Top 10 odd D&D weapons

[Felix]

NO!!!!

Please don't shout if you'd like to have a civil discussion. If othewise, we can email.

Because it doesn't explain why a spear or a sword would do more damage.

Good point. Why would a sword take more HP away than a dagger? Because the sword is longer, a glancing cut across the body could be longer than the glancing cut of a dagger? Because the sword is longer, there is more for the opponent to dodge so he becomes more tired? Because the sword is harder to wield than a dagger (simple v martial proficiency) some benefit should be reaped?

Get it?

I suppose not.

daggers can't hurt you if you are a 'pretty good fighter'

A punch from a big guy can hurt. A pugilist has an easier time rolling with it than someone who's spent his whole life doing tax returns. If the big guy punches the pugilist, he will likely be better off than the accountant. Similarly, a dagger can hurt. But it will likely hurt the fighter less (take a smaller % of HP) than it will hurt the wizard.

convulted thinking

I don't see how that was convoluted. If you practice fighting, you get better at taking less damage from fighting. If you fight someone inexperienced, they will not have as good a chance at killing you as you do them.

Do you suggest that we adjust everyone's HP to account for the possibility of being killed by a dagger no matter their level? How would we distinguish high level characters from low level ones when all you need to do is hit them? What would be the benefit of leveling if not to be better able to survive?

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.

They enable us to approximate fighting styles. We know what size a dagger is. It gives us an image. Is that not what we want when we play?

It gives grades of weapons that have requirements (Simple, Martial, Exotic, Light, One-handed, Two-handed) so that those characters whose life revolves around fighting are rewarded for their choice. They are able to use better weapons.

With that framework they have taken real-world weapons and inserted them. And it works. Spears can be thrown, daggers hidden up sleeves, and swords are standard martial weapons. How much detail do you want? 6lbs worth of detail? Is it worth it?

 

[Sledge]

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

Like pointing to the ARMA site. Whereupon I see multiple articles pointing out that there were 8ish pound combat swords.

Why don't you ask them?

I don't feel the need to ask a question that they have already answered. They say to check the articles in their FAQ.

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

Well now I finally see the problem. Big dummy, you just don't like the D&D naming conventions as it compares to outside naming conventions. You also don't like the D&D combat system. All of this is fine, but none of it is what you were actually saying. This is a D&D forum. In this forum it would be reasonable for people to think that when you say "longsword" you are indeed referring to the D&D definition of longsword.
Since you yourself use nonperiod terms for weapons. Some of these terms are very recent.

And yes the the term Spathology is an ARMA creation. Do a search of their forums; It was brought up recently. The term was coined with regards to ARMA members and sword forms. It has been used widely outside the ARMA community, but this is an area where some people still think swords were 40 pounds.

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.

I linked you to an article which talks about 8ish pound swords. However the point is moot as I ascertain that you do not actually deny their existence, just their functionality. Perhaps next time we can avoid this argument by you simply stating you do not believe that an 8 pound sword could be effective in combat. That is an entirely different discussion than the assertion that they didn't exist.

 

[big dummy]

Like pointing to the ARMA site. Whereupon I see multiple articles pointing out that there were 8ish pound combat swords.

. You found one link to some article about an alleged 8 pound sword. There is no proof that it's a combat sword.

Well now I finally see the problem. Big dummy, you just don't like the D&D naming conventions as it compares to outside naming conventions.

By outside you mean real world. Outside of your mothers basement.

You also don't like the D&D combat system.

You are putting words in my mouth. I didn't say that.

this is a d&D forum

'
... and a thread in which people were bemoaning some of the more ridiculous D&D weapons.
My commentary was meant to highlight some of the fundamental legacy errors in the basic equipment rules in D&D which lead to precisely the kind of double bladed swords and dire flails and all the rest of the weapons which people were complaining about here.

Since you yourself use nonperiod terms for weapons. Some of these terms are very recent.

Longsword and arming sword are historical terms. They are also the terms used in the current historical and scientific community.

