# Top 10 odd D&D weapons



## DreadPirateMurphy

While I am far from an expert on medieval weaponry, and I appreciate artistic license, there are some weapons proposed for D&D 3.x that just seem mind-bogglingly impractical.  Perhaps somebody can point out the utility of some of these beyond being "kewl."

1)  Whip-daggers:  Did anybody ever actually create such a weapon?  Whips strike me as falling into the category of "agricultural tools used as improvised weapons."  What would be the point of tying a dagger to the end of one, rather than just learning to throw knives?

2)  Sugliin:  Here you have a big wrack of sharpened antlers so unwieldy that you have to spend two feats just to use it as a normal weapon.  The tactical problems for this are mind-boggling, especially given the fact that you'll probably draw the eye of every archer in sight.

3)  Mercurial Swords:  Explain the attraction of a using a deliberately unbalanced weapon that is likely to spew a highly toxic substance if sundered.

4)  Orc Shotput:  The perfect counterpoint to the Orc javelin team.  Spend 10 gp on a 15 lbs. chunk of iron...or just go and find a rock to throw.

5)  Musical Instrument Bayonets:  Presented in _Song and Silence_, and instantly ludicrous to anybody who has actually used a real musical instrument.  If you want to destroy your instrument in combat, just whack somebody with it.

6)  Scorpion Claws:  This weapon from _Sandstorm_ is exactly what it sounds like...monstrous scorpion claws you wear on your hands.  Besides making it rather difficult to scratch an itch, I can't help but mentally hear the "crab people" theme from South Park running in the background.

7)  Caber:  If I recall correctly, this was offered in _Masters of the Wild_.  It was a log that you throw at people.  I never understood why this counted as a weapon rather than as improvised use of scenery.

8)  Two-Bladed Sword:  This weapon led directly to one of the oddest miniatures from WotC, a man in full plate armor wielding one of these.  That would probably be the only way to wield one without slicing off your fingers, come to think of it.

9)  Spike Shooter:  This appeared in _Races of Faerun_.  Any weapon with a spike on the end could be set to launch it as a spring-loaded surprise.  Possibly inspired by giant robot anime, I don't understand how you could avoid accidentally shooting it off whenever you swung your battle axe.

10)  Icechucker:  Ah, here we have a crossbow designed to fire icicles.  Oh, and it can fire javelins too, if you actually want to use something balanced and aerodynamic.

Bonus)  Vulcanian Thunder Club:  This was originally printed in Dragon #304, and it made it into Paizo's _Best of Dragon Compendium_.  While I like the book, I am less enamored with the idea of a greatclub filled with alchemist's fire and shot.  It is never explained how you can set it off with the pull of a string, but not by whacking it against your foe (possibly inadvertantly).

There are a few more that come to mind, but 10+1 will do.


----------



## Piratecat

I see a distinct lack of bohemian earspoons. Fie on you, I say.  Fie!

(Yes, I know its a normal pole arm and not odd silliness. But it has the best name _ever_.)


----------



## Vorput

Very good points...  I really wanna run into an NPC with a mercurial greatsword now that the idea of sundering it has been brought to my attention...

Vorp


----------



## lukelightning

Two-bladed sword made your list but not _dire flail_!?!?!?

I'll add:

Halfling skiprocks.... pebbles that both do lethal damage _and_ defy physics!

Boomerangs.  They don't work that way.  Boomerangs are not effective weapons; the hunting boomerangs used by Australian aborigines were not technically boomerangs (in that they don't have a curved path and just go straight when you throw them...which is what you want a thrown weapon to do).


----------



## Shade

Piratecat said:
			
		

> (Yes, I know its a normal pole arm and not odd silliness. But it has the best name _ever_.)




Amen to that!

What about the ever-loony gyrspike?   A flail hooked on a sword....wha?


----------



## Piratecat

I was amused that the "scythe" on 7th season Buffy was nothing more than a dwarven urgosh. And you can damn well believe that I felt like a geek when I put that together...


----------



## Shade

I'm surprised the glaive from Krull never made it in as an exotic weapon.  Now that was one ridiculous weapon.


----------



## Jedi_Solo

There acually is an event called the Caber Throw (or Caber Toss).  Most likley you'll find one in lumberjack style competitions and yes; they basically throw tree trunks.

This isn't to say that trying to use one as a weapon is a good idea, but I can actually see how the idea for the stat block could come up.  Not how it actually made it all the way into the book mind you, but at least how it came up in the first place.

After all; what is a DM to do if a party of PCs wanders into the middle of a Caber Toss?


----------



## Jedi_Solo

Shade said:
			
		

> I'm surprised the glaive from Krull never made it in as an exotic weapon.  Now that was one ridiculous weapon.




I'm just waiting or the sword from Sword and the Sorcerer or the sword form the end of Brotherhood of the Wolf to make it into the books.  Both completely and utterly ludicrus weapons and both style you just KNOW someone has tried to create in real life.

The Sword and the Sorcerer weapon was a three bladed sword (think a pitchfork only with sword blades and a shorter handle) where the outside two blades could be launched as projectiles.  Yup, someone in the movie dies from having sword blades shot at him like a gun.

The Brotherhood of the Wolf sword could segment itself out to resemble a whip with large sword like sections. (This is also the weapon Ivy uses in the Soul Calibur games for any who play that series.)  And how, exactly, is the mechanics of this supposed to work?  Whip chains are nasty enough (believe me, I have used them in real life in martial arts classes) I do NOT want them laced with large razer blades.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer

I missed those. Something tells me my campaign isn't missing out. Absolutely absurd... What's next, a vorpal hurdy-gurdy?

A lot of those "kewl" weapons sound like things we would've came up with when we were 14.



			
				DreadPirateMurphy said:
			
		

> 5)  Musical Instrument Bayonets:  Presented in _Song and Silence_, and instantly ludicrous to anybody who has actually used a real musical instrument.  If you want to destroy your instrument in combat, just whack somebody with it.


----------



## Shade

Oh, yeah, Sword and the Sorcerer tri-blade.  Didn't it look like a space shuttle taking off when it fired?   That was a crazy, crazy movie.  And Lee Horsely is an NPC name if I've ever heard one.


----------



## Ed_Laprade

Those are some weird weapons all right. Then again, using any blade with a lot of flanged culiques is just asking for trouble. Disarm ought to get +10 or something against those. But my biggest pet peeve along this line, since the 3.0 PHB came out, is spiked armor. There's a reason you can't find any in a museum. Several, in fact. It guides an opponent's weapon right to you, not away as armor is supposed to. (Ought to get at least a -1 to AC!) If you whack one of the spikes hard enough with a metal bashing weapon it ought to have a chance to be driven into the wearer's body. And if you fall in the mud, good luck getting back up again.


----------



## Rolzup

Nothing, NOTHING, is as stupid as one of the weapons from _Sword and Fist_.  Can't remember the name of the thing, but it was a sword...with a flail attached to the hilt.

Say what you like about the impracitaclity of the double-bladed sword, it's a least concievable that someone could use it effectively.  This sword/flail thing, though...I honestly can't picture how anyone could use it without beating themself unconscious.


----------



## Imp

I dunno, I kind of wish exotic weapons leaned more toward ridiculous and less towards Lame.  It's a really big spear!  It's a really big pick!  It's a really big crossbow!  It's a supersized scimitar!  A great big halberd!  All exotic!  Because the die is bigger, don't you see.  Exoticness is a function of math!

But on topic and personally, armor spikes are the ones that bug me the most.  I shall attack by hurling my target parts at the guy with the spear, and hope a spiky bit hits!  Eh.  Also the idea of a battlefield full of soldiers body-slamming each other is pretty hilarious.  Sort of like the ultimate Ministry video.

All the bouncy throwing weapons are kind of silly, too.

I don't have a problem with boomerangs.  At least they're historical.  Exaggerate their abilities for a fantasy game, so what?  The only thing I don't like about them is you have to decide whether you want them to only function in open spaces or not and that gets annoying.


----------



## Kid Socrates

Rolzup said:
			
		

> Nothing, NOTHING, is as stupid as one of the weapons from _Sword and Fist_.  Can't remember the name of the thing, but it was a sword...with a flail attached to the hilt.
> 
> Say what you like about the impracitaclity of the double-bladed sword, it's a least concievable that someone could use it effectively.  This sword/flail thing, though...I honestly can't picture how anyone could use it without beating themself unconscious.




Man, that's just asking for a spiked ball in an uncomfortable area...

As much as I like the Warcraft setting, they have rules for smacking people with totem poles. Yes, I know it was a weapon in the PC RTS, and it's a neat visual, but it still seems so freaking silly. 

And that's not even mentioning the glaive, which appears to be sticking three daggers in a circle in a very aerodynamic way, and tossing it in such a way that it starts ping-ponging between your enemies. 

I don't know, if I'm throwing something pointy, I'd really rather it not bounce off people, instead of going in. Seems a bit counter-productive.


----------



## Rolzup

Ed_Laprade said:
			
		

> But my biggest pet peeve along this line, since the 3.0 PHB came out, is spiked armor. There's a reason you can't find any in a museum. Several, in fact. It guides an opponent's weapon right to you, not away as armor is supposed to. (Ought to get at least a -1 to AC!) If you whack one of the spikes hard enough with a metal bashing weapon it ought to have a chance to be driven into the wearer's body. And if you fall in the mud, good luck getting back up again.




I give spiked armor a pass because it's got legendary precedent.  Witness the tale of the Lambton Worm....


----------



## Cam Banks

Rolzup said:
			
		

> Nothing, NOTHING, is as stupid as one of the weapons from _Sword and Fist_.  Can't remember the name of the thing, but it was a sword...with a flail attached to the hilt.




The gyrspike!

Man, that's odd. So what's the big spear with four spikes projecting out from the base of the spearhead called?

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Shade

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> Man, that's odd. So what's the big spear with four spikes projecting out from the base of the spearhead called?




The manti.


----------



## Chiaroscuro23

Behold, new exotic weapons for D&D http://garnet.acns.fsu.edu/~cwd02/zanyweapons.htm


----------



## ColonelHardisson

Ed_Laprade said:
			
		

> But my biggest pet peeve along this line, since the 3.0 PHB came out, is spiked armor. There's a reason you can't find any in a museum.




Know what else isn't in a museum? Giants and other critters that can pick up or wrap around someone wearing armor.


----------



## Vorput

Rolzup said:
			
		

> I give spiked armor a pass because it's got legendary precedent.  Witness the tale of the Lambton Worm....




That. is. awesome.


----------



## ColonelHardisson

Vorput said:
			
		

> That. is. awesome.




Yup, it is, and it made its way into a Pendragon RPG supplement years ago as an adventure. The adventure even went into the making of the armor as the way to defeat the critter.


----------



## Blood Jester

Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> There acually is an event called the Caber Throw (or Caber Toss).  Most likley you'll find one in lumberjack style competitions and yes; they basically throw tree trunks.
> 
> This isn't to say that trying to use one as a weapon is a good idea, but I can actually see how the idea for the stat block could come up.  Not how it actually made it all the way into the book mind you, but at least how it came up in the first place.
> 
> After all; what is a DM to do if a party of PCs wanders into the middle of a Caber Toss?




Caber tossing grew from running up and throwing a log one could use to cross a moat or scale a wall (we are talking 10-15 foot walls).

They were never used as weapons, nor do they go far even in the hands of someone who has spent years of their lives training to throw them.

As a matter of fact, distance is not how you win at caber tossing, it is how close to a "perfect throw" one gets (i.e. the end of the log you were holding flies over the top and lands at 12-o'clock from the end that was up when you started.)


----------



## eris404

Chiaroscuro23 said:
			
		

> Behold, new exotic weapons for D&D http://garnet.acns.fsu.edu/~cwd02/zanyweapons.htm




Unbelievably Dire Flailing Whipaxe!!!


----------



## RangerWickett

Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> I'm just waiting for the sword from the end of Brotherhood of the Wolf to make it into the books.
> 
> The Brotherhood of the Wolf sword could segment itself out to resemble a whip with large sword like sections. (This is also the weapon Ivy uses in the Soul Calibur games for any who play that series.)  And how, exactly, is the mechanics of this supposed to work?  Whip chains are nasty enough (believe me, I have used them in real life in martial arts classes) I do NOT want them laced with large razer blades.




E.N. Arsenal - Whips.

The idea is that you have a mechanism (created by gnomes obviously) that allows you to extend and retract the blade quickly. You wear a full-arm gauntlet on your off-hand so you can grab the bladed whip and maneuver it like, as you suggested, a whip chain. You do _not_ really use it like a whip, since a whip is more of a projectile weapon that happens to have a rope between your hand and the tip. A whip sword is used more like a lash, intended for long slashes and the occasional lacerating entangling strike.

Anyhoo. In a world where a power attacking warrior with a quarterstaff can beat an iron golem to pieces, or a 2-inch shuriken can pierce the scales of a dragon, I can accept bizarre whip weapons. Hell, in one article of Asgard I included rules for using beach balls as weapons.


----------



## Hypersmurf

Shade said:
			
		

> The manti.




And let's not forget the spear... with the backward-pointing spearheads!  Stab someone ten feet away in the chest... then stab someone five feet away in the back!

-Hyp.


----------



## demiurge1138

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> And let's not forget the spear... with the backward-pointing spearheads!  Stab someone ten feet away in the chest... then stab someone five feet away in the back!
> 
> -Hyp.



The duom!

Funny thing is, when I was a player in a Greyhawk game last year, the DMs went out of their way to give the Scarlet Brotherhood as many odd weapons as they could - lots of duoms and two-bladed swords, and I think there might eveb have been a gyrspike in there.

Demiurge out.


----------



## Imp

I should probably add in the face of evidence presented that I don't think spiked armor should Not Exist.  It should make grappling the wearer an extra unpleasant experience.  It's the use as a general martial weapon – an off-hand weapon, even! – that I have trouble swallowing.  And I don't even mind the double weapons that don't involve flails.


----------



## kigmatzomat

Blood Jester said:
			
		

> Caber tossing grew from running up and throwing a log one could use to cross a moat or scale a wall (we are talking 10-15 foot walls).  They were never used as weapons, nor do they go far even in the hands of someone who has spent years of their lives training to throw them.




I can't find anything definitive about the caber.  It was a fair event as far back as the 16th century.  The moat or stream crossing is the most common but there are also suppositions that it was thrown in a way that it "rolled" over 8-10' high walls (which fits with the the end-over-end requirement) or to break up enemy formations (though that makes the "straight line" requirement of the toss irrational.  

Either way, getting hit by a telephone pole sucks.


----------



## CRGreathouse

Ed_Laprade said:
			
		

> But my biggest pet peeve along this line, since the 3.0 PHB came out, is spiked armor. There's a reason you can't find any in a museum. Several, in fact. It guides an opponent's weapon right to you, not away as armor is supposed to. (Ought to get at least a -1 to AC!) If you whack one of the spikes hard enough with a metal bashing weapon it ought to have a chance to be driven into the wearer's body. And if you fall in the mud, good luck getting back up again.




I don't have any problem at all with spiked armor.  I do agree with you that it should have an AC penalty -- at least, most should -- and I'd be generous and make it -1 or possibly -2.  I think that in a world with monsters that eat you whole spiked armor makes a lot of sense, even if it does make you a bit easier to hit.

I'm going to put bashing weapon + spikes as one of the many things that falls under the radar of the granularity of D&D weapons.



			
				Imp said:
			
		

> I should probably add in the face of evidence presented that I don't think spiked armor should Not Exist.  It should make grappling the wearer an extra unpleasant experience.  It's the use as a general martial weapon – an off-hand weapon, even! – that I have trouble swallowing.  And I don't even mind the double weapons that don't involve flails.




I completely agree.


----------



## Aust Diamondew

I'm surprised spiked chain didn't make it to your list


----------



## Christian

lukelightning said:
			
		

> Two-bladed sword made your list but not _dire flail_!?!?!?




One of my first jokes on the Eric Noah's original boards was that the dire flail was the favored weapon of Goob, the god of self-inflicted head wounds. I cannot imagine how you'd wield this in combat without hurting yourself worse than the enemy ...


----------



## Hypersmurf

demiurge1138 said:
			
		

> The duom!




Thassa one!

I'm just going to say for the record that I love the gyrspike.  Impractical as hell (okay, somewhat less practical than hell, even), completely nonsensical, but I love it anyway.

I statted out a Gyrspike somewhere where the blade end was an intelligent alchemical silver Holy Axiomatic longsword, and the chain end was an intelligent cold iron Unholy Anarchic flail.  I figured the shiny straightness of the blade screamed Lawful Good, while the spiky randomness of the flail epitomised Chaotic Evil 

-Hyp.


----------



## Mad Mac

Actually, I never thought the Gyrspike was a big deal, assuming you (good advice in general) ignore the picture. A longsword with a short flail attached to the handle is completely useless, granted....but with a longer, weighted chain attached to the hilt you have a weapon that isn't very fundamentally different than the Kusari-gama, which is a real weapon. (Chain with a kama on one end)

  Then again, I kinda liked the Orc Shot put, too. There's something inherently appealing about smashing people in the face with an oversized bowling ball and pretending it's a sophisticated cultural combat art.  

Monastic Orc Shot-put Master: "When you can snatch the Shot-put from my hand, young stinky bug, you will be ready to leave my tent."

Enthusiastic Pupil: You're On! *Grabs shot-put in two-hands and begins yanking hard.*

"Auuugh! Come on! What'd you do, superglue it to your hands?"

"With Age comes Wisdom and..."

"Seriously, I can see the glue, all over your hands. You friggen nutcase! Arrg! *Plants foot in elders face and begins pulling with all his strength*

"Yesssss, it's coming loose!

"You should have more respect for your elders....*Older Orc kicks pupil viciously in the groin.*

"Ohhhhhh! You dirty, dirty, dwarf loving bastard!" *Drops Shotput from sheer agony and shock. Shotput lands on younger Orcs foot*

"Aiiiiiigh!!!!!"

*Elder Orc stoops to pick up lump of lead, "accidently" rolling it over the pupils other foot in the process*

"For the Love of Grumshh, I give up! Have your stupid ball!" *begins rolling on the ground moaning in agony*

"When you can take the shot-put from my hands, you will be ready to leave my tent."
"Your tent...friggen sucks...smells like rancid Behir Bladder in here"

"Orc who smealt it...dealt it."

"I'm so telling my mom about you...This has got to be Orc child abuse, or something"

"Old Shot-Put master already knows Stinkbugs mother...very well indeed. *Chuckles suggestively*

"....As soon as I'm done bleeding here, you are so dead...Bastard!"

Suddenly, I have the urge to play an Orc Monk...hmmm.


----------



## Felix

Re:Cabers

It was my understanding that cabers (or something like them) were used to break up Roman formations when the Picts were charging them. As well trained as they were, having a 100lb telephone pole land on your head or shield will move your position slightly. With enough cabers you could put some serious holes in a phalanx's front line; which would drastically reduce the effectiveness of that formation.

Of course, maybe that's just me being romantic about how the scots kept the bloody Italians out of their land. Hadrian's wall: Beyond This Point Even Romans Fear To Tread.

And it has absolutely nothing to do with streched supply lines. Nothing at all.


----------



## Nyaricus

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

Complete Adventurer 
 Every weapon in it. Basically, they're normal weapons, except BETTER :\

Complete Warrior
 Gnome Tortoise Blade
 Dwarven Buckler-Axe
 Double Hammer
 And the Boomerang, for it's odd mechanics

And one of the worst offenders:
Savage Species
 Everything, except for the sharktooth staff, because I could see a primitive island people using that.

That's all for now, but I have a few more books to go through still. I am so not done with this


----------



## The Grackle

DreadPirateMurphy said:
			
		

> 3)  Mercurial Swords:  Explain the attraction of a using a deliberately unbalanced weapon that is likely to spew a highly toxic substance if sundered.



 It's cool in the  book.


----------



## blargney the second

Chiaroscuro23 said:
			
		

> Behold, new exotic weapons for D&D http://garnet.acns.fsu.edu/~cwd02/zanyweapons.htm




That was incredibly funny. 
-blarg


----------



## Jupp

Chiaroscuro23 said:
			
		

> Behold, new exotic weapons for D&D http://garnet.acns.fsu.edu/~cwd02/zanyweapons.htm




Thanks for that link. It made my day 

Thinking about the 1000 different ways to self-inflict damage with the "Unbelievably Dire Flailing Whipaxe" was a fun thing    Methinks I have to throw that weapon to a PC


----------



## Whisper72

Actually, there are some missing.

Why are there no damage values for thrown dwarves??


----------



## Illirion

Chiaroscuro23 said:
			
		

> Behold, new exotic weapons for D&D http://garnet.acns.fsu.edu/~cwd02/zanyweapons.htm




Actually, I could envision someone wielding that Flailing Wheel of Death


----------



## Hussar

Actually, having used a repeating crossbow, they ARE ridiculously easy to use.  Granted, they jam all the time, and look nothing like the picture in the book, but, they are easy to use.


----------



## likuidice

Whisper72 said:
			
		

> Actually, there are some missing.
> 
> Why are there no damage values for thrown dwarves??




because nobody tosses a dwarf?


----------



## Hypersmurf

Whisper72 said:
			
		

> Actually, there are some missing.
> 
> Why are there no damage values for thrown dwarves??




You're better off throwing halflings.  They get a +1 racial bonus to attack rolls when used as a thrown weapon.  Plus, they're Light, so your TWF penalties are lower...

-Hyp.


----------



## Huw

No-one's mentioned the gae bolga? AFAIK, this hasn't been updated for 3e yet. It's a spear you throw with your feet and it used to do 1d8 damage (or 1d6/level if you had a certain proficiency from the Celts historical supplement).



			
				Felix said:
			
		

> Of course, maybe that's just me being romantic about how the scots kept the bloody Italians out of their land.




Sorry to be pedantic, but the Scots were still in Ireland at the time.


----------



## Mark Hope

Yeah, I was always OK with the spiked armour, thanks to the Lambton Worm story (I'm from Durham and my family live in Chester-le-Street, which is where the Lambtons actually lived).

There is a particularly absurd Dark Sun weapon called the crusher (iirc), which is a huge stone ball on the end of a big, flexible stick.  You plant the haft in the ground and then flail the end with the ball back and forward.  The stone ball then comes whacking down on any enemies who aren't adjacent to you.  I've always wondered how you stop them damn thing once you've gotten some good momentum up...

Like many gamers, I statted up the tri-bladed sword from _Sword and the Sorcerer_ for use in my game (aside: Talon's mother was played by the aunt of a friend of mine).  And the glaive from _Krull_.  And the kepa from _Beastmaster_.  And I'd have done Xena's whizzing frizbee of death, too, had that been around when I was 14...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

lukelightning said:
			
		

> Two-bladed sword made your list but not _dire flail_!?!?!?
> 
> I'll add:
> 
> Halfling skiprocks.... pebbles that both do lethal damage _and_ defy physics!
> 
> Boomerangs.  They don't work that way.  Boomerangs are not effective weapons; the hunting boomerangs used by Australian aborigines were not technically boomerangs (in that they don't have a curved path and just go straight when you throw them...which is what you want a thrown weapon to do).



I believe even the non-returning kind is called boomerang (what would be the alternative: curved throwing stick?) ). I read that boomerangs used to hunt small birds actually return  - if they miss their intented target. 

The D20 rules (in Eberron, at least) seem to be "relatively" realistic in that regard - on a hit, they don't return.


----------



## Deuce Traveler

I designed some weapons for the Sahasra mythos for DogSoul Publishing and was surprised to see some of the strange weapons from Indian hindu lore.

The whip dagger wasn't used, but they did have a knife that they would tie to the end of a rope or cord.  They would spin the rope and approach an enemy, either slicing him during the spin, or whipping it with a hand motion so the blade headed right for the victim.

Although they didn't use antler's, they did use something called Fakir's Horns that could be connected to a shield.  These were natural spear weapons and pretty sharp (perfect for druids in DnD).  When a buckler/shield was connected to the spear of the horns, you wouldn't lose the weapon as long as you could hold onto the shield.  When connected they would be called a Madu.  I worked them in the .pdf.  Another version of using the weapons from an animal was a crutch that older men could use as a bludgeon weapon, but that had another name.  I think it was Fakir's crutches.  I didn't use these as I felt that they wouldn't be as well liked as some of the other weapons.

They didn't have scorpion claws, but they did have a hand weapon that looked like brass knuckles with small blades attached.  These were called Bagh Nakh or Tiger's Claws.  I included them in the .pdf I did for Dog Soul.

Finally, they did use two-bladed swords during the day.  They also created a dagger with two or three blades, which I also used in a .pdf.  It was called a haladie.  Check out this website that I used to help with my research:
http://www.hindunet.org/saraswati/indianarms.htm


----------



## Bront

Yeah, I've heard of a dagger with several points.  The idea was you could throw it and always hit the enemy with a bladed end.


----------



## Piratecat

Mad Mac said:
			
		

> "Seriously, I can see the glue, all over your hands. You friggen nutcase! Arrg! *Plants foot in elders face and begins pulling with all his strength*



You have the best post:funny ratio on this site.


----------



## shilsen

Deuce Traveler said:
			
		

> I designed some weapons for the Sahasra mythos for DogSoul Publishing and was surprised to see some of the strange weapons from Indian hindu lore.




I'm personally quite fine with fantasy weapons that aren't realistic or historical, but once one starts looking around, one finds a lot of seriously weird weapons out there. Some of the more interesting ones from Indian history figure in the martial art of Kalaripayattu.

Check out the spinning sword or urumi. I can just imagine all the whining about realism if someone introduced this as an exotic weapon in D&D


----------



## Mad Mac

Two-bladed Sword is the only feasible double weapon in the PHB. It's not a practical weapon, but it can be made/used and similar weapons pop up in history from time to time. The Dire Flail, Double Axe, and Hooked Hammer on the other hand...


----------



## Pure Puppet

Mark Hope said:
			
		

> And I'd have done Xena's whizzing frizbee of death, too, had that been around when I was 14...




Frisbee of death?  No no no.  It's called a chakram.  It's an actual weapon from India, like so many other mentioned in this thread.

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

Also, it was statted out in the Arms and Equipment Guide, anyway.  Exotic Small Ranged Weapon, 1d4 slashing.

And my vote for most ridiculous weapon?  Elven Double Bow.  It's a bow with an extra bowstring!  You can fire TWO arrows at once!  I'm assuming if you have the Multishot feat, you can fire FOUR arrows at once.  Just forget about anything like, I don't know, actually AIMING for anything!  But who cares?  FOUR ARROWS!

Bleah.  A piece of equipment that mimics a feat is just a bad idea.  You should not be able to BUY feats.


----------



## Evilhalfling

Rolzup said:
			
		

> Nothing, NOTHING, is as stupid as one of the weapons from _Sword and Fist_.  Can't remember the name of the thing, but it was a sword...with a flail attached to the hilt.
> 
> Say what you like about the impracitaclity of the double-bladed sword, it's a least concievable that someone could use it effectively.  This sword/flail thing, though...I honestly can't picture how anyone could use it without beating themself unconscious.




Sounds like a prototype of a sword-chuck the thought of wielding two swords linked togeather by a chain (at either tip or pommel) makes me simile. 

I suppose with a long thin chain connecting the pommels it would be only slightly more awkward than wielding 2 swords.  otherwise its all bad. 

and for my own suggestion the Singham- 
try googling it, or finding any historical record that is not linked to D&D 
its just a well need a light piercing weapon that monks can use with one hand.  trationally this is a spear, not a sharp stick.


----------



## Evilhalfling

Mad Mac said:
			
		

> Monastic Orc Shot-put Master: "When you can snatch the Shot-put from my hand, young stinky bug, you will be ready to leave my tent."
> Enthusiastic Pupil: You're On! *Grabs shot-put in two-hands and begins yanking hard.*
> "Auuugh! Come on! What'd you do, superglue it to your hands?"
> "With Age comes Wisdom and..."
> "Seriously, I can see the glue, all over your hands. You friggen nutcase! Arrg! *Plants foot in elders face and begins pulling with all his strength*




tears of joy.


----------



## lukelightning

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I believe even the non-returning kind is called boomerang (what would be the alternative: curved throwing stick?) ). I read that boomerangs used to hunt small birds actually return  - if they miss their intented target.




There are arguments over what is a boomerang and what isn't; most anthropologists use boomerang to mean the returning things, and throwing stick for everything else (which has the advantage of not being closely associated with Australia, as non-returning flatish aerodynamic throwing sticks have shown up all over the world).

And no, boomerangs were not used to hunt, not even birds. It's a nice, fanciful notion, but there is no advantage to a returning boomerang other than hoping it returns, and there are many drawbacks.

It is _incredibly_ hard to aim a stick that goes in a circular trajectory enough to hit a small target.  You have to see the bird, then move to the exact correct spot to be the right distance away for a circular path (hoping the bird doesn't see you and fly away), and hope there is nothing in the way of the path, which is harder to determine than just throwing something straight at the bird.

