PDA

View Full Version : Implausible and idiotic D&D weapons



Frog Dragon
2008-12-31, 03:08 PM
So this thread is for pointing out any weapns which simply dont make sense

I call Orc Double Axe and Dire Mace both for very similar reasons.
In order to strike with an axe or a mace effectively you need strenght in your strike. It is only achievable by wide movement. You cannot thrust with it so you simply cannot generate the energy of movement without decapitating yourself mid-strike. Dire Mace has much the same problems. Any more desing brainfarts that no-one would actually use?

Whiplord
2008-12-31, 03:11 PM
Dire Flail.

Frog Dragon
2008-12-31, 03:13 PM
Yeah that's even worse than my examples.

Raging Gene Ray
2008-12-31, 03:18 PM
Throwing glass bottles of Holy Water/Acid/Alchemist's Fire like grenades. It just seems like they wouldn't always break or splash as much as the rules say. Shouldn't they be dealing slashing/piercing damage from the shattered glass, anyhow?

Starbuck_II
2008-12-31, 03:18 PM
In D&D, the Sai. A weapon designed for disarming but worse than every other weapon that a Monk can use.

Really, who makes a disarming light weapon that only grants +4 bonus? It will only negate the -4 for being light.

Might as well use a Quarterstaff (+4 for being 2 handed and no penalty).

Spiryt
2008-12-31, 03:20 PM
Your description is very vague, as there are many more important reasons why dire mace or axe don't make sense - like the fact that the very soil of mace or axe is mass concentrated on the end... Not on both ends.

Anyway, warhammer and greataxe don't have any sense drawn as in Players Handbook.

Tequila Sunrise
2008-12-31, 03:31 PM
Spiked chain and any double ended weapons. Aside from staves. The others are just absurd. Oh and the sling being a simple weapon. Slings are anything but simple to use.

TS

Siosilvar
2008-12-31, 03:36 PM
Spiked chain

Has a better picture in the back of Complete Warrior, but still is ridiculous.

Tengu_temp
2008-12-31, 03:37 PM
Braid blade.

Innis Cabal
2008-12-31, 03:38 PM
Its not in fact. There are several very similar chain weapons. Such as the Surujin (Not spiked per say) or the chain whip.

Another_Poet
2008-12-31, 03:38 PM
Most of the swords are ridiculous to use if you go by their weight in the PHB.

Istari
2008-12-31, 03:39 PM
Spiked chain and any double ended weapons. Aside from staves. The others are just absurd. Oh and the sling being a simple weapon. Slings are anything but simple to use.
TS

Double bladed swords aren't too bad but the other ones are

Spiryt
2008-12-31, 03:45 PM
Most of the swords are ridiculous to use if you go by their weight in the PHB.

No, I won't say ridiculous. 4 pounds is very heavy for one handed sword, but there are many modern replicas that work fairly OK being that weight. The one handed sword like that wouldn't be very good, unless very well thought and crafted, but it would be passable. Not ridiculous.

Same for other swords, hell some bihanders actually were 8 pounds.

Some other weapons weight, like 8 pound mace indeed is ridiculous though.

JackMage666
2008-12-31, 03:49 PM
Any bludgeoning weapon made mithral, since you lose half the weight and should do a bit less damage.

monty
2008-12-31, 03:54 PM
Most idiotic weapon in D&D? A gnome.

Hey, if I have Really Throw Anything, it's technically sort of a weapon.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-12-31, 03:54 PM
Double edged swords aren't too bad but the other ones are

I'd hope double-edged swords aren't that bad, yeah, considering the vast majority of European ones are that.

Double-bladed swords, however, are ridiculous.

Frog Dragon
2008-12-31, 03:56 PM
Double bladed ones are actually not nearly as bad thought still bad desing. You can plausibly thrust with them putting your weight behind a blow without cleaving yourself in half.

Collin152
2008-12-31, 03:57 PM
Double bladed ones are actually not nearly as bad thought still bad desing. You can plausibly thrust with them putting your weight behind a blow without cleaving yourself in half.

It still results with a blade by your torso, the slightest twist of which could result in your person being cleft in twain.

RTGoodman
2008-12-31, 04:06 PM
I think THIS THREAD (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=826384) is appropriate. And THIS (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=12174882&postcount=60) post in particular. :smallbiggrin:

Spiryt
2008-12-31, 04:07 PM
Any bludgeoning weapon made mithral, since you lose half the weight and should do a bit less damage.

Well, that won't be such problem, just use more mithrall than you would use steel and balance definetly. I suppose that if mithral is so super material, much is possible with it.

Here are real hits:


Heavy weapons, such as those from from gold or platmum, are unwieldy but inflict additional damage

Yes, sword made out of gold, and even heavier. Wonderful idea * snark *


Only weapons made entirely or largely of metal (such as swords or axes) are affected; other weapons (such as spears) are not.

Why axe is made largely out of metal while spear is not?

Both taken from here (http://realmshelps.dandello.net/stores/weapons.shtml), not sure in what source they appeared in.

Raum
2008-12-31, 04:23 PM
So this thread is for pointing out any weapns which simply dont make senseA list of weapons which do make sense would be shorter. Most of D&D's weapons stats are built for 'game' purposes rather than simulation. If you're comparing to real weapons I doubt a single one got everything correct. :smallamused:

But some of the more foolish weapons would include all double weapons other than a staff, the spiked chain, and the maul (depending on the supplement it was listed as up to 20 lbs if I remember correctly).

Voidhawk
2008-12-31, 05:23 PM
Sai doing slashing damage, as if they're a type of sword.
They are actually held down the side of the forearm and are completely blunt, with a blunt tip, and would do bludgeoning damage as you punch with the 'pommel'.

Triaxx
2008-12-31, 05:32 PM
Any weapon made from gold. Since it's a soft metal, it'd break on impact.

arguskos
2008-12-31, 05:35 PM
The Gyrspike. If you don't know what I'm talking about, open up the Arms and Equipment Guide to the new weapons... and just weep.

Epinephrine
2008-12-31, 05:37 PM
Heavy Crossbows dealing minimal damage.

The Lynxpaw

Dr Bwaa
2008-12-31, 05:48 PM
spiked chain

regular spiked chains and the like are crazy, but would be possible to use with exotic weapon proficiency (similar weapons exist, as was pointed out earlier). However, the large spiked chains that certain fighters are so fond of.... now that's just ridiculous. Most people aren't tall enough to warrant their usage, and even if you could use it somehow, what are you going to do with it when you're not using it? Store it in your backpack? I think not. Tie it somewhere? I think not. Carry it? Not without tripping over it or taking horrible movement penalties. In fact you should only move at half speed anyway to avoid destroying yourself, even in combat.

some of these complaints work for a lot of other oversized weapons, too.


EDIT: the siangham. Goes in with the lot of monk weapons that just plain suck. (also: requires exotic weapon proficiency for what is effectively a chopstick)

Tadanori Oyama
2008-12-31, 05:52 PM
Whip dagger.

Not as insane as some but putting a knife on the end of a bull whip? Seems like a good way to hurt yourself.

Ebonsword
2008-12-31, 05:57 PM
While the weapon itself is not implausible, I always thought that it was ridiculous that a bastard sword required the exotic weapons proficiency.

So, let's see, a one-handed sword can be wielded using the martial weapons profiency. And a two-handed sword can be wielded using the martial weapons profiency. But a sword that can be wielded either one- or two-handed requires an additional proficiency?! :smallconfused:

TempusCCK
2008-12-31, 06:05 PM
The double axe is feasible, with incredible strength, but you certainly shouldn't be able to apply 1 and 1/2 strength bonus to it or wield it in two hands for power attack bonuses.

The dire-flail is just inane.

KIDS
2008-12-31, 06:05 PM
I think THIS THREAD (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=826384) is appropriate. And THIS (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=12174882&postcount=60) post in particular. :smallbiggrin:

Oh my God. Thanks so much for linking those, I had such an insane fit of laughter that will carry me through the whole 2009 now :D

BardicDuelist
2008-12-31, 06:24 PM
While the weapon itself is not implausible, I always thought that it was ridiculous that a bastard sword required the exotic weapons proficiency.

So, let's see, a one-handed sword can be wielded using the martial weapons profiency. And a two-handed sword can be wielded using the martial weapons profiency. But a sword that can be wielded either one- or two-handed requires an additional proficiency?! :smallconfused:

It requires additional proficiency to use it as a one handed weapon. You can use it two-handed as a martial weapon. You may also use a longsword two-handed.

Dervag
2008-12-31, 06:41 PM
There have been spears where the butt end (the one away from the spearpoint) is weighted so that you can strike effectively with it as if it were a kind of light mace. That's the only kind of "double weapon" I've ever heard of that didn't strike me as more trouble than it was worth.

Doug Lampert
2008-12-31, 07:14 PM
Spiked chain and any double ended weapons. Aside from staves. The others are just absurd. Oh and the sling being a simple weapon. Slings are anything but simple to use.

TSYou also have real trouble using a classic sling in a 5' by 5' space, and the rate of fire of one per round is effectively impossible with a 6 second round (rapid shot gives a bullet every 3 seconds at level 1, yeah right).

Then there are the ranges and damage numbers...

Just figure they're using a sling-shot and mislabled it.


There have been spears where the butt end (the one away from the spearpoint) is weighted so that you can strike effectively with it as if it were a kind of light mace. That's the only kind of "double weapon" I've ever heard of that didn't strike me as more trouble than it was worth.
Many spears had a butt cap or counterwieght of some sort, and shortening your grip and using both ends of the weapon was probably done on the shorter spears. But I suspect the weight was there more as a counterwieght than as an actual weapon, you can shorten your grip and slash with many historical spears, the point often has a foot or so of double sided very sharp blade behind it, so why reverse your grip? With either a swinging or stabbing motion the pointy end is still effective.

(I'm trying to remember the description of the spears the Persian Immortals used, I'm pretty sure Herodotus mentions them having apple shaped metal weights on the reverse end, but I don't recall if he mentions use of the weights as a bludgeoning weapon.)

Pole arms with some thought to making the butt dangerous in case you needed to use it also weren't unheard of.

But I suspect all of these were like the bayonet on a modern military rifle, only used as a weapon in serious combat if things were almost completely FUBAR.

OTOH if you're using troops for crowd control sometimes having a less-lethal end that can still be used as a weapon might be really useful.

Quirinus_Obsidian
2008-12-31, 07:37 PM
yeah, there are a lot of weapons in DnD 3.5 that are just nutty. Gyrspike was mentioned... oh gods, who would do that? Putting a flail on the hilt of a longsword? What mad God creates this?

Although some may consider it to be "unbalanced" based solely on the fact that it's not a straight WoTC designed weapon, but the Ripper Chain from Quintessential Drow is rather awesomely implausible (not idiotic, though).

Does 2d6 Slashing damage, threats on 20, x3 crit.
10' area, can attack adjacent
Can be used as a light weapon.

I actually built a Dervish with one of these things... with Improved Trip and Knockdown... oh dear gods it was just scary. It was even better when I started flying :biggrin:.

----------------
Now playing: Nightwish - Sahara (http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/nightwish/track/sahara)
via FoxyTunes (http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/)

AslanCross
2008-12-31, 07:48 PM
Actually, I think the Orc Double Axe isn't that bizarre (especially if you consider who invented it). I think you could reliably attack with it in a "kayak-rowing" motion.

The two-bladed sword is more difficult, considering both points are shaped for thrusting (despite it being a slashing weapon.) The Valenar double scimitar is a more sensible. I agree the dire flail is ridiculous, though.

If you think about it, though, they are difficult to use and the people who are using them are more or less superhuman. They require feats to use and aren't even that good (considering they require two-weapon fighting too). So I guess they are silly weapons even in-game.

Spiryt
2008-12-31, 07:53 PM
Actually, I think the Orc Double Axe isn't that bizarre (especially if you consider who invented it). I think you could reliably attack with it in a "kayak-rowing" motion.


Speaking from purely realistic perspective, "kayak rowing" motion has absolutely no sense too. I think that everyone who used real axe at least once will agree.

monty
2008-12-31, 07:57 PM
Speaking from purely realistic perspective, "kayak rowing" motion has absolutely no sense too. I think that everyone who used real axe at least once will agree.

I can't imagine getting even close to the momentum necessary to effectively use an axe that way. Try chopping a piece of wood without a decent swing at it, and you'll see what I mean.

Note: the "you" in this post refers to people in general, and not the person I quoted, who I assume already knew what I said.

