A fix for the Weapon Weight issue.

[Xtomjames]

In an earlier discussion in a thread about light weapons I realized there is a huge problem with the realistic designation of weapon size and weight in game.

The current categories of light weapon, one handed weapon and two handed weapon and their relative status to size category, is limiting and actually doesn't work very well.

For example, if one has a rapier it will always be considered a one-handed weapon regardless of who wields it, even though its not much heavier than a short sword (3 lbs in game). A large category creature could wield it as a light weapon and a creature smaller than small could potentially use it as a two handed weapon, but the system doesn't allow for any ways to make it a different weight category (even including the size chart in the Arms and Armament's guide).

Here's my suggested solution: If we presume that the weapon categories of light, one-handed, and two-handed are based on a medium creature with average strength (a strength score of 10) then we can designate status based on over all strength score. And in cases where dexterity is used to determine damage instead of strength we can base the weapon off the dex score instead.

Example: Lets say we have a Medium Sized Great Sword (two handed weapon). A medium sized creature with a str. 10 would used it as a two-handed weapon. To use it as a one-handed weapon they'd take a -4, and as a light weapon a -8 to attack roles. For every point closer to a score of 18 the lower the negative is to using it as a type lower. So a Str of 14 would have a 0 penalty for one-handed, and -4 for light, and a score of 18 would have a +4 to one-handed and a -0 as light.

A small creature wielding an appropriate sized weapon would follow the same progression, if wielding a size category larger than themselves the penalty increase by -2. So a pixie wielding a medium sized great sword, with a str of 10, to use it as a two-handed weapon would be a -2, -6 as a one handed weapon, and -10 as a light weapon.

If they have something like weapon finesse then Dex would take the place of strength. In the case of say a rapier, with the same original medium creature with a dex of 10, it'd be a -4 to use it as a light weapon. With a dex of 14 it'd be -0 to wield it as a light weapon, with a dex of 18 it'd be a +4 to wield it as a light weapon.

(These negatives and bonuses would take the place of adding the ability score modifier and negatives/bonuses from relative size. This doesn't take away from the negatives from not being proficient or from wielding two weapons).

This would also allow category of weight to be actually based on weight and not on groupings.

A fix for the type is also needed (simple, martial, exotic) because many of the weapons are classified incorrectly based off of real world representation.

A bastard sword is really not much different in design or balance from a great sword. A person who can use one proficiently should have no problems using the other proficiently.

Thus I suggest a change to category of difficulty to wield rather than associated class, and type of weapon.

Simple Proficiency, Medium Proficiency, Difficult Proficiency.
Handled Blade, Shafted Blade, Shafted Bludgeoning, Exotic Bludgeoning and Ranged.

While I won't go into breaking apart every weapon in the PHB or the game I'll give examples of the shift in methodology.

Simple Bladed:
Dagger, Knife, Kunai, Short Sword, Long Sword, Rapier, Punching Dagger
Medium Bladed
Great Sword, Bastard Sword, Scimitar
Difficult Bladed: Sai, Kukri, Falchion, Two Bladed Sword, Sickle

Simple Hafted Bladed:
Glaive, Halberd, Battle Axe, Trident, Handaxe, Throwing Axe, Kama, Short Spear, Long Spear
Medium Hafted Blade:
Great Axe, Urgosh, War Axe, Ranseur, Guisarme, Pike,
Difficult Hafted Bladed:
Orc Double Axe, Spiked Chain, Gnome Hooked Hammer, Scythe

Etc.

The rules for proficiency would essentially be the same, but the weapons are rearranged to represent more accurately their relative effectiveness versus difficulty of use. Most swords work like each other, become proficient with one and you're more or less proficient with all others. Larger swords tend to work like all other larger swords, smaller lighter swords tend to work like all smaller lighter swords.

***

Reasoning behind this: There are several problems with the mechanics of what defines a light weapon and a one-handed weapon. For example, a Light Mace is 4 lbs, but a Rapier is 2 lbs. How is a light mace a "light weapon" but not a rapier or scimitar? If a character is proficient with a sickle (which in real life is much harder to use) why can't they proficient with a short sword?

The mechanics here don't make logical sense, like weapons should have in general like proficiencies. Weapons of similar weight should determine if they're light, one-handed, or two handed. Yet these real world logical factors aren't really taken into account in the game.

Another great example of a flub is making the trident a martial weapon rather than a simple weapon. The trident is a pitchfork or harpoon, something that is extremely simple in nature that anyone should be able to use effectively.

The more unwieldy a weapon the more difficult it should be to use. Nunchaku are much harder to master than a kama yet they're both under exotic weapons, which makes no sense since a kama is essentially a sickle which is what, oh, yes, that's right, a simple weapon...

A dagger and a kunai are essentially the same thing (a knife or throwing knife), Shuriken are even easier to use in comparison to throwing knives. Any person who can throw something in a straight line can throw and utilize effectively a shuriken (throwing star) but not everyone even with years of practice can get a throwing knife to always go in, let alone a beginner.

The point is the game's mechanics don't work properly and should be reworked to be more accurate and logical.

[Fouredged Sword]

One size larger is a -4, -2 with monkey grip.

[Greenish]

One size larger is a -4, -2 with monkey grip.Nope.
Inappropriately Sized Weapons
A creature can’t make optimum use of a weapon that isn’t properly sized for it. A cumulative -2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size category of difference between the size of its intended wielder and the size of its actual wielder.

Monkey Grip doesn't do anything to the penalty.