And the path of the boomerang would be much longer than a straight path, giving the bird much more time to notice the spinning thing coming at it.  A half second delay is all it takes for your lunch to take off.


----------



## Dioltach

Huw said:
			
		

> No-one's mentioned the gae bolga? AFAIK, this hasn't been updated for 3e yet. It's a spear you throw with your feet and it used to do 1d8 damage (or 1d6/level if you had a certain proficiency from the Celts historical supplement).




It's in the _Slaine_ book: damage 1d8, crit. x4, range increment 20 ft., piercing damage. The description includes rules for additional damage caused by the barbs if the Gae Bolga sticks in the wound, and for delayed healing. It's also primarily a melee weapon now.


----------



## lukelightning

On a slight tangent, I hate D&D bucklers. Bucklers are meant to be held in the hand, not strapped on the arm.


----------



## Zander

DreadPirateMurphy said:
			
		

> Mercurial Swords:  Explain the attraction of a using a deliberately unbalanced weapon...



Although there never were swords with mercury, it does seem that there were swords with a moving weight that slid along the blade. There are several illustrated in 15th c. treatise on knightly combat. We don't know what these types of swords were called and there are none extant. 

The weight would help to deliver a forceful initial blow either designed to penetrate armour or to set an opponent's weapon aside. These swords are illustrated with a large pommel/spike suggesting that after the initial swing, the attacker would close and perform a pommel strike.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne

Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> I'm just waiting or the sword from Sword and the Sorcerer or the sword form the end of Brotherhood of the Wolf to make it into the books.  Both completely and utterly ludicrus weapons and both style you just KNOW someone has tried to create in real life.




Well, the latter has been detailed by Andy Collins, on his website.


----------



## Mercule

DreadPirateMurphy said:
			
		

> 3)  Mercurial Swords:  Explain the attraction of a using a deliberately unbalanced weapon that is likely to spew a highly toxic substance if sundered.




I allowed a PC to make one out of mithril, which is somewhat better IMC than in RAW.  It is a unique weapon and he is the only proficient wielder.  A crit also causes the mercury to pound the end in such a way as to cause a crack like a dragon bone snapping.


----------



## Snapdragyn

*Urumi statted out?*

Hrm, I like that urumi -- & it actually exists!

I'm wondering what the D&D stats would be?

 - Damage die as... rapier? Flail?

 - Slashing

 - Light weapon

 - Exotic (difficult to use, so should require a feat)

 - +2 to Sleight of Hand checks to hide on the body (can be worn as a belt)

 -? Special: Wielder takes damage on a fumble (if using fumble rules, add half damage to the fumble roll results instead).

Standard one would have 1 coil, 'dire' would have multiple coils & advanced damage (perhaps break with reality to make the dire version not a light weapon so that there's some advantage to taking the regular version).

Oh, because of the flexibility required, perhaps only allow masterwork versions. Definitely wouldn't allow one made of adamantine for this reason; not sure about other 'core' special materials.

Suggestions?


----------



## sjmiller

DreadPirateMurphy said:
			
		

> 3)  Mercurial Swords:  Explain the attraction of a using a deliberately unbalanced weapon that is likely to spew a highly toxic substance if sundered.



I wouldn't classify mercury as highly toxic.  Sure, if you handle it repeatedly, over a long period of time, it can kill you (after making you literally mad as a hatter*).  Mercury builds up in the body, and is not excreted, which is one of the reasons fish caught in certain areas should be eaten only in limited quantities.  Really, the only way to die quickly from mercury is to ingest more than a milligram of it.  Even then, dying from it usually takes 5 to 12 days.

The mercurial sword is, to put it bluntly, a weapon designed by someone who knows next to nothing about weapons and just thought it sounded cool.  Maybe they heard of putting mercury in bullets and thought they could just do it with a sword.

*Felt hat makers used to use mercurial nitrate to cure the felt.  This vapor would cause mercury poisoning, which effects the central nervous system and the brain.  The phrase "mas as a hatter" was not invented by Lewis Carroll.


----------



## painandgreed

Evilhalfling said:
			
		

> and for my own suggestion the Singham-
> try googling it, or finding any historical record that is not linked to D&D
> its just a well need a light piercing weapon that monks can use with one hand.  trationally this is a spear, not a sharp stick.



This conversation comes up here every so often, and I'll agree that links to it are rare in anything but a gaming or wiki article. However, last time it came up, somebody claiming that it was a real weapon was able to point out a website on indonesian martial arts that did mention it with no reference to gaming. It was enough that I don't bring this up any longer but I'd still like to see a picture of one.


----------



## VirgilCaine

CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> I don't have any problem at all with spiked armor.  I do agree with you that it should have an AC penalty -- at least, most should -- and I'd be generous and make it -1 or possibly -2.  I think that in a world with monsters that eat you whole spiked armor makes a lot of sense, even if it does make you a bit easier to hit.




How long are these spikes that you are imagining?


----------



## shilsen

Snapdragyn said:
			
		

> Hrm, I like that urumi -- & it actually exists!
> 
> I'm wondering what the D&D stats would be?
> 
> - Damage die as... rapier? Flail?




At least. I've seen an urumi in use and it can inflict horrendous amounts of damage in trained hands.



> - Slashing




Yes.



> - Light weapon




One-handed. It requires a lot of strength to use, actually, since you're putting great strain on arm and wrist, and can be used two-handed for extra effect too. Fits the D&D definition of a one-handed weapon.



> - Exotic (difficult to use, so should require a feat)
> 
> - +2 to Sleight of Hand checks to hide on the body (can be worn as a belt)




Sounds right.



> -? Special: Wielder takes damage on a fumble (if using fumble rules, add half damage to the fumble roll results instead).




I wouldn't do that. The Exotic Weapon proficiency covers it. If you do already have fumble rules, then go for it.



> Standard one would have 1 coil, 'dire' would have multiple coils & advanced damage (perhaps break with reality to make the dire version not a light weapon so that there's some advantage to taking the regular version).
> 
> Oh, because of the flexibility required, perhaps only allow masterwork versions. Definitely wouldn't allow one made of adamantine for this reason; not sure about other 'core' special materials.
> 
> Suggestions?




It's got to be a reach weapon like a spiked chain, since you can attack someone right in front of you and someone ten feet away (probably 15 ft away) too.


----------



## Beckett

Piratecat said:
			
		

> I see a distinct lack of bohemian earspoons. Fie on you, I say.  Fie!
> 
> (Yes, I know its a normal pole arm and not odd silliness. But it has the best name _ever_.)




Everytime I read that weapon name, I'm reminded of a Wormy strip.  A group of goblins are scavenging on Wormy's table when they're attacked by hobgoblins.  Needing a weapon, one of the goblins grabs a soup spoon and improvises.


----------



## blargney the second

You have to spell it siangham.  I gather most people leave the first 'a' off when they're googling.

-blarg


----------



## DreadPirateMurphy

sjmiller said:
			
		

> I wouldn't classify mercury as highly toxic.  Sure, if you handle it repeatedly, over a long period of time, it can kill you (after making you literally mad as a hatter*).  Mercury builds up in the body, and is not excreted, which is one of the reasons fish caught in certain areas should be eaten only in limited quantities.  Really, the only way to die quickly from mercury is to ingest more than a milligram of it.  Even then, dying from it usually takes 5 to 12 days.




I guess it depends on your definition of "highly toxic."  Something that kills in a milligram dosage strikes me as pretty toxic.  It accumulates over time with repeated exposure.  It causes brain damage and birth defects.

You could also rule that the weapons contain dimethylmercury, which is toxic at the microliter level.


----------



## painandgreed

lukelightning said:
			
		

> It is _incredibly_ hard to aim a stick that goes in a circular trajectory enough to hit a small target.  You have to see the bird, then move to the exact correct spot to be the right distance away for a circular path (hoping the bird doesn't see you and fly away), and hope there is nothing in the way of the path, which is harder to determine than just throwing something straight at the bird.




IIRC from childhood experience playing with the boomerang that I was given, I could see how it could be used for hunting birds or other small animals. The path is not circular. After being thrown it travels straight and realativly level (there is a slight but predictable lift) for a decent amount of time. The lift from the aerodynamic shape adds up slowly and only after it loses some of its forward speed does the lift from the shape and spin significantly alter the path, eventually returning in the general direction of the thrower.


----------



## lukelightning

Mad Mac said:
			
		

> Two-bladed Sword is the only feasible double weapon in the PHB.




Other than the quarterstaff, of course!


----------



## painandgreed

blargney the second said:
			
		

> You have to spell it siangham.  I gather most people leave the first 'a' off when they're googling.



Trouble is that everything you google is either a gaming article or an easily edited wiki where I could create just about anything I wanted just to settle andargument.


----------



## lukelightning

painandgreed said:
			
		

> IIRC from childhood experience playing with the boomerang that I was given, I could see how it could be used for hunting birds or other small animals.




A mercurial greatsword _could_ be used to hunt birds or small animals too, but they never were.


----------



## CRGreathouse

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> CRGreathouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have any problem at all with spiked armor. I do agree with you that it should have an AC penalty -- at least, most should -- and I'd be generous and make it -1 or possibly -2. I think that in a world with monsters that eat you whole spiked armor makes a lot of sense, even if it does make you a bit easier to hit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How long are these spikes that you are imagining?
Click to expand...



Long, since they need to discourage large monsters from swallowing you whole.  Probably as long as 2".  On armor designed for footmen, the spikes on the upper half of the body would be curved downward to reduce the amount of force they'd catch on a typical blow; for horseman armor, only the upper portion would have spikes (to protect the horse as well as to avoid trapping a blow).

Smaller spikes resembling boss spikes could be set on places that aren't typically hit, as they'd be needed only to hurt grapplers and the like.  Placing these so as to avoid restricting movement would be a major design point, and probably most of the expense of adding them.


Why, what are your thoughts on spiked armor?  I'd be happy for any advice you could give.


----------



## sjmiller

DreadPirateMurphy said:
			
		

> I guess it depends on your definition of "highly toxic."  Something that kills in a milligram dosage strikes me as pretty toxic.  It accumulates over time with repeated exposure.  It causes brain damage and birth defects.



You have to remember, this is for ingesting (eating, drinking, swallowing) not for dermal contact (on or through the skin), or contact to the eyes.  Being hit by a sword that breaks and splashes on you is not highly toxic.  At most, dermal contact will cause redness and irritation.  Sometimes working in the environmental engineering business, with access to Material Safety Data Sheets actually proves useful in gaming.


----------



## Snapdragyn

shilsen said:
			
		

> One-handed. It requires a lot of strength to use, actually, since you're putting great strain on arm and wrist, and can be used two-handed for extra effect too. Fits the D&D definition of a one-handed weapon.




Ah, good to have the insights of someone who has seen the weapon in use. I was going from the linked article which mentioned deftness as more important than strength in use.



			
				shilsen said:
			
		

> It's got to be a reach weapon like a spiked chain, since you can attack someone right in front of you and someone ten feet away (probably 15 ft away) too.




How long is it, though? The article said 5 1/2' at most. Perhaps this is one of those areas where D&D physics (where a greatsword or rapier has no reach) has to outweigh RL physics for game consistencey? (I could certainly be persuaded otherwise on this, however.)


----------



## frankthedm

Snapdragyn said:
			
		

> How long is it, though? The article said 5 1/2' at most. Perhaps this is one of those areas where D&D physics (where a greatsword or rapier has no reach) has to outweigh RL physics for game consistencey? (I could certainly be persuaded otherwise on this, however.)



Maybe the whip-like mechanics would better fit the weapon? Something that flexible is going to choke on armor, no damage on anyone wearing  metal armor or on natural armor over 3. I'd be cool with it being a finess weapon.

Reach? no, those are sword length.

 I use those for my Chain based weapons [IMHO only polearms should 'reach'], make melee strikes up to 15' away, but only threaten within 5'.


----------



## kigmatzomat

painandgreed said:
			
		

> Trouble is that everything you google is either a gaming article or an easily edited wiki where I could create just about anything I wanted just to settle andargument.




I'll see if I can find the notes but I did actually find the siangham as a weapon.  Only it wasn't a weapon, per se.  It seems chinese judges had special brushes/pens for their legal calligraphy and they had a big, hard pointy cap.  Some judges were so disliked that they developed a way of fighting with their cased pens.  

Ahhh, here's a link to a martial art store that sells them:

http://www.hdmartialart.com/proddetail.asp?prod=judgespen


----------



## zakon

Shade said:
			
		

> I'm surprised the glaive from Krull never made it in as an exotic weapon.  Now that was one ridiculous weapon.




Xen'drik boomerang. It looks EXACTLY like that.


Oh, and about the "toxic greatsword"...

FEAR MY +5 UNHOLY FLAMING BOTULISM GREATSWORD!


----------



## Kwitchit

lukelightning said:
			
		

> Other than the quarterstaff, of course!




I think the Dwarven Urgrosh was probably usable, as would be any other "haft-with-a-spear-on-the-end". I've seen a lot of ancient spears/pikes where the butt was pointed so that it could be used on someone who managed to get past the points. In fact, I might use these house rules for spears:
Spearbutts can be pointed or round. Pointed do the damage of a shortspear sized for the wielder, rounded do damage equivalent to a quarterstaff one size smaller than the wielder. A spear with a pointed butt costs an extra 5 sp. 
A spear butt is not a reach weapon, and people attacking with it take a -4 nonproficiency penalty unless they have the Exotic Weapon Proficiency (spearbutt) feat. Having this feat also allows them to threaten adjacent squares with their spear.

Then maybe introduce another feat, requiring EWP (spearbutt), to use a spear as a double weapon with TWF a la Sky from Hero. Call it Double-ended Spearfighting.


----------



## shilsen

Snapdragyn said:
			
		

> How long is it, though? The article said 5 1/2' at most. Perhaps this is one of those areas where D&D physics (where a greatsword or rapier has no reach) has to outweigh RL physics for game consistencey? (I could certainly be persuaded otherwise on this, however.)




I've seen longer, with the ribbon-like blade capable of extending to about 8' or so. A skilled user could probably hit someone 10' away with one easily enough. I'm all for D&D physics trumping RL physics, but this is one weapon that I think in D&D terms works well to replicate what the spiked chain does.


----------



## Imp

1d8/x2, one-handed, slashing, reach, threaten both adjacent and 10' seems like it'd be a pretty solid exotic weapon, and one worthy of the name.  I think I'm introducing the urumi to my setting.

(I nerfed the spiked chain a bit; mainly, I made it so it can reach 10', but doesn't threaten that far, the logic being that it requires too much momentum to react to openings that far out.  The urumi looks more responsive than all that, and wouldn't get all of the spiked chain's bazillion other abilities.)

re double weapons, the double axe isn't hopelessly, ridiculously stupid if you make it so the axes on either side aren't double-bitted... then it's easier for the wielder to keep the choppy parts on the good side.  It's still goofy, but it and the double sword occupy the niche of "weird gladiatorial weapons" in my setting, so there's room for it.


----------



## Zander

sjmiller said:
			
		

> The mercurial sword is, to put it bluntly, a weapon designed by someone who knows next to nothing about weapons...



Why? I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm just curious as to why you think that. Too difficult to make? Too fragile? Not heavy enough? What?


----------



## Huw

Finally found my "A Glossary of  the Construction, Decoration and Use of Arms and Armor" (George Cameron Stone). This should settle some of the outstanding questions:

No mention of urumi or siangham (or indeed many other well known martial arts weapons), but for some others I've quoted directly from the book, so copyrighted but this is fair use.

Boomerang: ... The returning boomerang is mainly a plaything, though it is sometimes used to kill birds ... (He goes on to list several types of hunting and war boomerangs)

Chakram (Xena's frisbee): ... It is a flat steel ring from five to twelve inches in diameter ... the outer edge is sharp ... Several of different sizes were often carried on a pointed turban, the _dastar bungga_ ... it is thrown with sufficient force and accuracy to cut off a green bamboo three-quarters of an inch in diamater at a distance of thirty yards.


----------



## RangerWickett

Zander said:
			
		

> Why? I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm just curious as to why you think that. Too difficult to make? Too fragile? Not heavy enough? What?




As a quick example, find a tall water bottle, maybe about a half-gallon. Preferably one with a small top so you can hold it in one hand and swing it. Fill it with water fully and swing it around. Then fill it half with water and swing it around.

The theory of a mercurial weapon is that the half-filled one is better. After trying this practical experiment, how do you feel?


----------



## Zander

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> As a quick example, find a tall water bottle, maybe about a half-gallon. Preferably one with a small top so you can hold it in one hand and swing it. Fill it with water fully and swing it around. Then fill it half with water and swing it around.
> 
> The theory of a mercurial weapon is that the half-filled one is better. After trying this practical experiment, how do you feel?



Sure, a solid weapon might be better in general, but not always. If it were always the case that a solid weapon was superior, ones with a moving weight would never have been invented. But they were (see my post here).


----------



## genshou

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> As a quick example, find a tall water bottle, maybe about a half-gallon. Preferably one with a small top so you can hold it in one hand and swing it. Fill it with water fully and swing it around. Then fill it half with water and swing it around.
> 
> The theory of a mercurial weapon is that the half-filled one is better. After trying this practical experiment, how do you feel?



Shouldn't that comparison be between a half-full bottle and an empty bottle?  The whole point of the mercury is that it's a lot denser than iron, its density at room temperature measuring at 13.534 g/cm³.  Adding a channel for mercury actually makes the entire weapon _heavier_, and the idea behind the weapon is that the extra shifting weight is supposed to make a telling blow be more telling, but it's more difficult to get that blow in due to the shifting mass (high critical multiplier, low threat range).  It's also more difficult to use than a regular sword for those who aren't trained to use it (extra nonproficiency penalty).

New experiment: Take two durable plastic bottles.  Fill one completely with water, then fill the other 2/3 of the way with water and add 1 kg of mercury.  Try swinging them around to feel how the shifting weight affects ability to use effectively as a weapon, then find some trusting dupe to get whacked a few times and report which hurts more.  I'd be interested in hearing the results of that.


----------



## lukelightning

Zander said:
			
		

> Sure, a solid weapon might be better in general, but not always. If it were always the case that a solid weapon was superior, ones with a moving weight would never have been invented. But they were (see my post here).




But if these moving weights were a significant advantage they would have been common.  and I haven't seen _any_ reliable source for these other than "I saw somewhere...." posts.


----------



## Nyaricus

lukelightning said:
			
		

> But if these moving weights were a significant advantage they would have been common.  and I haven't seen _any_ reliable source for these other than "I saw somewhere...." posts.



Just becaus esomehting is a good idea, doesn;t mean it has to be common. There was an astrologist in the 13th century (IIRC) with a working elevator - pretty crazy stuff back then, but there are plenty of deadends for perfectly good ideas. Liek DVORAK keyboards


----------



## Hussar

Nyaricus, this is true, but, in the case of a mercurial sword, I'm thinking that physics tends to get in the way.  A sword is what, about three quarters of an inch thick at its thickest?  Give or take anyway.  If you core a sword and then hit something with it, it will be so weak that it will snap off very, very easily.  Plus, while mercury IS heavier than steal, the amount you could add to a sword wouldn't drastically change the weight of the sword anyway.

Sure, you can core a club and add steel to the inside - that works quite well.  But, the fact that a sword is flat means that there simply isn't enough volume to make any appreciable difference.

This is all IMO BTW.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

The logic behind the mercurial greatsword is that the shifting mass makes it work like a rigid flail.  In effect, the shifting mercury is turning a straight bladed sword into something that strikes like an axe, a tip-heavy sword or other chopping weapon.

As such, you wouldn't (or couldn't) use it like a sword, with thrusts and parries, starts and stops.  Like a flail or axe, the idea would be to keep the head in motion, the mercury at the blade tip, conserving momentum, until you land a successful blow.

Of course, it would be much easier and cheaper to just buy an axe or flail...or a tip-heavy sword.

At any rate...most of my faves have been covered, from the thing from Darksun to the Gyrespike, Duom and Manti.  The Double flail is double dumb...and I can't say much in favor of the gnome hooked pick or whatever.

Hmmm...and add my mucho hate for the spiked chain, though- regular chains are hard enough to deal with- adding spikes all over it is just asking for a good puncturing.


----------



## Hussar

IMHO, the strangest weapon in DnD is the polearm.  Why are polearms so weak compared to swords?  There was a reason most people carried a spear or a polearm throughout history.  They WORK.  And they work really, really well.  Roman soldiers didn't fight with swords, they fought with spears.  As did the vast majority of foot soldiers until the age of gunpowder.  Yet, in DnD, polearms take a back seat to swords in terms of effectiveness and damage.

Sorry, my own personal little rant.  Carry on with the rest of the thread.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

The reasons nobody plays polearms in D&D is 2-fold:

1) Few of them work in tight spaces (like dungeons).  Polearms are at their best on the battlefield, where adventurers tend not to be.

2) Lack of mechanics tailored to their use.  However, with the DCv1's 10+ Feats for polearm use, I think you'll see more people using them.  I know I've been designing polearm PCs this past year.


----------



## Hussar

Heh, Dannyalcatraz - I have that same article from Dragon.  Bloody fantastic.  My Warpike wielding dwarf with the extra reach feat is just rocking.  Loving it LOTS.  And my players were very sad when they met those goblins armed with awl pikes.  Three ranks of  fifteen foot reach goblins is just brutal.

The thing is, most polearms actually wouldn't be much more difficult to use in a dungeon than any other two handed weapon.  Yes, a longspear might be 12 or 15 feet long, but, it's not like you hold it at the bottom.  You hold it half way up the shaft.  That makes the weapon effectively about as long as a greatsword.  Yet, no one has any beefs about using a greatsword or greataxe in a dungeon.  Or, heck, a 7 foot bloody longbow with 6 foot ceilings.   

But, your second point, IMO, is the telling one.  Polearms are just suboptimal.  Sure, you get that x3 crit, but, that's pretty pale compared to a 19-20 crit.  And, it just doesn't go well with things like Imp Crit or keen.  Add to that, the fact that polearms do the same or less damage than swords, and, well, it's not a shock that polearms aren't seen all that often.

Just something that has always, always bugged me.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> You hold it half way up the shaft. That makes the weapon effectively about as long as a greatsword




All that does is make it so you have a "greatsword" in front of you and a "greatsword" in back of you...

So, your polearm wielding warrior is warding off the troll in front of him (pokity poke poke poke), waiting for the wizard to fry it with an acid or fire spell of some kind, not realizing that every round the wizard is failing his concentration checks as the butt end of the polearm is striking him in the family jewels.



> Polearms are just suboptimal.




I don't think so- I think suboptimality depends on the polearm in question.  Many (not all) of them start off with reach, and several have a throwing range as well.  If you look through the descriptions, you'll also find that several of them work with particular maneuvers, especially trip attacks.  And, to be honest, some of them have nice damage (1d10 or 1d12 isn't too bad in my book) and/or multipliers (x3 to x4).

I mean, the Greatspear (Exotic 2 handed weapon with 10' reach, 10' range increment, 2d6 x3) is NOT a bad weapon.


----------



## Imp

Polearms, especially spears, are the most economical way to deal the most damage for standard soldiers in the game.  Adventurers have money to throw around, but if you're fielding an army, you bet you're taking a long hard look at those 1d8/x3/20 ft. increment spears at 2 measly gold pieces a pop.  The other polearms don't fare badly either.  So I think D&D RAW models the relative ubiquity of polearms pretty well.

(The greatspear is not a bad weapon.  It is a lame weapon.  But it is not a bad one.)


----------



## big dummy

Zander said:
			
		

> Sure, a solid weapon might be better in general, but not always. If it were always the case that a solid weapon was superior, ones with a moving weight would never have been invented. But they were (see my post here).




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.  The only vaguely similar thing I ever heard of are some Chinese Dao sabers which had a hollowed out fuller with a little 1mm bead in it that could roll back and forth... but that had absolutely no effect on the weight of the blade.

If you have some evidence of this weapon, I would love to see it.

As for the mercury sword, well I liked those novels ok too but didn't Gene Wolf prefer to have people fighting with flowers IIRC?   He certainly doesn't know anything about real life weapons, even less than WOTC.

BD
\


----------



## big dummy

genshou said:
			
		

> New experiment: Take two durable plastic bottles.  Fill one completely with water, then fill the other 2/3 of the way with water and add 1 kg of mercury.




A kg of mercury?  LOL!  How much do you think real swords weighed?

BD


----------



## big dummy

Hussar said:
			
		

> Nyaricus, this is true, but, in the case of a mercurial sword, I'm thinking that physics tends to get in the way.  A sword is what, about three quarters of an inch thick at its thickest?  Give or take anyway. .




Three quarters of an inch!!!?  LOL!!!!  Maybe a D&D sword!  Man oh man.  You people seriously ought to read up a bit on history.

BD


----------



## big dummy

Hussar said:
			
		

> IMHO, the strangest weapon in DnD is the polearm.  Why are polearms so weak compared to swords?  There was a reason most people carried a spear or a polearm throughout history.  They WORK.  And they work really, really well.  Roman soldiers didn't fight with swords, they fought with spears.  As did the vast majority of foot soldiers until the age of gunpowder.  Yet, in DnD, polearms take a back seat to swords in terms of effectiveness and damage.
> 
> Sorry, my own personal little rant.  Carry on with the rest of the thread.





It's because other than hitting an extra square away, (and barring some feats from Dragon magazine I've never seen) there is no effect of reach in D&D.  A guy with a dagger is just as likely to hit somebody with a sword as they are him, and he is just as likely to strike first.  Big difference from real life.  Similarly to the pole arm.  In real life their cheif advantage was reach.

Polearms also tend to strike considerably more devastating blows, especially when used with their business end to chop (rather than to poke like a spear, or hook and pulle people off horses etc.)  The finishing blow done with the cleaver or axe head (or whatever) would usualy be sufficient to cut through medium to heavy armor, which a sword generally could not.  (In fact the halberd, arguably the first pole arm, was invented by Swiss peasants precisely for the purpose of killing Austrian knights)

BD


----------



## Hussar

big dummy said:
			
		

> Three quarters of an inch!!!?  LOL!!!!  Maybe a D&D sword!  Man oh man.  You people seriously ought to read up a bit on history.
> 
> BD




Enlighten us then.  TheARMA site shows swords about that thickness.  However, I do not pretend to be any sort of an expert.  As it showed in my post, I was guessing.

I would think 3/4 inch would be rather large, but, again, I'm not pretending to be any sort of expert.


----------



## Agent Oracle

Hussar said:
			
		

> There was a reason most people carried a spear or a polearm throughout history.  They WORK.  And they work really, really well.  Roman soldiers didn't fight with swords, they fought with spears.




Actually, the typical roman soldier was armed with javelins, spear, spatulae (don't laugh, the word means broadsword), and potentially the Tower shield.

for the record, more and more often, I'm seeing fighters carying three weapons: a sword, a polearm, and a ranged weapon.  My Knight opens with his polearm, then drop it and switch to my sword when the enemy closes... and x3 crit on a 1d10 weapon is devestating when wielded by a mighty foe.


----------



## drothgery

Polearms have three things going for them
- reach
- low cost
- can be used in tight formations

Because D&D mechanics wants to let a guy with a dagger fight a guy with a sword reasonably effective, reach isn't as useful in D&D as you'd think. More base damage and/or a better crit range is more helpful.

Beyond first or second level, the costs of an adventurer's weapons are going to dominated by the cost to make them magical, masterwork, or out of a special material. So there's no point in focusing on a cheap weapon just because it's cheap.

And there are only limitted rules for fighting in tight formations in D&D, as it's not too practical when you have one guy who depends on flanking to do any real damage, one guy who likes straight up swordfights, and two guys standing in the back casting spells.


----------



## Werther von G

I cannot remember the actual name for this weapon from Sword & Fist, because it's been replaced in my mind with "orcish tetherball." A heavy weight at the end of a pointed, springy stick: plant one end, pull back, and **thwap** your opponent at range.


----------



## Hussar

Just to be honest, went back and took a look at this article from The ARMA.  I was a bit off actually.  Most of the swords measured here are 1/4 to 1/2 inch thick.  Like I said, I was guessing.  1/4 inch off isn't too bad though.  

Agent Orange - true, Roman soldiers did carry swords.  But, for the most part, they fought with spears.  Swords were a battlefield weapon of last resort or for dispatching fallen enemies.  At least, that's the impression I got from what I've read.

The reason most fighters use swords in DnD is that swords were and still are probably the best weapon in the game.  Most damage for the size (or at least right up there), best crit ranges and most likely to be found in a random treasure trove.  While they aren't the longswords of older editions, swords are still too powerful IMO.


----------



## Agent Oracle

And, just for the sake of being annoying, I figure we should discuss the fine art of playing with the weight of weaponry, using nothing less than the most violent of modern sports: Baseball!

First off, by reducing the weight of a swung object, (by means of corking the bat) the average batter actually reduces the power of his swing, but he gets to those fastballs sooner (as much as 6" later in his swing) which can mean the difference in a center-line and a, umn, "hard-right" drive.  Center-line hits = higher average of getting a run because there are fewer people covering the same quantity of space.

