D&D 3E/3.5 Sword stats

[Son of the Serpent]

It is uncannily common for a given god that is head of a pantheon to have as their favored weapon (irl ancient myth) the spear. And then at their side either a sheild maiden or someone ready to hand them their armor. Almost always spear in hand though. Take odin and zeus for instance. With odin its a spear or a javelin (variation on spear) and with zeus its a primitive throwing spear.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Vishnu? Spear (and sometimes other weapons also available but almost always a spear at the ready)

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Even without a sheild, spear beats sword and sheild together between 8 and 9 out of 10 times. Its a thing. Sheild and spear or plate and spear=godly

At least irl

 

[Son of the Serpent]

The best case of something beating out spear in the ancient world is when you both have plate and one person has either a heavy blunt or chopping (like an axe) weapon. In this scenario though everything else close range that isnt a projectile loses to spear though. Because variationa on spears are the only held stabbing option that does much to plate. Other than spear its game over. Unless you have something that can chop or better yet smash.

 

[Ancalagon]

The resulting increased surface area of the wound and also generally deeper than average cut were also infection risks as well as also additional factors in making stiching a pain.

The belief that the wavy blade would increase wounding potential is erroneous. Citations please.

Sword Forms

edit, this was a big snarky - it's ok if you want to have a more powerful sword for some kind of magic-punk reason (remember the swords with mercury cores?), but do it because you want to, not "historical reasons" because as far as I am aware, this is not supported.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

The belief that the wavy blade would increase wounding potential is erroneous. Citations please.

Sword Forms

edit, this was a big snarky - it's ok if you want to have a more powerful sword for some kind of magic-punk reason (remember the swords with mercury cores?), but do it because you want to, not "historical reasons" because as far as I am aware, this is not supported.

Spoiler: My reasons for doing it. Definitely not in error.

One in the same. I want to use it because of it being realistically and historically accurate. Also i dont have a back catalogue of sources just sitting around waiting to be cited for that. But i do know this is a fact. Back when i was learning about this more than 10 years ago (hense not remembering the exact name of sources off the top of my head) it had more than enough credible sources to make it pretty obvious to me. In other words ive already been persuaded by credible citations with ample justification long enough ago that its just accepted now. If i was trying to convince others to follow my suit id look them back up but that seems rather unimportant. Its also not just that the sword is wavy. Its the fact that your oponent is made of flesh (assuming they are made of flesh and not something like concrete) and doesnt remain motionless and static. They move. Their anatomy moves. Even the musle moves while being cut into. The waviness takes advantage of all the movement going on and wreaks havoc. That explains basically everything except for deeper slicing. For that its much more simple. Ever seen a steak knife? If they arent serrated they are usually wavy edged. Its the same effect. The wave also increases the cutting surface and will change the angle of contact the surface has with whats being cut in relation to the direction of the swing too. Changes how the cutting force is applied. Also its useful for parrying as you can easily disrupt someones hold on their blade by using the humps to jiggle their blade. Really has a lot of advantages. Nothing erroneous here at all. Just a lot of pretty well known variables setting it apart from a normal sword blade. Just explaining why i know this is the right thing for me to do as a dm.