Top 10 odd D&D weapons

[Elemental]

Spiked Chain all the way. I simply cannot figure out the fetish somebody at WotC has for this thing, and wince a little every time I see an illustration of a classic fantasy warrior, angel or demon....who is carrying around a chain with spiky bits on the end for some incomprehensible reason.

Yet for some reason, this became the ultra-weapon that entire characters can get built around, while other exotic weapons will give maybe one highly specific benefit.

 

[Zander]

But if these moving weights were a significant advantage they would have been common.

I never said they offered a "significant advantage". In fact, I specifically said in post #86 that a solid weapon would be superior in general. Under certain circumstances they might provide an advantage but that's true of lots of weapons.

and I haven't seen any reliable source for these other than "I saw somewhere...." posts.

I stated in a post above that there are illustrations and descriptions of these weapons in treatise of the 15th c. So I must ask what you are insinuating: that I'm ill informed or simply a liar?

Just so you know, there's both an illustration and description of one in Fior di Battaglia by Fiore di Liberi, circa 1409.

Here is a rough translation of what the text says:

This sword is used as a sword and as an axe, and it does not have to be
sharp from the hilt until -------- (unit measure) near the point, and it
has to cut on the front(?) and have a sharp point, and the edge has to
be --------- (unit measure) long. And the small wheel which is under
the hilt, has to be able to run until -------- (unit measure) from the
point, and no more. And the hilt (quillons) has to be well
forged/balanced, and to have a good point, and the pommel has to be
heavy, and those points have to be well forged and sharpened. And the
sword has to be heavy at the back end and light at the point. And it
has to weigh from V to VI pounds. And, according to the man being big
and strong, it has to be armed in this way.

See the attached pic which is worth expanding to its maximum.

I personally know Matthew Easton, an expert on the works of Fiore di Liberi, and in his opinion this sword has a moving weight. Indeed, I don't know of any expert in the field of arms and armour who disagrees.

 

[Zander]

I would really like to see your source on that weapon with a "moving weight on it". I've been studying spathology for 20 years and I've never heard of it. Nothing like that exists in Oakeshotts typology, I'm certain of that....If you have some evidence of this weapon, I would love to see it.

Please see my post #202 above. Looks like you've got a few more years of studying to do.

 

[Tetsubo]

I recall reading that Ray Park was basically staff fighting when he was using the double light saber. It looked fine, but some of his moves involved stopping the staff's motion with his body...which is slightly more problematic when the body of the staff is supposed to be made of coherent energy that can slice through hull plating.

I'm of the opinion that the ONLY way anyone could use a lightsaber was if they had mastered the Force. Otherwise it was going to be a short trip to Bob's Prosthetic Emporium...

 

[Tetsubo]

Phony baloney quasi-medieval universe: swords weigh 4 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.

This distinction is as absurd as some of the weapons we're making fun of.

But it is a distinction that I want. Just as I want the distinction between 3.0 and 3.5. Some would say that distinction is too minor to bother with. Others would disagree.

 

[lukelightning]

I'm of the opinion that the ONLY way anyone could use a lightsaber was if they had mastered the Force. Otherwise it was going to be a short trip to Bob's Prosthetic Emporium...

That's the real reason Vader is a cyborg; the "wounded by Obi-Wan" is just a myth; the real story is that Anakin tried using a double-lightsaber and...well...

Or maybe he tried using the fabled saber-chuks.

 

[painandgreed]

Back to mercurial swords. How about this: A single edged, broad bladed sword (soemthing like the Chinese Dadao?) with the channel being a tube down the spine and not actually in the blade, perhaps a flattened pipe. The mercury normally resides in the pommel for a reasonably balanced weapon. When needed, it can be upturned, the mercury flows to the end of the blade and it can be used more like an axe. That sound reasonable for a fantasy weapon developed for execution and fighting zombies (where physical damage, not blood lose due to penetration of organs is important)?

 

[Piratecat]

Please see my post #202 above. Looks like you've got a few more years of studying to do.

In the same way that I've asked (off-forum) BD not to make sly jabs and insulting comments, I'd like everyone else to do the same. We're stopping the unpleasantness from everyone, please. Smiley faces with a jab don't make it okay. Don't post intentionally to make the other person angry.

If this is somehow a problem, feel free to email me.

 

[Tetsubo]

Back to mercurial swords. How about this: A single edged, broad bladed sword (soemthing like the Chinese Dadao?) with the channel being a tube down the spine and not actually in the blade, perhaps a flattened pipe. The mercury normally resides in the pommel for a reasonably balanced weapon. When needed, it can be upturned, the mercury flows to the end of the blade and it can be used more like an axe. That sound reasonable for a fantasy weapon developed for execution and fighting zombies (where physical damage, not blood lose due to penetration of organs is important)?

It just seems like a whole lot of work to recreate things that already exists, execution swords and axes. If you need a chopping style, single edged sword we have those. If you need an axe, we have dozens of different real world models to use.

I just don't see the attraction for a tube of a toxic chemical that I will be swinging over my head... it just seems inefficient...

 

[painandgreed]

I just don't see the attraction for a tube of a toxic chemical that I will be swinging over my head... it just seems inefficient...

As ineficient as carrying around both a sword and an axe. It woud be a dual purpose weapon for issue that don't exist in this world. Real world weapons simply aren't designed for fantasy or sci-fi situations. If such situations confronted us, we'd develop new weapons, not force the ones we have to work in all situations. Case being like the spiked armor where one worries about being swallowed alive by a giant toad. A case where it wasn't done was Starship Troopers (the movie) where they are using small arms with bullets designed to stop a human on large insect creatures. If we needed bigger and deadlier weapons to kill giant insects with one shot, we'd develop them. Hnce why you don't hunt deer or elephants with an M16.