Now, corking the bat is not the only means of cheating in baseball (that's equipment related! EQUIPMENT RELATED!  I have not injected anything into Mark McGuire's ass... intentionally...)

Ahem, as I was saying, there have also been cases wherein the bat was illegally weighted.  Once a ball player becomes familiarized with swinging a heavier bat, they tend to hit very, very hard, but almsot allways connect early in the swing, resulting in deep hits to right field, and many, many foul balls.

The concept behind the mercurial greatsword is similar to the third, rarest kind of illegal bat tampering, "filled" bats.  I only found one example, and it was on a message board, so this is hardly a novel concept.  It seemed that a little kid had brought his own Toy baseball bat to a tee-ball game, and it was filled with water... the kid couldn't use it worth a darn, but the adult (who wrothe the post) stated that his swing felt more powerful, and suggested filling an alluminum bat partially with mercury to see how that went over.


----------



## Hussar

Agreed.  You could do it with a club.  My problem with trying to do it with a sword is that the sword simply isn't thick enough to fill.  When you're only talking a half inch of space, how volume can you really add?

And, is mercury really THAT much heavier than steel that adding 1/2 tsp of mercury to the middle of the blade will make much difference.  ((WARNING - I am being facetious.  I in no way am stating that the interior volume of any sword is equal to 1/2 tsp.))


----------



## Someone

Hussar said:
			
		

> Agent Orange - true, Roman soldiers did carry swords.  But, for the most part, they fought with spears.  Swords were a battlefield weapon of last resort or for dispatching fallen enemies.  At least, that's the impression I got from what I've read.




We´re going to be corrected, but actually weapons used by roman legions change (sometimes dramatically) along roman history. Spears were AFAIK the main weapon in the early period and were used by triarii; I don´t know if they were the main weapon at any other point.


----------



## big dummy

Hussar said:
			
		

> Just to be honest, went back and took a look at this article from The ARMA.  I was a bit off actually.  Most of the swords measured here are 1/4 to 1/2 inch thick.  Like I said, I was guessing.  1/4 inch off isn't too bad though.




.38 inches is not quite half an inch... and those swords in that particular article were unusually heavy.  Considerably heavier than average.  For a wider cross section of historical and accurare replica blades check out the myarmoury site

http://www.myarmoury.com

The closer average is probably 1/8 to 1/4 inch in maximum thickness....



> Agent Orange - true, Roman soldiers did carry swords.  But, for the most part, they fought with spears.  Swords were a battlefield weapon of last resort or for dispatching fallen enemies.  At least, that's the impression I got from what I've read.




In the very early republic days they fought with spears and shields like the Greeks, but by around 300 BC they had largely abandoned the old thrusting spear (hasta) and replaced it with javelins and swords.  

Roman soldiers in the periods we usually see depicted on TV etc. fought primarily with special armor piercing javelins, which they called pila. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Pilum were also known for disabling shields and for breaking or bending on impact so they couldn't be thrown back at the Legionaires.



When the Roman legion closed for hand to hand combat they used short cut-and-thrust swords used with their large center-grip shields (scuta).  

The most common swords were the gladius, 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 which was in use from 250 BC to about 300 AD.  The Gladius was a broad but very pointy sword primarily intended for thrusting but capable of hacking quite effectively as well.  In the Republican period they also used Greek leaf-blade swords and falacata or kopis, kind of a giant kurkri knife.






In the later Imperial era Roman military organization changed a lot again.  They switched over to a more open fighting formation, a smaller round shield and a longer version of the Gladius called the Spatha (not Spade).  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The Spatha was originally a cavalry sword which was based on the longer cut-thrust swords used by the Celtic and German "barbarians".  They still stuck to the javelins though and also employed smaller darts called "plumbata" wich had better range (supposedly out-distancing bows of the time, and every other weapon except the sling).

BD

(Some plumbata, historical and repoduction)


----------



## VirgilCaine

CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> Long, since they need to discourage large monsters from swallowing you whole.  Probably as long as 2".  On armor designed for footmen, the spikes on the upper half of the body would be curved downward to reduce the amount of force they'd catch on a typical blow; for horseman armor, only the upper portion would have spikes (to protect the horse as well as to avoid trapping a blow).
> 
> Why, what are your thoughts on spiked armor?  I'd be happy for any advice you could give.




Also, how many and how dense are these spikes? 

Note, I don't know anything much at all about real life combat. 

If an armed medium or small sized humanoid is attacking you, it's either going to be thrusting with a weapon, in which case catching the spikes isn't much of an issue, or swinging at you, in which case I suppose a swing could be caught by the armor spikes and deflected or channeled into your armor...but that's why you're wearing armor, right? 

And realistically, aren't enemies going to go for your face or joints or areas that _aren't_ protected by the the plate, banding or splint armor or your breastplate or whatever, where the spikes would be (I wouldn't think you could put spikes on chain mail)?

I suppose if you were using leather armor that would allow you to dodge better, it would be a much greater issue (and the spikes would be more easily driven through the leather and need repair more often and be more of a danger), but with heavier armor spikes don't seem to be much of a problem for human-human combat.


----------



## blargney the second

Nice pics - that was interesting.


----------



## genshou

big dummy said:
			
		

> A kg of mercury?  LOL!  How much do you think real swords weighed?
> 
> BD



Beg your pardon?  :\  Removing 1/3 of the mass from 2 l of water and replacing it with 1 kg of mercury would increase the mass of the bottle by 1/6.  That's a hefty enough increase to definitely affect the balance and ease of use of the bottle as an improvised weapon, but it's not like I just doubled the bottle's mass or anything.  As we'll see below, though, with a denser "base" material like high-carbon steel, the numbers aren't quite so extreme.

Here's an example of an arming sword with a mass of around 1.8994181 kg (direct conversion of exactly 67 oz to kg).  That's less mass than a 2 l bottle full of pure water.  High-carbon steel has a varying density based on the amount of carbon used, but for our purposes we will use 7.85 g/cubic cm.  Thus:

volume = density/mass
_v_ = (1899.4181 g)/(7.85 g/cubic cm)
_v_ = 241.96409 cubic cm

Now, let's make a theoretical mercurial Black Shadow Sword.  I'll take suggestions about how much volume you think should be removed from the sword to create the channel for mercury, as well as the volume, mass, or percentage of channel volume that should be mercury.  I'll do the math for any numbers submitted, but feel free to do it yourself if you're willing to crunch the numbers like I am.


----------



## blargney the second

Fantasy game, guys.  Fantasy game.  With magic.


----------



## big dummy

genshou said:
			
		

> Beg your pardon?  :\  Removing 1/3 of the mass from 2 l of water and replacing it with 1 kg of mercury would increase the mass of the bottle by 1/6.  That's a hefty enough increase to definitely affect the balance and ease of use of the bottle as an improvised weapon, but it's not like I just doubled the bottle's mass or anything.  As we'll see below, though, with a denser "base" material like high-carbon steel, the numbers aren't quite so extreme.




I just meant a kilo would be equal or more than the weight of a lot of swords.

As for replacing 1/3 of the mass in carbon steel and replacing it with mercury, I think you would have an extremely fragile messed up "sword like object" that you could never risk trying to cut or thrust with, let alone impace against a shield rim or a helmet.

Mind you I've never forged a sword myself, but from what I do know about spathology I do not think it would be possible to put enough mercury into a sword to make a noticable difference in mass distribution in combat, while still retaining any integrity to the blade.

Swords are not crude 3/4" crow-bars (unless you are talking about a bladeless sword like an estoc maybe).  Swords are extremely finely tuned, delicately balanced killing instruments.  Adding a bunch of mercury would mess up the fighting characteristics probably just as much as putting a bunch of spikes all over the weapon.  I like Gene Wolf too but I don't think it's feasable, even remotely.

BD


----------



## big dummy

blargney the second said:
			
		

> Fantasy game, guys.  Fantasy game.  With magic.




Of course it is.  That said, since we are using "swords" here and not death flowers or bee stingers or something, I've never understood the need to fudge all the details of the actual weapon and keep rehashing mistakes left over from Gary Gygax first wargame research in 1974 or whatever, especially when there is perfectly good actual information about the real weapons now quite easily available on numerous sources from the internet.

Does it need to be realistic?  No.  But it is nice if it's internally consistent.  If you have the real data there easily accessible which IS internally consistant because it's real and all the real kit balanced out against each other on the battlefield (or it was abandoned)... why not just use that instead?

Is there really good reason for inch thick iron shields, half inch thick armor with 6" spikes, bizarre 20 lbs sword like objects etc.?

In fact I would advocate taking it a step further and incorporating some of the actual features of different weapons like reach and speed and defensive potential, that way you wouldn't have trouble understanding the purpose of polearms or go around thinking that a 12" dagger can barely hurt you...

Just a thought folks.

BD


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> I would really like to see your source on that weapon with a "moving weight on it".




Technically, a flails, nunchaku, 3 sectional staves, kusarigama, chijiririki, etc. _are _just such weapons, but I know what you mean.



> The greatspear is not a bad weapon. It is a lame weapon. But it is not a bad one.




How do you figure?  How is Reach + 10' range increment + 2d6 x3 damage lame?


> 6" spikes




As has been pointed out, such weapons make a modicum of sense in a fantasy world in which huge creatures may wrap you in their coils or tentacles, or might snatch you up in their claws for later devouring...it works for puffer fish, hedgehogs, porcupines, echidna and so forth, after all (who live that life for real).


----------



## Raylis

Mad Mac said:
			
		

> Two-bladed Sword is the only feasible double weapon in the PHB. It's not a practical weapon, but it can be made/used and similar weapons pop up in history from time to time. The Dire Flail, Double Axe, and Hooked Hammer on the other hand...




The double axe is actually a very feasable weapon and one that is fun to use and will scare the hell out of anyone whois fighting you. I use one in a fighting club I'm in.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> The double axe is actually a very feasable weapon and one that is fun to use and will scare the hell out of anyone whois fighting you. I use one in a fighting club I'm in.




There's a significant difference between sparring with a weapon and using it to deal damage to an armored being.

An Axe does damage by having a most of its mass out at the end of the swinging arc (where its speed is at the highest), and its curved blade delivers all of that energy at a single point of impact.  It is a very aggressive weapon.  Your defense (assuming 2 handed use) is mainly in keeping would-be opponents at bay with a whirling piece of metal on a stick.  But recovery can be slow...

And a double axe doesn't change the equation.  You need to get at least one head of that axe moving with speed to do any real damage.  You'd be better off with 2 hand-axes.

By way of contrast, most double weapons are best for counterstrikes- block & parry until your opponent opens his defenses enough to get a thrust or slash in.  Such strikes are lightning fast, and can be dangerous even at low speeds or light masses as they mess with balance or inflict pain...further opening the opponent's defenses until the kill strike can be landed.


----------



## Imp

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> How do you figure?  How is Reach + 10' range increment + 2d6 x3 damage lame?



The concept is lame.  The mechanical properties of the 3e weapons system have generated a lot of lame concepts.  They're barely even worthy of being called "concepts."  The bigspear, the bigpick, the bigfalchion, the bighalberd, the bigmace, the bigcrossbow, the bigbow, the... guh!  It's terrible.  

I guess I should have explained my taxonomy of 3e exotic weapons.  See, the overwhelming number of them fall more or less in four categories:
- Weak.  Monk weapons.
- Stupid.  Dire Flail.  Gyrspike.
- Lame.  Bigspear.  Bigpick.  Bigcrossbow.
- Spiked chain.  (The sole occupant of the category "Too Much" has the whole category renamed after it, in its honor.)

It's really disappointing.

(Re the double axe: I tend to line up more along the side of "plausible" than "feasible" when dealing with fantasy gaming.  The alternative, I have discovered, is terrible.)


----------



## Felix

Hussar said:
			
		

> ((WARNING - I am being facetious. I in no way am stating that the interior volume of any sword is equal to 1/2 tsp.))



Bua-hahahaha. Good one.


----------



## Orius

DreadPirateMurphy said:
			
		

> 3)  Mercurial Swords:  Explain the attraction of a using a deliberately unbalanced weapon that is likely to spew a highly toxic substance if sundered.




I know this has already been discussed to death here, but I'm going to jump in on the "Mercurial Weapons are freaking asinine as hell" bandwagon.  I don't care if magic exists, such a weapon just seems impractical and stupid.  Assuming a D&D campaign has the technology to actually produce one of these jokes, I can't see how it could possibly be used as a weapon without breaking.  And I also don't see how a channel of mercury could affect damage potential.  Just a silly and asinine weapon that will never EVER find its way into my campaigns.

In fact, half the crap introduced in Sword & Fist's equipment section will never enter my games.  Gyrspikes, doums, mantis...all STUPID.



> 4)  Orc Shotput:  The perfect counterpoint to the Orc javelin team.  Spend 10 gp on a 15 lbs. chunk of iron...or just go and find a rock to throw.




I always liked the orc shotput actually.  Orcs are actually crude enough to actually use these.  I can see orcs lined up hurling these things at enemies before using their double axes in melee (well, ok not the double axe, that's another goofy idea).



> 8)  Two-Bladed Sword:  This weapon led directly to one of the oddest miniatures from WotC, a man in full plate armor wielding one of these.  That would probably be the only way to wield one without slicing off your fingers, come to think of it.




Yes, another one of 3e's silliest weapons, and along with the dire flail, it's in the PHB, so it's harder for the DM to outlaw it.  But I've rarely seen players use it, so it doesn't bother me.


----------



## big dummy

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Technically, a flails, nunchaku, 3 sectional staves, kusarigama, chijiririki, etc. _are _just such weapons, but I know what you mean.




No thats not true.  The weight is finite.  Just because the mass swivels around a link doesn't mean that the mass is moving up and down from end to end.  It's completely different.  You don't use a flail like a bull-whip.



> As has been pointed out, such weapons make a modicum of sense in a fantasy world in which huge creatures may wrap you in their coils or tentacles, or might snatch you up in their claws for later devouring...it works for puffer fish, hedgehogs, porcupines, echidna and so forth, after all (who live that life for real).




porcupines have spikes essentially on their back, not on their hands, elbows, or knees, nor do they have to wield swords or cast spells...

And no they don't make much sense if you couldn't walk 10 feet without spearing yourself in the eye with a spike, & not if you can't move your arms without spearing yourself or entangling yourself.  

Also think how hard it would be to move through any kind of underbrush?  I guess this kind of armor is designed for a completely urban world...

Armor without spikes would be tough enough, incidentlaly, for most animals to grab.


----------



## big dummy

Raylis said:
			
		

> The double axe is actually a very feasable weapon and one that is fun to use and will scare the hell out of anyone whois fighting you. I use one in a fighting club I'm in.




ROFL!!! Maybe a 6 ounce LARP version.  Not anything even remotely approximating real weight and balance.  I've been doing stickfighting for 20 years and WMA for 7, and I would love to fight somebody with a double axe.  I'll use a padded sword and you use a real double axe with steel blades.  We'll see who dies first.   I'll just stand back and watch you try to swing the thing and cut your own arm or head off and laugh until I wet myself.

BD


----------



## big dummy

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> There's a significant difference between sparring with a weapon and using it to deal damage to an armored being.



 especially big difference from some LARP sword-tag game with featherlight boffers and the real thing..

BD


----------



## big dummy

Orius said:
			
		

> I always liked the orc shotput actually.  Orcs are actually crude enough to actually use these.  I can see orcs lined up hurling these things at enemies before using their double axes in melee (well, ok not the double axe, that's another goofy idea).




Actually, your basic rock, or thrown stone has been used in conflicts from the ... well stone age until today.  The medieval period and Renaissance had hunderds of battles in which we;; documented forces in one or more of the armies who were rock throwers, including some of the most effective armies in the period.  Think about a baseball being hurled at 90 mph.  A baseball can break bones, knock people unconscious.  There are reasons why the umpire and the catcher wear all that gear.

Now think of that baseball being a very heavy, glass-hard piece of obsidian or granite.  Ouch!

BD


----------



## Orius

Hussar said:
			
		

> IMHO, the strangest weapon in DnD is the polearm.  Why are polearms so weak compared to swords?  There was a reason most people carried a spear or a polearm throughout history.  They WORK.  And they work really, really well.  Roman soldiers didn't fight with swords, they fought with spears.  As did the vast majority of foot soldiers until the age of gunpowder.  Yet, in DnD, polearms take a back seat to swords in terms of effectiveness and damage.
> 
> Sorry, my own personal little rant.  Carry on with the rest of the thread.




That's always been the case in D&D.  It's a matter of effectiveness and image.  In the old rules, there was lots of polearms that did only 1d6 damage or something similar, and had slow weapon speeds.  That might not be the case these days, but then there's image.  Not only do many players have no idea what many of the really obscure polearms look like (and many of the ones in the old books are redunandant IMO), the simple fact is, swords have been and always will be "cooler".  Spears and halberds are ok weapons, but most players will want to use a sword (or maybe an axe) instead anyway.


----------



## Orius

Agent Oracle said:
			
		

> And, just for the sake of being annoying, I figure we should discuss the fine art of playing with the weight of weaponry, using nothing less than the most violent of modern sports: Baseball!




You're wrong.  Everyone know the most violent modern sport (in North America anyway) is hockey.  Those guys always get in fist fights out on the ice and whack each other with the sticks.  The worst baseball players do is take steroids...   

Though if you really want a violent sport, nothing beats rugby.  And the violence isn't confined to the players.


----------



## Land Outcast

big dummy said:
			
		

> In fact I would advocate taking it a step further and incorporating some of the actual features of different weapons like reach and speed and defensive potential, that way you wouldn't have trouble understanding the purpose of polearms or go around thinking that a 12" dagger can barely hurt you...




More than welcome... (if by speed you don't mean the AD&D weapon speed rules)


----------



## Agent Oracle

Orius said:
			
		

> You're wrong.  Everyone know the most violent modern sport (in North America anyway) is hockey.  Those guys always get in fist fights out on the ice and whack each other with the sticks.  The worst baseball players do is take steroids...
> 
> Though if you really want a violent sport, nothing beats rugby.  And the violence isn't confined to the players.




Dude, i was using sarcasm as a means to convey a point,  you'll notice that later in the post, i also claimed not to jam anything into Mark McGuire's ass... intentionally.  Besides, Hockey players don't... or more appropriately, can't "juice up" their sticks by shifting their weight around, since even the most violent of strikes in hockey has nowhere near the force behind it of a home-run equivalent baseball blow. 

And now, i see by your smiley faces that you too are using sarcasm!   I feel like a tool.


----------



## Agent Oracle

big dummy said:
			
		

> porcupines have spikes essentially on their back, not on their hands, elbows, or knees, nor do they have to wield swords or cast spells...
> 
> And no they don't make much sense if you couldn't walk 10 feet without spearing yourself in the eye with a spike, & not if you can't move your arms without spearing yourself or entangling yourself.
> 
> Also think how hard it would be to move through any kind of underbrush?  I guess this kind of armor is designed for a completely urban world...
> 
> Armor without spikes would be tough enough, incidentlaly, for most animals to grab.




"I don't have spikes on my elbows?"





"Funny, I look like i've got a full set..."

Take it from someone who has handled porcupines, and knows how to do so with realtive safety.. the only place on these things that dosn't have sharp, pain inflicting properties are their underbellies, and the underside of their tails.  Oh, and the babies. the babies are safe for about two weeks to handle, then it's spikes start coming in.

But, let's be fair, a porcupine's quills are very different from armor spikes in that they rest on the body in a flexible mat of pain-inflicting enemy repulsion, as opposed to inflexibly being welded to your chest.  FOr a better comparison, you would have to go WAYYY back in history, to some critters with INFLEXIBLE spinkes on their bodies... Dinosaurss baby.






Forgive my lousy spelling here, the ankleosaurus (i'm spelling it wrong, i know it) was essentually a walking suit of spiked armor.  those rocy outcroppings on it's back came to some nice points when it was alive, and it's tail-club had an obvious functionality.


----------



## Land Outcast

> And now, i see by your smiley faces that you too are using sarcasm!    I feel like a *tool*.




yep, you've been used to create a joke


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> The greatspear is not a bad weapon. It is a lame weapon. But it is not a bad one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you figure? How is Reach + 10' range increment + 2d6 x3 damage lame?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The concept is lame.
Click to expand...



The concept is based on real world weapons.

There are spears in Africa, ranging from 4-10' in length, that have a rather interesting design: fully half of their length is composed of blade.  The blade has a rather sword-like construction, as much as 2.5" wide where it meets the socket.  It can be thrown short distances, but is primarily used as a thrusting & slashing weapons.  The longer ones were favored by tribes like the Masai, the shorter ones were created by the Zulu.  (My source: _WEAPONS An International Encyclopedia from 5000 B.C. to 2000 A.D_ by the Diagram Group, St. Martin's Press- not a game book, BTW.)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Just because the mass swivels around a link doesn't mean that the mass is moving up and down from end to end. It's completely different. You don't use a flail like a bull-whip.




My point is that they are weapons that have shifting weight.  If you stop the motion of a flail, you 1) run the risk of hitting yourself, 2) have trouble restarting the motion of the flail, leaving yourself open or missing offensive opportunities, and 3) return the mass of the head to the rest state, potentially even below the wielder's grip, and definitely below the optimum point of balance.

A blade with a tube full of mercury would functionally behave the same way as a flail.  That shifting weight would be awkward if you keep shifting its speed like you would with a normal, static-massed blade.  If you stop the motion of such a blade, the mass of mercury would come to rest, meaning you'd have to exert additional effort to get it back up to a reasonable striking speed and position.  As the mass sloshes out to the point, there's a jerk- a lot of stress on the gripping hand and wrist, potentially drawing you off balance. (You can do an experiment with a mailing tube containing bags of sand or ball bearings to show you what that will feel like.)

But if you keep such a blade in motion, the extra mass at the tip could lead to horrendous chopping injuries, similar to those of an axe.  That is important.  

Swords are great weapons- useful against any foe- but axes and flails and similar weapons are actually more useful against heavy armor than swords.  Their mass, all concentrated at the point of impact, can dent or penetrate armor or shields that would turn a sword blow- that is one of the reasons they were so popular on the later day battlefields.

A mercurial sword would be an example of "thinking outside of the box"- attempting to combine the best aspects of the flail and the sword.

However, such a blade (assuming one could be made) would be MUCH more expensive than any other weapon of the era, and probably not worth the expenditure for what would amount to a marginal increase in striking power.

As far as armor spikes go, there are numerous entertainers who routinely wear them as part of their stage costumes, like the guys in GWAR and Slayer.  Yes, the ones in GWAR are merely rubber, but Kerry King's are indeed 6" metal spikes...and he hasn't impaled himself yet.  Plays some mean guitar while wearing them.

Besides, its not like you have to festoon the armor with spikes.  If placed sensibly- one on each knee, a few on the pauldrons, some on the greaves & gauntlets- you won't hurt yourself.


----------



## Tetsubo

DreadPirateMurphy said:
			
		

> While I am far from an expert on medieval weaponry, and I appreciate artistic license, there are some weapons proposed for D&D 3.x that just seem mind-bogglingly impractical.  Perhaps somebody can point out the utility of some of these beyond being "kewl."
> 
> 1)  Whip-daggers:  Did anybody ever actually create such a weapon?  Whips strike me as falling into the category of "agricultural tools used as improvised weapons."  What would be the point of tying a dagger to the end of one, rather than just learning to throw knives?
> 
> While I've never seen an actual Whip-Dagger in a weapon reference book I have seen a Rope Dart. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rope_Dart
> 
> 
> 2)  Sugliin:  Here you have a big wrack of sharpened antlers so unwieldy that you have to spend two feats just to use it as a normal weapon.  The tactical problems for this are mind-boggling, especially given the fact that you'll probably draw the eye of every archer in sight.
> 
> Yep, pretty darn silly. But it does have a certain flair...
> 
> 
> 3)  Mercurial Swords:  Explain the attraction of a using a deliberately unbalanced weapon that is likely to spew a highly toxic substance if sundered.
> 
> One of the all time silliest weapon ideas ever introduced into the game.
> 
> 4)  Orc Shotput:  The perfect counterpoint to the Orc javelin team.  Spend 10 gp on a 15 lbs. chunk of iron...or just go and find a rock to throw.
> 
> Never understood this one either...
> 
> 5)  Musical Instrument Bayonets:  Presented in _Song and Silence_, and instantly ludicrous to anybody who has actually used a real musical instrument.  If you want to destroy your instrument in combat, just whack somebody with it.
> 
> There is your key clue... these things were written up by people who know NOTHING about combat.
> 
> 6)  Scorpion Claws:  This weapon from _Sandstorm_ is exactly what it sounds like...monstrous scorpion claws you wear on your hands.  Besides making it rather difficult to scratch an itch, I can't help but mentally hear the "crab people" theme from South Park running in the background.
> 
> I can see this in  a Dark Sun campaign... maybe...
> 
> 7)  Caber:  If I recall correctly, this was offered in _Masters of the Wild_.  It was a log that you throw at people.  I never understood why this counted as a weapon rather than as improvised use of scenery.
> 
> Maybe the author is Scottish...
> 
> 8)  Two-Bladed Sword:  This weapon led directly to one of the oddest miniatures from WotC, a man in full plate armor wielding one of these.  That would probably be the only way to wield one without slicing off your fingers, come to think of it.
> 
> The design of the weapon is rather odd. But two ended spears are real weapons. I extend the weapons shaft and call them Bladed Staffs...
> 
> 9)  Spike Shooter:  This appeared in _Races of Faerun_.  Any weapon with a spike on the end could be set to launch it as a spring-loaded surprise.  Possibly inspired by giant robot anime, I don't understand how you could avoid accidentally shooting it off whenever you swung your battle axe.
> 
> Maybe it's a test of the users luck...?
> 
> 10)  Icechucker:  Ah, here we have a crossbow designed to fire icicles.  Oh, and it can fire javelins too, if you actually want to use something balanced and aerodynamic.
> 
> Again, thought up by a person that never used a weapon...
> 
> Bonus)  Vulcanian Thunder Club:  This was originally printed in Dragon #304, and it made it into Paizo's _Best of Dragon Compendium_.  While I like the book, I am less enamored with the idea of a greatclub filled with alchemist's fire and shot.  It is never explained how you can set it off with the pull of a string, but not by whacking it against your foe (possibly inadvertantly).
> 
> There are a few more that come to mind, but 10+1 will do.




Some of my favorites are the Dire Flail (Watch me smack myself in the back of the head...) and the Spiked Chain (Every munchkins wet-dream...).


----------



## Imp

> The concept is based on real world weapons.



Oh, spare me.  They bumped up the damage dice to fit it into the mechanics, and called it the "greatspear."  If it _were_ based on those weapons, you'd see slashing damage, possibly not reach (4 feet?), and probably a better name.  Believe me, I'm all about exotic African weapons – I still don't think they've done the African throwing knives any justice, and if there are real-world exotic weapons those definitely fit the category.


----------



## Tetsubo

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> My point is that they are weapons that have shifting weight.  If you stop the motion of a flail, you 1) run the risk of hitting yourself, 2) have trouble restarting the motion of the flail, leaving yourself open or missing offensive opportunities, and 3) return the mass of the head to the rest state, potentially even below the wielder's grip, and definitely below the optimum point of balance.
> 
> A blade with a tube full of mercury would functionally behave the same way as a flail.  That shifting weight would be awkward if you keep shifting its speed like you would with a normal, static-massed blade.  If you stop the motion of such a blade, the mass of mercury would come to rest, meaning you'd have to exert additional effort to get it back up to a reasonable striking speed and position.  As the mass sloshes out to the point, there's a jerk- a lot of stress on the gripping hand and wrist, potentially drawing you off balance. (You can do an experiment with a mailing tube containing bags of sand or ball bearings to show you what that will feel like.)
> 
> But if you keep such a blade in motion, the extra mass at the tip could lead to horrendous chopping injuries, similar to those of an axe.  That is important.
> 
> Swords are great weapons- useful against any foe- but axes and flails and similar weapons are actually more useful against heavy armor than swords.  Their mass, all concentrated at the point of impact, can dent or penetrate armor or shields that would turn a sword blow- that is one of the reasons they were so popular on the later day battlefields.
> 
> A mercurial sword would be an example of "thinking outside of the box"- attempting to combine the best aspects of the flail and the sword.
> 
> However, such a blade (assuming one could be made) would be MUCH more expensive than any other weapon of the era, and probably not worth the expenditure for what would amount to a marginal increase in striking power.




A properly designed sword has a blade no thicker than required. If you put a tube down its center you ruin that design. Not to mention decrease its chance of slicing through a target. Such a tube is not going to be all that strong. One solid block from a shield and that sword blade is going to snap. Spraying you with mercury. Seems like an elaborate method of suicide to me...

If you want a weapon that delivers a high amount of impact energy I have a suggestion, it's called an axe...


