Top 10 odd D&D weapons

[big dummy]

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)?

That might actually work in one sense, that you could have the mercury in there. As I mentioend there is a type of Dao (chinese saber) which had a bead rolling back and forth in a groove just under the spine almost exactly as you picture above. They called this 'rolling pearl', it may have existed in India and Persia as well. Theoretically it was for aesthetic purposes or perhaps to help timing or something, because it certainly wasn't heavy enough to effect the balance in any way. I think that would actually be the root of the problem. Unless you had some magically heavy substance, or maybe plutonium (perhaps somebody can do the math) I don't see how it could be heavy enough given the tiny space you could get away with, to effect the balance.


Here is a photo of one of these beautiful swords, incidentally, an antique from the Ming dynasty....

Edit: the website with the image doesn't support remote linking, you have to click on it..

http://thomaschen.freewebspace.com/photo2.html

the sword in question is at the bottom of the page.

BD

 

[Agent Oracle]

Oy.

Okay, all we've established this far is as follows:

1. there are many rediculous weapons and
2. In D&D, every weapon weighs too much.

Thanks folks! enjoy the veal!

 

[Sledge]

big dummy thanks for the links to the manuals. I was impressed with their quality and by the fact that numerous examples show fighting with swords that are longer than the wielders are tall.
I must disagree however with your assessments of which d&d weapons are represented by which historical weapons.
The d&d great sword in my opinion is the same weapon as previous editions called the 2 handed sword. It was described in 2e as a 5-6 foot long sword that required two hands to use. This all fits what you have called a true two handed sword.
The sword you call a war sword is the d&d bastard sword. It is also called a hand and a half sword in the 3e phb. This sword can be used one handed or two handed. The length in the 2e A&A fits your description of the war sword.
I think you've gotten yourself so stuck on the name greatsword, you haven't given any consideration to anything else. The very fact that it requires two hands indicates to me it must be a true two handed sword. Since d&d uses 5 foot squares there is no need for the greatsword or polearms to have any statement of minimum size to use. Your assumption that any weapon to big to use in a room would not be in the d&d ruleset is fallacious when there are numerous polearms and other long weapons in the rules.

 

[Andor]

Just a side note about mercury. Yeah, it ain't the best thing in the world for you, but 'highly toxic' is something of an exaggeration. Chlorine is highly toxic. Mercury is bad for you over a long period of time in regular doses. If you were dipped in a tank of mercury it wouldn't do anything to you. If you drank a cup of liquid mercury it wouldn't do much beyond ruin your night. If you did it every day for a month or two you'd probably start seeing percievable (and permanent) brain damage. If your kid did it, then you have problems since it does far more damage to developing nervous systems.

Frankly if I'm going into combat I have bigger concerns than mercury exposure.

Edit: Incidently, I really shouldn't have to add this but, but please don't anybody take this as a suggestion to mess about with mercury, it is nasty stuff, just not instantly fatal.

 

[big dummy]

big dummy thanks for the links to the manuals. I was impressed with their quality and by the fact that numerous examples show fighting with swords that are longer than the wielders are tall.
I must disagree however with your assessments of which d&d weapons are represented by which historical weapons.
(snip)
The sword you call a war sword is the d&d bastard sword. It is also called a hand and a half sword in the 3e phb. This sword can be used one handed or two handed. The length in the 2e A&A fits your description of the war sword.

Actually, most of the longswords really can't be used one handed in combat. There are shorter weapons around the 42" range which can be used both ways, but the typical longsword is about 4 feet, and if you tried to use it one handed you would be at a serious speed disadvantage.

The very fact that it requires two hands indicates to me it must be a true two handed sword. Since d&d uses 5 foot squares there is no need for the greatsword or polearms to have any statement of minimum size to use. Your assumption that any weapon to big to use in a room would not be in the d&d ruleset is fallacious when there are numerous polearms and other long weapons in the rules.