Spiryt
2008-12-31, 08:02 PM
I can't imagine getting even close to the momentum necessary to effectively use an axe that way. Try chopping a piece of wood without a decent swing at it, and you'll see what I mean.

Note: the "you" in this post refers to people in general, and not the person I quoted, who I assume already knew what I said.

Choppping would is one thing, but waving your weapon around in some weird manner in actual combat is even worse.

AslanCross
2008-12-31, 08:03 PM
I can't imagine getting even close to the momentum necessary to effectively use an axe that way. Try chopping a piece of wood without a decent swing at it, and you'll see what I mean.

Note: the "you" in this post refers to people in general, and not the person I quoted, who I assume already knew what I said.

I guess you're right. I still think the game more or less shows us just how difficult they are to use due to their dependency on both EWP and TWF. Two feats to use a weapon is seriously pretty lame.

Spiryt
2008-12-31, 08:06 PM
I guess you're right. I still think the game more or less shows us just how difficult they are to use due to their dependency on both EWP and TWF. Two feats to use a weapon is seriously pretty lame.

And after that you're still pretty ineffective, as TWF is generally not worth it in D&D.

Malacode
2008-12-31, 08:13 PM
Kusarigama kinda qualify, as, well... They're real wepons but its a KAMA on the end of a CHAIN! How do you use that thing? Implausible? No. Impractical? Yes! I think I saw D&D rules for this in a 3rd party supplement, Bastion Press's Arms and Armour Guide (Actually, every weapon in that book was either too stupid to work or completely useless anyway)

KeresM
2008-12-31, 08:20 PM
There are plenty of absolutely ridiculous weapons that actually exist in the real world, it's not surprising they show up in DnD.

Ebonsword
2008-12-31, 08:47 PM
It requires additional proficiency to use it as a one handed weapon. You can use it two-handed as a martial weapon. You may also use a longsword two-handed.

I don't think that makes it any less ridiculous.

Seriously, you need expend a whole feat just because the balance on a bastard sword is a little bit different than the balance on a longsword?

Baidas Kebante
2008-12-31, 09:43 PM
Whip dagger.

Not as insane as some but putting a knife on the end of a bull whip? Seems like a good way to hurt yourself.

The whip dagger is simply another name for the rope dart, which is a real weapon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rope_dart


Kusarigama kinda qualify, as, well... They're real wepons but its a KAMA on the end of a CHAIN! How do you use that thing? Implausible? No. Impractical? Yes! I think I saw D&D rules for this in a 3rd party supplement, Bastion Press's Arms and Armour Guide (Actually, every weapon in that book was either too stupid to work or completely useless anyway)

It may seem impractical, but all you're really doing is dual wielding a kama and a chain. The chain just happens to be attached for stability and so that you don't lose the weapon if you throw the chain end. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wm9FI5ppsyM

ChaosDefender24
2008-12-31, 09:45 PM
The Suiglin or whatever from Frostburn... wow...

ShadowFighter15
2008-12-31, 09:58 PM
Kusarigama kinda qualify, as, well... They're real wepons but its a KAMA on the end of a CHAIN! How do you use that thing? Implausible? No. Impractical? Yes! I think I saw D&D rules for this in a 3rd party supplement, Bastion Press's Arms and Armour Guide (Actually, every weapon in that book was either too stupid to work or completely useless anyway)

As the video Baidas Kebante linked to shows; you don't let go of the kama. You use the chain to entangle the opponent's weapon or limbs so that you can safely approach and cut their throat with the kama.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-01-01, 12:08 AM
Speaking from purely realistic perspective, "kayak rowing" motion has absolutely no sense too. I think that everyone who used real axe at least once will agree.

Especially considering that once you hit something, the motion stops, and the second blade is completely pointless and just makes it more difficult to regain control of the weapon...

Twin-bladed swords are equally inane. You could cut with them in an awkward version of the same motion as a one-handed sword uses (and your hands are too damn close to each other to really spin or twist it), and thrusting would be really uncomfortable (largely because your hands are too close and the point of balance is in the middle of them).

It works better for lightsabers, since they have no weight and need to strength behind the blow to shear through anything...


I don't think that makes it any less ridiculous.

Seriously, you need expend a whole feat just because the balance on a bastard sword is a little bit different than the balance on a longsword?

Not to mention it should/would be the most common military weapon in most D&D settings (since they're mostly late medieval) and would therefore be taught to every warrior...

Then there's the whole issue of the bastard sword being separate from the longsword. Say what? Those terms refer to the same weapon!

aarondirebear
2009-01-01, 02:13 AM
Most of the swords are ridiculous to use if you go by their weight in the PHB.

WRONG!
Absolutely wrong!
The weapon weights in the PLayer's Handbook are perfectly in line with the real weights of medieval weapons.

I am sick of jerkasses perpetuating the myth that swords weigh 30-100 pounds and are unwieldly.

aarondirebear
2009-01-01, 02:19 AM
You also have real trouble using a classic sling in a 5' by 5' space, and the rate of fire of one per round is effectively impossible with a 6 second round (rapid shot gives a bullet every 3 seconds at level 1, yeah right).

T

Jeez why cant you just enjoy the game?

kpenguin
2009-01-01, 02:28 AM
WRONG!
Absolutely wrong!
The weapon weights in the PLayer's Handbook are perfectly in line with the real weights of medieval weapons.

I am sick of jerkasses perpetuating the myth that swords weigh 30-100 pounds and are unwieldly.

I think that they're saying that the swords are going the other way in weight: they're too heavy, not too light.

I mean, look at the longsword for instance. According to the PHB, a standard longsword weights 4 pounds. However, even a quick search about the weight of a medieval longsword is that

a) There's no such thing; swords generally vary considerably when it comes to weight and
b) The average sword weighe somewhere between 2.5 and 3.5 lbs.


Not to mention it should/would be the most common military weapon in most D&D settings (since they're mostly late medieval) and would therefore be taught to every warrior...

Then there's the whole issue of the bastard sword being separate from the longsword. Say what? Those terms refer to the same weapon!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the most common military weapon in most eras leading up to the invention of gunpowder was a polearm, usually a spear or some type of pike?

Thurbane
2009-01-01, 02:29 AM
The Gyrspike. If you don't know what I'm talking about, open up the Arms and Equipment Guide to the new weapons... and just weep.
Agreed - this thing just has bad news written all over it...

http://i44.tinypic.com/2444qwi.jpg

Alteran
2009-01-01, 02:32 AM
Jeez why cant you just enjoy the game?

This thread is dedicated to pointing out ridiculous weapons in D&D that wouldn't really work. You made a mistake if you thought there wouldn't be people complaining about things in an out-of-game context. If you don't like it, ignore it and move on.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-01-01, 02:32 AM
WRONG!
Absolutely wrong!
The weapon weights in the PLayer's Handbook are perfectly in line with the real weights of medieval weapons.

I am sick of jerkasses perpetuating the myth that swords weigh 30-100 pounds and are unwieldly.

Yeah, no. The point is that they are all at the absolute upper (and statistically small) end of the weight range for their size. One-handed swords would be 2-2.5 pounds, sometimes less. (Meanwhile, rapiers should actually be heavier than D&D "longswords," not half their weight. Rapiers were very long, and required a heavy hilt to balance them close to the hand, for agility and speed. 2-pound rapiers are really, really improbable. Then again, the writers probably didn't know the difference between a rapier, and a foil from a Three Musketeers movie.)


Jeez why cant you just enjoy the game?

Are you having a problem reading what this thread is about?

Or are you just unfamiliar with people complaining about things they like (especially when one thing they like really abuses another thing they like) ?


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the most common military weapon in most eras leading up to the invention of gunpowder was a polearm, usually a spear or some type of pike?

Very true. Make that the most common military sword.

Dervag
2009-01-01, 02:33 AM
Anyone who comes up with a weapon for D&D should be forced to demonstrate its use for five minutes without injuring themselves.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-01-01, 02:35 AM
Anyone who comes up with a weapon for D&D should be forced to demonstrate its use for five minutes without injuring themselves.

I can see the headlines now.

"Thirteen game designers dead in Satanic ritual suicide pact."

Rockphed
2009-01-01, 02:41 AM
I can see the headlines now.

"Thirteen game designers dead in Satanic ritual suicide pact."

This is what foam padding is for. We wouldn't want more headlines like that, now would we? That would give away our true purpose before the time is right!:smallamused:

Flickerdart
2009-01-01, 02:42 AM
This is what foam padding is for.
Then people will complain you've nerfed the weapons.

kpenguin
2009-01-01, 02:46 AM
Then people will complain you've nerfed the weapons.

*groan*:smallsigh:

Thanatos 51-50
2009-01-01, 02:49 AM
Very true. Make that the most common military sword.

That would be a belt-knife.
They cut their rations and ate with it.
Most soliders in the mideval period would have used spears, and then some sort of heavy, blunt weapon (Like a flanged mace) as a hold-out. Armour effectivly renders swords useless once you get to any sort of heavy. Spears were phenominal against chain, as the point bit would slip between the gaps in the chain mail (Even better are arrows, as they had heads designed to punch right through).

A heavy, blunt weapon, such as a mace would transfer the momentum of the blow through the armour it struck., loosing little effectivness. Its just too hard to get into the cracks of your standard suit of field plate.

Recaiden
2009-01-01, 02:53 AM
I think THIS THREAD (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=826384) is appropriate. And THIS (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=12174882&postcount=60) post in particular. :smallbiggrin:

The top 2 are the favorite weapons of Masters of the unseen hand.

I once had a player ask about having a greatsword with a crossbow in the center, like a gunblade thing.

What I wan to know is why are ther no triple weapons with a head every 120 degrees?

monty
2009-01-01, 03:10 AM
Then people will complain you've nerfed the weapons.

Now where did I put that bag of internets...

Tsotha-lanti
2009-01-01, 04:28 AM
That would be a belt-knife.
...

Not a sword, not used to fight (except in desperate circumstances, I suppose), and the rest was strangely irrelevant. Huh?


Then people will complain you've nerfed the weapons.

I'm proud just to have set up the set-up to this magnificent pun.

Dixieboy
2009-01-01, 04:45 AM
Yeah, no. The point is that they are all at the absolute upper (and statistically small) end of the weight range for their size. One-handed swords would be 2-2.5 pounds, sometimes less. (Meanwhile, rapiers should actually be heavier than D&D "longswords," not half their weight. Rapiers were very long, and required a heavy hilt to balance them close to the hand, for agility and speed. 2-pound rapiers are really, really improbable. Then again, the writers probably didn't know the difference between a rapier, and a foil from a Three Musketeers movie.)
Being a fencer i declare your statement untrue D:

A rapier weights at average about 1kg (2 pounds) while a longsword weights about twice as much. (Depending on what kind offcourse)

You might be thinking of a smallsword (The closest thing i can think of to a rapier, never actually used one of these though)

Spiryt
2009-01-01, 05:31 AM
Being a fencer i declare your statement untrue D:

A rapier weights at average about 1kg (2 pounds) while a longsword weights about twice as much. (Depending on what kind offcourse)

You might be thinking of a smallsword

He was talking about first rapiers, that were long, thrust oriented swords with developed hand protection, so they were quite naturaly heavier.

Later (XVII century +) "true" rapiers where indeed thin things that were lighter. I'm not sure what kind of rapiers you're talking about.

Anyway, the thing depicted in PHB doesn't have anything to do with any rapier ever.

Dixieboy
2009-01-01, 05:48 AM
The oldest kind of rapier i know of the "Espada Ropera" (SP?) Which weights abotu the same as a "normal" rapier :/

But i agree, The one presented in the books are nothing like the ones in the real world

Gralamin
2009-01-01, 06:02 AM
I'm pretty sure that as far as Double weapons go, the only "Double Sword" that makes any sense would be something like a Klingon Bat'leth from Star Trek. For those who somehow don't know what that is, its basically a Crescent shaped, two-ended Scimitar, with three hand holds.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-01-01, 06:54 AM
I'm pretty sure that as far as Double weapons go, the only "Double Sword" that makes any sense would be something like a Klingon Bat'leth from Star Trek. For those who somehow don't know what that is, its basically a Crescent shaped, two-ended Scimitar, with three hand holds.

You can't get any force into blows with weapon like that, though. It doesn't make any more sense, really. And the way they use them in TNG is just sad.

dixieboy: I take it you are a modern fencer? Modern fencing does not use rapiers - that is, 50-inch basket-hilted thrusting weapons with a cutting edge.

A smallsword is what the foil is based on - a foil is a "foiled" (blunted) smallsword. A smallsword would be the shorter, lighter, purely thrusting weapon.