----------



## Tetsubo

big dummy said:
			
		

> Actually, your basic rock, or thrown stone has been used in conflicts from the ... well stone age until today.  The medieval period and Renaissance had hunderds of battles in which we;; documented forces in one or more of the armies who were rock throwers, including some of the most effective armies in the period.  Think about a baseball being hurled at 90 mph.  A baseball can break bones, knock people unconscious.  There are reasons why the umpire and the catcher wear all that gear.
> 
> Now think of that baseball being a very heavy, glass-hard piece of obsidian or granite.  Ouch!
> 
> BD




There was an Asian nation (Vietnam?) that had units of rock-throwers... at least the ammo was cheap. 

I can hear the unit veterans now: "When I was a recruit we had to MAKE our own rocks..."


----------



## Tetsubo

blargney the second said:
			
		

> Fantasy game, guys.  Fantasy game.  With magic.




But none of these weapons is a "magic item". You will notice that no one is commenting on the Sunblade. It IS a pure fantasy magic item. Weapons are part of the real world. As such they should have at least a passing resemblence to reality.

You'll note that the game has horses in it. Which do not have fangs or tentacles or any other such fantasy elements. Weapons deserve the same treatment.


----------



## Tetsubo

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Technically, a flails, nunchaku, 3 sectional staves, kusarigama, chijiririki, etc. _are _just such weapons, but I know what you mean.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you figure?  How is Reach + 10' range increment + 2d6 x3 damage lame?
> 
> 
> As has been pointed out, such weapons make a modicum of sense in a fantasy world in which huge creatures may wrap you in their coils or tentacles, or might snatch you up in their claws for later devouring...it works for puffer fish, hedgehogs, porcupines, echidna and so forth, after all (who live that life for real).




I don't think I'd call those weapons "moving weights" so much as "flexible".


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Oh, spare me. They bumped up the damage dice to fit it into the mechanics, and called it the "greatspear." If it were based on those weapons, you'd see slashing damage, possibly not reach (4 feet?), and probably a better name.




Read what I posted again please- the weapons in question ranged in length from 4' to 10'.  Reach is appropriate for the larger versions.

And as I pointed out, they were used as piercing AND slashing weapons.  There are very few mundane weapons that have dual damage types- making the greatspear one of them when it already has range, reach, 2d6 damage and an x3 crit multiplier might have seemed unbalanced.

As for the name...it doesn't bother me any.  They had so many names for them it would just get confusing...



> A properly designed sword has a blade no thicker than required. If you put a tube down its center you ruin that design...One solid block from a shield and that sword blade is going to snap...




Yep.



> If you want a weapon that delivers a high amount of impact energy I have a suggestion, it's called an axe...




Or flail, or mace, or morningstar, etc.


----------



## big dummy

Agent Oracle said:
			
		

> Forgive my lousy spelling here, the ankleosaurus (i'm spelling it wrong, i know it) was essentually a walking suit of spiked armor.  those rocy outcroppings on it's back came to some nice points when it was alive, and it's tail-club had an obvious functionality.




Ok, if you want to lumber around on all fours like an ankleosaurus (or a porcupine) you can wear the spiked armor.  Just dont try any sword fighting please.  Combat should be limited to a flail attatched to your butt 

BD


----------



## big dummy

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> The concept is based on real world weapons.
> 
> There are spears in Africa, ranging from 4-10' in length, that have a rather interesting design: fully half of their length is composed of blade.  The blade has a rather sword-like construction, as much as 2.5" wide where it meets the socket.  It can be thrown short distances, but is primarily used as a thrusting & slashing weapons.  The longer ones were favored by tribes like the Masai, the shorter ones were created by the Zulu.  (My source: _WEAPONS An International Encyclopedia from 5000 B.C. to 2000 A.D_ by the Diagram Group, St. Martin's Press- not a game book, BTW.)




This is a good weapon.   It was used full length in the initial confrontation and then actually broken to shorten the weapon into something more like a sword as the battle reached the hand to hand phase and the formations (often quite sophisticated in the case of the Zulu particularly) broke up.  It was exported to the Iberian peninsula and was used up through the gunpowder period; for example, the 14th century Catalan Christian foot mercenaries called the Almogàvers wielded this weapon to great effect throughout southern Europe and the Levant.

The Zulus called this an assegei. 










BD


----------



## big dummy

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> My point is that they are weapons that have shifting weight.  If you stop the motion of a flail, you 1) run the risk of hitting yourself, 2) have trouble restarting the motion of the flail, leaving yourself open or missing offensive opportunities, and 3) return the mass of the head to the rest state, potentially even below the wielder's grip, and definitely below the optimum point of balance.




There is always a risk of hitting yourself with a flail, but your imagery here does not really jibe with how a real flail actually works.  For one thing most historical examples didn't have the real long chain you see in some fantasy depictions.  





...this is more like the real thing.




> A blade with a tube full of mercury would functionally behave the same way as a flail. (snip)




It's a nicely argued point but you just don't understand how a sword works or how a flail works for that matter.  I'd reccomend studying some WMA and doing a little full contact sparring with some realistic weapons, you'll see how out of sinc this all looks...



> But if you keep such a blade in motion, the extra mass at the tip could lead to horrendous chopping injuries, similar to those of an axe.  That is important.




Sword blades do not cut this way.  It's understandable you might think so since D&D has long been supporting this mythology, but it's just not the way it works.  In addition to thrusting, Western swords can both slice (or draw cut) like a katanna and 'chop' somewhat like an axe (or more like a meat cleaver) depending of course on the blade geometry of the individual weapon,_ but the difference between a lethal decapitating cut and a completely in-effective one is about 95% form and maybe 5% power._ 

Cold Steel Knives makes a great propaganda DVD for their weapons, which they will ship you for free if you call their 800 number.  You can watch them cut through entire rib-flanks (bones and all) with gentle sword cuts but perfect form.  You can see the guy cut through a phone book with one stroke, or even an entire 5 gallon plastic bottle full of water without knocking it over enough to spill what was in the lower half.  It's all form.

On the other hand, if you ever get to handle a real sword, you will notice that you can't even cut through a pool noodle if your form is off (as I learned myself the first time I tried).

It's all edge alignment, correct grip and footwork.  Brute strength really isn't a factor beyond a certain basic amount of strength needed to handle the weapon.  Thats why swords weighed 2-3 lbs usually instead of 15 like in D&D.



> Swords are great weapons- useful against any foe- but axes and flails and similar weapons are actually more useful against heavy armor than swords.  Their mass, all concentrated at the point of impact, can dent or penetrate armor or shields that would turn a sword blow- that is one of the reasons they were so popular on the later day battlefields.




True enough, so why not use a mace or a military pick instead of some silly mercury sword thats going to break and spray poisonous mercury mist all over your face the first time you strike anything?



> A mercurial sword would be an example of "thinking outside of the box"- attempting to combine the best aspects of the flail and the sword.




Due respect to Gene Wolfe who is a far better author than I'll ever be, the mercurial sword is an example of thinking which belongs in the litter box.  

In Genes defense though the weapon is supposed to be just for executions isn't it?  It wouldnt' work in combat.



> As far as armor spikes go, there are numerous entertainers who routinely wear them as part of their stage costumes, like the guys in GWAR and Slayer.  Yes, the ones in GWAR are merely rubber, but Kerry King's are indeed 6" metal spikes...and he hasn't impaled himself yet.  Plays some mean guitar while wearing them.




Kerry King doesn't wear them on his whole body, I've only noticed them on his forearms.  Even that I guarantee he had years to carefully practice with...



> Besides, its not like you have to festoon the armor with spikes.  If placed sensibly- one on each knee, a few on the pauldrons, some on the greaves & gauntlets- you won't hurt yourself.




Ok you wear it man, I'll stick to the real thing.

BD


----------



## big dummy

Tetsubo said:
			
		

> A properly designed sword has a blade no thicker than required. If you put a tube down its center you ruin that design. Not to mention decrease its chance of slicing through a target. Such a tube is not going to be all that strong. One solid block from a shield and that sword blade is going to snap. Spraying you with mercury. Seems like an elaborate method of suicide to me...
> 
> If you want a weapon that delivers a high amount of impact energy I have a suggestion, it's called an axe...




Thank you.

BD


----------



## genshou

No one wants to feed me some numbers?  Give me the amount of volume (in either percentage or straight cubic cm) that you think the sword I provided a link to could have taken out of the middle without completely destroying the structural integrity.

I think people are overestimating the effect a small, thin channel would have on durability, myself....


----------



## Hussar

Orius said:
			
		

> You're wrong.  Everyone know the most violent modern sport (in North America anyway) is hockey.  Those guys always get in fist fights out on the ice and whack each other with the sticks.  The worst baseball players do is take steroids...
> 
> Though if you really want a violent sport, nothing beats rugby.  And the violence isn't confined to the players.




Heh, I've always been partial to lacrosse myself.    Now there's some violent sport.



			
				BD said:
			
		

> It's all edge alignment, correct grip and footwork. Brute strength really isn't a factor beyond a certain basic amount of strength needed to handle the weapon. Thats why swords weighed 2-3 lbs usually instead of 15 like in D&D.




Umm, Not to be contrary here, but even a greatsword in DnD weighs in at 8 pounds.  Heavy, yes, but, not quite as bad as you present.  The longsword at 4 pounds is actually fairly accurate.



			
				Genshou said:
			
		

> No one wants to feed me some numbers? Give me the amount of volume (in either percentage or straight cubic cm) that you think the sword I provided a link to could have taken out of the middle without completely destroying the structural integrity.
> 
> I think people are overestimating the effect a small, thin channel would have on durability, myself....




However, the effect of a small thin channel would be next to nothing if half filled with mercury.  The weight difference between a solid blade and using mercury is simply not enough.  It's a question of volume.  Like I said, adding a Tsp of mercury is only going to make the blade have wonky balance, not make it hit harder.


----------



## genshou

Hussar said:
			
		

> However, the effect of a small thin channel would be next to nothing if half filled with mercury.  The weight difference between a solid blade and using mercury is simply not enough.  It's a question of volume.  Like I said, adding a Tsp of mercury is only going to make the blade have wonky balance, not make it hit harder.



I'm not trying to make the blade harder, I'm trying to add mass to it.  In this case, specifically a shifting mass.

Mercury is denser than iron, so having a channel with mercury in it would actually make the weapon hit harder.  The question is whether or not a significant mass increase can be achieved without requiring a channel large enough to ruin the weapon's durability.


----------



## Huw

Tetsubo said:
			
		

> There was an Asian nation (Vietnam?) that had units of rock-throwers... at least the ammo was cheap.




The Gilbert islanders had armour with a large shield BEHIND the head. The reason? When they fought each other, the women would be behind them throwing stones


----------



## big dummy

genshou said:
			
		

> I'm not trying to make the blade harder, I'm trying to add mass to it.  In this case, specifically a shifting mass.
> 
> Mercury is denser than iron, so having a channel with mercury in it would actually make the weapon hit harder.  The question is whether or not a significant mass increase can be achieved without requiring a channel large enough to ruin the weapon's durability.




Thats precisely where you are wrong.

Maybe this will help:

http://www.thearma.org/essays/How_Were_Swords_Made.htm

BD


----------



## big dummy

Hussar said:
			
		

> Umm, Not to be contrary here, but even a greatsword in DnD weighs in at 8 pounds.  Heavy, yes, but, not quite as bad as you present.  The longsword at 4 pounds is actually fairly accurate.




8 pounds is still insane for a sword.  Try picking up a six or nine pound maul in a hardware store some time.  Even four pounds is questionable for a longsword, though better (I think these numbers were recently improved between 3.0 and 3.5E so somebody must have embarassed them).  I've heard of antique longswords as heavy as 4 pounds but it's unsure if they were really battle weapons.  They also for that matter had some parade swords (zweihanders) which weighed 10-12 lbs or more but these were never used for fighting or even swung, just carried around processions.  

A real longsword or greatsword weighed around 2.5 - 3.5 lbs.   The huge 16th century zweihanders could be 4-6 lbs, but these were six foot long swords.



> However, the effect of a small thin channel would be next to nothing if half filled with mercury.  The weight difference between a solid blade and using mercury is simply not enough.  It's a question of volume.  Like I said, adding a Tsp of mercury is only going to make the blade have wonky balance, not make it hit harder.




Yeah I think you are right about that.  I also don't think you could make the channel without messing up the sword...

BD


----------



## Hussar

Another thought about polearms.  Something that always bugged me is that swords had really one function - killing people.  Polearms, OTOH, whether spears or whatnot, can be, and were, used for hunting.  After all, I'd much rather that that nasty bit of bacon was several feet away from me, pinned by my spear.

But, so long as swords are mechanically superior to polearms or spears, no one will bother.  Those feats in Dragon go a long way towards leveling the playing field.  I hope to see more in the future.

I'm just rather tired of Joe Fighterguy using a longsword.  Ten years of 2e and every bloody fighter using one has somewhat soured me on the idea.  We have all these other weapons that almost never see the light of day.  I'd like to see them be considered viable options.


----------



## Sledge

big dummy said:
			
		

> 8 pounds is still insane for a sword.  Try picking up a six or nine pound maul in a hardware store some time.



Always seemed like a nice comfy weight to me.  People use those mauls to split wood rather energetically you know.  Nothing wrong with 8 pounds of metal, especially if it is well balanced.



> A real longsword or greatsword weighed around 2.5 - 3.5 lbs.   The huge 16th century zweihanders could be 4-6 lbs, but these were six foot long swords.




The other thing you have to remember is that the terms we apply to D&D weapons are not exactly scientific.  They are approximations.  Real life swords may have gone from 1.5 to 8 or more pounds, but in D&D they round it up.  2 pounds for the lighter swords.  4 for the hand and a halfers (can be used with one or 2 hands).  6 pounds for the one most people need 2 hands for.  8 pounds for the one everyone needs 2 hands for.  Seems like a very reasonable approximation.


----------



## jimbobbrowningstein

Nyaricus said:
			
		

> Two-Bladed Sword = double the dumb




Tell that to this guy.


----------



## big dummy

Sledge said:
			
		

> Always seemed like a nice comfy weight to me.  People use those mauls to split wood rather energetically you know.  Nothing wrong with 8 pounds of metal, especially if it is well balanced.




LOL!  Nice and comfy eh?  Who are you, hercules?   I guess you have never swung a maul at some concrete before.  How many swings you think you can do with a nine pound maul in a row?  Now try reversing direction a few times...

Tell you what, try getting about a 6 lb crowbar, and then add some weight to the base like by duct taping some heavy nuts or washers to it until it's "well balanced".  Try going through a basic sword drill with that.  Better yet, come at me when I'm armed with a 2 lb bastard sword.  You would win yourself a darwin award PDQ.



> The other thing you have to remember is that the terms we apply to D&D weapons are not exactly scientific.  They are approximations.  Real life swords may have gone from 1.5 to 8 or more pounds, but in D&D they round it up.  2 pounds for the lighter swords.  4 for the hand and a halfers (can be used with one or 2 hands).  6 pounds for the one most people need 2 hands for.  8 pounds for the one everyone needs 2 hands for.  Seems like a very reasonable approximation.




Well, one thing I agree with you is it's not exactly scientific.

You apparently misread my post.  No sword ever used in combat weighed 6 let alone 8 pounds.  Hand and a half / two hand swords weigh an average of just under 3 pounds, 4 pounds woudl be very heavy.  Many single-hand swords weigh from as little as 1 pound, to never more than 3 1/2.

The huge zweihander types of the 16th century are not depicted in D&D any more (they used to have them in OE D&D, they did 3-18 damage...)

An eight pound weapon would be completely impossible in combat, unless your enemies were frozen solid (always a possibility in D&D I guess) or you were yourself about ten feet tall.

BD


----------



## big dummy

jimbobbrowningstein said:
			
		

> Tell that to this guy.




He's missing his left hand because he just cut it off...

BD


----------



## shilsen

big dummy said:
			
		

> An eight pound weapon would be completely impossible in combat, unless your enemies were frozen solid (always a possibility in D&D I guess) or you were yourself about ten feet tall.




Or you were the kind of guy who can put on a suit of platemail and walk around for half a day in it. Which people in D&D games do on a regular basis. Sure, weapon weights are unrealistic in D&D. But so are a bunch of other aspects of the game. Physics, biology, chemistry, etc. do not work in the D&D game world as they do in ours. Why fixate on specifically on weapons and not anything else?


----------



## big dummy

shilsen said:
			
		

> Or you were the kind of guy who can put on a suit of platemail and walk around for half a day in it. Which people in D&D games do on a regular basis. Sure, weapon weights are unrealistic in D&D. But so are a bunch of other aspects of the game. Physics, biology, chemistry, etc. do not work in the D&D game world as they do in ours. Why fixate on specifically on weapons and not anything else?




Of course you can walk around half a day in suit of "platemail".  I've seen people walk around all day in full harness dozens of times, (not that they weren't sore afteword I'm sure).  Thats just another fallacy left over from Monty Python or Connectiucut Yankee in King Arthurs court or something.   I've seen people do handsprings in plate armor, and wade though rivers en-masse.

As to why apply any real physics or history, this is always brought up as a cop out.  Whatever floats your boat of course, but my answer is, then why use "swords" at all?  Go the Gene Wolfe  route and have people fight with venomous flowers.  

The bottom line is, it makes no sense to me to make up this phony baloney quasi-medieval universe when the real historical one is right there ready to borrow from, primarily because unlike generic RpG gear it's internally consistent, each component fits with each other one because they developed together organically on the battlefield.  People keep wondering and being bewildered by the illogical way numerous D&D weapons and armor interrract, "what are these polearms all about?"  "why is one sword the same as another?" "How come practically everry weapon does the same damage?"  "Why do daggers barely cause any harm?"  Well, here is your way out.

Or stick with your 20 lb swords and 200 lb suits of armor for all I care.  I may think it's silly but I'm all for freedom of choice in how people play.  I do personally feel it contributes to the whole negative image of D&D, it's sort of willfully cheezy, like WWF wrestling.  Or at least thats how it seems to me... but hey WWF has a huge fan base to this day.  Who am I to judge.

BD


----------



## Bront

big dummy said:
			
		

> You apparently misread my post.  No sword ever used in combat weighed 6 let alone 8 pounds.  Hand and a half / two hand swords weigh an average of just under 3 pounds, 4 pounds woudl be very heavy.  Many single-hand swords weigh from as little as 1 pound, to never more than 3 1/2.



I have a sword that's around a short sword size, weights about 2 pounds, maybe a little bit more, and it's quite well balanced.  Heck, a baseball bat, about the size of a longsword but made of light wood weighs in at over 2 pounds (ususally 32-40 oz).

I've also lifted a friend's greatsword (who was a SCA member at one point), that thing was a good 6-8 pounds.

People who used swords trained with them regularly.  A tenis racket is very awkward to use for a bit, but once you get used to it, you can move it quite quickly dispite it's weight and less than ideal aerodynamics.  I think you're greatly underestimating the weight of the weapons, particularly when they were made of iron or even bronze as opposed to steal.


----------



## DreadPirateMurphy

Sledge said:
			
		

> The other thing you have to remember is that the terms we apply to D&D weapons are not exactly scientific.  They are approximations.  Real life swords may have gone from 1.5 to 8 or more pounds, but in D&D they round it up.  2 pounds for the lighter swords.  4 for the hand and a halfers (can be used with one or 2 hands).  6 pounds for the one most people need 2 hands for.  8 pounds for the one everyone needs 2 hands for.  Seems like a very reasonable approximation.




I always got the impression that the weight listed included scabbard, tools for maintenance of the blade, etc., not just the weapon itself.


----------



## DreadPirateMurphy

big dummy said:
			
		

> He's missing his left hand because he just cut it off...
> 
> BD




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.


----------



## Felix

> it makes no sense to me to make up this phony baloney quasi-medieval universe when the real historical one is right there ready to borrow from



*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.


----------



## big dummy

Bront said:
			
		

> I have a sword that's around a short sword size, weights about 2 pounds, maybe a little bit more, and it's quite well balanced.




2 pounds is within the normal range.



> I've also lifted a friend's greatsword (who was a SCA member at one point), that thing was a good 6-8 pounds.




Your friend had a phony "sword like object".  You can get them on Ebay now for about $10.  You can buy double bladed swords on the internet for that matter.







http://cgi.ebay.com/RONIN-DOUBLE-BL...ryZ43338QQssPageNameZWD1VQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

... that doesn't make it real.  You can also buy Klingon and Orc weapons in profusion (I actualy kind of like the orc ones but..) What I'm talking about are historical weapons, an entirely different matter.



> People who used swords trained with them regularly.  A tenis racket is very awkward to use for a bit, but once you get used to it, you can move it quite quickly dispite it's weight and less than ideal aerodynamics.  I think you're greatly underestimating the weight of the weapons, particularly when they were made of iron or even bronze as opposed to steal.




Iron isn't any heavier than steel.  Bronze is about the same or a little less, (depending on the actualy type of Bronze) For that matter swords were never made of "pure" (or wrought) iron anyway, it wouldn't hold an edge.  The difference between steel and iron is a small amount of carbon.  Anything between .15% and 2% is essentially steel.  (Anything over 2% is cast-iron, which was also never used to make weapons as it was too brittle)

If you really think I'm underestimating the weight of the weapons, why don't you do some research yourself.  And like I said, try going through a basic sword drill with a 6 or 8 pound object.

BD


----------



## Imp

DreadPirateMurphy said:
			
		

> I always got the impression that the weight listed included scabbard, tools for maintenance of the blade, etc., not just the weapon itself.



The weapon weights evolved from old AD&D weapon encumbrances, which explicitly did not just include the mass of the weapon (or other object), but also their size, maneuverability, and  the general ease in which they could be carried.  I think the AD&D encumbrances were generally "heavier," but the principle still applies.


----------



## big dummy

Felix said:
			
		

> *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.




Nice Try.  In my 3.5E PhB I see 8 pound greatsword, 8 pound falchion, 8 pound mace, 10 pound flail, 6 pound spear, (9 pound longspear)... plus two bladed weapons, double flails, urgosh and the rest of it.

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?

Also try....

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.  

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)

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?

Daggers can barely hurt you.  If you are a marginally experienced fighter (1st level), a single blow from 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.  

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

It makes most of the weapons pretty useless.  There is little point in a wizard getting a staff to defend yourself and fend off enemies, since weapons play no role in defense.  

Whats the point of getting a mace unless you are restricted to it by class?  It doesn't have any different effect on armor... only I guess against certain monsters immune to cuts or thrusts...

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


----------



## Sledge

big dummy, please check your references.  There were 8 pound swords intended for combat.  A well balanced 8 pound sword is usable.  Where did you come up with your assumption that no swords were 8 pounds?  Is this out of the air, or have you looked in every museum?  I'm not talking about garbage replicas, I'm talking about original swords designed only to be used two handed (which is actually due to the length and leverage more than the weight).  Even thearma.org admits to this.  Let me quote it for you:



			
				www.thearma.org said:
			
		

> Curator of arms for the Hungarian Military History Museum in Budapest, László Töl, describes a very fine specimen of another 16th century German two-handed great sword of 53.4 inches length, which this author also had the privilege of examining, as weighing only a little over 8 pounds.  Again, the piece's size and weight betrayed a functional and well-balanced weapon. László Töl adds: "The full length of the sword is 1808 mm, the full length of the blade is 1355 mm, the edge of the blade is 936 mm long, the length of the hilt is 306 mm, and the diameter of the cross-guard is 502 mm. The width of the blade is 46 mm, and its thickness is 7.5 mm. The 'neck' of the blade is 8.6 mm thick and 32 mm wide. The centre of gravity is 616 mm from the pommel. The sword weighs 3650g. The blade's cross-section is rhomboid in shape."


----------



## FoxWander

genshou said:
			
		

> No one wants to feed me some numbers?  Give me the amount of volume (in either percentage or straight cubic cm) that you think the sword I provided a link to could have taken out of the middle without completely destroying the structural integrity.
> 
> I think people are overestimating the effect a small, thin channel would have on durability, myself....




I crunched the numbers myself, but feel free to check me if i'm wrong.

There's no blade thickness mentioned for the sword you linked to but I went and measured one very like it that I have in my living room. My sword had a blade thickness of 0.5 cm. I'd say a channel of half that width shouldn't destroy it's structural integrity (though I'm sure it should have an effect on how easy it might break, probably making mercurial swords, if allowed in your game, easier to sunder). So a channel 0.25 cm wide that goes most of the swords length, say 28 of the swords 30 in. or 71.12 cm., that means 13.96 cubic centimeters (cc). Mercury has a density of 13.53 g/cc so our sword can hold 188.88 grams, or 0.42 lbs., of it in the channel. 

In short, you're effectively strapping two boxes of paperclips to your sword and this somehow has the effect of doubling your critical range. :\ Why not just fight with a scythe and get the extra 1 point of minimum damage?


----------



## big dummy

Sledge said:
			
		

> big dummy, please check your references.  There were 8 pound swords intended for combat.  A well balanced 8 pound sword is usable.  Where did you come up with your assumption that no swords were 8 pounds?  Is this out of the air, or have you looked in every museum?  I'm not talking about garbage replicas, I'm talking about original swords designed only to be used two handed (which is actually due to the length and leverage more than the weight).  Even thearma.org admits to this.  Let me quote it for you:




Sledge,

I'm more than a little familiar with the ARMA, I hosted their 2004 'Southern Knights' training event in New Orleans.  The huge 16th century zweihanders or dopplehanders depicted in the article you are quoting from are not portrayed in D&D.  Some examples weighed as much as 6-8 lbs, but it is highly contraversial as to whether any swords that heavy were ever used in combat (since many other zweihanders weighed considerably less).  Contrary to the opinion in that particular article it's much more likely they were display weapons.  The fact is that probably less than 1% of the swords which survive the era weigh anywhere near that wieght.

I have seen and personally handled dozens of antique swords, and I've seen the records on thousands.  Weapons even half that heavy are exceeedingly rare.  For exaample, in Ewart  Oakeshotts Records of the Medieval Sword, which includes swords of all sizes and is still consdiered the definitive overview of medieval swords (including by ARMA), not a single example he describes weighs more than 4 pounds.  Very few weigh more than 3.

Since you asked, I came up with my assumption as to sword weight from about 20 years of study of Spathology.  If you really want to know, rather than trying to cherry pick some stat of a freak weapon, go on a website like sword forum international, or myarmoury, or the ARMA, and ask them how much swords weighed.  Ask them about your eight pound sword.

BD


----------



## VirgilCaine

big dummy said:
			
		

> Kerry King doesn't wear them on his whole body, I've only noticed them on his forearms.  Even that I guarantee he had years to carefully practice with...
> 
> Ok you wear it man, I'll stick to the real thing.
> 
> BD




Wait, how are you supposed to hurt yourself with armor spikes? You're _wearing_ armor--the spikes go outward.


----------



## Sledge

big dummy there are numerous weapons that are over 7 pounds and balanced for combat.  They aren't fancy looking things.  They are simple.  Since you tell me to go to a website, but dismiss its comments, then I do wonder what inside information you have.  I concede a 12 pound sword would be unwieldy, but I do wonder why you insist that a weapon that is described as well balanced and easy to swing must have been for show.  Why assume the the weapons in d&d, which were formally called 2 handed swords, are not the same weapons as the 2 handed swords from history?

The approximately 8 pound swords were from the later periods and would not appear very commonly in most of the medieval era.  They did range in weight from 6 pounds to 8 pounds.  That is a range.  Picking the highest number on a range ensures that the weapon is within encumbrance.

Strangely since the term Spathology is a reference to sword forms studied by ARMA and ARMA is only 14 years old, where did you study sword forms in ARMA before there was ARMA?
As requested I checked what ARMA forums said about sword weights.  Low and behold, "One handed swords, which come in many varieties, might weight from 2 pounds to 4 pounds, depending."
Right there we have the assertion by other ARMA Spathologists that 2 to 4 pounds for a 1 handed sword is the norm.  The fact that 8 pound swords are not in vogue for ARMA is not a reflection of their historical presence.


----------



## big dummy

Sledge said:
			
		

> big dummy there are numerous weapons that are over 7 pounds and balanced for combat.  They aren't fancy looking things.  They are simple.




Wrong.  Unless you are talking about pole arms, you are wrong, there aren't numerous weapons over 7 pounds. 



> Since you tell me to go to a website, but dismiss its comments, then I do wonder what inside information you have.  I concede a 12 pound sword would be unwieldy, but I do wonder why you insist that a weapon that is described as well balanced and easy to swing must have been for show.




Because 

1) I've spent hundreds of hours training with swords, and I know how ridiculous it would be to try to use a weapon anywhere near that weight.

2) Because I have handled real historical weapons and accurate replicas

3) Because I've been to dozens of events with some of the worlds leading experts on swords and I know what they believe, exactly as I do on this subject.

4) Because I've corresponded with many of these same experts for years.

5) Because it's the consensus of every book written on the subject since 1965.

6) Because it's the consensus on any and every repuatable online forum on swords.




> Why assume the the weapons in d&d, which were formally called 2 handed swords, are not the same weapons as the 2 handed swords from history?




Thats a specific type of 16th century sword which was used in pike combat, on battlefields iwth muskets and cannons.  They used to specifically include this weapon in OED&D but they dropped it, probably because it was from a later era.