And yes the the term Spathology is an ARMA creation.

John Clements may have claimed to invented the word, I always understood Ewart Oakeshott invented it. Either way, it does not mean as you claimed "the study of ARMA forms", it's the study of swords, which people have been doing continuously through recorded history. You can call it a ham sandwich if you want to that doesn't change what it is, nor does it give you personally sledge the faintest clue about what a sword is. You would be lucky to figure out which end was the pointy one.

BD

 

[Rolzup]

D&D draws its inspiration, not from the real world, but from myth, legend, and popular culture. Particularly the latter....

And that's as it should be.

No, spiked armor isn't realistic, or practical...but it's killed at least one dragon.

No, a mercury-filled sword isn't realistic, or practical...but it served Severian well.

No, a double-bladed sword isn't realistic, or practical...but it was good enough to kill Qui-Gon Jinn.

And no, an eight pound sword isn't realistic, or practical...but, by Crom, it's a thing of trifling weight in the hands of Conan!

But that sword/flail thing is still pretty damned stupid.

 

[Abe.ebA]

Preface: I know very little about real 14th-16th century European combat weapons.

First, I'd like to throw a little support the way of big dummy. He's getting pounded by everyone for knowing too much about period weapons and combat for his own good on a d&d forum. It reminds me a great deal of discussions I've had on slashdot about physics, so I feel his pain I honestly have no idea how much a longsword (or arming sword, or whatever) weighed but I'm inclined to believe 2 pounds over 5-8, if for no other reason than the fact that it would be impossible to keep your belt on if you strapped an 8-pound sword to one side. I can't keep my pants up with a hammer through the hammer loop.

In any case, I'm pretty happy accepting the d&d weapons table. Yeah, it's completely based on image instead of anything approaching reality, which is why we wind up with hideous abortions of dream-logic like the double axe and the gyrspike, but what the hell. I'll never let someone get an urgosh in a game I run, but it's a lot more fun playing a guy who whips it up with a greatsword (or even a double-bladed sword, if you can suspend disbelief that far) than playing a guy who marches in formation with a pike. And I'm so going to put an Unbelievably Dire Flailing Whipaxe in the next treasure horde I write up (does 3d6 x2 damage to enemies and 6d6 x4 damage to the wielder).

But back to the point of this thread: I can't remember the name, but in the Darksun campaign setting there was a Thri-kreen weapon that they made by spitting in sand... It was a throwing type thing with 3 pokey-bits that I think might have acted like a boomerang. Looking at the pictures I always wondered 1) How thri-kreen would have evolved the specialized spitting mechanism to make triple-bladed pokey throwing weapons and 2) where the heck you held the thing to throw it. The whole works looked sharp...

 

[Sledge]

. You found one link to some article about an alleged 8 pound sword. There is no proof that it's a combat sword.

I thoroughly suggest you read the articles. I've already quoted it, so I won't quote it again. If you read it you will note that they describe more than one sword over 7 pounds.
http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html lists a huge number of swords, and then posts an average weight of 7.8 pounds. However I am sure you are aware of it. If you would read the article you would find that people in that article have practiced with the 8 pound swords and found them remarkably light and easy to use. The only proof we have of course are historical records of groups using them, and the actual swords themselves which are clearly weighted so as to be usable.

By outside you mean real world. Outside of your mothers basement.

No, thank you. Please do not attempt to attack me personally. What I meant was that when you feel no need to use historical terms and use modern terms, such as Zweihander instead, then you should not attack others for using different terms for the same things.

You are putting words in my mouth. I didn't say that.
'
... and a thread in which people were bemoaning some of the more ridiculous D&D weapons.
My commentary was meant to highlight some of the fundamental legacy errors in the basic equipment rules in D&D which lead to precisely the kind of double bladed swords and dire flails and all the rest of the weapons which people were complaining about here.