Spiryt
2009-01-01, 06:58 AM
dixieboy: I take it you are a modern fencer? Modern fencing does not use rapiers - that is, 50-inch basket-hilted thrusting weapons with a cutting edge.


I don't think that it's definition. Most later rapiers had no cutting edge to speak of, and were indeed light. Not to mention that basket hilt was just one of the hilt styles.

I think that PHB is depicting XVII century pure thruster like this example (http://www.myarmoury.com/review_aa_bav.html) . Although drawing is completely out of the space of course.

Narmoth
2009-01-01, 08:02 AM
...Oh and the sling being a simple weapon. Slings are anything but simple to use.

TS

Before more sophisticated toys, a lot of kids had slings as toys (yeah, it's a cruel toy, but that it was a toy is fact.) As such, familiarity with it would be rather common, and therefore it is a simple weapon


Double bladed swords aren't too bad but the other ones are

The handle is to small to handle it as a staff, and you can't make wide slashes with it. It was made because of Darth Mauls double-bladed lightsaber.


Why axe is made largely out of metal while spear is not?

If you're truly badass, you have an axe made with a metal handle


Even better are arrows, as they had heads designed to punch right through

Therefore you wore a padding underneath. Crusaders are described to look as porcupines after battle with saracenan archers, but mostly unharmed.

TempusCCK
2009-01-01, 09:04 AM
If I can comment once again on the double axe, you have a few things to take into consideration. One, yes, the picture is screwed up, if you ignore the picture and imagine the double axe with a longer center-piece then it becomes a feasible weapon. Once again, the addendum here is that you must consider that there are orcs using this weapon, not you or me, and as such they are much bigger and stronger on average than humans.

While I need a two handed blow to drive my axe through a piece of log, an Orc could probably split that log easier than me.

So yeah, lengthen the centerpiece, give it to an orc, don't apply one and a half time STR bonus ever, don't allow it to power attack for double ever, and you have a weapon that could be feasible, even though it would resemble a customized polearm where both ends are for striking.

Spiryt
2009-01-01, 09:25 AM
Assuming lenghtening the haft for some leverage, and dropping the unnecessary blade from each side, yeah it would probably become feasible.

The question is what for?

Trash bin is very feasible weapon too. Doesn't change the fact that anyone would rather use actual weapon if that was necessary.

SSGW Priest
2009-01-01, 02:12 PM
So this thread is for pointing out any weapns which simply dont make sense

I call Orc Double Axe and Dire Mace both for very similar reasons.
In order to strike with an axe or a mace effectively you need strenght in your strike. It is only achievable by wide movement. You cannot thrust with it so you simply cannot generate the energy of movement without decapitating yourself mid-strike. Dire Mace has much the same problems. Any more desing brainfarts that no-one would actually use?

Agree with you on the Orc Double Axe, but the Dire Mace is really nothing more than a weighted quarterstaff. I once made a nice simple staff with a couple of pipe couplings added on each end; a monster garage dire mace if you will. The weight increased the force of the impacts.

Knaight
2009-01-01, 02:19 PM
Oh and the sling being a simple weapon. Slings are anything but simple to use.

TS

Tell me about it. Slings are harder to use than bows, and way harder to use than crossbows. With bows and crossbows you don't have to time your shot anywhere near as much as you need to with a sling. The pitiful range of a sling is also off, slings can out range short bows in real life.

As for slings being a toy, that is a sling shot.

Sling related stuff: http://www.slinging.org/
http://slinging.org/index.php?page=sling-ranges
http://slinging.org/index.php?page=making-a-braided-sling-an-illustrated-guide

Most importantly-The sling was likely mankind's first, true projectile weapon. It generally consists of two cords and a pouch. These cords are held in one hand and a projectile is placed in the pouch. The length of the sling provides greater mechanical advantage than one's arms. Projectiles can be slung over 1500 feet (450m) at speeds exceeding 250 miles per hour (400 kph)

A sling is most definitely a weapon, and unlike a sling shot it is really, really hard to use.

Kurald Galain
2009-01-01, 02:55 PM
A sling is most definitely a weapon, and unlike a sling shot it is really, really hard to use.

Yes. I've been told that the 3E designers were unaware of the existence of the (military) sling, and so based the so-called sling on the weapons table on a Dennis The Menace slingshot. That explains why it's so ineffective, and considered a simple weapon.

Dervag
2009-01-01, 03:01 PM
My impression is that if a sling is hard to learn to use, then you're probably doing something wrong. At slinging.org, here (http://slinging.org/index.php?page=making-and-using-the-venerable-hand-sling---lynn-p-ballard), it says that "slings can be grand fun, especially once you develop a reasonable degree of accuracy . . . something that most people can accomplish with less than an hour's practice!"

Possibly the problem is that many people imagine a sling as being slung around in circles parallel to the ground, in which case accuracy would be practically impossible. However, slingers normally spin the sling vertically, perpendicular to the ground. This gives you better elevation control and means you're less likely to miss entirely.

Kurald Galain
2009-01-01, 03:15 PM
once you develop a reasonable degree of accuracy . . . something that most people can accomplish with less than an hour's practice!"

Sure, but using it in combat would require more than a "reasonable degree of accuracy".

Besides, it surely takes less than an hour to learn to wield a sap, or pick, or lance ("point it forward and hold on") with a "reasonable degree of accuracy", and yet those are considered more difficult than slings, in 3.5 rules.

Come to think of it, why is a bastard sword harder to wield than a greatsword? Why is a shuriken harder to throw than a dagger?

horseboy
2009-01-01, 03:40 PM
Anyone who comes up with a weapon for D&D should be forced to demonstrate its use for five minutes without injuring themselves.That would probably mean nunchucks wouldn't get added, what with all the nut shots those things are responsible for. :smallamused:

The handle is to small to handle it as a staff, and you can't make wide slashes with it. It was made because of Darth Mauls double-bladed lightsaber.Nah, it's a reoccurring fantasy weapon. Timmoth Eyesbrite in the AD&D comic and Galtar (http://www.retrojunk.com/details_tvshows/1419-galtar-and-the-golder-lance) and his golden lance both precede it by decades. Course, what with the wanting something more realistic, I'd probably go with the Hazzok. Basically a scimitar with a main gauche on the end.

Dogmantra
2009-01-01, 03:45 PM
Come to think of it, why is a bastard sword harder to wield than a greatsword? Why is a shuriken harder to throw than a dagger?
I don't think it's so much that they're harder to wield, just that they require different fighting styles/methods, and bastard swords/shurikens are rarer than the martial ones, so you're less likely to find training in them.

Who_Da_Halfling
2009-01-01, 03:57 PM
On the topic of the spiked chain, I had always thought of them as similar to the meteor hammer as used in Asia. This is the same kind of weapon used in Kill Bill 1 by the little asian girl, although her use of it is more comical and stylized than is true to reality. Not sure, then, if the weights on the end of the meteor hammer are what make it effective, in which case the concept of a spiked chain is less realistic.

I generally ignore the pictures in the PHB and other books. I imagine if a two-bladed sword, for instance, were to actually exist, it would be more similar to a bladed quarterstaff than what the picture in the PHB indicates.

-JM

Starbuck_II
2009-01-01, 04:10 PM
I don't think it's so much that they're harder to wield, just that they require different fighting styles/methods, and bastard swords/shurikens are rarer than the martial ones, so you're less likely to find training in them.

Rarer shouldn't mean harder to weild.

Rather Exotic should be what 4.0 calls it Superior

Why make someone waste on a feat on a crappy yet exotic weapon?

If the Dm doesn't like Nunchucks being found: don't make them found no need to penaltize the player with using a feat too.

Salz
2009-01-01, 04:27 PM
A Falchion being a two handed scimitar. Falchions are one handed machete like weapons.

This thread reminds me why I play Harnmaster.

Thurbane
2009-01-01, 05:13 PM
The weapons in 3.5 core aren't too bad, but you just have to think of them in more abstract terms, and ignore some of the more silly illustrations in the PHB.

The simple/martial/exotic descriptors are purely a mechanical designation - each category has a slight game advantage (damage, ability to trip, bonus to disarm, reach etc.) over the other.

Jayabalard
2009-01-01, 05:15 PM
Oh and the sling being a simple weapon. Slings are anything but simple to use.It's not that much harder than hitting something with a baseball. But really, it's simple mostly because nearly everyone learns to use it, not because of it's simplicity or lack thereof.

monty
2009-01-01, 05:21 PM
It's not that much harder than hitting something with a baseball.

Speak for yourself.

mikeejimbo
2009-01-01, 05:26 PM
I think THIS THREAD (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=826384) is appropriate. And THIS (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=12174882&postcount=60) post in particular. :smallbiggrin:

I lol'd. Especially that crossbow.

Signmaker
2009-01-01, 05:29 PM
It's not that much harder than hitting something with a baseball. But really, it's simple mostly because nearly everyone learns to use it, not because of it's simplicity or lack thereof.

Are we talking Dennis the Menace? Or an actual sling? Cause actual slings are tricky, and hurt a hell lot more.

Dogmantra
2009-01-01, 05:45 PM
Rarer shouldn't mean harder to weild.
What I mean is that since they're rarer, people will be unfamiliar with them, since they do differ (a little bit anyway). It's a stupid argument, I know, but it looks like that's what the developers were thinking.

MickJay
2009-01-01, 05:57 PM
Sure, but using it in combat would require more than a "reasonable degree of accuracy".

Only if you're fighting in single combat, or a small group. If you're together with a hundred or more other slingers, then it's all about creating a hail of stones falling on the enemies - even more so if the enemies are fighting in a formation and your task is to disrupt it.

Neek
2009-01-01, 07:16 PM
You also have real trouble using a classic sling in a 5' by 5' space, and the rate of fire of one per round is effectively impossible with a 6 second round (rapid shot gives a bullet every 3 seconds at level 1, yeah right).

Then there are the ranges and damage numbers...

Just figure they're using a sling-shot and mislabled it.

A sling is like an atlatl in that it works on the natural swing of the throwing arm. A sling is rotated once then released when the arm reaches the same place you would normally release the stone if you were throwing it. A single swift rotation shouldn't take too long--not too much longer than throwing a stone. This (http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=lSreXRMhrO4) shows a good underhand throwing motion--that's a pretty swift action.

Also: Crossbow that shoots a crossbow that shoots a flail is just ftw.

TempusCCK
2009-01-01, 08:06 PM
Assuming lenghtening the haft for some leverage, and dropping the unnecessary blade from each side, yeah it would probably become feasible.

The question is what for?

Trash bin is very feasible weapon too. Doesn't change the fact that anyone would rather use actual weapon if that was necessary.

The "unnecessary" blade, depending on stance, could be useful for backswings. With a stance where your side is facing the opponent, you could move the blade left-right, right-left, and then proceed to swing the other end around quickly without ever having to rotate the weapon.

Also, as to why you would use it over any other weapon... Why use any weapon over any other? Personal preference, stylistic choices.

Why use a boomerang when you can use a bow? If you like quarterstaff style fighting but need some cleaving damage, why the hell not?

Dixieboy
2009-01-01, 08:16 PM
You can't get any force into blows with weapon like that, though. It doesn't make any more sense, really. And the way they use them in TNG is just sad.

dixieboy: I take it you are a modern fencer? Modern fencing does not use rapiers - that is, 50-inch basket-hilted thrusting weapons with a cutting edge.

A smallsword is what the foil is based on - a foil is a "foiled" (blunted) smallsword. A smallsword would be the shorter, lighter, purely thrusting weapon.
:3, yes, i do not use a rapier, rather i use a pistol handled giant needle >>

But when you thrust around with a weapon so similar you automatically gain an interest in swords, don't ya? XD
I have a rapier, a few daggers (Four), and a Cutlass at home :/

Berserk Monk
2009-01-01, 09:41 PM
The scythe: x4 crit modifier. I've never understood why the scythe gets the largest.

Signmaker
2009-01-01, 09:55 PM
The scythe: x4 crit modifier. I've never understood why the scythe gets the largest.

"My knife is supersharp and that's what counts!"
"Oh yeah!"
"Yeah, I'm gonna make you bleed copius amounts!"

Something along the lines of that?

UserClone
2009-01-01, 09:57 PM
SWORD.

CHUCKS.

YO. (http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=010815)

Malacode
2009-01-01, 10:00 PM
"Stuff about Scythes and their x4 crit modifiers"
Why else would Death use one?

Kris Strife
2009-01-01, 10:01 PM
The scythe: x4 crit modifier. I've never understood why the scythe gets the largest.

I believe a Mr. Bill Door could answer that for you.