> The approximately 8 pound swords were from the later periods and would not appear very commonly in most of the medieval era.  They did range in weight from 6 pounds to 8 pounds.  That is a range.  Picking the highest number on a range ensures that the weapon is within encumbrance.




Agian, thats a zweihander.  Go look at 100 two-hand or hand and a half swords on myarmoury and figure out the average weight.  I dare you.



> Strangely since the term Spathology is a reference to sword forms studied by ARMA and ARMA is only 14 years old, where did you study sword forms in ARMA before there was ARMA?




LOL!!!!

Perhaps not the most widely used term but I can't imagine where you got the idea it was about sword forms in ARMA!!!  LOL!! 

You are ...er ... misinformed, to be...  polite, and you are making a fool of yourserlf.  Spathology means nothing more or less than _the study of swords_.  From "Spatha" meaning sword.    Just as hoplology meqans the study of weapons.  

The only thing it has to do with ARMA is that they also study swords and some (though by no means all) ARMA members probably consider themselves spathologists.

The pioneer in the field is Ewart Oakeshott who invented the modern sword typology



> Right there we have the assertion by other ARMA Spathologists that 2 to 4 pounds for a 1 handed sword is the norm.  The fact that 8 pound swords are not in vogue for ARMA is not a reflection of their historical presence.




Not in vogue for ARMA?  ROFL!!! What is that supposed to mean?  ARMA studies historical martial arts period, based on historical weapons, period.  They aren't making up their own fashion trends, it's not the SCA (or D&D).  Like I said, if you think there is something weird about ARMA in particular, check sword forum online or myarmoury or any reputable source of your own.

You asked them, they told you, 8 lbs is ridiculous.  You are going further and further out on a limb.  It's sort of symbolic of a whole attitude ... why not just learn some real information instead of insisting on the absurd?

BD


----------



## genshou

big dummy said:
			
		

> Thats precisely where you are wrong.
> 
> Maybe this will help:
> 
> http://www.thearma.org/essays/How_Were_Swords_Made.htm
> 
> BD



Ok, I read the entire article.  Please tell me how that had anything to do with my post.


----------



## big dummy

genshou said:
			
		

> Ok, I read the entire article.  Please tell me how that had anything to do with my post.




Ok, given how fleixible and strong a sword has to be, and how a sword is made (pounding it into shape, forge welding the steel) how exactly are they going to make a channel for mercury in it to where it won't immediately break?  How thick do you think the walls of the channel would have to be? 

BD


----------



## big dummy

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> Wait, how are you supposed to hurt yourself with armor spikes? You're _wearing_ armor--the spikes go outward.




Well, judging by the drawings and paintings I see in D&D books...

If it's D&D Armor you almost always have at the very least your face exposed... often most or some of your midrift (even more if you are a girl, you will basically be wearing no armor at all on your torso except some kind of armored bra... apparently in D&D the breasts and groin are the only vulnerable parts of any female)

BD


----------



## genshou

big dummy said:
			
		

> Iron isn't any heavier than steel.  Bronze is about the same or a little less, (depending on the actualy type of Bronze) For that matter swords were never made of "pure" (or wrought) iron anyway, it wouldn't hold an edge.  The difference between steel and iron is a small amount of carbon.  Anything between .15% and 2% is essentially steel.  (Anything over 2% is cast-iron, which was also never used to make weapons as it was too brittle)
> 
> If you really think I'm underestimating the weight of the weapons, why don't you do some research yourself.  And like I said, try going through a basic sword drill with a 6 or 8 pound object.
> 
> BD



Hmm.  Perhaps you should take your own advice.  Iron _does_ weigh more than steel (though only by a very small amount).  Bronze is heavier than iron (8.3 g/cubic cm), not lighter.


----------



## genshou

big dummy said:
			
		

> Ok, given how fleixible and strong a sword has to be, and how a sword is made (pounding it into shape, forge welding the steel) how exactly are they going to make a channel for mercury in it to where it won't immediately break?  How thick do you think the walls of the channel would have to be?
> 
> BD



And that's why it's in a D&D book.  Methods for crafting would certainly be different in such a world, wouldn't they?


----------



## big dummy

genshou said:
			
		

> Hmm.  Perhaps you should take your own advice.  Iron _does_ weigh more than steel (though only by a very small amount).  Bronze is heavier than iron (8.3 g/cubic cm), not lighter.




According to this table of weight density and specific gravity...

http://www.simetric.co.uk/si_metals.htm

Iron is shown as being 7850 KG / cubic meter

Cast Iron is even less 6800 -7800 KG

Steel is .... 7850 (identical to Iron.)

Bronze 7400 -8900 (a little more or a little less depending on the specific alloy)

Thats for the Tin-Copper bronze alloy typically used in Medieval period and before.

BD


----------



## big dummy

genshou said:
			
		

> And that's why it's in a D&D book.  Methods for crafting would certainly be different in such a world, wouldn't they?




Well, I guess if you posit an imaginary indestructable metal like adamantium you could make a sword out of that with a little channel in it for mercury that could bend and wouldn't break on impact, but that still doesn't make it a practical weapon..

I mean yeah in D&D all things are possible, you can have a sword that turns into a snake that bites people or shoots lightning or anything you can think of.  The weapons under discussion in this thread were (I thought) more mundane items which humans could actually make without magic.  As someone already said, nobody is questioning magic weapons.

BD


----------



## genshou

big dummy said:
			
		

> Well, judging by the drawings and paintings I see in D&D books...
> 
> If it's D&D Armor you almost always have at the very least your face exposed... often most or some of your midrift (even more if you are a girl, you will basically be wearing no armor at all on your torso except some kind of armored bra... apparently in D&D the breasts and groin are the only vulnerable parts of any female)
> 
> BD



Most of the armour seen in D&D books covers at least as much as a breastplate.  While much of the concept art doesn't show armour covering as much as it truly would (mostly around the limbs), that doesn't mean the armour in anyone's game has to be that way.  My "creepy elf chick" PC wears a full suit of hide armour.

Look at the armour pictures in the Player's Handbook equipment chapter.


----------



## Sledge

the point big dummy, is that they DIDN'T refer to it as crazy.  There are multiple articles on the ARMA site, as well as discussion on the forums that not only indicates that for a two handed sword 8 pounds is within the normal range, 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 will reiterate this once again, the weapon stats in D&D can be compared to weight and usage.  An 8 pound sword is a two handed sword.  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 which represent the heavier end of the one handed weapons, and down to the short swords and rapiers with represent the lightest weight swords.  Why is it that you insist that the greatsword really represents swords that can be used with one hand?  If the great sword should weigh 6 pounds and be usable one handed, just call it the bastard sword.  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.
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?

And spathology is a term and field invented by ARMA.  The very nature of it is out of its usage in ARMA.  Remember there aren't a lot of 600 year old instruction books on swords.  None of the 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.


----------



## genshou

big dummy said:
			
		

> According to this table of weight density and specific gravity...
> 
> http://www.simetric.co.uk/si_metals.htm
> 
> Iron is shown as being 7850 KG / cubic meter
> 
> Cast Iron is even less 6800 -7800 KG
> 
> Steel is .... 7850 (identical to Iron.)
> 
> Bronze 7400 -8900 (a little more or a little less depending on the specific alloy)
> 
> Thats for the Tin-Copper bronze alloy typically used in Medieval period and before.
> 
> BD



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.


----------



## big dummy

genshou said:
			
		

> 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

big dummy said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				BD said:
			
		

> 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...



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> 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

Felix said:
			
		

> 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

Felix said:
			
		

> 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

Mad Mac said:
			
		

> 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


----------



## Felix

BD said:
			
		

> 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

big dummy said:
			
		

> 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

Sledge said:
			
		

> 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

big dummy said:
			
		

> .  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


----------



## 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

lukelightning said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				lukelightning said:
			
		

> 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:


			
				Fiore di Liberi said:
			
		

> 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

big dummy said:
			
		

> 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

DreadPirateMurphy said:
			
		

> 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

Felix said:
			
		

> *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

Tetsubo said:
			
		

> 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

Zander said:
			
		

> 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

painandgreed said:
			
		

> 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

Tetsubo said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Tetsubo

painandgreed said:
			
		

> 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.




I can see your point. Really I can. Having to only carry one weapon rather than two (or more) is a solid and logical idea. I just don't see the mercurial weapon concept as the answer. If I found myself in a situation where I might need a slashing weapon AND the ability to deliver high impact blows against a carapace I would carry something like this (forgive me, it is my own design):


----------



## Tarangil

Chiaroscuro23 said:
			
		

> Behold, new exotic weapons for D&D http://garnet.acns.fsu.edu/~cwd02/zanyweapons.htm





 Damn!  I'd hate to roll a critical Fumble with any of those weapons...especially the _Flailing Wheel of death_


----------



## genshou

On further number-crunching, it looks like a mercurial sword is not a valid concept.  The ratio between steel and mercury simply isn't wide enough.  Perhaps if the channel were filled with tiny balls of an extremely dense metal?


----------



## Abe.ebA

genshou said:
			
		

> On further number-crunching, it looks like a mercurial sword is not a valid concept.  The ratio between steel and mercury simply isn't wide enough.  Perhaps if the channel were filled with tiny balls of an extremely dense metal?




My current rog/ftr/brb would like to be first in line for a depleted-uranium-ball-enhanced greatsword.

In seriousness, though, what about a mace-type weapon operating on this sort of concept?  Perhaps instead of a tube of toxic liquid metal or little balls of radioactive doom, what about rings of regular steel on a slightly-smaller-than-the-rest-of-the-handle guide?  I'm thinking a combination of the tailor from Kung Fu Hustle and a regular morning star.  It would be awkward and silly for melee combat where you need to whip the thing around a lot, but I'd imagine such a thing wouldn't be a terrible idea for striking down from horseback.  Probably wouldn't even require a feat.


----------



## Imp

I've been playing around with the idea of a staff that works on that concept.  The wielder would keep the rings within his grip until he's ready to commit, I suppose, and other exotic weapon grip-shifting stuff I'm perfectly willing to elide for the sake of imaginary kewlness.  Ever swing around a rainstick?  Something like that, but with more control over the distribution of weights.  Again, it's the difference between plausible and IRL practical.  If you don't make that distinction, you just plain aren't going to have exotic weapons. What's the fun in that?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Tetsubo, why not try something like the Conyers Falchion?

http://bjorn.foxtail.nu/h_conyers_eng.htm

Or a Kora

http://www.oriental-arms.co.il/item.php?id=813

For the record BD, the previously mentioned weapons encyclopedia from the Diagram Group (post #132) also includes examples of museum-piece Swiss, German, Japanese and Indian staff & chain weapons with chains equal to or exceeding the length of their handles (ranging from 8 inches to 4.5 feet)...as well as at least one with only a single chain link of perhaps an inch in length.  Obviously, there was a LOT of variation in construction.


----------



## Herobizkit

Chiaroscuro23 said:
			
		

> Behold, new exotic weapons for D&D http://garnet.acns.fsu.edu/~cwd02/zanyweapons.htm



ROFLMAO!

My next character is specializing in the Flailing Wheel of Death.


----------



## Zander

Piratecat said:
			
		

> 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 the other person angry.
> 
> If this is somehow a problem, feel free to email me.



I genuinely didn't mean to take a pot-shot at big dummy and if he took it that way, I apologise to him. Big dummy asked nicely for evidence and I almost commended him for doing so but didn't want to sound patronising.

I hope he finds the info above on the weighted sword interesting.


----------



## big dummy

*Clearing up the sword haze*



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> 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.




Ok, I'm going to try to clear this up once and for all.

The article you are linked to refers to a special type of sword.  If you look at the many photos in the article you will see that this is in fact a six foot sword, as long or longer than the wielder, and with a 12" or more ricasso for choking up on the blade ('half swording') and usually featuring permanent lugs just abive this ricasso.

This is a 16th century specialist infantry weapon designed for pike combat in the era of cannons and firearms.  In use and function it's more like a halberd than a sword in many ways. 




The real source of confusion is due to the problem, which you raised earlier and I also brought up, of the use of nomenclature in the historical community and in D&D.

Because there wasn't really an historical name for these relative oddities which distinguishes it from more normal swords.  Modern hoplologists (there is a word predating ARMA) have referred to it as a 'zweihander' or 'bidenhander' or 'dopplehander' or a 'True two handed sword' since you definately could never wield one of these six foot monsters with one hand.


The bihander can indeed weigh up to 6-8 pounds, but I do not believe this is the weapon in D&D however, for a variety of reasons I'll explain below.  (You couldn't get this into any dungeon or use it indoors for one thing, since you need about 10' of space in all directions.  For another it's not a knightly weapon, or a medieval weapon...)





The bihander
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zweihander

Here are the real world equivalents of your typical D&D swords:

ARMING SWORD (real world) = LONG SWORD (D&D)













Oakeshott types X, Xa, XII, XIV, XV, XVI etc.

Your basic cut and thrust, single handed knightly weapon.  Usually used with a shield.  Evolved from the earlier Viking type swords, features a broad but pointy blade suitible for both cutting and thrusting, a heavy pommel to balance the weapon 4-6" from the guard and a prominent cross guard or quillion.

34"=42" long, single handed, 2-4 lbs

Longsword / Bastard Sword (real world) = Bastard Sword (D&D)


















Oakeshott XVa, XVII, XVIIIb etc.

Your late medieval knightly weapon.  Carried on the saddle normally often without a scabbard.  Heavy pommel and a Hand and a Half grip.  Pointy but stiff blade often featuring a chisel-like cross section for standing up to armor, suitible for both cutting and thrsuting.

42"-50" long, two handed, 2-4 lbs

Longsword / Warsword / Greatsword (real world) = Great Sword (D&D)













A subtype of the longsword, both the first and last types in use.  Hand and a Half Grip, Point of Balance 4-6" from the cross.  A flatter blade more specialized for cutting than thrusting, and specifically more for cutting less heavily armored targets.

46"-52" long, two handed, 3-4.5 lbs

I really think this last one is the one in D&D.  Why?  It's was a knightly weapon.  At four feet long it's formidable but not ridiculous.  You could use it in a large room.  It existed before the battlefields were dominated by guns and cannons.  

When people talk about medieval swords, this is thie biggest (and heaviest type)



For example, if you had done perhaps a little more digging you might have noticed the link on the bottom of that article to Johns other article on _Medieval_ swords, entitled "What did medieval swords weigh?"  (It would seem to stand out as being RIGHT on topic!

http://www.thearma.org/essays/weights.htm

Allow me to quote from this useful piece:

"From ordinary hands-on experience we know full well that swords were not excessively heavy nor did they weigh 10 or 15 pounds and more. (snip) *For example, the lengthy catalog of swords from the famed Wallace Collection Museum in London readily lists dozens of fine specimens among which it is difficult to find any weighing in excess of 4 pounds. Indeed, the majority of specimens, from arming swords to two-handers to rapiers, weigh much less than three pounds. *"

he goes on to say..

"Despite frequent claims to the contrary, *Medieval swords were indeed light, manageable, and on average weighed less than four pounds. As leading sword expert Ewart Oakeshott unequivocally stated: "Medieval Swords are neither unwieldably heavy nor all alike - the average weight of any one of normal size is between 2.5 lb. and 3.5 lbs. Even the big hand-and-a-half 'war' swords rarely weigh more than 4.5 lbs. *

I hope that helps clear it up for you.



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




"Forms" usually means drills like a kata, or it could theoretically mean the shape of a sword?  I have studied both primarily on my own, though I have used ARMA (and HACA before that) as a resource as well as some other groups.  I'm also not a member of ARMA though I have trained with some of their members.



> 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.




They are too numerous to name off the top of my head.  You can find several here

http://www.thearma.org/manuals.htm

including the I.33 manual (1295 AD) Hanko Dobringers Fechtbuch (1389) Flos Deullatorum (1410) Sigmund Ringeck Fechtbuch (which I have studied) (1440 AD) Tallhoffers Fechtbuch (1443) Codex Wallerstein (1470) etc. etc. etc., just to name a few of the earlier ones.

BD


----------



## big dummy

Zander said:
			
		

> I genuinely didn't mean to take a pot-shot at big dummy and if he took it that way, I apologise to him. Big dummy asked nicely for evidence and I almost commended him for doing so but didn't want to sound patronising.
> 
> I hope he finds the info above on the weighted sword interesting.




It's ok, I didn't take it as a pot shot.  I have no idea waht that object is that you posted.  When / where is it supposed to have come from?

BD


----------



## big dummy

painandgreed said:
			
		

> 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

Sledge said:
			
		

> 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

big dummy said:
			
		

> 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

painandgreed said:
			
		

> 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

Sledge said:
			
		

> 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

Nyaricus said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Mad Mac

And by the same token, there is really nothing whatsoever wrong with the Dwarven Urgosh, except...classifying it as a double weapon. Hacking people multiple times with the axe-end and poking them with the spear end multiple times in the same round is an impressive bit of dexerity, to say the least. If it was just a weapon that functioned as either a spear or an axe on any given round, it'd be cool.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

The overall length of the Conyers Falchion is 890 mm (35.04").  Despite its appearance, it weighs 1300 gram (2.86 lbs.)

That kilo of mercury would basically double its weight.


----------



## big dummy

woodelf said:
			
		

> 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.





UH, what historical artifact would that be?

BD


----------



## big dummy

woodelf said:
			
		

> 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.




A lot of pole arms like Halberds were actually used kind of like that.  You jab with the butt, then engage with the axe-head or the back spke as opportunity presents.... or you can thrust with the business end too.

The only thing I see wrong with the Urgosh really is that it looks too short to really use effectively that way.

BD


----------



## big dummy

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> The overall length of the Conyers Falchion is 890 mm (35.04").  Despite its appearance, it weighs 1300 gram (2.86 lbs.)
> 
> That kilo of mercury would basically double its weight.




Thats pretty much what I thought.  Falchions were more like meat cleavers than like axes.  A lot of them are surprisingly light.

BD

Edit: gotta love that backstory on the conyers falchion though eh?


----------



## 3d6

The repeating crossbow is a real weapon. Here is the wikipedia article.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Yep!


----------



## ShadowRaven

beaten to it


----------



## big dummy

ShadowRaven said:
			
		

> beaten to it




I know about the repeating crossbow, (the greeks apparently had one too) I thought he said something about a weapon like a double edged sword?

BD

Edit: sorry I should have been more clear I didn't read the last sentance in his post.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

BD was wondering about the weapon with the blade-grip-blade construction.  I've seen asian _polearms_ with that kind of construction, but not any true swords.


----------



## frankthedm

So what ststa does this have?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Its a bladed chain weapon...kinda like a kusarigama or chijiririki...but if he uses it THAT way, he's going to get a +4 to trip himself!


----------



## Imp

No.  What that man is wielding is called an "extreme jump rope."


----------



## woodelf

big dummy said:
			
		

> UH, what historical artifact would that be?
> 
> BD




this one.

And, upon reading further, i'll add:


			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> BD was wondering about the weapon with the blade-grip-blade construction.  I've seen asian _polearms_ with that kind of construction, but not any true swords.




And that's why i said it depends on your exact required definition/form. If a ~2' straight, two-edged blade on each end, with an overall length of around 6', qualifies, then it existed.  If, on the other hand, you want something that was explicitly constructed with 'sword blades' on each end, or with a handle only 6-8" long, or it has to look just like two shortswords/gladii stuck butt-to-butt, then, no, i don't believe it's ever existed. But i'd say the fact that it was considerably more blade than handle--the couple i've seen pictures of looked like just one of the blades was noticably longer than the section of haft--makes it more sword-like than not. But it's just a judgement call. Is the D&D3E doublesword description sufficiently detailed to rule such a construction out?


----------



## DreadPirateMurphy

Well, some folks obviously know a LOT more about medieval weaponry than me.  My original evidence was based largely on _prima facie_ absurdity.  It seems like real weapons have a few basic origins:

- tools used for agriculture or hunting and wielded in warfare (daggers, hand axes, shortbows, slings),

- pointy or cutty bits on the end of a long pole, to keep the foe as far from your tender flesh as possible (spears, bill hooks),

- modifications of the first two allowing trained users to be more effective in combat (e.g., swords, longbows, crossbows, battle axes, pikes),

- relatively rare special purpose weapons designed for use by highly trained warriors (sword catchers, chain weapons, etc.).

The last category covers most of the "exotic" weapons listed in D&D.  In the real world, you wouldn't see tons of exotic weaponry, because they required a lot of extra training to use properly.  They are more common in D&D because of the "kewl" factor, and since it is a game there is no limit on how ridiculous these fantasy weapons can be.

The saving grace is that not everything in D&D is human.  There are lots of creatures that have natural armor or damage reduction, superhuman dexterity, multiple arms, etc., and any of these creatures might find it easier to use such weapons.  That, at least, is how I would hand-wave the existence of these absurdities as a DM.

Just a thought.


----------



## lukelightning

Regarding mercurial weapons: Regardless of if it is physically possible to make a weapon like this, I think having a weight that sloshes around in the weapon would be a severe detriment, not an advantage.  Particularly a liquid weight, that would be extremely fluid and dynamic; I doubt anyone could control its position in a fight, and it just breaks my willing suspense of disbelief.  

Yeah yeah, fireballs, dragons, whatever. If you want a super hard hitting sword, it should be magical, not some dubious mechanical device.


----------



## Zander

big dummy said:
			
		

> It's ok, I didn't take it as a pot shot.  I have no idea waht that object is that you posted.  When / where is it supposed to have come from?



Fiore di Liberi was writing around 1409 in (northern?) Italy. It is known that he studied under a German master and thought he fought duels with swordsmen from various European kingdoms. So it's a good bet that the weighted sword was around in about 1409 in Italy and likely elsewhere in Europe as well. While none of these swords survives, another sword type with a mostly blunt blade but no moving weight illustrated next to the weighted one does survive.  

The text and illustration are taken from Folio 37 of the Getty Collection's edition of Fiore's monograph.

Hope that helps.


----------



## radferth

frankthedm said:
			
		

> So what ststa does this have?




I always figured that all that spikiness was just artisitic license.  He is wielding a scimitar and a kukri.  He has chained the two together for no good reason (maybe so he doesn't loose the kukri if he drops it to get a healing potion).


----------



## Agent Oracle

Just wanted to point out:  We're arguing the realisim of a weapon that dosn't eixst, in a dice-based game, with creatures that could not support their own body weight on all fours, let alone on the wing.

That is all.


----------



## lukelightning

Agent Oracle said:
			
		

> Just wanted to point out:  We're arguing the realisim of a weapon that dosn't eixst, in a dice-based game, with creatures that could not support their own body weight on all fours, let alone on the wing.




Normally people will swallow a big "lie" (dragons, magic, undead, whatever) and choke on a small one (weapon weights, craft rules, weapon types, etc.)


----------



## Agent Oracle

Okay, i can work with that... Mind if I add a point?

In real life, an object can be both lightweight and bulky.  for instance, despite their meager weight, i could only carry a few empty shipping boxes before i ran out of hands.


----------



## Orius

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Swords are great weapons- useful against any foe- but axes and flails and similar weapons are actually more useful against heavy armor than swords.  Their mass, all concentrated at the point of impact, can dent or penetrate armor or shields that would turn a sword blow- that is one of the reasons they were so popular on the later day battlefields.
> 
> A mercurial sword would be an example of "thinking outside of the box"- attempting to combine the best aspects of the flail and the sword.




But see, that's one of the reasons I (and probably others) think it's stupid.  A sword is not a heavy impact weapon, and trying to use a sword like one will probably just end up breaking it.  



> As far as armor spikes go, there are numerous entertainers who routinely wear them as part of their stage costumes, like the guys in GWAR and Slayer.  Yes, the ones in GWAR are merely rubber, but Kerry King's are indeed 6" metal spikes...and he hasn't impaled himself yet.  Plays some mean guitar while wearing them.




How does this make spkied armor sensible?  These guys are playing music, not battling to the death.


----------



## Agent Oracle

Orius said:
			
		

> How does this make spkied armor sensible?  These guys are playing music, not battling to the death.




You wouldn't know it from the amount of blood at a GWAR concert.  
granted, it's all menstral


----------



## Uder

lukelightning said:
			
		

> Regarding mercurial weapons: Regardless of if it is physically possible to make a weapon like this, I think having a weight that sloshes around in the weapon would be a severe detriment, not an advantage.  Particularly a liquid weight, that would be extremely fluid and dynamic; I doubt anyone could control its position in a fight, and it just breaks my willing suspense of disbelief.



If a feat can allow you to brew magic potions, I'll believe a feat can allow you to wield an unlikely weapon.


----------



## GrumpyOldMan

Vorput said:
			
		

> Rolzup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I give spiked armor a pass because it's got legendary precedent.  Witness the tale of the Lambton Worm....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That. is. awesome.
Click to expand...



No, it's mundane, just down the road. I used to play on Worm Hill.  

Wouldn't fancy spiked armour for any other reason.


----------



## lukelightning

Uder said:
			
		

> If a feat can allow you to brew magic potions, I'll believe a feat can allow you to wield an unlikely weapon.




Different strokes for different folks (see my comments above about swallowing big "lies" but choking on small ones).

That being said, no matter what you believe about the existance of or use of mercurial weapons, they are pretty darn silly.

A more D&Dish approach would be a magical effect that increases the weapon's mass when it strikes, or somethiing like that.


----------



## Orius

big dummy said:
			
		

> if you are a girl, you will basically be wearing no armor at all on your torso except some kind of armored bra... apparently in D&D the breasts and groin are the only vulnerable parts of any female




You saying there's something wrong with the chainmail bikini?


----------



## Orius

Hussar said:
			
		

> I'm just rather tired of Joe Fighterguy using a longsword.  Ten years of 2e and every bloody fighter using one has somewhat soured me on the idea.  We have all these other weapons that almost never see the light of day.  I'd like to see them be considered viable options.




Hmm, in my 2e experiences most fighters went for the bastard sword rather than the longsword.  And let's not forget that magical weapons had a tendancy to skew towards longswords on the random tables, so there was a lot of metagaming involved there.


----------



## jeffh

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> And let's not forget the spear... with the backward-pointing spearheads!  Stab someone ten feet away in the chest... then stab someone five feet away in the back!
> 
> -Hyp.




Nothing weird about that. Those really existed. And you'd more often use the butt spike (that sounds really bad) to give an opponent in _front _of you a surprise (D&D players often seriously underestimate how _fast _these weapons are, I think partially because the weights in the Player's Handbook are so inflated - most of them are too high by a factor of at least three, in some cases as much as 10). [EDIT: I misread you as talking about spears that are sharp at both ends. But having backward-pointing heads in addition to normal ones isn't wholly ridiculous either. Some polearms had similar things, mostly for dismounting riders.]

As far as ludicrous weapons, while I agree with most of the comments here except the one above, I think the lowly warhammer deserves a mention. Yes, a weapon called the warhammer really existed, but it resembled the one in the Player's Handbook only in name. The one-handed maul traditionally shown in D&D is simply preposterous - that's a weapon that really _would _weigh what the PH says it would, if not more. You would a) likely pull your arm out of its socket trying to swing it one-handed, b) require so much recovery time (a second or more, I would wager, which is way too long) that you'd be skewered by people using weapons that can actually, y'know, MOVE the way they need to in battle right after your first swing.


----------



## big dummy

Hussar said:
			
		

> I'm just rather tired of Joe Fighterguy using a longsword. Ten years of 2e and every bloody fighter using one has somewhat soured me on the idea. We have all these other weapons that almost never see the light of day. I'd like to see them be considered viable options.







			
				jeffh said:
			
		

> As far as ludicrous weapons, while I agree with most of the comments here except the one above, I think the lowly warhammer deserves a mention. Yes, a weapon called the warhammer really existed, but it resembled the one in the Player's Handbook only in name. The one-handed maul traditionally shown in D&D is simply preposterous - that's a weapon that really _would _weigh what the PH says it would, if not more. You would a) likely pull your arm out of its socket trying to swing it one-handed, b) require so much recovery time (a second or more, I would wager, which is way too long) that you'd be skewered by people using weapons that can actually, y'know, MOVE the way they need to in battle right after your first swing.




Yeah the striking head on a real warhammer was usually not much bigger than that on a regular carpenters hammer.  It's the haft that is longer, plus a back-spike, and other optional features like a roundel, some reinforcement to the haft, a pokey-point out of the top etc. etc.


The way to bring some of these weapons to life in D&D would be to enhance some of their characteristics in combat.  The sword ends up being the be-all end-all because you can only really measure a weapon by damage and critical hits.

Add a defensive bonus and you suddenly will find weapons like a quarterstaff or a poll-hammer extra appealing for their ability to displace attacks.

Add an armor piercing bonus and war hammers, awl-pikes, military picks etc. suddenly get to be a lot more viable.

Add a reach bonus (to Initiative or To Hit, or both) and spears, staves, and every kind of pole arm will suddenly become real trendy.

Add a close-fighting bonus for fighting in grapple, (and fix the damage back to realistic levels) and daggers will gain a great deal of popularity. 

