Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 2281975" data-attributes="member: 2011">Quote a non-fiction source.My reading has indicated that most historical fighting was done with:1) missile weapons (slings, darts, and arrows, crossbow bolts in later centuries)2) polearms (easy to teach to peasants)3) single handed weapons with no shields4) single handed weapons with shields, typically used in formations since Roman times5) two weapons with a smaller secondary weapon for parrying / in close thrustingTwo handed weapons are rarely found in the historical literature. Yes, they have found some very large swords, but many of those were ceremonial.The problem with a two handed sword on the battlefield is that not even your allies can get close to you or they could get accidentally hit. A two handed sword is not very functional in battle. It tires you out quicker, it is clumsy, it is harder to use, it is difficult to parry with, it is slower to react with. Compare it to tennis. When a tennis player is at the service line, they can use a two handed backhand. They have time to set it up. When they are at the net and have to react faster, they almost never use a two handed backhand. There's a reason rooted in the Laws of Physics for that.There were also more two handed axes used than two handed swords and even two handed axes were relatively rare. Two handed axes are easier and more versatile to use than two handed swords because of the length of the handle. You can choke up during close in fighting.With regard to DND, a two handed weapon should have a penalty on Attacks of Opportunity. It is time consuming to get such a weapon positioned properly to attack people in all directions.</blockquote>

Verification