Malacode
2009-01-01, 10:14 PM
Sword chucks could at least be used if you wear leather gloves or similar.... The problem I have is when one of the Jedi characters wants Lightsaberchucks

UserClone
2009-01-01, 10:25 PM
Which is not to mention Darth Maul's (more) ludicrous (than usual) double light saber.

Flickerdart
2009-01-01, 10:33 PM
The scythe: x4 crit modifier. I've never understood why the scythe gets the largest.
Just think about it. A critical hit with, say, a Longsword is just it striking an especially vital organ. A critical hit with a scythe is the blade striking that organ with the point and going all the way in (which is pretty much the only way it would deal any damage at all). It wrecks the flesh considerably more, and the swing with the long handle would get more momentum than a thrust, as well.

Knaight
2009-01-01, 11:15 PM
Possibly the problem is that many people imagine a sling as being slung around in circles parallel to the ground, in which case accuracy would be practically impossible.

Yes, most people think that you swing a sling over your head, multiple times. Which is a great way to injure yourself, and hit somebody standing way off where you want to hit. That said reasonable accuracy and proficiency are two very different things. There is the matter of reloading quickly, and being able to hit moving targets.

As for hitting quickly with a sling, the actual slinging movement isn't what takes up all the time. The reloading is what takes a while, unless your really, really good at it.

Suleman
2009-01-02, 12:04 AM
Yes, most people think that you swing a sling over your head, multiple times. Which is a great way to injure yourself, and hit somebody standing way off where you want to hit. That said reasonable accuracy and proficiency are two very different things. There is the matter of reloading quickly, and being able to hit moving targets.

As for hitting quickly with a sling, the actual slinging movement isn't what takes up all the time. The reloading is what takes a while, unless your really, really good at it.

Eh, you can swing a sling in various directions and ways. The greeks used to swing it horizontally over their heads, others used a vertical swing, underarm or overarm, and the amount of swings differs too. Some can do it in less than one circle, others prefer multiple circles.

Jayabalard
2009-01-02, 12:08 AM
Are we talking Dennis the Menace? Or an actual sling? Cause actual slings are tricky, and hurt a hell lot more.Actual sling; not one of those rubber slingshots.

Dervag
2009-01-02, 12:42 AM
Which is not to mention Darth Maul's (more) ludicrous (than usual) double light saber.Although for a Jedi who has precognitive combat abilities, that's less of a problem. And with a lightsaber, which doesn't need to be swung all that forcefully to cut, still less.

It's still not all that smart, you're right.

Thurbane
2009-01-02, 12:56 AM
http://i41.tinypic.com/2u4naky.jpg

monty
2009-01-02, 01:21 AM
http://i41.tinypic.com/2u4naky.jpg

This is your sling. This is your sling shot. Any questions?

Naleh
2009-01-02, 01:24 AM
Come to think of it, why is a bastard sword harder to wield than a greatsword?

It's not. I don't know why this keeps coming up. You can wield it two-handed as a martial weapon, just like a greatsword. It just takes extra training to learn to hold it in one hand.

I second the objections to slings. No, wait. I second everything in this thread. D&D weapons are just silly.

Fhaolan
2009-01-02, 03:02 AM
D&D weapons, as illustrated, are pretty much all a bunch of hooey.

D&D weapons, as statted, are also pretty much all a bunch of hooey.

The concepts behind some of the bizarre weapons (such as the dire mace and double axe), are technically possible to use, but are so inefficient as to be pointless relative to the normal versions of the weapons. For example, to make a double axe actually work, it would bascally have to be a double poleaxe with a extended shaft. The balance of which would be awkward and the space required to use it increases geometrically. It would definately not look anything like what is drawn in the PHB.

The physics behind some of the weapons are just silly. What was the one that was the over-sized greatsword, but had 'mercury' in the handle that supposedly made it just that much better? What exactly was that supposed to achieve? A weaponized themometer?

The bit that really amuses me is that there is a massive selection of RL weapons that would look sufficiently fantastical and 'cool' if illustrated properly, but nobody ever puts these in a book. The Dacian Falx, African Throwing Irons, etc.

supermrjmt
2009-01-02, 03:06 AM
A large Bag of Devouring on attached to the end of a long stick. Just about the greatest bug-catching (or monster-catching :smalltongue:) net ever built... EVER.

Dixieboy
2009-01-02, 03:50 AM
The bit that really amuses me is that there is a massive selection of RL weapons that would look sufficiently fantastical and 'cool' if illustrated properly, but nobody ever puts these in a book. The Dacian Falx, African Throwing Irons, etc.
Falx means sickle, and curiously enough, is

Though an actual falx would be cool, i think people would either use an actual sickle (For cosmetic reasons) or a sword (For actual usefullness)

But i like your idea, may i come with a few contributions? China had a sword (Cannae remember it) that was about as long as the average man, used like we in europe used the pike formations :3

Parierhakens (Parrying hooks) for greatswords to add a bit of flavor and specialization to weapons which has been lacking :smallyuk:

Swordstaffs

And perhaps Shaska's?

Kurald Galain
2009-01-02, 03:52 AM
Sword chucks could at least be used if you wear leather gloves or similar.... The problem I have is when one of the Jedi characters wants Lightsaberchucks

Heh. I used those in Paranoia once...

Spiryt
2009-01-02, 05:27 AM
Just think about it. A critical hit with, say, a Longsword is just it striking an especially vital organ. A critical hit with a scythe is the blade striking that organ with the point and going all the way in (which is pretty much the only way it would deal any damage at all). It wrecks the flesh considerably more, and the swing with the long handle would get more momentum than a thrust, as well.

Eh, what "just striking vital organ" means? Considering that swords in D&D are depicted as slashing only weapons, this would mean that it would have hack/slice all the way to the vital organ. Which would almost always mean more damage than thrust.

Of course thrust can be devastating too, and scythe is slashing as well - so generally if axe should be x3 or maybe x4 instead of pick is the matter of some convention.

I once wrote a post suggesting that 18 -20/ x2 pick and 20/ x 4 scimitar would have much more sense, but I was countered by few quite plausible contrarguments. Still, such solution would at very least have the same amount of sense as original one.


The Dacian Falx, African Throwing Irons, etc.

Dacian falx is much better candidate for big x4 crit weapon than silly scythe.
Although it can be depicted like some kind greatsword too...

Caewil
2009-01-02, 05:55 AM
I'm pretty sure swords are slashing/piercing weapons in 3.5.

TheCountAlucard
2009-01-02, 05:56 AM
A large Bag of Devouring on attached to the end of a long stick. Just about the greatest bug-catching (or monster-catching :smalltongue:) net ever built... EVAR.

Fixed it for you. :smalltongue:

Anyway, yeah, +1 on just about all of the race-specific weapons being ridiculous. Also, I find the idea of the designers having to test out the weapons for approval to be very humorous.

Dixieboy
2009-01-02, 06:05 AM
Fixed it for you. :smalltongue:

Anyway, yeah, +1 on just about all of the race-specific weapons being ridiculous. Also, I find the idea of the designers having to test out the weapons for approval to be very humorous.

What about 'dem racial weapons and those who require a specific size?

I doubt they wanna spend a feat just to make a game :smallyuk:

Spiryt
2009-01-02, 06:07 AM
I'm pretty sure swords are slashing/piercing weapons in 3.5.

Checked my SRD copy. Slashing.

Fhaolan
2009-01-02, 11:07 AM
Falx means sickle, and curiously enough, is

Though an actual falx would be cool, i think people would either use an actual sickle (For cosmetic reasons) or a sword (For actual usefullness)


I was thinking more the two-handed versions that were more the size of a large scythe blade. Sort of a short-handled fauchard. Which is also missing from later edition polearm lists, now that I think on it.



But i like your idea, may i come with a few contributions? China had a sword (Cannae remember it) that was about as long as the average man, used like we in europe used the pike formations :3


Dadao? No, that's not it. The Dadao is basically what the latest round of D&D authors thought the Falchion was. You're talking about something else, and I can't remember it's name either... blast it.



Parierhakens (Parrying hooks) for greatswords to add a bit of flavor and specialization to weapons which has been lacking :smallyuk:

Swordstaffs

And perhaps Shaska's?

I'm liking this list so far. :)

If we throw in martial art weapons, we also get the hook sword, deer horn knives, wind and fire wheels, monk's spade (Hey, a two-ended weapon!), Taiaha (for those wanting a wooden weapon), and so on and so on.

Real life is a treasure trove of bizarre looking weapons.

hamishspence
2009-01-02, 11:15 AM
Short swords were piercing, despite being edged weapons.

I've seen short, piercing bronze-age weapons referred to as rapiers, despite only having a 2 ft blade.

Until Stormwrack, the cutlass, in both 3.0 FRCS and 3.5 Dragon 318, was a slashing/piercing weapon. Stormwrack made it slashing only.

Malacode
2009-01-02, 11:24 AM
...If we throw in martial art weapons, we also get the hook sword, deer horn knives, wind and fire wheels, monk's spade (Hey, a two-ended weapon!), Taiaha (for those wanting a wooden weapon), and so on and so on.
Meteor hammer, rope dart, sanjiegun/sansetsukon (Odd version of Nunchaku), Tabak-Toyok/Chako, Surijin (Two weights on a 9 foot long chain that were then ATTACHED TO A WEAPON! Whaa?), Dragon Beard Hook, Kusarigama (Which I mentioned earlier), Kusarifundo (Nonlethal), Otta (Reeally oddly shaped), Balisword (A three foot long flick knife. No, that giant handle is NOT FOOLING ANYONE)

EditL Oh, and Chicken Sickles and War Fans (Like the Uchiwa... A giant iron FAN used to block arrows. Riiight... The Tessen too, which was a throwing fan (Among other uses))

Starbuck_II
2009-01-02, 11:36 AM
Checked my SRD copy. Slashing.

Probably meant daggers which are slashing./piercing

Spiryt
2009-01-02, 11:38 AM
Short swords were piercing, despite being edged weapons.

I don't know if you are refering to D&D or real life, but almost any sword posses nice piercing ability, even if only against unarmored target. And some longswords and one handed swords were definetly thrust oriented.
While some short swords like katzbalgers were little choppers.


I've seen short, piercing bronze-age weapons referred to as rapiers, despite only having a 2 ft blade.

I don't know anything about bronze age, but here's (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=1586) about Celtic "rapierlike" weapon.

Fhaolan
2009-01-02, 11:39 AM
Oh yes, and the Urumi! Can't ever forget the 'sword' made from a bandsaw blade...

Kris Strife
2009-01-02, 01:56 PM
But i like your idea, may i come with a few contributions? China had a sword (Cannae remember it) that was about as long as the average man, used like we in europe used the pike formations :3

I might be misremembering, but zanbakto? I know it means horse slaying sword. It was designed to cleave through horse and rider in one blow, then be discarded for more practical weapons.

SurlySeraph
2009-01-02, 04:05 PM
The physics behind some of the weapons are just silly. What was the one that was the over-sized greatsword, but had 'mercury' in the handle that supposedly made it just that much better? What exactly was that supposed to achieve? A weaponized themometer?

That would be the Mercurial Greatsword. And the mercury´s in the entire blade, not in the handle. The idea is that when you swing it, the mercury moves to the end of the blade, increasing its weight, so it hits with more force. So basically the concept is that it´s like using an axe, except far more difficult to make, more fragile, and much more expensive. Still, I can at least see why someone would think it´s a good idea. Unlike the goddamn gyrspike.


I might be misremembering, but zanbakto? I know it means horse slaying sword. It was designed to cleave through horse and rider in one blow, then be discarded for more practical weapons.

There´s also the Japanese nodachi, which is more or less the same.


Meteor hammer, rope dart, sanjiegun/sansetsukon (Odd version of Nunchaku), Tabak-Toyok/Chako, Surijin (Two weights on a 9 foot long chain that were then ATTACHED TO A WEAPON! Whaa?), Dragon Beard Hook, Kusarigama (Which I mentioned earlier), Kusarifundo (Nonlethal), Otta (Reeally oddly shaped), Balisword (A three foot long flick knife. No, that giant handle is NOT FOOLING ANYONE)

EditL Oh, and Chicken Sickles and War Fans (Like the Uchiwa... A giant iron FAN used to block arrows. Riiight... The Tessen too, which was a throwing fan (Among other uses))

Hello, medieval China? This is the Temporal Plausibility Department. We´re revoking your right to design weapons.

