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.

 

[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?