Top 10 odd D&D weapons

[big dummy]

http://216.25.30.233/DataSheets/Densities of Materials Sorted by Density.htm is also a good reference site.

The variance in bronze is because you're using the full range of the alloy. At ~11% tin its density is 8.1 g/cubic cm. I'm not an expert on ancient bronze weaponry, so I'd appreciate some input on what the tin content was at various periods in the Bronze Age. I seem to recall that the amount of tin varied due to availability.

They also used to use things like arsenic instead of tin. I think a lot of Roman armor / helmets had arsenic IIRC

BD

 

[Felix]

Nice Try.

Phony baloney quasi-medieval universe: swords weigh 8 pounds and you fight dragons with magic stuff.

Real historical big dummy universe: swords weigh 2.78 pounds and you fight dragons with magic stuff.

4 pounds does not ruin my suspension of disbelief in a game where I can cast Magic Missile at the darkness. Would you say it ruins yours? If it doesn't, then this conversation is ridiculous. If it does, then it says something about the amount of attention you put to some details of your game.

Of course the weight is only a tiny part of what I was talking about. People in this thread are wondering (as they often do) whats the point of a pole arm, or even a spear?

Cost? Reach? It might not matter to PCs running about with tons of GP, but to the average concript army, spears are a much more effective weapon.

It's just as easy to get the first hit in if you have a dagger, or no weapon at all, vs someone with a sword and shield.

Simplicity?

The spiked chain is the ultimate weapon? (too bad they didn't know about that great uber weapon during the Crusades, say, they might have kept the Holy Land)

There are lots of folks who would argue that the spiked chain isn't an ultimate weapon. Your opinion that it is does not make it so.

Swords "slash" only, can't thrust? Similarly you can't cut a throat with a dagger? Or slash with a spear? Or strike with a spear-butt?

Simplicity?

Daggers can barely hurt you. If you are a marginally experienced fighter (1st level), a single blow from a dagger can't kill you.

Crits and Coup de Grace's can kill you. And you're supposed to be good in a fight, so I hope a dagger can't kill you.

Weapons have no difference in reach (except for that akward 2nd square business), no defensive value, no difference in speed.

Simplicity

Stunning weapons don't work except against low level targets. What is the use of a sap?

To take out low level targets? Is that not a valid enough purpose?

The only way they can actually really differentiate weapons in fact is by damage and critical hits. Thats why they make a dagger practicaly a nuisance weapon when in reality it's every bit as deadly as a sword.

BD

Otherwise we'd have as complex a equipment and combat section of the PHB as the spell section is, and that would fundamentally change the game. I like the simplicity of it.

And who's to say that the dagger being deadly in real life isn't modeled in the game... how do we know what level we all are? To a commoner a dagger is a real threat. Maybe you're a 1st level commoner too?

 

[big dummy]

Man, you can lead a horse to water...

the point big dummy, is that they DIDN'T refer to it as crazy.

Why don't you ask them?

, but that the weapons you keep referring to at the 5-6 pound range are meant to be held with ONE or TWO hands alternatively.

I don't refer to any swords in that range except Zweihanders.

These are six foot swords used for attacking pike squares in the 16th century.

You are confused by D&D terminology. The sword you are talking about is either a longsword or a greatsword, this is a two handed weapon about four feet long which can be used one handed from horseback.

Those ones that qualify as hand and a half are the d&d bastard swords. They are frequently wielded two handed or one handed. Weigh around 5-6 pounds. The lighter weapons (2-4 pounds) are the long swords

NO no no no no.

A longsword is a two handed sword about 4 feet long. They weighed about 2-4 lbs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longsword

A bastard sword is a sub-type of longsword used in the 15th century. Bastard swords tended to be pointier and more slgithly more optimized for thrusting. Weighed 2-4 lbs.

A great sword is a sub-type of the longsword used both in the early and very late periods of the existence of the longsword. Greatswords had flat blade cross sections making them ideal for cutting against unarmored opponents. Weighed 2-4 lbs.

The weapon mistakenly called a longsword in D&D is an arming sword. They also weighed about 2-4 lbs (or sometimes less.)

which represent the heavier end of the one handed weapons, and down to the short swords and rapiers with represent the lightest weight swords.

Actually, rapiers, unlike the D&D version, were usually 4' long and could be in the same weight range as longswords.

Other wise you have to put the bastard sword down to 4 pounds and not needing EWP. The long swords will have to drop to 2 pounds and the short swords and rapiers can be 0 pounds. Sounds a little crazy to me.

Because you are thinking in terms of D&D. Longswords, arming swords and bastard swords all fall into the same wieght range. Rapiers are similar too.

Perhaps there is a better way to resolve this. Will you concede at least that the 3e greatsword is the same weapon as the 2e two-handed sword?

Is it supposed to be six feet long with a 12" ricasso?

And spathology is a term and field invented by ARMA.

!!!