Add a more effective knock out system and every kind of bludgeoning weapon from a sap to a mace will become more interesting.

Just a thought.  Of course, if you like this kind of thing it is being done to a greater or lesser degree in a lot of the OGL and D20 games out there, or so I've heard.

BD


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> How does this make spkied armor sensible? These guys are playing music, not battling to the death.




Realistically, such a suit would NEVER be made- not because of danger to the wearer, but because the spikes would function as places where weapons would catch (thus transferring kinetic energy quite efficiently to the armor wearer) and that creatures it would be most effective against don't exist.

The shows featuring the "spikey" performers in question ARE pretty high energy and require a lot of mobility.  To date, they have proven they are able to move without puncturing/poking anyone unintentionally...especially themselves.

Spiked armor intended for combat wouldn't be made so the wearer looked like a porcupine- it would more closely resemble the creations of artists, namely a set of spikes _here_ on the forearms, a few _there_ on the greaves, a little _something_ on the pauldrons...

But if massive predatory creatures like Dragons, Bulettes, Giants, Rocs, Purple Worms, Remorhazes, Behir etc. DID exist, spiked armor would make sense (for fighting THEM, at least).  You'd only need a few spikes to make yourself into a "caltrop" relative to such creatures- quite unpalatable.


----------



## VirgilCaine

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> The shows featuring the "spikey" performers in question ARE pretty high energy and require a lot of mobility.  To date, they have proven they are able to move without puncturing/poking anyone unintentionally...especially themselves.




Okay, I'll ask again. 

Let's presume this is spiked metal armor of some kind, okay? Not leather, heavy stuff.

*You're wearing armor. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO HURT YOURSELF?*

You certainly wouldn't put spikes where they would stick into your arms, even with the armor.


----------



## woodelf

Sledge said:
			
		

> Always seemed like a nice comfy weight to me.  People use those mauls to split wood rather energetically you know.  Nothing wrong with 8 pounds of metal, especially if it is well balanced.




I've chopped and split wood, and watched worldclass lumberjacks do the same. Even for them, using a heavy maul or even some of the larger axes consists of strike, reset, strike, reset, strike, reset. Now, i've never actually been in combat, so i'm conjecturing here, but i doubt that you have the luxury of the time needed to 'reset' your weapon/stance after every single blow. The 'rather energetically' of splitting wood isn't even in the same class as the 'rather energetically' of boxing, fencing, or wrestling, much less actual combat where there are no rules of fair play.


----------



## Mighty Veil

Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> I'm just waiting or the sword from Sword and the Sorcerer .




I loved that sword when I was a kid. My elf character even had one. Years later after not seeing the movie in quite awhile, I watched it again. Ouch.. that is one dumb sword.


----------



## woodelf

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> Okay, I'll ask again.
> 
> Let's presume this is spiked metal armor of some kind, okay? Not leather, heavy stuff.
> 
> *You're wearing armor. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO HURT YOURSELF?*
> 
> You certainly wouldn't put spikes where they would stick into your arms, even with the armor.




OK, so where do you put the spikes? If they're not going to be where you risk hitting your own arms, that eliminates the chest, sides, abdomen, hips, thighs (except maybe the backs of the thighs), groin, shoulders, and side of the head. If they're not going to be where you risk hitting your own torso, that eliminates the inside of the upper arms, and probably all sides of the forearms. If they're not going te be where they impede movement, that eliminates the insides of the legs, the backs of the legs, and most of the feet. And, of course, you can't really have spikes on the soles of your feet or much of anywhere on your hands. Spikes on the face would be a bit tricky, unless they're transparent (though you could have a few small ones, carefully placed, without a problem). That leaves the back, the buttocks (unless you want to sit down), the back/top of the head, and maybe the shins and backs of the biceps (tops of the biceps, and you might hit yourself in the head). That's a lot fewer spikes than i've seen in illos of spiked armor. And not particularly useful in grappling a same-sized foe (since the spikes are precisely in those areas that won't generally contact that foe).


----------



## woodelf

in response to "double swords are silly":



			
				jimbobbrowningstein said:
			
		

> Tell that to this guy.
> 
> (picture of Darth Maul removed)




You hold up a silly cartoonish villain with an even-sillier name, using a 'kewl' weapon that exists for no other reason than to prove his leet skillz, in a movie that fulfills the 'sequel rule' in spades, as supporting evidence for the non-ridiculousness of a weapon? That's like using Gwar to prove heavy metal is 'serious' music. 

[Not saying it's not, just that Gwar is hardly the best supporting evidence.]


----------



## Agent Oracle

woodelf said:
			
		

> OK, so where do you put the spikes? *snip a long thing about "spikes can't go there"*




Okay, remember, we're dealing with a combat world where you are likely to, at some point in your career, be either (a) swallowed whole or (b) picked up by something several times your size.

That said, let's look at the four cursory locations on the body

*Head*: nothing wrong with a spike on your helmet!  The Moores kenw that back when they ruled Spain, and the Germans knew it during WW1.  In an emergency... a really, really, REALLY dire emergency, German soldiers in WWI did actually use their helmets as improvised weapons.  Since this is midieval, Helmets could be "locked" (as a crusader helm, too blulky for  the ear to touch the shoulders) or immobile (as the ever-popular "beaked" helm) and equipped with spikes on either side (like horns).  I see no way for a player to accidentally "gore" themselves with their own head, and, you know, an unarmed strike can be of any origin.  Hands, feet, or head.  I don't see why this wouldn't hold true in a grapple.

*Torso*: Again, you are probably going to be grappled and held by something larger than you are, so why not have spikes on the back?  When their fingers wrap all the way around you, the location of your torso spikes don't really matter.  hell, even when engaging a normal-sized for in grapple, When was the last time you saw two wrestlers in the ring standing face to face and shaking each other by the shoulder blades?  or lightly pushing on eachother's chest and stomach?  They get in there and they wrap around each other! trying to get the optimum leverage against each other!

Arms: Look at your typical platemail pauldron. (that's "shoulder and upper arm guard")







See that big ridge? Nothing bends over that ridge.  Ergo, you could put spikes on the far side of that ridge, and there would be no interference with movement, and no danger to the wearer.  You could also probably put a spike on the front too, since it will conveniently bend out of the way when you move your left arm to touch your left shoulder.

Legs: Outside of the hips.  knee spikes.top of the feet isn't impossible either.






real boots, with real spikes. For sale.  I don't think they'd sell spiked boots that could impale the wearer.  But at (pound sign)89 per pair, i don't think i'll get any.

Finally, reguarding "apiked armor" splat book art.  Let's just treat it as what it is: an artist's imagining of what the narration describes.  I'm sure the invisible stalker dosn't leave a ripple in the air either.


----------



## big dummy

woodelf said:
			
		

> I've chopped and split wood, and watched worldclass lumberjacks do the same. Even for them, using a heavy maul or even some of the larger axes consists of strike, reset, strike, reset, strike, reset. Now, i've never actually been in combat, so i'm conjecturing here, but i doubt that you have the luxury of the time needed to 'reset' your weapon/stance after every single blow. The 'rather energetically' of splitting wood isn't even in the same class as the 'rather energetically' of boxing, fencing, or wrestling, much less actual combat where there are no rules of fair play.




Exactly.

It's kind of like splitting wood while playing basketball.

BD


----------



## big dummy

Agent Oracle said:
			
		

>




ROFL!!!

That looks like it would fit right in to some of the artwork in the 3.X phB...

BD


----------



## genshou

big dummy said:
			
		

> ROFL!!!
> 
> That looks like it would fit right in to some of the artwork in the 3.X phB...
> 
> BD



You're right, it does!  Looks like something Hennet would be wearing


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> HOW ARE YOU GOING TO HURT YOURSELF?




I have no idea...I assume that those who believe you would are thinking of "porcupine" armor and a guy who is really klutzy.


> That leaves the back, the buttocks (unless you want to sit down), the back/top of the head, and maybe the shins and backs of the biceps (tops of the biceps, and you might hit yourself in the head)




...and boot-tips, knees, & back of the gauntlet & forearm (a la Kerry King).


----------



## Hussar

And, let's not forget about spiked armor that we're not talking about 6 inch spikes here.  A couple of inch, not terribly sharp, pointy bits rivetted all over the armor would not seriously impare the user.

It would, as mentioned before, make the armor less protective vs weapons, so it will depend on campaign.  However, in many campaigns, which feature monsters, particularly lots of monsters with Improved Grab or Swallow, it's not a terribly far fetched idea that people would develop armor to deal with these problems.

Sure, the boots look anachronistic, but, then again, who cares?   Can you honestly say that in a world where there  are more than a few creatures that fight like this that no one would twig on the idea?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

I'm thinking the Halflings and Gnomes, with their exposure to small, woodland creatures- heck _BEING_ small, woodland creatures- would figure it out first.

If an asian monk can come up with "Mantis style" or "Monkey style" Kung Fu by observing animals, why wouldn't a Halfling or Gnomish armorer note that creatures tend not to attack porcupines more than once...

This probably would also explain an earlier adoption of stink grenades by FRPG cultures as opposed to RW ones.


----------



## Hussar

Looking at Big Dummy's list for making weapons more historical, I have to say that I agree with pretty much all his ideas.  However, there are a couple of really big problems with making those ideas core.

1.  It would massivly complicate combat.  DnD combat isn't exactly speedy as it is and adding three or four more calculations to the pot would just result in glacial combat speeds.  I've played enough GURPS and Rolemaster to know that I don't want my DnD combat to be that complex.

2.  It would also be complicated to implement.  THe old weapon vs armor tables were interesting, but, if a campaign featured monsters, which most camps do, then every monster requires the same table.  After all, if a weapon is good against plate mail, is it good against a bullette?  A dragon?  A displacer beast?  So many creatures have such different physiologies, that this would become very cumbersome.

Now, IMHO, there is a much easier fix for the whole lot.

Polearms now have a 19-20 crit range.
Swords have a x3 crit range.
All swords drop down one die in damage.  

That, right there, would do away with the dominance of swords in the game.  I'm a big fan of keeping it simple.  Doing what BD says would have the same effect, but at a huge cost in complication.  Yes, upping the effectiveness of a dagger might be realistic, since daggers are really effective against people, but, something to remember, is that the vast majority (or at least majority) of combats don't feature humanoids.  While a dagger is a serious threat to a human, it's a minor threat to a bear, a non-existent threat to an elephant and a pin to a dragon.  Again, adding complexity is not always the best answer.


----------



## Agent Oracle

Hussar said:
			
		

> Polearms now have a 19-20 crit range.
> Swords have a x3 crit range.
> All swords drop down one die in damage.




Problem is that if swords had an x3 crit range, that would reduce the effectiveness of axes.

(The trade off between swords and axes is that swords have a higher crit range, and axes have a higher crit damage.  Look at your typical battle axe vs. longsword.)

The question is, do you really want a shortsword that is just as effective as a dagger? do you want daggers that do d3 damage? Few things make an allready melee-weak class like spellcasters happier than when their primary weapon has a die that needs to be devided in half for it's damage value.  And i'm sure rogues would thank you as well.

When the longsword does shortsword damage, there goes the entire concept of a valiant knight riding into battle with a longblade.  The only weapon that would be worthwile for taking is the newly 19-20 x4 critting polearms (since polearms crit HEAVY, and swords crit OFTEN).  Each die-increment dropped drops the damage average / time of a weapon by 1 point.  Not good, not good at all in a game that's all about hit points, not "internal hemmoraging". or "realistic physical spray".


----------



## big dummy

Hussar said:
			
		

> Looking at Big Dummy's list for making weapons more historical, I have to say that I agree with pretty much all his ideas.  However, there are a couple of really big problems with making those ideas core.
> 
> 1.  It would massivly complicate combat.  DnD combat isn't exactly speedy as it is and a





I really don't think adding a reach bonus and a defensive bonus to each weapon would complicae combat in the least.  Why should it?  The reach bonus is no different than a magical or masterwork to-hit bonus, and you already have shields which give you a defense bonus.

Now your wizard can have that staff which can actually keep monsters at bay, (especially with the defensive fighting option)


To equalize shorter weapons, rule that the reach bonus doesn't apply when in grapple.  In fact you give short weapons a close-fighting bonus in grapple.  That works for thieves.


If you do just those things, you are already differentiating weapons substantially, and you have already made combat more nuanced without complicating it really at all.  And I know it doesn't slow anything down because I have houseruled this and we ran our campaign this way all last year.  I have a couple of friends who have also tried this out with success.




As for monsters, they all have their natural armor (if any) listed seperately already in the Monster Manual.  


There are a lot of other steps you can take (like armor as damage reduction as many D20 and oGL games already do), but like I said, thats a good start right there.

BD


----------



## big dummy

You can also give some weapons (pole-arms, military picks, stilettos, awl-pikes etc.) an armor piercing bonus which I think they are already going in Conan RpG and some other games.

BD


----------



## Orius

Agent Oracle said:
			
		

> real boots, with real spikes. For sale.  I don't think they'd sell spiked boots that could impale the wearer.  But at (pound sign)89 per pair, i don't think i'll get any.




I think we found where Hennet buys his shoes...


----------



## Hussar

big dummy said:
			
		

> I really don't think adding a reach bonus and a defensive bonus to each weapon would complicae combat in the least.  Why should it?  The reach bonus is no different than a magical or masterwork to-hit bonus, and you already have shields which give you a defense bonus.
> 
> Now your wizard can have that staff which can actually keep monsters at bay, (especially with the defensive fighting option)
> 
> 
> To equalize shorter weapons, rule that the reach bonus doesn't apply when in grapple.  In fact you give short weapons a close-fighting bonus in grapple.  That works for thieves.
> 
> 
> If you do just those things, you are already differentiating weapons substantially, and you have already made combat more nuanced without complicating it really at all.  And I know it doesn't slow anything down because I have houseruled this and we ran our campaign this way all last year.  I have a couple of friends who have also tried this out with success.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for monsters, they all have their natural armor (if any) listed seperately already in the Monster Manual.
> 
> 
> There are a lot of other steps you can take (like armor as damage reduction as many D20 and oGL games already do), but like I said, thats a good start right there.
> 
> BD




Fair enough BD, but, as you say, you can find areas where you need to make more changes already - grappling for instance.

Also, maybe I was misunderstanding, but didn't you mean that particular weapon types would be more effective vs certain armor *types* not armor classes.  That's what I meant by the Monster Manual getting more complicated.

After all, a creature might have +5 Natural Armor because it's like a rhino and has a really thick hide - making it susceptable to slashing weapons and resistant to bludgeoning - or it might have a chitinous shell like a bug - making it highly resistant to slashing but susceptable to piercing.  Even though they both have the same armor bonus, the adjustments by weapon type are changed.

I'm certainly not saying it's impossible.  And, as you say there are more than a few variants floating around that use this.  I just would not personally want to see this in core rules.  For many people, the difference between a 4 pound sword and a 3 pound sword doesn't mean anything.  In the same way, they don't care that a dagger might be more effective vs plate mail than a longsword.  It just doesn't add anything to the game for them.

And, I've a sneaking suspicion that "they" might be in the majority of gamers.  Those who want historical accuracy in a fantasy RPG are quite possibly in a minority.  If that is true, then having variant combat rules as an add on is a good idea.

In other words, BD, I agree with you 100%, but, I know for a fact that you will never see this in core DnD.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

That would be like a return to 1Ed...we don't need that.


----------



## Agent Oracle

Seriosuly, if you want to play 1e, go pick up a copy of hackmaster and enjoy rolling on the "random whores" table.


----------



## big dummy

Hussar said:
			
		

> Also, maybe I was misunderstanding, but didn't you mean that particular weapon types would be more effective vs certain armor *types* not armor classes.  That's what I meant by the Monster Manual getting more complicated..




Any time you introduce any new elements to the game in any way you are facing a potential trade off between added complexity and added immersion and or nuance (in terms of giving the players more options in a gamist sense).

The scenario you describe would be too complicated to implement in terms of that tradeoff.  IMO if you want armor piercing weapons you just assume all armor is handled the same way.  After all, a military pick or an awl -pike is going to punch through leather just the same as it could punch through mail or plate-- any difference in resistance would be reflected in the quality of the armor (i.e. is it 2 point armor or 10 point).  So the same, say +4 bonus could be applied to any attack.

This is no more complicated than say, a magic sword with +4 vs some type of monster, or a Rangers favored enemy bonus, or a Weapon Specialization bonus.

It also incidentally helps fighters weilding non-magical weapons gain an edge against monsters with a lot of Natural armor.

Further nuance than that on the armor issue I would only reccomend for a computer game 
(where it could take place invisibly behind the scenes) or possibly with some expert players.



All of the changes which I would consider viable for a typical D&D game would have to balance well in the tradeoff between simplicity and game-enhacncement.



> In the same way, they don't care that a dagger might be more effective vs plate mail than a longsword.




They may not, but it might be nice to have an option of being able to get an armor piercing dagger (i.e. a roundel for example, or even a stiletto) 

It might be more fun if a sword got a reach advantage but a dagger worked better in grapple.  Or a spear got a reach advantage over a sword but wasn't as good for defending.

And I think a lot of players would appreciate access to weapons like staves which could potentially help them keep dangerous enemies at bay through a defensive combat bonus.



Adding a Reach bous and a Defense bonus would hardly impact game play in any way at all, certianly no more than masterwork and magical weapons do.  It would not mean a return to 1E D&D in any way.  It would enhance the options and make the choice of weapons more of a strategic, and interesting choices that just didn't happen to rely on magic.

Similarly, _IF you are using armor as damage reduction_ as many people already are, an armor piercing bonus for certain weapons wouldn't add much complexity at all.

There are actually a lot of simple things you can do to enhance combat and magic without disrupting the flow or balance of the game.

BD


----------



## genshou

big dummy said:
			
		

> Similarly, _IF you are using armor as damage reduction_ as many people already are, an armor piercing bonus for certain weapons wouldn't add much complexity at all.



Piercing weapons ignore half (round up) of armour and natural armour DR bonuses.  That's how I handle it.  Makes longbows and crossbows both actually effective against armour.


----------



## big dummy

genshou said:
			
		

> Piercing weapons ignore half (round up) of armour and natural armour DR bonuses.  That's how I handle it.  Makes longbows and crossbows both actually effective against armour.




Yep, another good way to handle it.  And do you find this slows your game down to a crawl or throws it back in a timewarp to 1E?


I advocate this method as another good alternative, though since I'm a medieval weapons buff I personally like to pick and choose which ones get the armor piercing nod.

This also incidentally adds more fun options.  Like you could have regular arrows which do D8 damage, and armor piercing arrows which do D6 but ignore half of the armor DR bonuses.



Heres something interesting about this: it gives you a nice new option, and it actually balances out because it emulates reality (however distantly) and in reality, you had arrows with different types of points, a war point did more damage but a bodkin could pierce armor.  Thats actually pretty much the tradeoff of every armor piercing weapon out there, from icepicks to misericordes, estocs, awl-pikes, military picks etc etc..

If you add little bits of realism (I know it's a dirty word but bear me out) if you ad them carefully where they aren't going to impact on complexity you find that they add nuance, more options, and bring their own balance with them.

BD


----------



## ceratitis

BD

you said you've been using something similar in your game, would you mind posting a list or a word/pdf file with the various changes you made to weapons? would be nice to have such a list based on real weapon knowledge combined with play tested info.
Z


----------



## big dummy

ceratitis said:
			
		

> BD
> 
> you said you've been using something similar in your game, would you mind posting a list or a word/pdf file with the various changes you made to weapons? would be nice to have such a list based on real weapon knowledge combined with play tested info.
> Z





Well, the modifications in my game go a bit beyond the simple expedients I've gone over here, so the playtesting relfects other balancing factors.  Also, regardless of whatver I think my knowlege level is obviously a table like this is subjective and my interpretation would be based on my opinion, other people might break it down differently.  This is just how I would handle it.

That said here are a few examples, some D&D weapons, some not in D&D currently:

Weapon   |Reach Bonus|Defensive Bonus|Armor Piercing?|Grapple weapon?|Damage
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Knife                          |0                     |0                 | No                |  Yes      | D6
Dagger                      |+1                    |+1                | No                | Yes      |  D8
Ice Pick                     | 0                     |0                 | Yes              |  Yes      |  D4
Roundel Dagger           |+1                    |+1               | Yes               |  Yes      |  D6 
Main Gauche Dagger    |+1                    |+2                | Yes               |  Yes      |  D6 
Short Sword               |+3                    |+1                | No                |   No      |  D8 
Cutlass                      |+2                    |+2                | No                |   No      |  D8
Light mace                 |+2                    |+2                | No                 |  No      |  D6
War Hammer / Pick      |+2                    |+2                | Yes                |  No     |   D6
Flanged Mace             |+3                    |+2                | Yes                |  No     |   D8
Heavy Mace               |+3                    |+1                | No                  | No      |  D10
"Long" Sword              |+4                    |+3                | No                 |  No      |  D8
Battle Axe                  |+3                    |+1                | No                |   No      | D10
Greatsword                |+5                    |+4                 |No                 |  No       | 2D6
Spear                       |+6                    |+2*               |No                 |  No       | D8 
Awl-Spear                 |+6                    |+3*               |Yes               |   No      |  D6   
Staff                        |+6                    |+5                 |No                 |  No       | D6 
Halberd                     |+7                    |+2                 |No                 |  No       | D10
Lance                       |+8                    |-                  |Yes                 | No       | D8


*defense is improved if you have some feat which lets you use it like a staff.

Defense bonus of weapons would only count against melee attacks, not missiles.

Basic consideration would be, +1 per foot of reach for Reach, modified for really clumsy or really precise weapons, with a bonus for particulalry versatile weapons (like a sword which can chop, slash, or thrust).  Defense is based on Reach, balance, extra protection (like the broad quillions on a main gauche, or the cup-hilt on a cutlass) and exra mass like on a mace. Also shape can effect this, curved sabers (arguably) don't seem to be as good at parrying as straite swords, even more so for inwardly curving weapons.  some weapons


----------



## big dummy

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I'm thinking the Halflings and Gnomes, with their exposure to small, woodland creatures- heck _BEING_ small, woodland creatures- would figure it out first.
> 
> If an asian monk can come up with "Mantis style" or "Monkey style" Kung Fu by observing animals, why wouldn't a Halfling or Gnomish armorer note that creatures tend not to attack porcupines more than once...
> 
> This probably would also explain an earlier adoption of stink grenades by FRPG cultures as opposed to RW ones.





The thing is, based on knowing a bit of what armor is really like to wear, touch, be touched by etc., and some of the tests done on real or realisitc armor, if you are actually assuming something like a full plate harness I think this is actually going to be hard and painful to try to bite through or grasp for anything but the largest creatures.  I mean, a 10 foot bull shark cant' even bite through (aluminum alloy) shark-proof chainmail gnawwing and gnawwing.  

Given how strong we know plate armor was, how is even a Dragon going to bite through it without breaking his teeth.  Given the physics of some longbow and crossbow test-firings I've seen done, I seriously doubt even a grizzly, a polar bear or a full grown tiger could bite or claw a man in full harness (the only way it could do damage would be blunt trauma of knocking yer knight down etc.) and I guarantee pouncing on a plate armored opponent would be damaging to the teeth / claws of the critter in question (unless they were themselves made of tempered steel or some imaginary magical metal like adamantium), not to mention to any other exposed flesh.  Wrestling with an armored knight is a great way to break bones and abrade fur and hide in fact.

In other words, I really don't think you would need spikes even if they did make sense, which I don't think they do.

BD


----------



## Hussar

Not sure if comparing a dragon to a shark is fair.  Dragon to crocodile might be much better, and crocs most certainy can shear through metal.  Sure, they break a tooth, but, then again, who's to say they don't regrow?

Like I said, I can't say that I honestly care.  I ignore all sorts of impossible things in DnD.  Chucking out charts so that I can do combat quicker makes me happy.

My point about the armor though is in the same vein.  If you want realism, where do you stop?  Sure, a pike is just as effective against leather as plate (more or less) but, a slashing weapon certainly isn't.  A mace is great against stuff with a hard shell, but, against elephant hide, it's much less effective.

Sure, you can just say, AC is AC, it doesn't matter, but, then, you are sacrificing "realism".  My point is, why bother?  Why do I gain by making the game more complicated?



> It might be more fun if a sword got a reach advantage but a dagger worked better in grapple. Or a spear got a reach advantage over a sword but wasn't as good for defending.




This is already true.  A dagger can be used in grappling and a sword can't be.  A longspear has reach, a sword doesn't.


----------



## big dummy

Hussar said:
			
		

> Not sure if comparing a dragon to a shark is fair.  Dragon to crocodile might be much better, and crocs most certainy can shear through metal.  Sure, they break a tooth, but, then again, who's to say they don't regrow?




I'd really, really like to see a crocodile bite through about a 3-4mm tempered steel breastplate ...



> If you want realism, where do you stop?




You stop where it starts to add complexity and / or it stops adding options and nuance to the game.  Just as I did in the example above.  There is no rule that says realism has to be all or nothing.  After all, D&D uses all kinds of "real" things like people having to drink water or bows shooting arrows.



> Sure, a pike is just as effective against leather as plate (more or less) but, a slashing weapon certainly isn't.



  which is one of the reason there aren't any armor piercing slashing weapons that I know of historically.  Every one I know of is a piercing or bludgeoning weapon.



> A mace is great against stuff with a hard shell, but, against elephant hide, it's much less effective.



 I disagree... I would bet you that a flanged mace would be just as good at breaking bones under elephant hide as it would be at breaking bones under mail or plate armor.  

Again, I do not think the mods I suggested actually make the game more complicated.  The fact is a lot of people already use a lot of these because they actually make the game feel more internally consistent and they add nuance, give more options to players and DM alike, etc. etc. 

I doubt genshou's game is being slowed down any by his litle houserule.




> This is already true.  A dagger can be used in grappling and a sword can't be.  A longspear has reach, a sword doesn't.




right, which is why it's only a baby step to add the features I mentioned.

D&D isn't a low-complexity game.  The combat is actually fairly complex, it's just that a lot of the complexity is either in magic or in mechanics which frankly don't make all that much sense or don't flow well (grapple is a well known example of the latter)

All I'm talking about is adding a few features which do not necessarily make the game more complicated at all but do enhance it significantly by actuly give players and DM's more options, and to help things like the weapons and armor actually make a lot more sense (i.e. fit together in a more internally consistent manner).

BD


----------



## lukelightning

Remember that natural armor is not always just thick hide or a shell; it could represent tough muscle, etc.


----------



## woodelf

Hussar said:
			
		

> Also, maybe I was misunderstanding, but didn't you mean that particular weapon types would be more effective vs certain armor *types* not armor classes.  That's what I meant by the Monster Manual getting more complicated.
> 
> After all, a creature might have +5 Natural Armor because it's like a rhino and has a really thick hide - making it susceptable to slashing weapons and resistant to bludgeoning - or it might have a chitinous shell like a bug - making it highly resistant to slashing but susceptable to piercing.  Even though they both have the same armor bonus, the adjustments by weapon type are changed.




I think the best way to do this is AC based on weapon types. A creature's AC already has at least 3 values (regular, touch, and flat-footed), you just further break it down into vs. slashing, vs. piercing, and vs. bludgeoning. So if someone attacks you with a longsword, you report your slashing AC; if they come at you with a flail, you report your bludgeoning AC; and if they come at you with a glowing hand, you report your touch AC.

That's what we did for nearly a decade with AD&D2, and it worked out fine. 99% of the time, a player knew which AC score to use based on the GM's description of the attack, and in those rare instances when it wasn't clear, the GM just had to say "what's your bludgeoning AC" instead of "what's your AC"--essentially no difference in speed of play. It's not super-detailed, but it's something, and easy to implement. Much easier than per-weapon or per-armor-type modifiers.



> And, I've a sneaking suspicion that "they" might be in the majority of gamers.  Those who want historical accuracy in a fantasy RPG are quite possibly in a minority.  If that is true, then having variant combat rules as an add on is a good idea.




More importantly, i think that those who want historical accuracy in a fantasy RPG have long since given up D&D for other RPGs that are at least closer.


----------



## big dummy

I'm always disappointed by the fact that whenever anyone tries to improve the realism of any RPG, they always concentrate on the damage model.  Hit points have problems, (especially if you let them get up into the triple digits and beyond) but IMO getting overly involved in the damage model is entering a realm of diminishing returns.  It'a kind of game designers trap.

Given the lethality of most medieval weapons, a real hit means ether you are killed, maimed, or it's just a scratch.  Armor protects you from damage, and historically it worked really well.  Hit points represent your ability to avoid that killing or maiming blow, at least for a while.

The real point is though, the 'reform' area ignored by most game deisgners which would actually be much more profitable are the mechanics of the fight itsself.  Why get bogged down into exactly how many tendons are cut or how many bones are smashed, when it's much more fun, and much more tactical and interactive, to actually play around with the combat mechanics instead, the actual fighting mechanics.