Spiryt
2009-01-02, 04:22 PM
That would be the Mercurial Greatsword. And the mercury´s in the entire blade, not in the handle. The idea is that when you swing it, the mercury moves to the end of the blade, increasing its weight, so it hits with more force. So basically the concept is that it´s like using an axe, except far more difficult to make, more fragile, and much more expensive. Still, I can at least see why someone would think it´s a good idea. Unlike the goddamn gyrspike.

Price, fragility, and other stuff won't be it problem. It will just not work. It won't be like axe. It will be like... like hollow sword with some crap wobbling inside. Absolutely pointless.

To justificate the WoTC guys I can say that they hadn't probably invented it themselves. I've seen the same idea somewhere else... In Might & Magic or something like that?

Neek
2009-01-02, 04:34 PM
Price, fragility, and other stuff won't be it problem. It will just not work. It won't be like axe. It will be like... like hollow sword with some crap wobbling inside. Absolutely pointless.

I doubt fragility would be a problem. It's done with metal baseball bats (but with water), but then again, they're made of aluminium. It wouldn't work with a sword not because of construction but because of the way a sword is swung. A heavy-tipped sword is not harder to wield, but the shifting weight of the mercury would have to be calculated perfectly, or you'd ruin the swing. It'd work better on top-heavy weapons, such as an axe or mace.

WotC had the concept already, because it's already been done with bats. They, like the makers of many video games, attempted the concept on the wrong weapon.

Dogmantra
2009-01-02, 04:38 PM
In Might & Magic or something like that?
I seem to remember the Halberd being described as having a hollow shaft with a weight inside, M&M VII.

As for the mercurial greatsword, could the mercury not corrode the metal? I know it corrodes (or at least aids in the corrosion of) aluminium.

Neek
2009-01-02, 04:58 PM
Mercury Chloride is corrosive. Mercury by itself is not corrosive with metal.

Spiryt
2009-01-02, 05:02 PM
A heavy-tipped sword is not harder to wield, but the shifting weight of the mercury would have to be calculated perfectly, or you'd ruin the swing. It'd work better on top-heavy weapons, such as an axe or mace.


I doubt that perfect calculation would do anything to make it viable, be it sword axe, or mace.

Maybe it works with baseball bats, but weapons are meant to be swung around, from all angles, in different ways, to bind the other weapon, to deflect strikes and all that stuff. Some weight shifting inside it would be absolutely disastrous.

Kurald Galain
2009-01-02, 05:18 PM
To justificate the WoTC guys I can say that they hadn't probably invented it themselves. I've seen the same idea somewhere else... In Might & Magic or something like that?

Probably. The earlier M&M games (1-5) are full of "[adjective] [adjective] [noun]" items, with a long list of possible adjectives. E.g. "scorching gold guisarme", where scorching means it does a bunch of fire damage, and gold (like every other precious material) means a big + to hit. Mercurial would probably add to initiative.

Rion
2009-01-02, 05:51 PM
Dadao? No, that's not it. The Dadao is basically what the latest round of D&D authors thought the Falchion was. You're talking about something else, and I can't remember it's name either... blast it.


Changdao. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changdao_(sword))
Learned about it in Age of Empires 3 (Despite the game failing to portray a lot things historically accurate).

ShadowFighter15
2009-01-02, 06:37 PM
Just to go back to that list of weapons Malacode posted, there was a video on Youtube a while ago that showed a bunch of hidden weapons that samurai used (it was taken down for some reason; maybe the user removed it but anyway). I've uploaded it myself (probably really bad quality, I downloaded it from Youtube originally) and you can find it here (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=YTqvny3dwsM). Bit of footage of a kusari-gama in action as well.

Fhaolan
2009-01-02, 06:48 PM
That would be the Mercurial Greatsword. And the mercury´s in the entire blade, not in the handle. The idea is that when you swing it, the mercury moves to the end of the blade, increasing its weight, so it hits with more force. So basically the concept is that it´s like using an axe, except far more difficult to make, more fragile, and much more expensive. Still, I can at least see why someone would think it´s a good idea. Unlike the goddamn gyrspike.

They tried that with baseball bats... named 'Tidal Wave' or something like that, where they used water. Not that long before the Mercurial Greatsword showed up the first time. There's a reason you don't see those bats around anymore, and it's not because they were banned from professional play. They just didn't work, even with water. Mercury compounds the issues due to its increased viscocity. :)

While I can see why people would think it would work, I've got the problem of actually being a chemical engineer old enough to have worked with mercury themometers on a regular basis. Capillary repulsion, separated mercury droplets inside the tube due to shock (say from *hitting* things with it), balance changes due to temperature, etc. This is just not a feasable concept.

wumpus
2009-01-02, 07:27 PM
The liquid-filled bat first appeared on the market sometime before 2e. Sales may have gotten a slight push due the recommended liquid being beer. I wasn't aware of it being that bad, but the generation I heard about seemed to be pitched at less competitive softball leagues.

Part of the "sling is a simple weapon" is that the PCs are the Goliaths of the world. The warrior class has always despised peasants weapons, especially *effective* peasant weapons.

Izmir Stinger
2009-01-02, 07:37 PM
Hey, sometimes ridiculous weapons work. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeQTpmaEkMY) Just don't let them tell you it should do 200d6 damage.

Wizzardman
2009-01-02, 10:26 PM
I doubt that perfect calculation would do anything to make it viable, be it sword axe, or mace.

Maybe it works with baseball bats, but weapons are meant to be swung around, from all angles, in different ways, to bind the other weapon, to deflect strikes and all that stuff. Some weight shifting inside it would be absolutely disastrous.

Evidence in support of your statement:

I'm not sure how much it counts for, but in the boffer-sword-based activity club at my college (by boffer, I mean a little bit of insulation around a pvc pipe; I've seen noses broken by this type of swordfighting), it used to be a common practice to increase the weight on specific areas of the sword by duct-taping batteries into the hilt, or getting them stuck at the end of the pipe.

Because a lot of us absolutely sucked at making swords, there were numerous cases of batteries placed in the hilt eventually getting loose and sliding up and down the pipe--thus affecting the weight of the sword just like how the "mercurial greatsword" is affected by mercury.

...It doesn't help. It really doesn't. Sure, it sounds like a sliding weight might be helpful for getting a little more umph out of a swing, but all it really does is make the sword unbalanced no matter how you try to swing it. The moving weight causes low strikes to dip even further than necessary, weakens blocking, and just plain makes swinging the sword feel funny.

Calanais
2009-01-02, 11:12 PM
The first reference I know of for a 2 handed sword with mercury in the blade is the executioner's sword Terminus Est in Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun. That blade is described as being specifically designed for executions, and very awkward in melee (although the protagonist does use it effectively in fighting). Wikipedia goes into some detail about how hard it would actually be to make a sword like this, but not into how the mercury channel would work.
Also, mercury forms an amalgam with aluminium which can cause very rapid oxidation of the aluminium, which can be catastrophic e.g. on a plane (Which is why you can't take mercury thermometers on flights without permission). Mercury doesn't affect steel this way.

MickJay
2009-01-03, 08:32 AM
Gene Wolfe all the way. Historically, swords used for executions wouldn't even have a sharp tip (what for?), and they would be balanced to maximize the momentum of the second half of the blade (the one further away from hilt) to ensure better cutting power during executions. The sword could be either single or double edged, it didn't matter much and indeed it would be extremly unwieldy in combat (it would be much heavier than a combat sword). Experimenting with the design wasn't common, since the basic one worked pretty well, and executioners above all wanted to perform their duty as clean as possible (i.e. with one strike). Chopping the criminal's neck to pieces (when he was to die a quick and painless death) was to risk the wrath of the crowd and losing the job.

All in all, executioner's sword would probably make one of the worst (if not the worst) combat weapons of all sword-like things, it would be horribly balanced for fighting, not suitable for thrusting, slow and unwieldy (although quite likely very sharp). Kind of a very long and heavy cleaver. In DnD terms, it would probably end up being an two-handed exotic weapon (with special proficiency or better for executioners), with -1 attack per round, perhaps a penalty to accuracy in combat, no more than 2d4 damage and 20x3 or 20x4 criticals (chopping off something).

A combat version of this kind of weapon would resemble the mentioned already falx, which was far better shaped and balanced for swinging it in combat

Malacode
2009-01-03, 10:17 AM
Hello, medieval China? This is the Temporal Plausibility Department. We´re revoking your right to design weapons.

Ok, this is getting Sig'd into the middle of next week


I might be misremembering, but zanbakto? I know it means horse slaying sword. It was designed to cleave through horse and rider in one blow, then be discarded for more practical weapons.


I think you mean Zanbato. Zanbato blades weren't that long, it was mostly handle. Of course, thanks to Anime/Manga/Cloud ****ing Strife everyone thinks they're seven feet long and two feet wide. Zanpakuto, which you seem to have combined with the previous, are from Bleach and are completley fictional... As far as I know. Maybe the Japanese really did invent crazy shapechanging swords with souls. Or more likely, the Chinese.

Arcane_Snowman
2009-01-03, 10:48 AM
I believe a Mr. Bill Door could answer that for you. Kudos for the Terry Pratchett reference, and I absolutely love the Reaper Man :smallbiggrin:

Kris Strife
2009-01-03, 10:58 AM
Kudos for the Terry Pratchett reference, and I absolutely love the Reaper Man :smallbiggrin:

Did you read the now dead 'craziest thing youve gotten past a DM' or 'summon magic user' threads?

and I was actually thinking more Ruroni Kenshin on that spelling. Been years since I saw the show and I did say they were swung once, then discarded for more practical weapons.

Iuris
2009-01-03, 12:19 PM
Just a side note:

As someone who has actually wielded a scythe, facing the legions of grass, (and having childishly wielded and waved it around a bit, too) I'll say that the farming scythe makes a rather lousy weapon.

As it is: no way. The blade is attached to the handle rather weakly, and the handles and blade orientation are made specifically to cut the grass paralell to the ground without straining your back.

Modified: you either get an improvised spear or a pick. The farmer would most likely be better off grabbing his trusty pitchfork or axe.

Flickerdart
2009-01-03, 12:25 PM
Just a side note:

As someone who has actually wielded a scythe, facing the legions of grass, (and having childishly wielded and waved it around a bit, too) I'll say that the farming scythe makes a rather lousy weapon.

As it is: no way. The blade is attached to the handle rather weakly, and the handles and blade orientation are made specifically to cut the grass paralell to the ground without straining your back.

Modified: you either get an improvised spear or a pick. The farmer would most likely be better off grabbing his trusty pitchfork or axe.
Yes, the farming scythe does suck, even though it would presumably be pretty fun to be Colossal and use a Colossal scythe to mow down the puny humans just as you would grass.

Dervag
2009-01-03, 12:25 PM
Hey, sometimes ridiculous weapons work. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeQTpmaEkMY) Just don't let them tell you it should do 200d6 damage.What's so ridiculous about a Hwacha?

UserClone
2009-01-03, 12:34 PM
Did you bother looking at it? It's ludicrous! It looks like something an ADHD five-year-old came up with on too many bowls of cocoa puffs and too much access to fireworks.

Mike_G
2009-01-03, 01:06 PM
Did you bother looking at it? It's ludicrous! It looks like something an ADHD five-year-old came up with on too many bowls of cocoa puffs and too much access to fireworks.


It also looks (and works) exactly like the Multiple Launch Rocket System first used in WWII.

When we brought it back to Korea in the 1950's, I wonder if anybody though "Hey, that looks just like the old weapon in those history books. Let's see if it still scares the crap out of invading Chinese hordes."

UserClone
2009-01-03, 01:24 PM
Now look at it (unlit) from the perspective of a warrior of the period. anachronism aside, they'd have pretty much to say about it what I did.

Suleman
2009-01-03, 01:36 PM
Probably. The earlier M&M games (1-5) are full of "[adjective] [adjective] [noun]" items, with a long list of possible adjectives. E.g. "scorching gold guisarme", where scorching means it does a bunch of fire damage, and gold (like every other precious material) means a big + to hit. Mercurial would probably add to initiative.

Nope, it wasn't an enchantment. It was in M&M 7. It was in the weapon description of a certain halberd. I don't remember the name, but it was an early mid-game item.

MickJay
2009-01-03, 01:46 PM
Modified: you either get an improvised spear or a pick. The farmer would most likely be better off grabbing his trusty pitchfork or axe.

Not really, modified scythes were used with good effect in formations during the 1794 insurrection in Poland, the main reason why scythes were better than axes or pitchforks was the reach (greater than any infantry melee weapon Russian forces used), combined with the psychological effect; on top of that, they were excellent for defense against cavalry (think naginatas, only with longer, less curved blades with edge on the other side).