I've already corrected you here, thats an outright lie. It's used throughout the sword collecting and academic community and it was not invented by ARMA. You are really making yourself look ridiculous.

Remember there aren't a lot of 600 year old instruction books on swords.

Oh really? There are quite a few dating from the 14th -15th century.

articles I've seen online state that swords were never 8 pounds. In fact the consensus I've seen is that there was a huge spectrum of sword weights from under 2 pounds to just over 8 pounds, that are considered combat weapons. There are of course much larger ceremonial weapons as well.

Where this consensus is I'd love to see. You don't know what you are talking about. Try sparring with an 8lb sword against someone with a 3 lb sword.

I have a colleague from my old training group who owns several antique swords. He has a longsword from 1580 which weighs just over 2 lbs.

All this 5-8 pounds stuff is incorrect, you are just repeating falsehoods. Again, rather than trying to bend reality to your wishes, maybe you should do some genuine research. You are coming across like a stubborn idiot.

BD

 

[big dummy]

Crits and Coup de Grace's can kill you.

A crit with a dagger wielded by a normal human could only do 8 hit points.

And you're supposed to be good in a fight, so I hope a dagger can't kill you.

ROFL!!

Ok, uh, somebody has been watching too many action movies. Seriously though, this is exactly the problem with this kind of bogus information in D&D, it leads people to some really bizarre concepts which don't fit with any kind of reality, and break down immersion and internal consistency.

Heres the news: a medieval dagger, with an average 12" blade, will kill ANYBODY. Bruce Lee, Stephen Segal, the best MMA fighter, nobody is immune to being stabbed by a dagger (or having their throat slit for that matter)

A knife the size and strength of a medieval dagger is an extremely dangerous weapon. Ask the British Police. The mentality that a dagger can't hurt you if you are a good warrior is frankly ridiculous. Kind of scary too. I hope if somebody pulls a knife on you one day you don't just chuckle and try to cast magic missle on him.

Any weapon which can punch through to the internal organs will kill. The reason a sword is as long as it is is for reach, not extra damage (at least not extra thrusting damage). That ties into the whole idiotic idea that swords weighed 10 lbs. It's a cutting and thrusting weapon. It's not an impact weapon unless you are striking with the pommel or something.

Daggers (or knives beyond a certian length) are actually statistically more deadly than many gunshots.

And who's to say that the dagger being deadly in real life isn't modeled in the game... how do we know what level we all are? To a commoner a dagger is a real threat. Maybe you're a 1st level commoner too?

Plenty of warriors come home from Iraq every day, no doubt they have accumulated some experience points. Don't tell me they are immune to dagger thrusts.

BD

 

[Mad Mac]

Hold on now. What swords are called in real life and what swords are called in D&D are 2 very different things. In D&D terms, a longsword is a one-handed straight slashing sword, a Scimitar is a one-handed curved sword, a Bastard sword is a heavier sword suitable for one or two-handed use (Assuming you're strong enough), and a Greatsword is a sword that nobody uses one handed.

That's it. They aren't supposed to model specific weapons. (Note the weapon equivalency tables in Sword and Fist) We're talking about a system abstract enough to use the same stats for a Bastard Sword and a Katana, after all.

And seriously, we're talking about the difference between Totally Fake longswords that weigh 4 pounds, vs Awesomely realistic longswords that weigh 2-3 pounds. Not that the weight rules have any effect on the game whatsoever, except for encumberance, in which case I'd prefer a ruleset that leans towards discouraging people from packing around 50 "Light as a Feather) longswords.

And just for the heck of it, daggers vs swords...how are daggers not lethal weapons in D&D? They do 2 points less damage than a longsword, on average, but tend to be used by the shifty looking guys with sneak attack. I'm not remembering the part of history where fully armored warriors used daggers as a prefered weapon, either. As a back-up weapon and tool, especially useful for close in grappling? Definately. Come to think of it, that's how their most often used in D&D....ah well.

 

[big dummy]

You know what? You are right, I got no business talking about real world weapons in a D&D forum.... again. You would think I would know better, I've just had it explained to me that I can't even play low magic in D&D.

Stick with your ten pound boomerang spinning double blade sword axes or whatever. I'm outty.

BD

 

[Felix]

ROFL!!

Ok, uh, somebody has been watching too many action movies. Seriously though, this is exactly the problem with this kind of bogus information in D&D, it leads people to some really bizarre concepts which don't fit with any kind of reality, and break down immersion and internal consistency.

You don't have to laugh: false assumption.

If Hit Points specifically represent the amount of physical damage someone can take you have a valid point. But that is not all hit points can represent. Perhaps the fighter can manage to turn his body so he is hurt less by a dagger than a wizard. Perhaps the fighter has a lucky streak longer than other people. Perhaps Hit Points are an abstraction designed to help characters focused on combat survive in combat longer than other characters who are not. Are those reasonable?

I hope if somebody pulls a knife on you one day you don't just chuckle and try to cast magic missle on him.

