire of it!

But what language makes more sense?

 

[TheCosmicKid]

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

No, the nightly news is supposed to be at 9!

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Do you want to go to the museum???

They have pictures of some of them, some they do not.

UNLIKE YOURS they tend to be actually FROM the time period. If you actually studied them you would note that the handles are normally FAR too short for two hands.

Many are specific to the museum and they do not put pictures up of all the weapons.

I could post links to replicas...for example...here's a replica of King Richard's sword...

Replica Richard the Lionheart's sword

for non-replicas....here's another time period appropriate one

British Museum 13th century sword

These are typical examples of swords of the time. NOTE...you are NOT going to get two hands on that, unless your hands are smaller than small.

That's because they are meant to be wielded with a shield. This nonsense of these swords being mostly having two handed grips is something that came out of...I don't know to be honest...some sort of modern fantasy or something???

To reiterate again: The swords in the picture earlier in the thread are not generic D&D longswords.. They are longswords in the historical sense, which are a specific type of sword almost exclusively used in two hands, and with a grip specifically designed for that.
Showing me pictures of arming swords is not going to change what a historical longsword is. Talking about average swords or swords in general isn't going to change the fact that what is depicted in that picture looks like a couple of two-handed swords with the blade and grip length commensurate with two-handed swords.
I mean just look. - Do you really think they look like the same length and proportions as the swords that you linked to?

View attachment 113968

As I pointed out in my first post, arming swords like the ones you link to would be placed in the "longsword" category of the 5e weapons table, because they are one-handed swords that were occasionally used in two hands. The 5e longsword category covers those, all the way up to something close to an actual longsword.

The problem is that D&D wasn't historically accurate. The longsword as per D&D would have typically been what you called the arming sword, or sometimes they had it as a broadsword type as well. Obviously an Arming sword was FAR DIFFERENT than a short sword, and in many cases was just as long as what some see a longsword as being in D&D (because in AD&D that's what was integrated into it ironically, accurate or not).

This was differentiated from the two grip longswords (which is a particular category, rather than ALL longswords) which AD&D (and BECMI) called the Bastard Sword.

However, not all of these "longswords" are the two grip type or "Bastard Sword" (who gave it that name anyways...interesting story).

You also have larger swords.

However, the D&D names for swords did not necessarily align with the historical idea of swords.

Yes. This is pretty close to what I have been saying in my first post in the thread, and posts since.

So, labeling all longswords as having two handed grips...yeah...not really going to agree with that one.

Historical longswords do have two-handed grips: - it is generally part of the definition of that specific type of sword.
D&D longswords are a much broader category covering many types, most of which have one-handed or at least not full twohanded grips.

You are wanting to classify the classic longswords that are made for two handed grips from the Renaissance (in which case you would probably want to start talking about longswords and Rapiers and the rest as well, which have a GREAT DEAL of overlap), rather than the longsword that was traditionally used (some call them arming swords, but the length of many of these "arming swords" were actually longer than some of the longswords made with grips for two hands) because they were ALSO longswords of the time.

Nope. At the time, arming swords and the like would have just been called "swords". The concept of the longsword as a one-handed sword is mostly a D&Dism.

The term LONGSWORD is an interesting term in and of itself, but historically has meant something different than how it has been utilized in gaming terms...and is far broader and yet less broad than used in games as well.

Modernly, some of that gaming terminology have bled over to modern sword making and replicas, but that doesn't mean that we should try to distinguish the weapons in terms of gaming.

I think that I have been pretty careful to distinguish when I am talking about the historical longsword or the D&D definition. Is there anywhere in my posts where I haven't made it sufficiently clear?

Well, considering that if DorkDad extended his arm, he could almost touch the edge of his square (before considering the length of any weapon he might wield), ANY move besides a spear-like thrust would intrude on neighboring squares. Add in the concept of maneuvering within the square, and how unruly those wizards are with their staves (or where your Dragonborn friend's wings and tail are flopping), there could be a LOT of allied weapon clanking going on.

I think what you're calling "wild swings" are better called "moves less predictable than constant forward stabs."

In order to risk hitting someone in a 5ft square next to you, you would have to bring your weapon offline from your opponent at a significant horizontal angle. Unless you're using a shield, you really don't tend to do that when engaged with an opponent because its a recipe for getting yocked. In a line fight you tend to stick with vertical swings specifically because you don't want to tangle weapons with your allies or with an opponent other than the one you're trying to hit. Even with a shield, a horizontal backswing that endangers your allies would be considered pretty wild specifically because it does endanger your ally.
Likewise any kind of followthrough that leaves you with your weapon significantly horizontally offline or risks hitting your allies is excessive.

 

[Kinematics]

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.

Eh, the celcius scale is kinda not that great, if you assume that 0-100 is your "working range". With farenheit, all of 0-100 is useful info. With celsius, only 0-50 is useful info; 50-100 is dead space.

I don't need to know the temperature where water boils in my main "working range" of temperature. Water boiling is just the start of the "cooking temperature range". In farenheit, that's somewhere around 200-500 degrees. In celsius, that's around 100-250 degrees. In neither case does the measurement system really matter. You're just picking the number you need to set the oven at to bake the cake.

0 in Celsius is when water freezes. When it is 0 outside I know that it has gotten cold.