Fax Celestis
2009-01-03, 01:55 PM
Also, war scythes are generally shaped a bit differently.

Spiryt
2009-01-03, 02:06 PM
Not really, modified scythes were used with good effect in formations during the 1794 insurrection in Poland, the main reason why scythes were better than axes or pitchforks was the reach (greater than any infantry melee weapon Russian forces used), combined with the psychological effect; on top of that, they were excellent for defense against cavalry (think naginatas, only with longer, less curved blades with edge on the other side).

Or simplier, they were improvised glaives, or more precisely fauchards (which is described as glaive with main edge on the concave side.

So in D&D they would most simply be glaives, maybe with some penalties.

MickJay
2009-01-03, 02:37 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_scythe - actually uses the example I used, since it's translated from Polish. Couple of nice pictures, too.

Fhaolan
2009-01-03, 06:36 PM
Wikipedia aside, I usually refer to war-scythes as 'fauchards' as that's the term used in the weapon nomenclature books I started with. Mind you, weapon nomenclature is a morass, and it's pretty close to impossible to get two experts to agree as to names. Weapons have a tendency to get 'invented' in multiple places at the same time, or be dispersed to different regions where the languages change over time. In any case, any one weapon type usually has at least five different 'correct' names.

SSGW Priest
2009-01-03, 06:51 PM
Sure, but using it in combat would require more than a "reasonable degree of accuracy".

Besides, it surely takes less than an hour to learn to wield a sap, or pick, or lance ("point it forward and hold on") with a "reasonable degree of accuracy", and yet those are considered more difficult than slings, in 3.5 rules.

Come to think of it, why is a bastard sword harder to wield than a greatsword? Why is a shuriken harder to throw than a dagger?

Depends on who you are using the sling against. A reasonable degree of skill is all you need against massed formations. What does it matter if you miss Bobbicus in the phalanx if you take out Freddicus next to him?

TempusCCK
2009-01-03, 06:54 PM
The sling is the ranged weapon to make an appearance in warfare, except for maybe the atlatal (sp) and 'chuck the rock'. Historically, it is primitive and simple.

I've always wondered why the Falchion isn't simple, since it was widely considered a "peasants weapon" too...

Simanos
2009-01-03, 08:44 PM
I think THIS THREAD (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=826384) is appropriate. And THIS (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=12174882&postcount=60) post in particular. :smallbiggrin:
Man manyshot sucks. I always houserule it out.

DrakebloodIV
2009-01-04, 12:43 AM
The most idiotic weapon EVER

THE DIRE TERRAESQUE
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/thegreatestnightmare/DireTarrasque.jpg

TheCountAlucard
2009-01-04, 06:18 AM
Not the least bit idiotic-looking when wielded by Chuck Norris. :smalltongue:

Malacode
2009-01-04, 07:12 AM
Aww man, I soooo want one of those. I have GOT to convince my DM that that's a special Monk weapon.

"I Flurry with the Terrasque(s)"

AslanCross
2009-01-04, 08:54 AM
Not the least bit idiotic-looking when wielded by Chuck Norris. :smalltongue:

Chuck Norris can dual-wield those. As finesse weapons.
Heck, he can wield a third in his mouth and another pair in each foot.

And still be able to power attack with ALL of them.
As if he were wielding a two-handed weapon.

SSGW Priest
2009-01-04, 12:41 PM
Chuck Norris can dual-wield those. As finesse weapons.
Heck, he can wield a third in his mouth and another pair in each foot.

And still be able to power attack with ALL of them.
As if he were wielding a two-handed weapon.

Since you went there. Allow me to introduce the most cataclysmic weapon ever to be conceived...

Dire Chuck Norris...

http://i496.photobucket.com/albums/rr322/Mongo1776/NorrisChuckscopy.png



And for EPIC level players...



http://i496.photobucket.com/albums/rr322/Mongo1776/NorrisChucks2copy.png

Archangel Yuki
2009-01-04, 01:21 PM
http://i496.photobucket.com/albums/rr322/Mongo1776/NorrisChucks2copy.png



Only reason i would ever make a monk would to be to utter this line:

"I flurry with my Dire Chuck Norris' who flurry with the Dire Terrasques"

TheCountAlucard
2009-01-04, 03:12 PM
And for EPIC level players...

What about...

if each Chuck was wielding a few Pun-Puns, who were in turn wielding the Tarrasques? Hm? Yeah, got you there. :smalltongue:

SurlySeraph
2009-01-04, 06:49 PM
Looks like I have to repeat myself...


NO! No recursive nunchaku! Do you know where it leads to? DO YOU?! IT LEADS TO THIS:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v466/Koretsu/DireHecaton.jpg

This fierce weapon can only be wielded by a Hecatoncheires. It requires two hands to wield, and thus, a Hecatoncheiries can wield 50 of them at a time. At each end of the chain is another Hecatoncheires. All Hecatoncheires have all thier normal powers and abilities, including Summon Hecatoncheires. Each summoned Hecatoncheires also wields this weapon.

SSGW Priest
2009-01-04, 08:00 PM
Looks like I have to repeat myself...

Sweet recursive, but no Chuck Norris. Besides there are but three Hecatonchires. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hecatoncheires

Yes I am being completely hypocritical given my example. Two Norris would cause the space-time continuum to collapse under the awesomeness.

Deth Muncher
2009-01-04, 08:00 PM
Looks like I have to repeat myself...

See, this is why D&D and exponents should never mix.

Ethrael
2009-01-04, 08:08 PM
I just finished Complete Warrior and I've found one: Mancatcher.

It says city guards carry them... What?!?

Recaiden
2009-01-04, 08:08 PM
I think this is appropriate WBWDTT (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3400353) Lots of fun.

Especially this:
"I pull out a ball of longswords and a ball of warhammers, then tape them to opposite ends of the spiked chain..."

Knaight
2009-01-04, 08:13 PM
The sling is the ranged weapon to make an appearance in warfare, except for maybe the atlatal (sp) and 'chuck the rock'. Historically, it is primitive and simple.

Simple to make yes, simple to use, not so much. The design is pretty basic, and its more intuitive to pick up if you haven't seen one used, but if it had the same amount of exposure as a bow(or better yet a crossbow) then the sling is the hardest to use accurately. Against massed formations its not, but there is still the matter of being good enough to get a decent range and be able to reload quickly.

Eldan
2009-01-05, 03:19 AM
I just finished Complete Warrior and I've found one: Mancatcher.

It says city guards carry them... What?!?

Actually...

Wiki: Mancatcher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mancatcher)
Those exist.

Construct
2009-01-05, 08:58 AM
There have been spears where the butt end (the one away from the spearpoint) is weighted so that you can strike effectively with it as if it were a kind of light mace. That's the only kind of "double weapon" I've ever heard of that didn't strike me as more trouble than it was worth.
- Poleaxes (quicker butt used to parry and harass, slower hammer used once opponent is suitably disadvantaged)
- Greek spears (front ranks of phalanx spear opponents, following ranks use butts to finish off survivors as they march forward over the bodies)

lisiecki
2009-01-05, 09:03 AM
Dwarven War Hammer

Dwarf's arn't real
They never made ax's in the real world
God WTF Wizards
Get on the reality wagon

Malacode
2009-01-05, 09:49 AM
Dwarven War Hammer

Dwarves's aren't real
They never made axe's in the real world
God, WTF Wizards
Get on the reality wagon

Fixed it for ya. No, rly (Grammar nazi, and I use proper english spelling. Sue me)

lisiecki
2009-01-05, 10:00 AM
Fixed it for ya. No, rly (Grammar nazi, and I use proper english spelling. Sue me)

Well thank you on the Axes aspect.
However i was always under the impression that "grammar Nazi's" prefer Dwarf's
As opposed to the word that was made up for the hobbit...

Gee thanks for your help.

Malacode
2009-01-05, 10:06 AM
I don't mean to be, well, mean or anything. Please, take it lightly. I mean you no harm *does stupid spock V finger thingy. You know the one*

lisiecki
2009-01-05, 10:10 AM
I don't mean to be, well, mean or anything. Please, take it lightly. I mean you no harm *does stupid spock V finger thingy. You know the one*

Oh no, I was actually being serious. I should take note of the Ax's v Axe's thing. I really thought my spelling had improved to the point where i would catch a blunder like that. On the other hand, I also really thought that the version of the plural of dwarf I used was correct.

Suleman
2009-01-05, 10:14 AM
I've always wondered why the Falchion isn't simple, since it was widely considered a "peasants weapon" too...
...by whom? The falchion is quite simply a heavy-bladed one-edged sword. Possibly cheaper than a double-edged warsword, but far from a peasant's weapon.

Malacode
2009-01-05, 10:17 AM
*Shrug* Most people, I gather, go by personal preference. I like Dwarves over Dwarf's, but whatever. An
yway, back onto topic, the Impchucks (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5347963). Awesome? Hell yeah. But that's not the matter at hand. It's the practicality of tying two imps together and hitting things with them.

Spiryt
2009-01-05, 10:22 AM
...by whom? The falchion is quite simply a heavy-bladed one-edged sword. Possibly cheaper than a double-edged warsword, but far from a peasant's weapon.

Not necessary heavy bladed, although many indeed had forward balance. Generally mass and balance are secondary, the shape is most important, different from more classic sword, obvioulsy and different from messer or other medieval one edged swords.

Baidas Kebante
2009-01-05, 10:51 AM
If we throw in martial art weapons, we also get the hook sword, deer horn knives, wind and fire wheels, monk's spade (Hey, a two-ended weapon!), Taiaha (for those wanting a wooden weapon), and so on and so on.

Real life is a treasure trove of bizarre looking weapons.

Speaking of the monk's spade, I get the feeling this is where the inspiration for the double axe came from (being the closest thing in real life that resembles it). However, I'm not too sure I could believe an orc wielding it like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKWHoVRKVM8

monty
2009-01-05, 02:23 PM
Dwarven War Hammer

Dwarves's aren't real
They never made axe's in the real world
God, WTF Wizards
Get on the reality wagonFixed it for ya. No, rly (Grammar nazi, and I use proper english spelling. Sue me)

You do realize there's still a number of errors in that, right?

Sorry if you knew that, but it's hard to get sarcasm over the Internet sometimes.

Holocron Coder
2009-01-05, 03:37 PM
Dwarven War Hammer

Dwarves's aren't real
They never made axe's in the real world
God, WTF Wizards
Get on the reality wagon

Fixed it for ya. No, rly (Grammar nazi, and I use proper english spelling. Sue me)

"Dwarves's", "axe's"?

Ok, Gollum :smallbiggrin:

Fredthefighter
2009-01-05, 03:42 PM
Well, the Gnome Hooked Hammer never made sense to me.
What is the point of a weapon with a tiny hammer on one end and a tiny pick on the end?

Zenos
2009-01-05, 03:55 PM
So the orcs have handles when punting Gnomes. The pick and the hammer are really just so that handle doesn't slip. :smalltongue:

Irreverent Fool
2009-01-05, 03:59 PM
You people disappoint me. I read through all seven pages and not once did anybody mention one of the most ridiculous and yet commonly-used weapons in D&D.

The two-handed sword.

...in a DUNGEON.

obnoxious
sig

Blackfang108
2009-01-05, 04:01 PM
Well, the Gnome Hooked Hammer never made sense to me.
What is the point of a weapon with a tiny hammer on one end and a tiny pick on the end?

Prospecting.

Pick to go Prospecting.

Hammer in case anyone tries to stop you.

Cookie if you guess the refrence.

ericgrau
2009-01-05, 04:13 PM
In D&D, the Sai. A weapon designed for disarming but worse than every other weapon that a Monk can use.

Really, who makes a disarming light weapon that only grants +4 bonus? It will only negate the -4 for being light.

Might as well use a Quarterstaff (+4 for being 2 handed and no penalty).

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/vv/20061027a
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/tt/20060214a

This is the entirety of what I found on the matter on the WotC website. A search of the FAQ found nothing. Basically they both say monks and sais are very effective at disarming, specifically mentioning the +4 bonus to remind the player but not mentioning that it is a light weapon. Historically the sai is a disarming weapon, as effective as a two-handed weapon (also gets a +4) according to the real life weapons thread. While it would be nice to get a definitive answer, it seems strongly implied that +4 = +4 not -4 + 4 = 0. If a monk flurries with a quarterstaff OTOH, he must attack with each end individually as a double weapon and thus it is treated as a one-handed weapon not a two-handed one. He can, however, make single attacks or non-flurry full attacks using it as a two-handed weapon.