You never said you disliked the system you simply complained about weapons because they are named wrong, and that a dagger is less effective in combat than a sword. This indicates to me that you dislike the way the system has been set up. Are you saying you do like it? Was I incorrect? If so I do apologize.

Longsword and arming sword are historical terms. They are also the terms used in the current historical and scientific community.

Indeed they were terms used historically as well as in present. And if you look into the history I'm sure you've noticed that they were not used with distinction and definition. Different historical records used names interchangably. This is part of why there has been a fair amount of confusion in the matter.

John Clements may have claimed to invented the word, I always understood Ewart Oakeshott invented it. Either way, it does not mean as you claimed "the study of ARMA forms", it's the study of swords, which people have been doing continuously through recorded history. You can call it a ham sandwich if you want to that doesn't change what it is, nor does it give you personally sledge the faintest clue about what a sword is.

So your research into sword forms is not grown out of ARMA then? I apologize for being mistaken.

You said there were numerous surving 15th & 16th century treatises on how to fight with swords. Can you please tell me some titles. I would be interested in reading these.

 

[Piratecat]

Personal attacks aren't allowed, folks. Take a break from the thread or walk away from the keyboard if you have to, but please don't insult other people.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

First, clarifications: I'm not defending the possibility of the mercurial sword as a realistic weapon. I'm showing how someone might consider this as a possibility and attempt such a weapon. In fact, in my posts, I even questioned whether such a thing would even be possible AND said that even if it were & worked as intended, it would be prohibitively expensive relative to weapons that would do the same kind of damage, namely axes.

Second, I've been to some of the best medieval armories in Hungary, France, Spain, England, Germany, Russia and others. I have seen with my own eyes swords of up to 7.5lbs that were actually recovered from battlesites. I'll assume that the curators of those museums know how to weigh a sword and can tell if it was made for display or battle. If you have a problem with that, you can contact Phillip Abbot at the Leeds Armory. In a correspondence I had with him in 2003, he directed me to several other museums & curators, who informed me that, while 6lb+ swords were rare, they were not unheard of.

If you wish, check out Livrustkammaren (the Royal Armory of Stockholm). They have 2-handers of various regions, eras and masses. Their collection includes some German ones from the 1500's ranging from 1390 grams (@3lbs) to 2500 grams (@5.5lbs) to 3500 grams (@7.7lbs).

In those same armories, I've seen flails with chains as short as 5" and as long as a foot, which is why I said that the weight shift could "possibly" be below the optimal balance point.

Clearly, unless the tube in a mercurial sword ran from tip to pommel, that wouldn't happen. That wouldn't, however, stop such a weapon from being ungainly.

 

[Hussar]

Just a point on spathology - woot I learned a new word today - but, according to the ARMA's forums, they claim to have "bounced the idea off the late Ewart Oakeshott and he happily called it a 'spelndid idea.'(sic)". However, that's a side issue and not all that important.

Something that is germane to the conversation at hand is the realization that DnD nomenclature is not historic. A longsword in DnD terms is a one handed weapon. Period. A longsword in the dictionary is a different beast altogether. I believe that when people on a DnD forum refer to a "longsword" they mean the former, not the latter.

Heck, the scimitar exists in DnD despite the fact that no historical scimitar ever did. Trying to argue historical accuracy in a DnD supplement is like trying to nail jello to a tree. It's not exactly going to be fruitful.

 

[ceratitis]

BD

hi. i know nothing about real sword and i acknowlidge your expertise on the subject so this isnt an attack but a real question. while i never practiced sword play i worked in gardening and more to the point in an apple orchard. at work i used a 6 or 8 pound chainsaw (on trees not living targets of course) which i accept is very different however i would use it for an 8-10 hr work day. sure i was tired and had sore muscles but i got better at it the longer i used it. now i'm a far cry from hercules being only 1.7 meters tall with a slight build and was never a strong guy. isnt it possible for a powerfully build well trained fighter to use a similar wieght in a few minutes of combat?
again i'm just wondering out loud here and will defer to your expert opinion but would apprichiate a good explanation with it
Z