We will probably have to agree to disagree. Trust me, I'm not just getting stuck in the name greatsword though it is a point of confusion in this thread. I'm not alone in this opinion nor is this way of looking at swords something I or ARMA invented. I believe you will notice that all RPG games will gradually move toward the historical reality over time, however gradually.

I think if it was the Zweihander it would indeed be a range weapon requiring 10', like many polearms do. Thats how it is basically handled in many other RPG's. That was a huge weapon requiring an immense amount of space. It would also definately be an exotic weapon, very few people knew how to use these, (those that did were called "Dopplesoldners" and recieved double pay.) This weapon would be appropriate for a later era campaign with gunpowder weapons, but that doesn't seem to be a setting done too often in D&D. Maybe steampunk.

BD

 

[Sledge]

The thing is not all polearms have reach. Reach is very simplified. Anyway that's enough of this discussion.

 

[painandgreed]

Unless you had some magically heavy substance, or maybe plutonium (perhaps somebody can do the math) I don't see how it could be heavy enough given the tiny space you could get away with, to effect the balance.

Actually, I was envisioning a flattened tube about an inch deep and half an inch wide running down the back of something like the Conyers Falchion mentioned above. This should allow for the displacement of several cubic inches of mercury (a kilo or so of weight*) from the handle to the far end of the blade. That would be the reason for the wide blade, so it wouldn't affect the chopping action of the sword.

*four cubic inches would be a kilo. Given the discussion on weights of swords, that would be exteme. But could a half a pound or so of weight be shifted from positioning in a normally banalced sword to the end for a more axe like cut and would it actually affect the power of such a chopping cut?

 

[big dummy]

Actually, I was envisioning a flattened tube about an inch deep and half an inch wide running down the back of something like the Conyers Falchion mentioned above. This should allow for the displacement of several cubic inches of mercury (a kilo or so of weight) from the handle to the far end of the blade. That would be the reason for the wide blade, so it wouldn't affect the chopping action of the sword.

I'm not sure of the weight of the conyers falchion but I'd guess that would really distort it! It might be feasable that way but it would seem to be an ugly and akward weapon indeed... and you still have to worry about the mercury tube breaking... the force of just swinging the weapon around in the air let alone striking a target can be considerable, its often enough to break the (solid steel) tang (grip) of many of the more cheaply manufactured replicas for example.

BD

 

[big dummy]

Since d&d uses 5 foot squares there is no need for the greatsword or polearms to have any statement of minimum size to use. Your assumption that any weapon to big to use in a room would not be in the d&d ruleset is fallacious when there are numerous polearms and other long weapons in the rules.

I never said it couldn't be in the ruleset, it was in the 1E rules after all. I just don't think it would be performing the same role. It would be an outdoor weapon like some polearms. A 4' greatsword by contrast you can bring into dungeons and use indoors.

(You could carry it on your back or even your hip in a sheath theoretically as well unlike a 6' zweihander)

As for some polearms having reach and some not having it... some polearms are principly or at least in equal measure thrusting weapons, (which you can always use in tight quarters) whle the zweihander is fundamentaly a chopper, and also, polearms can be wielded at the half staff. You can of course half-sword a zweihander but you are also supposed to be able to hold it from the grip like any sword. That requires a minmum of 7' -9' in all direactions for most people's reach, assuming you don't move at all!


BD

 

[woodelf]

The OP made me do it. I went through all of the rulebooks I own. Here we go...

PHB 3.5e

• Orc Double Axe = double the dumb
• Spiked Chain = just an odd, odd weapon showcasing the 1337ness of the new addition.
• Dire Flail = double the dumb
• Gnome Hooked Hammer = double the dumb
• Two-Bladed Sword = double the dumb
• Dwarven Urgrosh = double the dumb
• and repeating crossbows for being WAY to easy to use

Well, it depends exactly what you mean by a two-bladed sword, but, to a reasonable approximation, such things existed historically. That is, a weapon that was 2' of blade joined to 2' of blade, with a foot or two of handle in between. I believe repeating crossbows are also a legitimate historical artifact.