The first time I ran into this issue was when making exhaustive cheat sheets of all the in-combat rules. This and kneeling were the only two ambiguous rules I found in all of 3.5 w/o a FAQ clarification or other such answer. Not too shabby of WotC IMO. I had to adapt kneeling rules from d20 star wars since I couldn't find an answer anywhere. For the sai I checked the real life weapons thread b/c I didn't personally understand the sai too well. When the issue came up again recently I checked the WotC website to try to get examples (since I got nothing from the FAQ on my 1st attempt, hence the reason I reverted to real-life comments). There I found only those two links. In fact, I found no mention of the +4 - 4 = 0 issue anywhere on the entire internet except giantitp.

Like kneeling, I made these searches b/c I wanted a clear-cut answer for my rules cheat sheets. I don't care if it's one way or another as long as I do my best to get it right, or as close to right as I can get it. What I'd really like to do is write WotC about both questions, but I don't think they are answering 3.5 questions anymore. If anyone has any constructive help like more examples from Wizards or some answer from an official or semi-official guy (not "N'uh, I think it's this way so there!"), I'd find that very helpful and would like to hear it.

horseboy
2009-01-05, 04:52 PM
...by whom? The falchion is quite simply a heavy-bladed one-edged sword. Possibly cheaper than a double-edged warsword, but far from a peasant's weapon.
A falchion is an European machete. They were common tools, so if slings are "simple" weapons, then falchions would be so, too.

lisiecki
2009-01-05, 05:51 PM
"Dwarves's", "axe's"?

Ok, Gollum :smallbiggrin:

OHHH you were mocking Malacode. I did spend most of the day trying to figure out what an axe is, is

Grynning
2009-01-05, 06:29 PM
A falchion is an European machete. They were common tools, so if slings are "simple" weapons, then falchions would be so, too.

Of course, real falchions were not two-handed weapons either. It's been pointed out on many threads that this is a case of a misnomer and that the D&D "falchion" =/= real one.

The closest real-life weapon I can think of to the D&D falchion is the Grosse Messer (http://www.coldsteel.com/grossemesser.html) as sold by Cold Steel.

Fhaolan
2009-01-05, 06:48 PM
Of course, real falchions were not two-handed weapons either. It's been pointed out on many threads that this is a case of a misnomer and that the D&D "falchion" =/= real one.

The closest real-life weapon I can think of to the D&D falchion is the Grosse Messer (http://www.coldsteel.com/grossemesser.html) as sold by Cold Steel.

[Dadao (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dadao) is another RL weapon that is very close to the D&D falchion. Large, two-handed curved cleaver.

Mike_G
2009-01-05, 06:50 PM
Prospecting.

Pick to go Prospecting.

Hammer in case anyone tries to stop you.

Cookie if you guess the refrence.

It's Discword, but I'm not sure which one.

One with Dwarves in it.

I want to say The Truth but it could be any of a dozen.

pirateshow
2009-01-05, 10:24 PM
The two-handed sword.

...in a DUNGEON.
Maybe a full-out claymore, might give some grief, but most historical longswords were no longer than five feet. In a ten-foot hallway, assuming you're not making crazy wide cuts that'd give your enemy outrageous openings to kill you, you'd be alright with such a weapon.

Sucrose
2009-01-06, 12:57 AM
It's Discword, but I'm not sure which one.

One with Dwarves in it.

I want to say The Truth but it could be any of a dozen.

I've been on a bit of a Discworld kick over the holiday, and I'm pretty sure that it's actually The Fifth Elephant.

Fizban
2009-01-06, 03:31 AM
If a monk flurries with a quarterstaff OTOH, he must attack with each end individually as a double weapon and thus it is treated as a one-handed weapon not a two-handed one. He can, however, make single attacks or non-flurry full attacks using it as a two-handed weapon.

Say what? I'm gonna need a source on that.

Spiryt
2009-01-06, 05:30 AM
The closest real-life weapon I can think of to the D&D falchion is the Grosse Messer (http://www.coldsteel.com/grossemesser.html) as sold by Cold Steel.

Or any kriegmesser - two handed european one edged sword. Grossemesser as far as I know is wrong name - grossmessers were one handed weapon similar to falchions, but different a bit video (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=38sVdx7nzhQ&feature=related)

Here's a more top end kreigmesser reproduction - good for D&D falchion link (http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/nextgen/sword-kriegsmesser-knecht.htm)

Simanos
2009-01-06, 08:19 AM
Say what? I'm gonna need a source on that.
"When using flurry of blows, a monk may attack only with unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham). She may attack with unarmed strikes and special monk weapons interchangeably as desired. When using weapons as part of a flurry of blows, a monk applies her Strength bonus (not Str bonus × 1½ or ×½) to her damage rolls for all successful attacks, whether she wields a weapon in one or both hands. The monk can’t use any weapon other than a special monk weapon as part of a flurry of blows.

In the case of the quarterstaff, each end counts as a separate weapon for the purpose of using the flurry of blows ability. Even though the quarterstaff requires two hands to use, a monk may still intersperse unarmed strikes with quarterstaff strikes, assuming that she has enough attacks in her flurry of blows routine to do so."
Getting 1xSTR is a first indication that a quarterstaff is only allowed to be 1-handed in flurries (unlike normal full attacks). That each end counts as a separate weapon is the second indication. I'm pretty sure any DM would rule that means it's not used two handed.

Malacode
2009-01-06, 08:53 AM
How do you use a quarterstaff one handed? At least, effectively. I mean in real life.

Blackfang108
2009-01-06, 09:43 AM
It's Discword, but I'm not sure which one.

One with Dwarves in it.

I want to say The Truth but it could be any of a dozen.

The Fifth Elephant is where I remember it from. one of the times Vimes meets with The Low King of Dwarves.

It mightr have been mentioned in The Truth, so Cookie for you!

Simanos
2009-01-06, 09:45 AM
How do you use a quarterstaff one handed? At least, effectively. I mean in real life.
Ever put a broom stick in your armpit while holding it? It's pretty famous style in martial arts movies. And anyway the text doesn't mean you use it one handed. It means you use it "like" it was one handed (STR bonus and stuff). It's mechanics not flavor.
You can also use a Kama in two hands (1.5xSTR), if you want, in a full attack. But not in a flurry. You still only get only 1xSTR (not 1.5xSTR) with a Kama held in 2 hands in a flurry.

Danzaver
2009-01-06, 10:34 AM
Hmm, has anyone mentioned Mercurial weapons yet? Try juggling three coke bottles half filled with water and you will see what I am talking about.

lisiecki
2009-01-06, 10:58 AM
Ya all these weapons are stooped.
And they don't even have what would be the best weapon ever
a crossbow that shots chainsaw Mandrills armed with chainsaws

Kurald Galain
2009-01-06, 11:01 AM
The Fifth Elephant is where I remember it from. one of the times Vimes meets with The Low King of Dwarves.

It mightr have been mentioned in The Truth, so Cookie for you!

Would that be a stone cookie?

RangerStranger
2009-01-06, 11:33 AM
You people disappoint me. I read through all seven pages and not once did anybody mention one of the most ridiculous and yet commonly-used weapons in D&D.

The two-handed sword.

...in a DUNGEON.

obnoxious
sig

Most two handed swords had an area above the hilt that was not sharp and could be gripped with a bare hand. This would allow the weapon easily used in a close quarter fight. It would look much like this.

http://www.thearma.org/essays/2.jpg

Danzaver
2009-01-06, 01:02 PM
Most two handed swords had an area above the hilt that was not sharp and could be gripped with a bare hand. This would allow the weapon easily used in a close quarter fight. It would look much like this.


Nice Flamberge. I would contest that most had a covered part specifically for gripping, but I would assert that nearly all, if not all swords can be gripped by the blade if you know what you are doing and are wearing proper gauntlets. I can back this up with illustrations from 15th century fighting manuals, such as one depicting the 'murder blow' which involves holding the sword with both hands by the blade and slamming the crossguard down on your opponent's head.

I have always wondered about the practicality of the flamberge. I have heard from an unverified source that its biggest strength came from its fearsome reputation - as a cutting or thrusting weapon it seems fairly poor.

Perhaps we can extend our criteria to cover stupid and impractical real-life weapons.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-01-06, 01:30 PM
I can back this up with illustrations from 15th century fighting manuals, such as one depicting the 'murder blow' which involves holding the sword with both hands by the blade and slamming the crossguard down on your opponent's head.

That, and one of the most basic techniques of longsword-fighting was half-swording, where you grip the blade quite high on it, leaving maybe 6-12 inches above your upper hand, for jamming into a hole in your opponent's armor... The swords weren't actually all that sharp.

MickJay
2009-01-06, 01:34 PM
We'd need to ask a specialist as far as flamberge is concerned, I read (I can't remember where) that it was easier to swing due to blade's shape and at least as effective in chopping people/cutting through armor as a straight blade. I do believe that if it pierced body, the resulting wound would be far nastier than from an ordinary blade, since each curve would add to the total amount of flesh cut with even small change in blade's angle.

Flamberges, to an extent, have been inspired by late gothic art, and they're certainly decorative; but they're also a late development as far as heavy swords are concerned and could be made only when metalsmithing was sufficiently advanced to produce durable blade of such shape. Somehow I find it difficult to believe that people would go into battle, where their life would depend on both their skills and quality of arms, with fancy yet ineffective weaponry. Which brings another point, namely, to what extent flamberges were made for actual combat, and not for hanging over a mantlepiece? Majority of weapons shown in iconographic sources from the period (and most artists would be familiar with what actual weapons looked like) show soldiers armed with straight swords - but then, how expensive would a flamberge be compared to a more ordinary sword? Maybe even if flamberge was - somehow - superior, the price was too high for most combatants to afford that extra edge?

Can anyone offer informed opinion on the subject?

From the practical point of view, long swords wouldn't have to be sharp right to the hilt, plus, once a sword is stuck in enemy's body and/or armor, it would often take both hands and a good grip to pull it out; the smaller guard on the sword from the photo could theoretically block the blade from skewering opponent right to the hilt and the part between hilt and said guard would provide the grip.

Theodoric
2009-01-06, 01:43 PM
Most two handed swords had an area above the hilt that was not sharp and could be gripped with a bare hand.
Ricasso (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricasso) is what Wikipedia calls it.

Doug Lampert
2009-01-06, 02:26 PM
Yes. I've been told that the 3E designers were unaware of the existence of the (military) sling, and so based the so-called sling on the weapons table on a Dennis The Menace slingshot. That explains why it's so ineffective, and considered a simple weapon.

That makes sense.


My impression is that if a sling is hard to learn to use, then you're probably doing something wrong. At slinging.org, here (http://slinging.org/index.php?page=making-and-using-the-venerable-hand-sling---lynn-p-ballard), it says that "slings can be grand fun, especially once you develop a reasonable degree of accuracy . . . something that most people can accomplish with less than an hour's practice!"

Possibly the problem is that many people imagine a sling as being slung around in circles parallel to the ground, in which case accuracy would be practically impossible. However, slingers normally spin the sling vertically, perpendicular to the ground. This gives you better elevation control and means you're less likely to miss entirely.

Classical military slings WERE often slung parallel to the ground, it allows a longer lever arm and greater power. Your page's author is using 2' cords according to his instructions for making your own. But classical lengths seem to have averaged about 4' (per wikipedia, my guess would have been longer).

Your own reference also includes a list of ranges, Side arm goes 505meters, the longest underhand goes 192 meters and is beat handily by multiple helicopter and oblique Greek shots. Note that you get a flatter trajectory with the horizontal swings and get so much more power that you STILL outrange the underhand method.


Eh, you can swing a sling in various directions and ways. The greeks used to swing it horizontally over their heads, others used a vertical swing, underarm or overarm, and the amount of swings differs too. Some can do it in less than one circle, others prefer multiple circles.

Yep, styles differ. By the time anyone was wearing plate armor it would all have been quick underhanded swings, but the slings would mostly be throwing grenades by that time. When they were a major military weapon overhead horizontal would have been common.

But even underhanded a crossbow or bow is (much) easier to be accurate with and has a higher rate of fire.

Simple is just plain stupid, they had no idea what a real sling is like.

Blackfang108
2009-01-06, 02:31 PM
But even underhanded a crossbow or bow is (much) easier to be accurate with and has a higher rate of fire.

That would REALLY depend on the crossbow and it's user.

If the pull was weak enough or you were strong enough, reloading a crossbow would be a breeze. Pull the string back and recock it.

Otherwise, as most bows had a SEVERELY strong pull, you were stuck cranking it back, which could take up to 60 seconds.
The best way to increase the rate of fire was to have a two man team and 2 X-Bows. One reloads while the other aims and fires.