Freezing in Fahrenheit is 32. That is an odd number for something so important.

I'd actually consider that a benefit. There's a portion of your standard range in the farenheit scale that describes the situation where water is freezing. In celcius, you have to go below 0, so you're outside your 0-100 working range.

In general, with farenheit, 0-32 is "water freezes (thus take appropriate precautions), but you're not at heavy risk", whereas below 0 is "OK, this is starting to become a serious health hazard". I would consider the 0 mark of farenheit to be more useful than the 0 mark of celsius.

 

[The White Sorcerer]

I live in a country that has used the metric system for all of its history, but I use imperial when I play D&D. If I translated D&D into Finnish I would still use imperial measurements. If I made an original Finnish medieval fantasy RPG I would use old Finnish measurements rather than metric.

Metric just doesn't feel right for the genre.

 

[Charlaquin]

Eh, the celcius scale is kinda not that great, if you assume that 0-100 is your "working range". With farenheit, all of 0-100 is useful info. With celsius, only 0-50 is useful info; 50-100 is dead space.

I don't need to know the temperature where water boils in my main "working range" of temperature. Water boiling is just the start of the "cooking temperature range". In farenheit, that's somewhere around 200-500 degrees. In celsius, that's around 100-250 degrees. In neither case does the measurement system really matter. You're just picking the number you need to set the oven at to bake the cake.


I'd actually consider that a benefit. There's a portion of your standard range in the farenheit scale that describes the situation where water is freezing. In celcius, you have to go below 0, so you're outside your 0-100 working range.

In general, with farenheit, 0-32 is "water freezes (thus take appropriate precautions), but you're not at heavy risk", whereas below 0 is "OK, this is starting to become a serious health hazard". I would consider the 0 mark of farenheit to be more useful than the 0 mark of celsius.

Freezing water and boiling water are both concrete things that I can hang relevancy off of and contextualize other temperatures in terms of their relationship to those two points. Contrast to 0 and 100 in Fahrenheit, which refer to... what, exactly?

 

[Kinematics]

Freezing water and boiling water are both concrete things that I can hang relevancy off of and contextualize other temperatures in terms of their relationship to those two points. Contrast to 0 and 100 in Fahrenheit, which refer to... what, exactly?

0: Where you need to start worrying about hypothermia and frostbite.
100: Where you need to start worrying about dehydration and heatstroke.

Anything between those extremes may be uncomfortable, but not likely to be a health risk from the temperature alone.

 

[Charlaquin]

0: Where you need to start worrying about hypothermia and frostbite.
100: Where you need to start worrying about dehydration and heatstroke.

Anything between those extremes may be uncomfortable, but not likely to be a health risk from the temperature alone.

As I am not a doctor, those points don’t mean as much to me as the boiling and freezing points of water do. Like, I didn’t even know that those were hard points. Can you not get heat stroke at 99 or hypothermia at 1?

 

[Kinematics]

As I am not a doctor, those points don’t mean as much to me as the boiling and freezing points of water do. Like, I didn’t even know that those were hard points. Can you not get heat stroke at 99 or hypothermia at 1?

No, they are not hard points, but neither are the freezing and boiling points of water, which can change drastically based on pressure. (A chart showing types of water shows that water can freeze anywhere between -60°C and 400°C, depending on the pressure, and that doesn't count some of the more extreme forms.) They serve as "good enough for government work" labels for everyday life, even when not strictly accurate.

 

[ad_hoc]

As I am not a doctor, those points don’t mean as much to me as the boiling and freezing points of water do. Like, I didn’t even know that those were hard points. Can you not get heat stroke at 99 or hypothermia at 1?

The average temperature in the body is 37C or 98.6 F. Hypothermia occurs when it drops to 95F or below.

Hypothermia can start to set in around 10C or 50F. It could even be warmer if wet (or esp. if submerged). I think the real danger starts around 0C though. That's when I start wearing a jacket.

Of course there are many factors too like whether you are currently active and such.

Speaking of, heatstroke occurs when the body gets above 40C (104F) so above the magical "100" figure.

Lots of factors here. Clothing, hydration, activity. Not just outside temperature either, humidity plays a big factor.

That said, if the outside temperature is 100F or lower it isn't likely to raise the body's temperature uncontrollably to 104F or higher. If you're getting too hot, stop running.

Where I am it is uncomfortable once we get up over 30-32C or around 90F as the humidity can be brutal.

 

[FrogReaver]

Freezing water and boiling water are both concrete things that I can hang relevancy off of and contextualize other temperatures in terms of their relationship to those two points. Contrast to 0 and 100 in Fahrenheit, which refer to... what, exactly?

For measuring outside temperatures I prefer the whole 0-100 range to be useful information.

0 farentheit = nearly all water, even most water salt mixtures freeze
32 Fahrenheit = fresh water freezes

Freezing water and boiling water are both concrete things that I can hang relevancy off of and contextualize other temperatures in terms of their relationship to those two points. Contrast to 0 and 100 in Fahrenheit, which refer to... what, exactly?

When's the last time you've felt what it's like to be boiling?

 

[Charlaquin]

When's the last time you've felt what it's like to be boiling?

Isn’t the point of having a scale so that you can contextualize temperatures without having to feel them?