BD


----------



## lukelightning

Ok, since the topic of armor has been brought up, I want to point out a silly armor:  Studded leather.

I don't mind the concept (leather armor reinforced with metal), but I've yet to see a satisfactory representation of it; leather armor with sparse metal studs is how it's normally portrayed, as if a 1 inch diameter stud every 6 inches of armor is going to do anything.


----------



## genshou

lukelightning said:
			
		

> Ok, since the topic of armor has been brought up, I want to point out a silly armor:  Studded leather.
> 
> I don't mind the concept (leather armor reinforced with metal), but I've yet to see a satisfactory representation of it; leather armor with sparse metal studs is how it's normally portrayed, as if a 1 inch diameter stud every 6 inches of armor is going to do anything.



Yeah, I've never seen studded leather outside of a D&D book.  Did it ever really exist?


----------



## lukelightning

genshou said:
			
		

> Yeah, I've never seen studded leather outside of a D&D book.  Did it ever really exist?




You obviously haven't been to any, um _Adult_ clothing stores. Plenty of studded leather stuff there.  Come to think of it, lots of punk stuff is studded leather.


----------



## genshou

Simply having all piercing weapons halve the armour DR works just fine.  I've yet to apply a single exception to that rule (even the lucerne hammer is a piercing weapon).

Could a tyrannosaurus bite through field plate?  They had teeth the size of bananas and a jaw a lot bigger than an alligator's.  I would imagine that they couldn't actually bite through field plate in most cases, but the crushing force would still be enough to kill the knight inside.  I think with dragons it could even be the same way.  Damage to someone wearing armour doesn't necessarily meant the armour has been chopped asunder.  When a slashing weapon deals enough damage to overcome armour hardness, I describe it as hitting the armour with enough force to transfer the impact into the flesh beneath.

As for the part about adding reach to weapons, then you have to get into factoring weapon speed as well.  And that's a rant I don't think we need to see right now.


----------



## Rolzup

big dummy said:
			
		

> I'd really, really like to see a crocodile bite through about a 3-4mm tempered steel breastplate ...




Apparently their bite pressure has been determined to be about 2500 lbs.  Significantly more than the Great White Shark, with a mere 600 lbs.  Bit of a surprise, that -- I though Sharks were top of the heap.

No idea how that would penetrate steel, but this much I can say for sure: I don't want to be bitten by a croc no matter WHAT I happen to be wearing.  And I shudder to think how much pressure a dragon copuld bring to bear.  Even if he can't bite through the armor, the guy wearing it is going to have his day pretty well ruined.

Actually, he continued, here's a bit from a newspaper article that I just found....



> Australian crocodiles can attain 20 feet in length. They are the direct link to Sarcosuchus imperator, which roamed Africa 140-million years ago. Paleontologists believe they grew to 40 feet and ate dinosaurs. Extrapolating bite measurements from alligators, Vliet and colleagues believe the ancient crocodile bit with 18,000 pounds of pressure - roughly the weight of a Mack truck.




To which I can only say: God.  Damn.  I don't care how damned good your armor is.  Of course, if you're wearing _spiked_ armor, all bets are off!


----------



## genshou

lukelightning said:
			
		

> You obviously haven't been to any, um _Adult_ clothing stores. Plenty of studded leather stuff there.  Come to think of it, lots of punk stuff is studded leather.



Umm... yeah.  We're talking about real, functional medieval armour here, not your alternative lifestyle.


----------



## big dummy

genshou said:
			
		

> Yeah, I've never seen studded leather outside of a D&D book.  Did it ever really exist?




Right, I think again this is something a slayer fan was more likely to wear than an actual knight 

Most people believe "Studded leather" is a mistaken interpretation of brigantine, a popular type of armor which did actually exist in widespread use from around the 13th century through the late Reniassance.

Brigantine was usually a vest or jack, made of alternating layers of leather or cloth, with iron plates underneath.  The plates would be affixed to the leather by studs.  Thus to the uninitiated it looked like "studded leather".  It was actually far more effective as protection.

But just as "splint" mail existed as limb armor but was never (to my knowlege) used as torso protection let alone made into an entire "suit", "studded leather" would normally only be worn as torso armor.








BD


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> I don't mind the concept (leather armor reinforced with metal), but I've yet to see a satisfactory representation of it; leather armor with sparse metal studs is how it's normally portrayed, as if a 1 inch diameter stud every 6 inches of armor is going to do anything.




It did exist, but artist depictions of it are pretty off.  The studs were typically every .5" to 1.5" apart, more like you'd see on Rob Halford in the days before he left Judas Priest.  It was pretty decent at turning slashing attacks, but very little else.

The problem is there are very few examples of it that have survived.  Unlike leather armor, the backing for studded leather is soft leather, and it has a tendency to rot, leaving behind scraps or in extreme cases, just a pile of rivets.  It would also need significant repairs after almost any encounter, which wasn't much of a problem, since repairs would be cheap.


----------



## VirgilCaine

big dummy said:
			
		

> The thing is, based on knowing a bit of what armor is really like to wear, touch, be touched by etc., and some of the tests done on real or realisitc armor, if you are actually assuming something like a full plate harness I think this is actually going to be hard and painful to try to bite through or grasp for anything but the largest creatures.  I mean, a 10 foot bull shark cant' even bite through (aluminum alloy) shark-proof chainmail gnawwing and gnawwing.
> 
> Given how strong we know plate armor was, how is even a Dragon going to bite through it without breaking his teeth.  Given the physics of some longbow and crossbow test-firings I've seen done, I seriously doubt even a grizzly, a polar bear or a full grown tiger could bite or claw a man in full harness (the only way it could do damage would be blunt trauma of knocking yer knight down etc.) and I guarantee pouncing on a plate armored opponent would be damaging to the teeth / claws of the critter in question (unless they were themselves made of tempered steel or some imaginary magical metal like adamantium), not to mention to any other exposed flesh.  Wrestling with an armored knight is a great way to break bones and abrade fur and hide in fact.
> 
> In other words, I really don't think you would need spikes even if they did make sense, which I don't think they do.




What about giants or other larger-than-man-sized creatures grappling or picking up someone?


----------



## big dummy

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> What about giants or other larger-than-man-sized creatures grappling or picking up someone?




I dont' know, I'm not a physiscist, but I've seen a musket ball and a bolt from a 1200 lb crossbow bounce right off of a tempered steel breastplate.  That is hard stuff.  Most people never even see tempered steel these days, usually just stainless steel which is considerably weaker and far more brittle.  But try bending or denting 12 guage stainless steel for that matter (let alone breaking through it).  Pick up a stainless steel frying pan and see how easily you can rip it apart it in your bare hands.  Now try to imagine if it was about twice as strong.

There are probably people in this forum from the SCA who have a lot more direct experience than I do with heavy armor (including coat of plates) and how easy it is to crush or puncture.  

Frankly I think a giant, say ten feet tall, would tear himself up trying to grapple a knight in full harness, (though he may well be able to buffet that indivdual to the point of death inside of that armor, or say, twist his head all the way around).  Of course, if you get big enough, eventually you will reach a point where you could probably crush steel.  I don't know the math.

BD


----------



## big dummy

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> It did exist, but artist depictions of it are pretty off.  The studs were typically every .5" to 1.5" apart, more like you'd see on Rob Halford in the days before he left Judas Priest.  It was pretty decent at turning slashing attacks, but very little else.
> 
> The problem is there are very few examples of it that have survived.  Unlike leather armor, the backing for studded leather is soft leather, and it has a tendency to rot, leaving behind scraps or in extreme cases, just a pile of rivets.  It would also need significant repairs after almost any encounter, which wasn't much of a problem, since repairs would be cheap.




Do you have access to some kind of evidence that this type of armor existed?  From what I have gathered leather itself was actually fairly expensive in Europe through most of the Medieval period and wasn't used that much as armor.  Some cuir boulli in Italy, particularly for limb armor (some of which still survives in muesums)  I know of some cuir boilli lamellar as well, and a some examples of russian "bakhtarets" armor incorporating leather and mail and small plates... but I've never seen anything like "studded" leather or ringmail for that matter.

If you have a source though I'd love to see it.

BD


----------



## hamishspence

the brigantine armour looks EXACTLY like the depiction of Studded leather in the Diablo 2 game. Satisfying me. (in Diablo 1 the armour looks like a biker jacket: not so good   )

Greatsword: to me means Claymore. William Wallace wielded an outsized version still to be seen in Stirling Castle. Biiig. In the Player Guide, Regdar's weapon simply shouts Claymore.

Longsword: isn't that what the Vikings wielded? Fairly bulky, at least. Pictures usually show a fairly big sword in one hand, shield in other.

Short sword: Roman gladius approximates best.

Scimitar: Generic curved sword: used in some real life cultures

Zweihander: the biggest of these can be represented by the Fullblade. Captures the difficuly of wielding such a huge weapon. (extra nonproficiency penalty)

Greatbow. 6 ft long. In some robin hood novels it states that his bow is man-high. Not sure if this is actually the case in real life bows.

Mercurial weapons. Dubious at best.

Spiked armour. Not sure how long spikes get before problems start. Not a very hand weapon though: grappling mostly.

Spiked chain. Dubious. Chains wielded as improvised weapons (by escaped slaves) feature in some novels. It probably represents a more dangerous version of this.

Yes, the combat system has its flaws. It is an abstration, so cannot ever be perfected. Might improve with each edition though. Remember more than 90% of D&D world people are 1st level: where 1 hit frequently = unconsiousness and often bleeding to death in <1  min. 

Dragon magazine had an article 18+ months ago discussing samurai vs knight: weapons, armour, etc and  said they were evenly matched. Not sure if I agree.


----------



## hamishspence

*My views on thread topic.*

the brigantine armour looks EXACTLY like the depiction of Studded leather in the Diablo 2 game. Satisfying me. (in Diablo 1 the armour looks like a biker jacket: not so good   )

Greatsword: to me means Claymore. William Wallace wielded an outsized version still to be seen in Stirling Castle. Biiig. In the Player Guide, Regdar's weapon simply shouts Claymore.

Longsword: isn't that what the Vikings wielded? Fairly bulky, at least. Pictures usually show a fairly big sword in one hand, shield in other.

Short sword: Roman gladius approximates best.

Scimitar: Generic curved sword: used in some real life cultures

Zweihander: the biggest of these can be represented by the Fullblade. Captures the difficuly of wielding such a huge weapon. (extra nonproficiency penalty)

Greatbow. 6 ft long. In some robin hood novels it states that his bow is man-high. Not sure if this is actually the case in real life bows.

Mercurial weapons. Dubious at best.

Spiked armour. Not sure how long spikes get before problems start. Not a very hand weapon though: grappling mostly.

Spiked chain. Dubious. Chains wielded as improvised weapons (by escaped slaves) feature in some novels. It probably represents a more dangerous version of this.

Yes, the combat system has its flaws. It is an abstration, so cannot ever be perfected. Might improve with each edition though. Remember more than 90% of D&D world people are 1st level: where 1 hit frequently = unconsiousness and often bleeding to death in <1  min. 

Dragon magazine had an article 18+ months ago discussing samurai vs knight: weapons, armour, etc and  said they were evenly matched. Not sure if I agree.


----------



## Rolzup

big dummy said:
			
		

> I dont' know, I'm not a physiscist, but I've seen a musket ball and a bolt from a 1200 lb crossbow bounce right off of a tempered steel breastplate.  That is hard stuff.  Most people never even see tempered steel these days, usually just stainless steel which is considerably weaker and far more brittle.  But try bending or denting 12 guage stainless steel for that matter (let alone breaking through it).  Pick up a stainless steel frying pan and see how easily you can rip it apart it in your bare hands.  Now try to imagine if it was about twice as strong.




Again, though: *Nine tons* of pressure, estimated, from something that's essentially a forty-foot crocodile.  Not a bad description of a dragon, really.

But halve it, just to be conservative: would a typical suit of armor stand up to 4.5 tons of pressure?  This is an honest question, mind!  I'm guessing that the answer is "no", but I'm hardly an expert.


----------



## big dummy

Rolzup said:
			
		

> Again, though: *Nine tons* of pressure, estimated, from something that's essentially a forty-foot crocodile.  Not a bad description of a dragon, really.
> 
> But halve it, just to be conservative: would a typical suit of armor stand up to 4.5 tons of pressure?  This is an honest question, mind!  I'm guessing that the answer is "no", but I'm hardly an expert.




I dont know to be honest, but I do know that teeth, bones, and flesh will have a hard time holding up to tempered steel.  Even if your 20' croc could crush it or even bite through it, I bet he would lose about half of his teeth and be at serious risk of breaking his jaw.  I would guess he would let go as soon as he took the first bite.  Either that or gently grab the knight, roll a few times until he drowned, and then go hide him under a stump somewhere to soften up gradually....

BD


----------



## Someone

big dummy said:
			
		

> Of course, if you get big enough, eventually you will reach a point where you could probably crush steel.  I don't know the math.
> 
> BD




Such giant would have bones -and muscles- that would laugh at steel, or his weight alone would crush _him_.


----------



## lukelightning

big dummy said:
			
		

> ....Even if your 20' croc could crush it or even bite through it, I bet he would lose about half of his teeth and be at serious risk of breaking his jaw....




But what about my super killa ninja crocs that have katanas for teeth and can spit out shuriken?


----------



## genshou

lukelightning said:
			
		

> But what about my super killa ninja crocs that have katanas for teeth and can spit out shuriken?



Those are in a class all their own.  Especially if they become pirates.


----------



## genshou

big dummy said:
			
		

> Right, I think again this is something a slayer fan was more likely to wear than an actual knight
> 
> Most people believe "Studded leather" is a mistaken interpretation of brigantine, a popular type of armor which did actually exist in widespread use from around the 13th century through the late Reniassance.
> 
> Brigantine was usually a vest or jack, made of alternating layers of leather or cloth, with iron plates underneath.  The plates would be affixed to the leather by studs.  Thus to the uninitiated it looked like "studded leather".  It was actually far more effective as protection.
> 
> But just as "splint" mail existed as limb armor but was never (to my knowlege) used as torso protection let alone made into an entire "suit", "studded leather" would normally only be worn as torso armor.
> 
> [image snipped]
> 
> 
> BD



The stats for brigandine are in various D&D books.  If I remember right, it's a medium armour.  Not quite the same as D&D studded leather (which is lighter than a chain shirt).


----------



## big dummy

genshou said:
			
		

> The stats for brigandine are in various D&D books.  If I remember right, it's a medium armour.  Not quite the same as D&D studded leather (which is lighter than a chain shirt).




Like I said, I really don't think "studded leather" existed in real life.  For what it's worth leather armor is a lot different than the way D&D portrays it, much more bulky for one thing.  

The most common "light" armor were different types of cloth padded armor, gambesons and jupons and arming jacks and the like, some of which were rather effective.

Much later in the 16th -17th century you start to see Cavalry using the buff coat which was made of specially treated buffalo leather (with whale oil I think?) and somewhat resembled the leather armor in D&D.

BD


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> I dont know to be honest, but I do know that teeth, bones, and flesh will have a hard time holding up to tempered steel.




There was a National Geographic some years ago that detailed an expedition to do some research on types of pirana...they pointed out that at least one day ended with hooks that had been bitten to pieces.



> Do you have access to some kind of evidence that this type of armor existed...but I've never seen anything like "studded" leather or ringmail for that matter.




I haven't seen any evidence of the ringmail either, but as for the studded stuff, I was once told by a curator that there are scattered scraps (like hand sized) of things they _believe_ to be studded leather.  Their belief was based upon, among other things, that they couldn't think of another purpose for soft leather to be studded with steel.  They could be wrong, of course.

If there was such a thing as ringmail, it was probably similar in characteristics to studded leather- in other words, soft leather with rings of metal, limited in protective value...and thus, just as subject to deterioration.

Like the discussion of mercurial swords, such armors would probably be rare anyway...most people who could afford such craftsmanship (nice soft leathers + lots of rivets or rings + time to attach the rivets or rings = expensive to buy) would opt for armors that are more protective.

The main advantages to such armors, if they really existed, would be that once bought, they'd be cheap to maintain (if you know a modicum of sewing, etc.) and would be relatively quiet, flexible and compact.  You could, with the proper design, wear such armor under certain clothes without it being uncomfortable.

Rob Halford wore a set of studded leathers in concert in Brazil that weighed somewhere around 25lbs, and it didn't slow him down- the only downside he noted was that the hot stage lights actually had their heat transferred to his skin directly by the studs, causing hundreds of tiny burns.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Just another aside about spiked armor...

You do find a lot of aquatic critters that use spikes to avoid being eaten/grappled.

The Urchin and puffer fish are the most obvious, but many others have them as well...many catfish have sharp spines in their main fins, the Acanthurus has retractible blades along its sides, and some creatures even poison their spikes, like the lionfish...

All adaptations to facing opponents much larger than you.  We never had predators like that in the real world, but if large carnosaurs had roamed Middle-Ages Europe, I bet _someone_ would have at least tried it out.


----------



## Hussar

DA, I was thinking something similar.  

All the realistic discussion of weapons and armor is well and good, but, none of the real world armors were particularly designed to foil a 150 foot bloody lizard.  Or any of the plethora of monsters out there in DnD land.  This would almost have to change the development of armor greatly.  

RL armor developed in tandem with the weapons of the time.  Fantasy armor would as well to a point, but, no matter how well you make a sword, it's just not as effective as the crushing end of a giant's club.  Armor would have to reflect that.


----------



## lukelightning

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> ...We never had predators like that in the real world, but if large carnosaurs had roamed Middle-Ages Europe, I bet _someone_ would have at least tried it out.




Quick! Someone make the *Chivalry and Carnosaurs* setting!  Dino-mounted knights questing to stop the t-rex that's been terrorizing the countryside!  Tricerotops jousts!


----------



## DreadPirateMurphy

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/cnhc/potm-jun00.html

Metal boat bitten by a crocodile.

Not armor, but still, a bite by a fairly small croc into a metal hull.  Scale that up for Mr. Dragon.  Suffice it to say that I will NOT be volunteering to put on the "dragon suit" and get lowered into a dragon's lair with a camera.


----------



## big dummy

DreadPirateMurphy said:
			
		

> http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/cnhc/potm-jun00.html
> 
> Metal boat bitten by a crocodile.
> 
> Not armor, but still, a bite by a fairly small croc into a metal hull.  Scale that up for Mr. Dragon.  Suffice it to say that I will NOT be volunteering to put on the "dragon suit" and get lowered into a dragon's lair with a camera.





Thats a pretty cool picture, and rather amazing, but I would still be willing to be thats probably aluminum, I guarantee you it's not tempered steel.  

Tempered steel and even iron is some amazingly hard and strong stuff.  Much stronger than most people realise.

I think even a large predator would end up unhappy after trying to bite through it.  I bet that alligator would break it's jaw and / or teeth before puncturing a tempered steel vambrace let alone breast plate.  (of course he could always just seize it and roll over and over until the arm came off...)

I believe the best European body armor that existed historically could withstand the attack of any of the numerous quite fearsome predators which exist in the real world, including bears, tigers, lions, wolves, sharks and even 20 foot saltwater crocodiles.

(I'm not so sure about an elephant or a rhino though)

Having said that, I grant you in D&D there are monsters considerably larger than any of the above, some with magical powers.  Luckily for the denizins of D&D lands they are fairly few and far between

I don't think any body armor anyone could invent could hold up to a 150' dragon.  

What I bet you would see if there were dragons like that in the Real World are some really interesting war machines of the type Leonardo Davinchi experimented with.  Self propelled armored turtles with all sorts of torsion powered ballistae, greek fire projectors, and _plenty_ of spikes.  Maybe even things like pincers and blades (they were able to accomplish some pretty amazing things with clockwork and gears in those days.)

I bet you would see some pretty fantastic dragon hunting machinery, and a whole different type of fortification for castles.

I wouldn't put my money on the dragons either, humans are like something in between fire ants and really, really mean monkeys....with tools.  They are incredibly persistant and hostile and endlessly inventive and no species on earth has even come close to standing up to them.

BD


----------



## lukelightning

big dummy said:
			
		

> I believe the best European body armor that existed historically could withstand the attack of any of the numerous quite fearsome predators which exist in the real world, including bears, tigers, lions, wolves, sharks and even 20 foot saltwater crocodiles.




If you mean "resist as in avoid getting punctured" then possibly yes. If you mean "resist as in keeping the person alive" then the answer is a resounding no.  A lion or especially a bear could easily produce enough force to affect the joints of the armor and possibly pull it apart.  You know Project Grizzly? This guy has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to make a grizzly-proof suit, with limited success.


----------



## Agent Oracle

lukelightning said:
			
		

> Quick! Someone make the *Chivalry and Carnosaurs* setting!  Dino-mounted knights questing to stop the t-rex that's been terrorizing the countryside!  Tricerotops jousts!




... that would be an AWESOME alternate history setting.

Okay, the catastrophy that wiped out the dinosaurs?  Never happened.  but, The ice age did, and without the extra greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere released by the impact of the comet, it allowed the ice age to go on a lot longer.  

Mankind evolved, and learned how to use tools.  They moved southward to where game was more prevalant, along with the ever-present dinosaur threat.  However, man used their superior brains to conquer and domesticate the savage beasts.

Gotta have other races... okay... the Neanderthals, who evolved alongside man.  They were bigger than humans, roughly equal in terms of tools, but humans out-competed them in real life... in this world, the neanderthals (Who call themselves something appropriate: like... "the Dashin")  Yeah, i can see that.  "I'm playing a Dashian Cleric"  Of course, Dashin would get a bonus to one side of their stats, and a penalty to another... maybe Str and Wis?  They are allways so sure of themselves...

And... some more variety... Umn, Lessee... in the americas, particularly, central america, they discovered a fossil of a avian species that had a second set of talons instead of wings.  Maybe a bird-people evolved in central america?  Give 'em Incan flavor.  They worship the sun and sacrifice things to their god as part of the flavor.

And we need something that's analogis for the darker aspects of humanity... what about a reptiloid people?  lizardfolk, only more humanoid, less reptilian.  Nah... we'll include those in an expansion.

So, the humans dominate the dinosaurs, and begin establishing feudal societies.  Smaller dinos are farmed for their meat, larger ones are used in war.  and wars are plentiful.


----------



## hamishspence

*Studded leather and swords*

I think I also saw a reference on Dragon 323 that said the Mongols (Ghengis Khan era) wore studded leather.

On swords: if my memory is right the greatsword in D&D is 6 Lb. I went through the net and Claymores (old twohander, NOT basket hilted one-hander) seem to range between 5 and 7 Lb. Pretty good bracketing. And the claymore is supposed to be unusually light and fast (say the websites)

Dinosaurs: Faerun has them: Chult, + some areas of Heartlands. Eberron has a more integrated dino-halfling culture. Not sure about Greyhawk.

My idea of a mercurial weapon was: Ordinary sword with so called blood-channel on either side. Extend channel into hollow hilt. Layer of metal over channel to protect it. Voila: sword which has normal durability + shifting weight. Most attacks would either be edge to edge or flat to flat. So chance of plating being broken isn't to high. And since under the plating is a normal sword, even loss of mercury won't mean broken sword. Hollow hilt means shift of weight to blade would be noticable.

Whether it would be practical is another thing, but it does demonstrate you can have the channel without wreaking the weapon.


----------



## lukelightning

hamishspence said:
			
		

> My idea of a mercurial weapon was: Ordinary sword with so called blood-channel on either side. Extend channel into hollow hilt. Layer of metal over channel to protect it. Voila: sword which has normal durability + shifting weight. Most attacks would either be edge to edge or flat to flat. So chance of plating being broken isn't to high. And since under the plating is a normal sword, even loss of mercury won't mean broken sword. Hollow hilt means shift of weight to blade would be noticable.




I think the flex of the blade would soon break the metal over the channel.


----------



## big dummy

hamishspence said:
			
		

> I think I also saw a reference on Dragon 323 that said the Mongols (Ghengis Khan era) wore studded leather.




Mongols used all kinds of armor including leather, but as far as I know, never anything like the infaous D&D "studded leather".  The most common would be simple padded felt, maile and lamellar (leather and iron).

If you are curious about it, this is an excellent website on Mongol armor of all types, very well researched.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/3505/



> On swords: if my memory is right the greatsword in D&D is 6 Lb.



your memory is wrong the greatsword in 3.5 D&D is 8 lbs.  If MY memory is right thats actually down from 15 in 3.0 D&D.



> I went through the net and Claymores (old twohander, NOT basket hilted one-hander) seem to range between 5 and 7 Lb. Pretty good bracketing. And the claymore is supposed to be unusually light and fast (say the websites)




The Scottish Claim-De-Liamh or two hander is a good candidate, it's sort of inbetween the traditional greatsword and the zweihander in length, being up to 5' long and could weigh up to around 5 or 6 lbs, though most surviving examples which seem to have been combat ready were about 3-4 lbs.



> My idea of a mercurial weapon was: Ordinary sword with so called blood-channel on either side. Extend channel into hollow hilt. Layer of metal over channel to protect it. Voila: sword which has normal durability + shifting weight. Most attacks would either be edge to edge or flat to flat. So chance of plating being broken isn't to high. And since under the plating is a normal sword, even loss of mercury won't mean broken sword. Hollow hilt means shift of weight to blade would be noticable.
> 
> Whether it would be practical is another thing, but it does demonstrate you can have the channel without wreaking the weapon.




Very unlikely you could make steel thick enough to protect the channel, especially since most displacement (parrying) was done with the flat of the blade in Western fencing, and also in that amount of space you probably wouldn't be able to fit enough mercury to make a difference in weight... not that that difference would actually help you in any way if you could! (read the rest of the thread for more on this..)

BD


----------



## big dummy

lukelightning said:
			
		

> If you mean "resist as in avoid getting punctured" then possibly yes. If you mean "resist as in keeping the person alive" then the answer is a resounding no.  A lion or especially a bear could easily produce enough force to affect the joints of the armor and possibly pull it apart.  You know Project Grizzly? This guy has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to make a grizzly-proof suit, with limited success.





Yeah I'm familair with project grizzly, quite amusing.  And yes, I agree that in a knock down drag-out, a sufficiently clever monster the size of a brown bear could always rip your arms off or twist your head off.  

However I did recently see a "when animals attack" show on Discovery where a guy actually fought a big Grizzly bear with a hunting knife and mortally wounded it, before finishing it off with his gun.  A Grizzly moreover which had just recently killed another hunter.

Bottom line, if I did have to fight a Grizzly bear for some very unwelcome reason, I would much rather do so in full plate harness than unarmored.  In attacks I've read about and seen on cable, Grizzlys often seem to bite the heads and rip open the abdomen of their victims with their claws, neither of which would have much effect if you were in armor.  The armor would also definately discourage and harm the bear as it tried to kill you, and bears like many animals can be disuaded from attack by even slight injuries or pain.  Even the buffeting effect of a bear paw, from some of the blows I've seen people ignore in steel helmets in training I think you'd have a much better chance of remaining conscious with that armor on.


Again, if I had to, I would also prefer to fight a grizzly with a nice long spear with a cross-bar, so that I could thrust into him before he closed to grapple distance with me.  Which brings me back to those simple rules mods.  If I had a nice +6 To Hit advantage for reach it might give me an extra fighting chance to fend that bear off.

Thats probably why people who did hunt dangerous animals like boars and bears on foot using hand weapons (and some still do) traditionally used a spear.  For the reach.

(Of course there are some psychos out there who hunt animals like that with knives. )

BD


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> I believe the best European body armor that existed historically could withstand the attack of any of the numerous quite fearsome predators which exist in the real world, including bears, tigers, lions, wolves, sharks and even 20 foot saltwater crocodiles.




I don't think so.  In a discussion of fullplate on the History Channel International, they were showing the effects of sword blows and expecially the "Murder Blow" from swordfighting manuals (its a 2 handed overhead strike with the attacker grasping the blade of his sword aiming at the head, using the sword's crossbar like a blunt pick) upon the armor wearers.  By and large, the armor turned the blows, but the force of the blows would have done significant blunt trauma to the wearer.  The Murder Blow, if solidly landed would likely have caused a severe concussion if not unconsciousness.

And most of those predators can develop as much or more force with their blows.  A bear's claw-swat or a leopard's "punch" could easily knock a man unconscious if not killing him outright.  Unless he drives the creature off or kills it outright, a determined predator could kill a man in fullplate.



> Quick! Someone make the Chivalry and Carnosaurs setting! Dino-mounted knights questing to stop the t-rex that's been terrorizing the countryside! Tricerotops jousts!




Dude- change the name to Carnosaurs & Cavaliers and I'll buy it!

BTW, there's a writer named Kurt R.A. Giambastiani who has an alt fantasy history series in which dinos still exist (in 1800s USA at least), so the Native American tribes who have "domesticated" some of them managed to hold off American expansion and genocide.  Custer didn't die at Little Big Horn because the Americans never got that far...and he became President instead.  His son, however, winds up on the American frontier...

Perfect for a Northern Crown campaign, IMHO.