Ad hominem. What exactly are you trying to say?

I'm aware that this is a fantasy game and as such somethings don't exist; I am willing to let some things slide like if a sword weighs 2lbs or 8 when the rules of the game include Magic Missile. I am trying to point out that this is a game which your dislike of 8lb weapons and rolling on the floor laughing when someone disagrees seems to suggest.

Dragons? Sure.
Wizards? Yep.
8lb swords? Get the f* out of town, man, how stupid do you think I am?

 

[big dummy]

You don't have to laugh: false assumption.

If Hit Points specifically represent the amount of physical damage someone can take you have a valid point. But that is not all hit points can represent. Perhaps the fighter can manage to turn his body so he is hurt less by a dagger than a wizard. Perhaps the fighter has a lucky streak longer than other people. Perhaps Hit Points are an abstraction designed to help characters focused on combat survive in combat longer than other characters who are not. Are those reasonable?

NO!!!! Because it doesn't explain why a spear or a sword would do more damage. Your body is only so thick. Once you have punched a hole all the way through it, you aren't doing any more damage. Get it?

Ad hominem. What exactly are you trying to say?

I'm trying to say that the idea that daggers can't hurt you if you are a 'pretty good fighter' is about as sane and realistiic as the idea that magic missile works in real life. I'm calling attention to the fundamental illogic of this position. Of perhaps more to the point, the convulted thinking that you have to engage in to try to make sense of the D&D combat system.

I'm also saying I hope he doesn't actually believe the D&Dism that daggers are virtually harmless outside of the context of his D&D games and perhaps this argument, because big knives are very dangerous in the real world.

I'm aware that this is a fantasy game and as such somethings don't exist; I am willing to let some things slide like if a sword weighs 2lbs or 8 when the rules of the game include Magic Missile. I am trying to point out that this is a game which your dislike of 8lb weapons and rolling on the floor laughing when someone disagrees seems to suggest.

Dragons? Sure.
Wizards? Yep.
8lb swords? Get the f* out of town, man, how stupid do you think I am?

Ok fine, but try to see it from the other point of view. What on earth is the point of having 50 weapons called Dagger, Halberd, Greatsword, Rapier etc. etc., if they have virtually no relation to the real life Halberd, Greatsword, or Rapier. I mean, Magic missile is made up. Dragons are from fantasies and every culture has it's own version.

When it comes to mundane things like weapons and armor, why mix it all up and change everything? Do you make shoes work differently? Or horses (as someone mentioned up-thread)

And again, it would be different to me if D&D truly was simple. Like say burning wheel where you only have like 5 kinds of weapons (one generic 'sword'). I don't see D&D that way though. Combat seems pretty complicated to me. It's just all made up. Complexity without verisimilitude.

BD

 

[Mad Mac]

Uh, ok then.

It's worth pointing out that in D&D past the first 3 levels, the type of weapon used matters a lot less than the guy whose using it. To a 10th level fighter, the Commoner with a greataxe isn't much more of a threat than the one with the dagger, while a Rogue/Fighter with levels in the invisible blade Prc....big difference.

As far as weapon damage...*shrug*. Nothing complicated about it. Big weapons do more damage than smaller weapons. I just summed up the entire weapon table right there. You can take issue with it if you want, but you'd have to make some pretty drastic changes to set up a different weapon paradigm than what's been used since the game was created.

As far as the weapons themselves, they straddle a fine line between being generic and specific. They have names pulled from historical concepts, (for completely different weapons in some cases) but cover broader catagories. There are no small stabbing swords besides the shortsword, which could also represent a long knife. Axes are catagorized as one-handed light, one-handed heavy, and two-handed. And uh, the Dwarven Waraxe, which only exists to make more dwarves use sheilds and axes, really. Exotic weapons are generally badly done. (I'm looking at you, double axe)

 

[big dummy]

Uh, ok then.

It's worth pointing out that in D&D past the first 3 levels, the type of weapon used matters a lot less than the guy whose using it. To a 10th level fighter, the Commoner with a greataxe isn't much more of a threat than the one with the dagger, while a Rogue/Fighter with levels in the invisible blade Prc....big difference.

As far as weapon damage...*shrug*. Nothing complicated about it. Big weapons do more damage than smaller weapons. I just summed up the entire weapon table right there. You can take issue with it if you want, but you'd have to make some pretty drastic changes to set up a different weapon paradigm than what's been used since the game was created.

As far as the weapons themselves, they straddle a fine line between being generic and specific. They have names pulled from historical concepts, (for completely different weapons in some cases) but cover broader catagories. There are no small stabbing swords besides the shortsword, which could also represent a long knife. Axes are catagorized as one-handed light, one-handed heavy, and two-handed. And uh, the Dwarven Waraxe, which only exists to make more dwarves use sheilds and axes, really. Exotic weapons are generally badly done. (I'm looking at you, double axe)

Ok agreed, I'm going to duck out before this turns into ENworld vs bigdummy...
BD