MickJay
2009-01-06, 06:25 PM
There are at least 4 different ways of pulling the string back on a crossbow, not counting differences in mechanism designs. Cranks and windlasses are arguably the slowest and designed for the most powerful crossbows. Between that and pulling the string by hand you could use a variety of levers or bend down, hold the crossbow to the ground with your foot (with the help of a foothold attached to the front end of the crossbow), attach the string to a special hook at your belt and pull the string back when getting back to straight position. The last method was fairly popular among crossbowmen operating in the field, since they didn't have to worry about damaging any mechanism, and it was relatively fast. This variety allows to make different stat sets for crossbows, beyond just classifying them as "light" and "heavy". Then again, justifying different crossbow models by RL pretty much rules out dual wielding self-repeaters, too ;)

Danzaver
2009-01-07, 02:34 AM
We'd need to ask a specialist as far as flamberge is concerned,
Can anyone offer informed opinion on the subject?


I just searched my personal medieval-specialised library, and sadly could find absolutely no reference to the flamberge at all.

However, i just got off the phone to my friend who is far more knowledgeable on these things than I, and he had a bit to say. It seems that most of the surviving Flamberges are in the Royal and Dresden Armouries, and they are both very much of the opinion that they are ornamental rather than functional. My friend said that he had the opportunity to hold a real surviving flamberge, and the weight felt all wrong for a fighting blade. It was a great weapon to stand there holding in front of you, and in fact it seemed to have been weighted for that purpose. The shape of the blade would have been a bugger to keep sharp, and to cut off someone's leg with it, he felt that you would need to find someone willing to stand there as you sawed away at it.

However, that being said, he said that it would still work as a thrusting weapon, as the point was in line with the rest of the blade, and he mentioned that there were some examples of 16th century civilian rapiers with the flame blade. Such a wepaon would have been designed for thrusting through an unarmoured opponent.

However, as far as it being carried into large battles, neither of us could think of any example, nor did it make sense to us. People would use whatever would work the best at the time.

ShadowFighter15
2009-01-07, 02:57 AM
I can back this up with illustrations from 15th century fighting manuals, such as one depicting the 'murder blow' which involves holding the sword with both hands by the blade and slamming the crossguard down on your opponent's head.

Now I know why the animators for "The Witcher" added that as one of Geralt's finishing blows. Makes it seem more brutal than when I watched it in the game. He does it with a sword about the size of the one in the picture, too.

Danzaver
2009-01-07, 08:25 AM
I found and scanned this image, which shows both the half-sword style and the murder blow. for your viewing pleasure.
http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj119/Danzaver/wallenstein002.jpg

From the 15th century fighting manual "Codex Wallerstein". The guy on the left moves his lower hand forward to half sword style (note that normally, the higher hand would be moved to the blade, but for this strike the lower hand works better) and delivers a thrust. His opponent twists his body, deflecting, and delivers a murder-blow. Or at least that's how I interpet the picture. Sadly, no caption for this illustration is surviving.

Simanos
2009-01-07, 09:32 AM
Slings are definitely less simple and more powerful than in D&D.
Bows are simpler to use, crossbows a lot more simple than either.
Don't confuse how hard it is to make crossbows compared to slings with how hard it is to use them.
Also don't forget the gastraphetes or belly-xbow. It was cocked by resting the stomach in a concavity at the rear of the stock and pressing down with all strength...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastraphetes

MickJay
2009-01-07, 08:35 PM
Thanks for checking, Danzaver.

Crossbows became extremly popular as a ranged weapon exacly because they were so easy to use (and had a good piercing power). A longbowman would need years of practice to be really good, while crossbowmen could be trained in a few days. Crossbow remained the favourite weapon of mercenaries (especially those who wanted to earn some money for a particular investment and retire from fighting after a season or two) throughout the XVth century and well into XVIth, when finally improvements in gunpowder weapons made handguns a viable alternative.

Irreverent Fool
2009-01-08, 06:29 AM
Most two handed swords had an area above the hilt that was not sharp and could be gripped with a bare hand. This would allow the weapon easily used in a close quarter fight. It would look much like this.

Explain to me how this is still slashing damage and I will concede the point!

obnoxious
sig

Britter
2009-01-08, 10:57 AM
You could still do short chopping cuts if you were half-swording or gripping the ricasso. In principle it wouldn't be much different then using a bayonet to cut. You can also do draw cuts or push cuts, i.e. you thrust the blade in such a way as to have it cut a surface, or you lay the blade on the target and draw it back/push it forward to cut.

I would think that thrusting attacks would be more effective were you in such a situation, but cutting is not impossible.

RangerStranger
2009-01-08, 01:15 PM
I think a combination of piercing and slashing attacks would be most effective here. If you thrust and miss you could swing the blade in the direction in which your opponent dodged.

I agree, it is very much like having a bayonet attached to the end of a rifle. That is a melee combat style that is still taught today. When I was in the US Army they taught us how to make thrusting and slashing attacks with the bayonet. You could also bring the other end of the sword around and hit your opponent with it, much like a butt-stroke from a rifle. The hilt or your elbow could be used in the strike depending on the armor worn by each individual of course.

SSGW Priest
2009-01-08, 06:22 PM
I think a combination of piercing and slashing attacks would be most effective here. If you thrust and miss you could swing the blade in the direction in which your opponent dodged.

I agree, it is very much like having a bayonet attached to the end of a rifle. That is a melee combat style that is still taught today. When I was in the US Army they taught us how to make thrusting and slashing attacks with the bayonet. You could also bring the other end of the sword around and hit your opponent with it, much like a butt-stroke from a rifle. The hilt or your elbow could be used in the strike depending on the armor worn by each individual of course.

Drill Sergeant: What makes the grass grow green?
Privates: Drill Sergeant! Blood! Blood makes the grass grow green!

Ah, those were the days...

You forgot to mention using the rifle to block attacks.

Llama231
2009-01-08, 08:42 PM
I once made up a weapon that was simply called a "16-sided 32-bladed axe", and it looked something like a very sharp ball.

Jayngfet
2009-01-08, 11:34 PM
I'm currently rolling a character who casts spells with a magic codpiece instead of his hands, does that count?

monty
2009-01-08, 11:41 PM
I'm currently rolling a character who casts spells with a magic codpiece instead of his hands, does that count?

Only if the somatic components of his spells consist of pelvic thrusts.

Jayngfet
2009-01-08, 11:47 PM
Only if the somatic components of his spells consist of pelvic thrusts.

Don't worry that are.:smallamused:

Thurbane
2009-01-09, 12:36 AM
Don't worry that are.:smallamused:
The Funky Duckman (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcGXR00x1ro) :smalltongue:

aarondirebear
2009-01-09, 12:46 PM
Sure, but using it in combat would require more than a "reasonable degree of accuracy".

Besides, it surely takes less than an hour to learn to wield a sap, or pick, or lance ("point it forward and hold on") with a "reasonable degree of accuracy", and yet those are considered more difficult than slings, in 3.5 rules.

Come to think of it, why is a bastard sword harder to wield than a greatsword? Why is a shuriken harder to throw than a dagger?

Oh "why" this and "why" that...
Why must you ask these kinds of questions?
Just play the damn game or QUIT if it bothers you that much.

hamishspence
2009-01-09, 05:21 PM
some things in the game represent "acceptable breaks from reality" and some don't, and which is which will vary for different people.

and finding a representation of a real-life weapon irritating doesn't mean the whole game is, it simply means that, in this case, we thing the designers Did not do the Research.

a reshuffle of some of the simple to martial to exotic weapons would certainly make sense. Though in the case of the bastard sword, the difference is its a bit too big to wield one handed unlesss you have the training, and that trainig is, in the game universe, not included within Martial Weapon Proficiency.

though the sling is pretty odd. Maybe because its the signature weapon of David, who was a sheep-herder- that is, a Commoner, who only get simple weapon proficiency?

Keld Denar
2009-01-09, 05:42 PM
I just searched my personal medieval-specialised library, and sadly could find absolutely no reference to the flamberge at all.

It seems that most of the surviving Flamberges are in the Royal and Dresden Armouries, and they are both very much of the opinion that they are ornamental rather than functional. My friend said that he had the opportunity to hold a real surviving flamberge, and the weight felt all wrong for a fighting blade. It was a great weapon to stand there holding in front of you, and in fact it seemed to have been weighted for that purpose. The shape of the blade would have been a bugger to keep sharp, and to cut off someone's leg with it, he felt that you would need to find someone willing to stand there as you sawed away at it.


Having actually been to the Waffenkammer in Dresden (I used to live in Görlitz, Germany, about 100 km east of Dresden), I have seen with my own two eyes the Flamberge style blades there. They do in fact exist.

What I was told by the museum proctor I spoke with, is that while most of the ones there were used as ceremonial weapons, the ones that actually saw battle were used primarily for wounding horses. The wielder would basically make a large 2handed chopping motion at the legs of the horse, relying on the weight and momentum to do most of the damage. Not very elegant, but probably decently effective, provided you didn't get skewered by the rider and/or trampled by the horse.

Tacoma
2009-01-09, 06:29 PM
Bohemian Ear-Spoon.

MickJay
2009-01-09, 06:52 PM
Bohemian Ear-Spoon.

Except for the name, why would a heavy spear be ridiculous?

Tacoma
2009-01-09, 06:56 PM
Oh just the name.

Danzaver
2009-01-10, 03:56 PM
Having actually been to the Waffenkammer in Dresden (I used to live in Görlitz, Germany, about 100 km east of Dresden), I have seen with my own two eyes the Flamberge style blades there. They do in fact exist.

What I was told by the museum proctor I spoke with, is that while most of the ones there were used as ceremonial weapons, the ones that actually saw battle were used primarily for wounding horses. The wielder would basically make a large 2handed chopping motion at the legs of the horse, relying on the weight and momentum to do most of the damage. Not very elegant, but probably decently effective, provided you didn't get skewered by the rider and/or trampled by the horse.

That's very interesting. Given that they would have chosen the most effective tool for a given job, I wonder why they would have chosen a flame-bladed weapon specifically to take out horses. One would think that something heavy for cutting would have worked better.

Perhaps it was just ineffectual enough that the horse had a fair chance of recovery from the wound, and was therefore worth something as spoils... Who knows.

MickJay
2009-01-10, 05:21 PM
I don't think so, again, going to battle with ineffective weapon just to slightly increase the possible spoils (which may go to someone else in the end, and assuming your side won) is extremly unlikely. Perhaps there was something in their build that made them effective for some very specific purpose (like chopping at horses legs, after which flamberge would rebound and have enough momentum so that a skilled user could make another slash at the opponent/block incoming attack/whatever). This is pure speculation, of course. Maybe the weapon was just over-specialised which made it poorly suited for most situations, assuming it was good for something other than decorating walls.

TempusCCK
2009-01-10, 05:26 PM
My money is just that they look neat, but perhaps it could be something similar to a blood-trench type effect, once you impale somebody, the bleeding would probably continue more or less unabated if you leave it in there. But really, that's a stretch, I see no practical use for the weapon.

As for taking down horses, polearms were cheaper and more efficient at that task anyway.

Ganurath
2009-01-10, 05:31 PM
Serious: Dwarven Urgosh
Joke: A Dwarven Urgosh that isn't Masterwork. Dwarven craftsmanship, and all.

BRC
2009-01-10, 05:48 PM
My money is just that they look neat, but perhaps it could be something similar to a blood-trench type effect, once you impale somebody, the bleeding would probably continue more or less unabated if you leave it in there. But really, that's a stretch, I see no practical use for the weapon.

As for taking down horses, polearms were cheaper and more efficient at that task anyway.
Never underestimate the power of human pride and stupidity. A nobleman with lots of cash commisions a really big sword to show off to his friends, and one of them asks "Well, what can you do with it", so the nobleman replies "It's for taking out cavalry by chopping at the horse's legs". My guess is that they were largely ceremonial, but they needed some explanation so people wouldn't see them as extravagant. I doubt many people actually used them that way in battle, they had pikes and spears for taking down cavalry.


Edit: The Urgosh is just stretching it. Essentially, it's taking a perfectly serviceable halberd, and changing where you put the spike.

Spiryt
2009-01-10, 05:53 PM
The thing is that sword isn't a pike and it has serves other tasks. Ability to defend against horseman due to range (among other things) is certainly good thing. And chopping off horse leg is certainly good way to do it.

However the problem is that I can't see how flamberge should be any better at this than commonly shaped bihander.