----------



## Hussar

Y'know, reading through this gives me a hankering to play Steam-punk or Dragon-mech.  Either concept does kinda make sense when you think about it.  Da Vinci taken a few more steps.


----------



## big dummy

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I don't think so.  In a discussion of fullplate on the History Channel International, they were showing the effects of sword blows and expecially the "Murder Blow" from swordfighting manuals (its a




I know what a morstshlag is, I've been studying WMA for 7 years.  It's a good way to attack armor with a tempered steel quillion using significant leverage.  However, while that show can surmise as to what they think would happen, I disagree based on 

One of the guys I train with uses a replica Italian barbutte.  I hit him routinely hard enough to break bones if he wasn't wearing armor, and he barely even feels it.  

You should watch some SCA combat some time.  A 250 lb guy with 50 lbs of armor charging down a hill to smack someone in the head with a 3 lb solid wooden club can generate a lot of force too, and these guys barely even notice it.  And they are wearing helmets made of as little as 16 guage simple mild steel plate for the most part.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7BIjuAdZXU

The idea of a leopard being able to knock out a man wearing a helmet like that with some kind of bruce-lee punch is laughable to me.

A really big grizzly or polar bear could possibly kill a guy in plate armor especially if he wasn't fighting back, but it would defiantely be a challenge, a painful challenge to boot.  

The main thing is that their teeth and claws could not penetrate. Many people have survived bear maulings without having their heads caved in or knocked off or their rib cages caved in, again from the damage I've seen on the numerous documentaries they air on animal attacks on Discovery, Discovery Science, national geographic explorer etc. etc. the deaths and serious injuries seemed to have been caused primarily by teeth and claws.

BD


----------



## Imp

Animals are astonishingly strong and fast.  You cannot compare them with humans on a pound for pound basis.  You're probably right that the armor would save the person's life (and I don't see a leopard, or a tiger for that matter, being bullheaded enough to go after a guy encased in plate) – but under attack from any determined animal that's at all likely to attack a man in armor (and those are few) the human would have to get in a telling blow very quickly or be rendered helpless.


----------



## Hussar

I have to agree that a leopard isn't likely to be able to really hurt a guy wearing full plate.  Then again, a leopard isn't exactly a large animal.  Somewhere in the neighbourhood of 180 pounds or so IIRC.  Ok, it's a big bloody cat, but, compared to monsters, it's a minor problem.

I'd be much more worried about that giant picking me up and beating me like a pinata.  Sure, my armor might be in one piece at the end of things, but, all that does is provide a jello mold for my bloody corpse.


----------



## big dummy

Hussar said:
			
		

> I have to agree that a leopard isn't likely to be able to really hurt a guy wearing full plate.  Then again, a leopard isn't exactly a large animal.  Somewhere in the neighbourhood of 180 pounds or so IIRC.  Ok, it's a big bloody cat, but, compared to monsters, it's a minor problem.
> 
> I'd be much more worried about that giant picking me up and beating me like a pinata.  Sure, my armor might be in one piece at the end of things, but, all that does is provide a jello mold for my bloody corpse.




Yeah a big enough giant could definately do that, or just twist your head off like I said before.

BD


----------



## lukelightning

And you really have to watch out for half-rust-monster-leopards!


----------



## big dummy

lukelightning said:
			
		

> And you really have to watch out for half-rust-monster-leopards!




ROFL!


----------



## DreadPirateMurphy

hamishspence said:
			
		

> Dinosaurs: Faerun has them: Chult, + some areas of Heartlands. Eberron has a more integrated dino-halfling culture. Not sure about Greyhawk.




Side note from the thread, but IIRC, isn't module X1, The Isle of Dread, set in Greyhawk?  That had dinosaurs.  

It occurs to me that we're arguing armor piercing teeth in a setting where "swallow whole" is a viable tactic for a fairly sizable number of beasts.  That ignores the attacks that turn you to stone, make you insane, eat through your armor with acid, burn you to a crisp, or zap you with a million volts.  Let's face it...your average D&D campaign setting is more like Harry Harrison's Deathworld than any reasonable ecology.


----------



## Agent Oracle

Hussar said:
			
		

> I have to agree that a leopard isn't likely to be able to really hurt a guy wearing full plate.  Then again, a leopard isn't exactly a large animal.  Somewhere in the neighbourhood of 180 pounds or so IIRC.  Ok, it's a big bloody cat, but, compared to monsters, it's a minor problem.
> 
> I'd be much more worried about that giant picking me up and beating me like a pinata.  Sure, my armor might be in one piece at the end of things, but, all that does is provide a jello mold for my bloody corpse.




Okay, you want armor that's proof against "klarge" animals? the largest land-based predator on earth is the kodiac bear.  There's a guy who'se allready proven that armor can be used against bears.







THis is Troy Hurtubise, and beside him is the Ursus Mark VI.






The Ursus Mk 6 weighs in at a healthy 67.5 kg (148 lbs) and has been tested against all manner of damage possible, INCLUDING bears.  The armor is multiple layers of mesh composites and steel, and is -bulletproof -truck proof -axe proof -baseball bat proof -and above all else, Kodiac bear proof.

Kodiacs are LARGE sized critters






They weigh about 1,500 pounds, eat anything they want to, and can run down deer in short bursts.  They are the ultimate in melee competitors on earth.

And they cna't get inside that suit.

Now granted, he was battered around a bit, but because of all the padding on the inside of the suit, he didn't even get scratched.


----------



## big dummy

Agent Oracle said:
			
		

> They weigh about 1,500 pounds, eat anything they want to, and can run down deer in short bursts.  They are the ultimate in melee competitors on earth.
> .




Great post Oracle...

and I've got just the right weapon for facing that monster.... a Viking "hewing spear"














BD


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> You should watch some SCA combat some time. A 250 lb guy with 50 lbs of armor charging down a hill to smack someone in the head with a 3 lb solid wooden club can generate a lot of force too, and these guys barely even notice it. And they are wearing helmets made of as little as 16 guage simple mild steel plate for the most part.
> 
> The idea of a leopard being able to knock out a man wearing a helmet like that with some kind of bruce-lee punch is laughable to me.




First, I'm pretty familar with SCA combat as an observer- I have had several buddies who are participants- and the fact remains that these guys are still not trying to _kill_ each other.  In fact, SCA rules are designed to prevent people from killing each other.

As for the leopard, that "punch" is what they call the cat's preferred method of attack.  They kill by ambush, pouncing from above, using powerful leg muscles to thrust their whole mass into the head and neck of their opponents, driving the prey to the ground and frequently resulting in a snapped neck.  If no break occurs, the cat grabs the throat and bites, severing blood vessels, & collapsing the trachea- simultaneously exsanguinating & suffocating the victim.  Then they take their prey back into the trees for storage & dining.

Now, the guy in plate armor has the advantage of having the armor restict his neck's movement, so breaking the neck is unlikely.  However, that kind of mass hitting a helmeted football or hockey player frequently causes severe concussions and unconsciousness.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> I know what a morstshlag is, I've been studying WMA for 7 years. It's a good way to attack armor with a tempered steel quillion using significant leverage. However, while that show can surmise as to what they think would happen...




I posted a definition because not everyone knows what a "murder blow" is, not to insult your intelligence.  I know I only found out about them a couple of years ago.

As for the rest, it wasn't mere surmise- they were using ballistics jelly models that are used to study the effects of weapons on flesh & bone- the same way they tested armor piercing arrows and bolts versus breastplates in another episode.  The disruption caused by the "murder blow" was significant, consistent with blows capable of causing unconsciousness.

The caveat, though, was that they person striking the blow had to take several whacks at the test helm in order to land a good, solid strike on it.  The helm's strength and curvature actually turned most of the blows into "love taps" that might hurt or annoy, but wouldn't adversely affect the blow's victim.  Such a blow was probably a rarely attempted, and certainly rarely successful- solid hits to the head were much easier to land with weapons like maces, flails and picks.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

BTW: As pointed out in the movie _The Prophecy_, the BEST weapon against a huge bear is, of course, a rocket launcher- which all forest rangers carry, right?


----------



## big dummy

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> The helm's strength and curvature actually turned most of the blows into "love taps" that might hurt or annoy, but wouldn't adversely affect the blow's victim.  Such a blow was probably a rarely attempted, and certainly rarely successful- solid hits to the head were much easier to land with weapons like maces, flails and picks.




Well thats just the point those helmets, particularly the later era ones, were designed to make blows slip off of them without landing solidly.

And the problem with those tests is exactly how much of and what type of padding and suspension they acutally use under the helmet.  For one thing, it wasn't at all unusual to wear a steel arming cap _under_ a larger great helm.

Also A flail, mace or pick with an iron or steel striking payload a LOT more mass density and hardness than a bears paw, let alone a panther.

Here is one example.  I weigh 290 lbs, and I can bench press considerably more than that.  In our group, unlike SCA, we make no attempt whatsoever to pull our blows, nor do we have any rules as to where you can hit.  "Safety last" you might say.  

Our weapons are nominally padded to help prevent broken bones, but have solid cores and are realistically heavy (3-4 lbs) and strong enough that they regularly split 1/2" plywood SCA type shields for example, and bend alumnium ones.  I broke a 2"x4" stud with one last week.  Fighting with these without helmets leads to routine knockouts and concussions.  Which is why we always wear helmets. 

And the best helmet we've been able to find so far in terms of overall safety is a replica of an old Renaissance era Italian Barbutte, which looks something like an old cylon helmet.






If you watch this little video of our old New Orleans sparring group in action...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6D6Iw7iqzM0

Right at about minute 1:02 you will see me fighting a guy in a tournament.  I end up displacing his cut and then countering with an oberhau, nailing him in the back of the head almost as hard as I could with one of our heavy wasters.  I wasn't trying to hurt the guy but to get the blow landed before his near simultaneous counterstrike I had to strike fast, and therefore _hard_.  The instant of the strike is actually shown twice for emphasis because it was unusually hard.  He is wearing that barbutte which I believe is only 18 guage steel, plus a (period realistic) padded arming cap underneath.  He didn't even get a headache from that blow.  Without the helmet he would have beeen unconsciuous and quite possibly had a seisure.  In fact that helmet seems to completely protect him from any injuries, he often can't even tell when he gets hit in the head.

Even with one of the lacrosse helmets we usually wear it would have meant staggering away for a 5 minute sit-down and possibly no more sparring for the rest of the day (which is exactly as you can see happen to another guy wearing a motorcycle helmet at minute 1:35 in the same video... he got nailed hard enough that his day was over.  And thats with a helmet supposed to save your life from wrecking off of a motorbike).

Thats just one tiny example of how my experience has taught me those helmets worked bloody well.

BD


----------



## Set

The 'punch' from a cat is only to knock it's prey down.  It then bites the throat, attempting to suffocate or snap the neck of it's prey, using it's claws mainly to hang on tight and prevent it from getting up / getting away.

I've raised big cats for zoos and animal parks (jaguars, tigers and lions primarily), been mauled by big cats (a leopard and a mountain lion) and even been thrown across a room by a jaguars 'playful swat' (I weighed 200 lbs at the time.  It wasn't fully grown...).  A 25 lb. tiger kit can generate more forward force than most adult humans.  (Hint, if someone hands you a leash and says to 'take him for a walk,' what they really mean is 'pick him up and carry him back when he's finally tired of dragging you wherever the heck he wants to go...')

And that's just a cat.  Bears are stronger and skeer me.  If a cat (or bear) is going for a stranglehold and can't get a good grip, as it wouldn't be able to do on someone wearing a helmet or gorget, it will settle for twisting the head.

Medieval armor has absolutely no protective value against something twisting your head...  (Weird car-proof exosuits, on the other hand, sure, whatever.  Good luck enjoying your next nature walk wearing a 250 lbs. of wannabe-battlemech.)

People regularly underestimate the strength of animals (and much more regularly overestimate their own durability).  A *swan* can snap a grown man's back with a single blow from it's soft, light and fragile hollow-boned wing.  That cute little 45 lb. chimp that clung to Matthew Broderick in Project X was seven times stronger than him and could have killed him with a single blow to the head *by accident.*

When faced with an animal, your advantage is your brain.  Despite being vastly stronger, usually significantly faster, and covered with protective hide and decorated with pointy killing implements, most animals don't *want* to fight a person, don't *want* to get hurt (since they live in a world with no doctors, where an injured hunter is a dead hunter) and are often pretty easy to outwit.

Unless it's a shark, and you're in the water.  Then you're pretty much chum...


----------



## Hussar

> Medieval armor has absolutely no protective value against something twisting your head... (Weird car-proof exosuits, on the other hand, sure, whatever. Good luck enjoying your next nature walk wearing a 250 lbs. of wannabe-battlemech.)




I think this is the point we've been dancing around.  While DnD doesn't simulate this very well, there would be an awful lot more danger from a monster than simply punching through your armor.  Image how well you could survive being picked up by your head and then shaken a few times - which is probably the best way for any huge or larger creature to kill it, similar to the way terriers kill rats.

While the armor might stop the bite, it's the other stuff that would necessitate the development of armor spikes.  Mr Hill Giant picking you up by the arm and swinging you until your arm rips off would be a fairly serious danger.  As would wishboning by any of the bigger creatures as well.

At least with spikes a few inches long, it would make this sort of thing more difficult.


----------



## raisin-oatmeal-cookie

Y'all are forgetting the greataxe. I mean. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




Unrealistic. Where in the nine circles of hell would you put it? Not in the storage room, that's for sure. And good luck swinging that hunk of metal around, you'd frequently flay a fair few fellow fighter friends, frankly.


----------



## Bohandas

DreadPirateMurphy said:


> While I am far from an expert on medieval weaponry, and I appreciate artistic license, there are some weapons proposed for D&D 3.x that just seem mind-bogglingly impractical.  Perhaps somebody can point out the utility of some of these beyond being "kewl."
> 
> 1)  Whip-daggers:  Did anybody ever actually create such a weapon?  Whips strike me as falling into the category of "agricultural tools used as improvised weapons."  What would be the point of tying a dagger to the end of one, rather than just learning to throw knives?




There is a sword called a urumi that has a flaccid blade that can be flicked around like a whip. Also, it's flexible enough to be worn as a belt.



DreadPirateMurphy said:


> 4)  Orc Shotput:  The perfect counterpoint to the Orc javelin team.  Spend 10 gp on a 15 lbs. chunk of iron...or just go and find a rock to throw.
> 
> 7)  Caber:  If I recall correctly, this was offered in _Masters of the Wild_.  It was a log that you throw at people.  I never understood why this counted as a weapon rather than as improvised use of scenery.




I guess since they're both from sporting events it makes sense for some people to be proficient in throwing them?


----------



## aramis erak

DreadPirateMurphy said:


> While I am far from an expert on medieval weaponry, and I appreciate artistic license, there are some weapons proposed for D&D 3.x that just seem mind-bogglingly impractical.  Perhaps somebody can point out the utility of some of these beyond being "kewl."
> 
> 1)  Whip-daggers:  Did anybody ever actually create such a weapon?  Whips strike me as falling into the category of "agricultural tools used as improvised weapons."  What would be the point of tying a dagger to the end of one, rather than just learning to throw knives?
> 
> 2)  Sugliin:  Here you have a big wrack of sharpened antlers so unwieldy that you have to spend two feats just to use it as a normal weapon.  The tactical problems for this are mind-boggling, especially given the fact that you'll probably draw the eye of every archer in sight.
> 
> 3)  Mercurial Swords:  Explain the attraction of a using a deliberately unbalanced weapon that is likely to spew a highly toxic substance if sundered.
> 
> 4)  Orc Shotput:  The perfect counterpoint to the Orc javelin team.  Spend 10 gp on a 15 lbs. chunk of iron...or just go and find a rock to throw.
> 
> 5)  Musical Instrument Bayonets:  Presented in _Song and Silence_, and instantly ludicrous to anybody who has actually used a real musical instrument.  If you want to destroy your instrument in combat, just whack somebody with it.
> 
> 6)  Scorpion Claws:  This weapon from _Sandstorm_ is exactly what it sounds like...monstrous scorpion claws you wear on your hands.  Besides making it rather difficult to scratch an itch, I can't help but mentally hear the "crab people" theme from South Park running in the background.
> 
> 7)  Caber:  If I recall correctly, this was offered in _Masters of the Wild_.  It was a log that you throw at people.  I never understood why this counted as a weapon rather than as improvised use of scenery.
> 
> 8)  Two-Bladed Sword:  This weapon led directly to one of the oddest miniatures from WotC, a man in full plate armor wielding one of these.  That would probably be the only way to wield one without slicing off your fingers, come to think of it.
> 
> 9)  Spike Shooter:  This appeared in _Races of Faerun_.  Any weapon with a spike on the end could be set to launch it as a spring-loaded surprise.  Possibly inspired by giant robot anime, I don't understand how you could avoid accidentally shooting it off whenever you swung your battle axe.
> 
> 10)  Icechucker:  Ah, here we have a crossbow designed to fire icicles.  Oh, and it can fire javelins too, if you actually want to use something balanced and aerodynamic.
> 
> Bonus)  Vulcanian Thunder Club:  This was originally printed in Dragon #304, and it made it into Paizo's _Best of Dragon Compendium_.  While I like the book, I am less enamored with the idea of a greatclub filled with alchemist's fire and shot.  It is never explained how you can set it off with the pull of a string, but not by whacking it against your foe (possibly inadvertantly).
> 
> There are a few more that come to mind, but 10+1 will do.



Mercurial swords are a thing that has existed in the real world. They weren't terribly effective. The idea was to have the weight back at the hilt end when en garde, but out towards the forte when swung. The mercury channel was hard to forge, introduced a lot of weaknesses, and are a historical footnote. 

Two bladed swords also existed...  in the poorly documented (but still, documented) post-crusade forms of the Madu - a short-sword/long knife sticking up from and down from a conjoined hilt  which also carries a shield, usually a round or small oval. The Madu doesn't require much armor to be used effectively.It's mostly a parrying weapon - it can parry for as much of the body as a full-sized heater can block, but at half (or less) the mass, and adding the stabbing potential both front and back.  Note that the African and Indian original versions usually used horns, not swords, and could have more than one in each direction. It may have been parallel development in those two locations.

Shotput vs Rock:  Rock: 2 to 3 kg per liter. Iron ball 6 to 7.8 kg per liter. Penetration and bone breaking are about energy density per unit area; a round rock has about twice the contact area of the same weight iron ball, which also means a lot less real world chance to break bones with that stone. also note... at roughtly 3x the density, the diameter of the iron ball is roughly 70% that of the rock. Plus, that ball is known to everyone but orcs as a cannonball.

Most of the rest? Yeah... that said, a long socket bayonet could be drilled out for use as a fife...

Also, the military instruments of most of history are...
Straight Trumpets (going back <3000 years), later,  bugles (literally just a trumpet in an oval) and other curved tube trumpets, sackbut/trombone, coach horn
Horn trumpets from just about every kind of horned beast's horn as far back as recorded history goes. (The shofar wasn't _just_ a religious implement)
Fifes (which are, largely, just a tube with finger holes; if its got keys, it's a piccolo, not a fife) in 6 to 18 inch versions. Bone, Wood, cast metal, rolled metal. Some were mixed media. I've gotten to play a horn-jointed ebony fife with copper inset rings
Whistles (recorders, tin whistles, bone whistles), and bowl-whistles (including the bosun's/boatswain's whistle)
Drums - simple toms and congas, later snare drums, and carried tenor, bass, and great base drums. Marching congas are a real thing, but damned hard on the wrist on the side it hangs on.
Later medieval, we get the tone bells - which are a standard of marching bands still. (barred percussion)
Nothing with valves until the renaissance. Some tumpets/horns had tuning slides; I forget when the trumpets became rounded into the coach horn style, but it was early; proper "oval" trumpets allowed for crooks/slides to adjust tuning, and then the sackbut developed its tuning crook into a proper slide, allowing total pitch control. (Technically, it's not a trombone unless it has a valve with at least once crook, but the distinction isn't made much except by historians.)

Fifes, whistles, drums and trumpets were in fact used on the field for signalling from the earliest days up to WW I, and used occasionally in WW II. 

Of those military instruments, the fife could actually make for a decent bayonet...  provided it's a socket bayonet. Just drill the tone and finger holes into the socket... be a bit heavy, but reasonable. 
A trumpet could be used as an improvised spear, provided the mouthcup is separate... the end can do some real damage.  As long as you don't crimp the tube, a bent or dented trumpet still plays reasonably well. (I've repaired a few dozen...  it takes a serious ding to impact the sound in any but the tiniest ways in the main register.)


----------



## Orius

Some thread resurrection here.

Found this video on YouTube.  It's a guy commenting on the weapons illustrated in the 3e PHB.  For those of you who hate nonsense like the double sword, dire flail, double axe, and *especially* the spiked chain, he gives them all the mocking they've deserved since 2000.


----------



## Bohandas

I'm pretty sure that people have been beaten with chains in real life though


----------



## Bohandas

Set said:


> People regularly underestimate the strength of animals (and much more regularly overestimate their own durability).  A _swan_ can snap a grown man's back with a single blow from it's soft, light and fragile hollow-boned wing.  That cute little 45 lb. chimp that clung to Matthew Broderick in Project X was seven times stronger than him and could have killed him with a single blow to the head _by accident._




People underestimate human strength as well. There's an instinctive tendency not to use one's full strength in most situations in order to avoid musculoskeletal damage. That's why people on coke or angel dust fueled benders sometimes appear to have superhuman strength, that safety mechanism has been switched off. That's also the point of boxing gloves, they allow the boxer to punch at their full strength whereas they would otherwise be unable to because doing so without padding would break or dislocate the bones in their fingers and hands


----------



## Bohandas

Ed_Laprade said:


> Those are some weird weapons all right. Then again, using any blade with a lot of flanged culiques is just asking for trouble. Disarm ought to get +10 or something against those. But my biggest pet peeve along this line, since the 3.0 PHB came out, is spiked armor. There's a reason you can't find any in a museum. Several, in fact. It guides an opponent's weapon right to you, not away as armor is supposed to. (Ought to get at least a -1 to AC!) If you whack one of the spikes hard enough with a metal bashing weapon it ought to have a chance to be driven into the wearer's body. And if you fall in the mud, good luck getting back up again.



It seems like it would be useful against an unarmed attacker or a pouncing animal though


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Re: animal strength Vs trained human fighter strength

These two episodes of Sports Science/Fight Science measured intentional blows by trained fighters at 1800-2600lbs of force.  In comparison, they measured a tiger playfully swatting a target at 1400lbs of force, and estimated an actual tiger attack might generate more than 10,000lbs of force.  


Now imagine something bigger than a 600lb tiger.  There are plenty of RW terrestrial carnivores AND herbivores that are bigger and stronger.

And that doesn’t even touch the vast bestiary of D&D and other FRPGs.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

For completeness sake, here’s the same show measuring the power of a martial artist’s kick.


He generated strikes of 720lbs, 800lbs, and 1000lbs of force.  I can only guess that the greater power of the other fighters’s arm strikes is down to the additional muscle groups involved.

(Of course, the other fighters may have been stronger overall.)


----------



## Dioltach

If a cat hits you without its claws drawing blood, it will still bruise. Those pawsies can pack quite a punch.


----------



## Orius

D&D players are well aware of the lethality of housecats.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

A few years ago, I read a news article about a man who had a fatal encounter with a feral housecat.


----------



## aramis erak

DreadPirateMurphy said:


> While I am far from an expert on medieval weaponry, and I appreciate artistic license, there are some weapons proposed for D&D 3.x that just seem mind-bogglingly impractical.  Perhaps somebody can point out the utility of some of these beyond being "kewl."
> 
> 1)  Whip-daggers:  Did anybody ever actually create such a weapon?  Whips strike me as falling into the category of "agricultural tools used as improvised weapons."  What would be the point of tying a dagger to the end of one, rather than just learning to throw knives?



Not daggers, per se, but small weights, or an animal's vertebra, have historically been documented.  It's a method for making lashes much more bloody.  But it's not used on the long whips.
Japanese weapon-on-a-chain type weapons are known, but actual use of them in battle isn't something I've seen documented. The best known is the kusurigama, documented to have been used off the battlefield, but not on it. A number of Japanese weapons have interesting "this isn't the same thing as the prohibited thing it looks so much like"....


DreadPirateMurphy said:


> 2)  Sugliin:  Here you have a big wrack of sharpened antlers so unwieldy that you have to spend two feats just to use it as a normal weapon.  The tactical problems for this are mind-boggling, especially given the fact that you'll probably draw the eye of every archer in sight.



Scaling error... but people have used antlers as weapons historically and pre-historically. And as tools - mining picks.



DreadPirateMurphy said:


> 3)  Mercurial Swords:  Explain the attraction of a using a deliberately unbalanced weapon that is likely to spew a highly toxic substance if sundered.



Mercurial swords are rumored to be an 18th C attempt to improve swords. SCAers attempting to create them have found them pretty much worthless at increasing the impact force. There are documented surviving metal bead swords, as well... but that's not much better.


DreadPirateMurphy said:


> 5)  Musical Instrument Bayonets:  Presented in _Song and Silence_, and instantly ludicrous to anybody who has actually used a real musical instrument.  If you want to destroy your instrument in combat, just whack somebody with it.



Yup. Total ignorance.
There are, however, a few instruments that have been used as defensive and/or last resort weapons...
The military fife is a open-hole closed end transverse flute. Some are metal (often copper, brass, or bronze), some are wood with metal findings on the ends. Most musicians weren't targeted, but when they were, they often would defend initially with instrument, and a fife sized baton is a decent parrying weapon and force concentrator.
 The drummer's drumstick, likewise.
There are some stories about steel Fue (foo-ay)... the fue being just a tube with particularly placed holes.  A sufficiently strong person could easily use that 2-3 foot long 
Any others are unlikely to survive such use.


DreadPirateMurphy said:


> 7)  Caber:  If I recall correctly, this was offered in _Masters of the Wild_.  It was a log that you throw at people.  I never understood why this counted as a weapon rather than as improvised use of scenery.



Scots humor at its best. It's been rumored as long as the Caber Toss has been a thing that some Scotsman tossed a log into an English formation. No evidence that it actually happened. 
That said, a sufficiently strong individual could do so and disrupt a formation. It's plausible, but not documentable. And, due  to the nature of the wounds it would cause, would not look like battle injury, but a logging one. Hence not provable.


DreadPirateMurphy said:


> 8)  Two-Bladed Sword:  This weapon led directly to one of the oddest miniatures from WotC, a man in full plate armor wielding one of these.  That would probably be the only way to wield one without slicing off your fingers, come to think of it.



The historical multi-bladed european weapon I've seen written about  is  a parrying dagger in the 18" range - the border of short sword vs dagger- the additional blades are 30° off from the central, and only about 10".
The Madu isn't technically a sword, but it's a buckler with a dagger down the bottom and another out the top; traditional indian versions used horns, not blades. SCA use shows it to be practical, but not a great primary weapon. Sword and Madu put a few blokes on the Principal thrones of Oertha. The Maduvu form lacks the shield, and is essentially a handle with antelope horns opposed directions. I've been tempted to make one for SCA fencing. Both Madu and Maduvu are documented.


DreadPirateMurphy said:


> 9)  Spike Shooter:  This appeared in _Races of Faerun_.  Any weapon with a spike on the end could be set to launch it as a spring-loaded surprise.  Possibly inspired by giant robot anime, I don't understand how you could avoid accidentally shooting it off whenever you swung your battle axe.



The big issue isn't the accidental discharge, but having enough force out of it to go any distance at all...
The historical closest equivalent is a gun-sword. The hilt has barrels that fire along the blade. They were impractical, especially since the era of availability was percussion cap era, and muzzle loading....



DreadPirateMurphy said:


> 10)  Icechucker:  Ah, here we have a crossbow designed to fire icicles.  Oh, and it can fire javelins too, if you actually want to use something balanced and aerodynamic.



You don't need a special one - just cooperating weather and a big enough bow. Not terribly effective, tho'.

Having been hit in the shoulder with a falling icicle in the 20 lb range... hurts. 
A couple guys from school took icicles to the head resulting in serious concussions, so plausible, but unlikely, an it's going to be a blunt weapon.

That said, I have seen a kid stab another kid in the hand with an icicle. Both left school... one to the ER, the other to the youth incarceration facility.


DreadPirateMurphy said:


> Bonus)  Vulcanian Thunder Club:  This was originally printed in Dragon #304, and it made it into Paizo's _Best of Dragon Compendium_.  While I like the book, I am less enamored with the idea of a greatclub filled with alchemist's fire and shot.  It is never explained how you can set it off with the pull of a string, but not by whacking it against your foe (possibly inadvertantly).



Pretty easy - Gunpowder's not terribly easily pressure triggered. (If it were, automatic weapons wouldn't be possible, and Gatling's gun goes back to before the USCW.... pre-1862) But wind that cord around a striker wheel pressed against a flint, and those sparks ARE hot enough to start the deflagration. The real issue is that it should spill, and won't have useful high mass.


DreadPirateMurphy said:


> There are a few more that come to mind, but 10+1 will do.


----------

