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!