[dgnslyr]

Logic? In DnD? Oh, you so silly.

Yeah, DnD's pretty inconsistent like that.

Handedness (light, one, two) also has to do with weapon design, which is why a rapier is a one-handed weapon, while a shortsword is a light weapon, because a rapier requires a bit more finesse to properly stab someone, whereas a shortsword just needs to have the business end hit the other person, letting you slash or stab with it to your heart's content. Or something like that. I don't know that much about real-life weapons.

DnD doesn't always make sense.

[Partysan]

True on the weapon design part. A twohanded weapon's balance point is vastly different than that of a onehanded weapon.

[Tyndmyr]

Weapon weights as listed in the phb also tend not to bear much resemblance to RL weights, either.

It's best not to think about it much.

[Xtomjames]

I'd beg to differ a few points. I personally train with a fencing saber, a katana, a bastard sword, a nodochi and several knives. I've used rapiers and have owned them in the past, along with fencing foils, sais, kamas, and my favorite shuriken.

While yes there are some balance differences between sword types, the balance of a rapier is not much different than a "short sword" (hand and a half in real life, or half sword...) in many instances a short straight sword is far harder to wield and is ungainly compared to a rapier.

Further, it is my hobby to actually make swords. three of which are may main training swords. Weight has a lot more to do with balance and handling than the actual design, and as I've said before in the OP a person proficient in one sword is pretty much proficient in all others. Some yes are more difficult to use (a double bladed sword, a Chinese hook sword, and a full on Greatsword sure) but in general the problem is that these weapons are misrepresented. Further by the very logic of the game, since a rapier can be used with Weapon Finesse, it isn't far off from a light weapon in nature, yet it is still treated as "one-handed". Frankly I find the rapier in real life far more effective and easier to handle (because of better balance and ratio) than most of the halved straight swords that exist.

That's why I suggest this fix as an answer (more to the point many of the other weapons operate in the same manner and have relatively the same balance. There is no real difference between a short spear and a long spear besides length of the shaft, no real difference between a trident and a spear (of any length), and the same goes for the halberd. In real life use at least I know I can use all three effectively and efficiently and to the same degree. We could really simplify the game mechanics by redefining difficulty and redefining weapon type.)

[Tyndmyr]

Use the Weapon Groups alternative rules. They make a great deal more sense.

[Optimator]

Doesn't the weapon weight include the scabbard?

[Coidzor]

Doesn't the weapon weight include the scabbard?

I don't think it ever specifies.

[Major]

While yes there are some balance differences between sword types, the balance of a rapier is not much different than a "short sword" (hand and a half in real life, or half sword...) in many instances a short straight sword is far harder to wield and is ungainly compared to a rapier.


I'd always assumed the short sword was based on arming swords, not hand and a half swords. In which case the short sword is easier to use (though not by much). Mainly because the short sword is capable of thrust or slashes.

Given, neither is very difficult if you know one (I agree with that comment), so some of the exotics are silly.

On a side note, I also am trained with various weapons and am a sword instructor (I am qualified to train people in arming swords, but I'm usually teaching the Longsword class since our group only has two qualified longsword instructors, but a good amount of arming sword instructors).

[Worira]

Yeah, why on earth would you think that a shortsword is analogous to a hand-and-a-half sword? That would probably be best represented in DnD terms by a bastard sword or maybe a longsword.

Also, yes, a bastard sword isn't particularly more difficult to use than a greatsword, which is why it isn't in DnD anyway. You can use a bastard sword two-handed without needing exotic weapon proficiency.

And I'm not even sure how a Large creature would wield a medium rapier in one hand, or what the problem is with rapiers not being light. It means you can't dual-wield them, yeah, but you can still use a dagger in your off-hand just fine, and I'd like to see someone wield two rapiers at once in a remotely effective manner. They're really pretty damn big swords.

[Godskook]

Weapon weights as listed in the phb also tend not to bear much resemblance to RL weights, either.

It's best not to think about it much.

Are you just throwing that out there cause that's what you think, or have you seen research to that effect? Cause I've seen research to the opposite, that weapon weights in D&D are actually fairly accurate, considering we're talking about a tabletop that only uses poundage(and not ounces).

[Tyndmyr]

Are you just throwing that out there cause that's what you think, or have you seen research to that effect? Cause I've seen research to the opposite, that weapon weights in D&D are actually fairly accurate, considering we're talking about a tabletop that only uses poundage(and not ounces).

No, I actually own a number of weapons listed. If a longspear actually weighed nine pounds, I'd be shocked. Most cultures tended to make spears fairly light, and mostly of wood.

On the flip side, 1 pound gauntlets make you wonder at the terrible level of protection they provide. Especially the oh-so-historical spiked ones, which presumably add more weight in spikes.

Presumably the weights were sent by someone guessing at what sounded about right to them at the time. They are not particularly accurate.

[hamishspence]

Might depend on if you're using the heaviest feasible real-life specimens.

Greatsword is 8 lb- how big were the bigger swords favoured by landsknechts?

Bastard sword is 6 lb- how big were the bigger swords that could be used one-handed by a skilled fighter?

Longsword is 4 lb- how does this compare to a long-hilted arming sword?

Short sword is 2 lb- how does this compare to short thrusting swords like the Roman gladius?

[Coidzor]

I think part of the problem is in locating accurate sources for such information, hamishpence.

[Gavinfoxx]

Uhhh... just FYI, if we want realistic weapon weights in something like D&D, why aren't we all using Codex Martialis??

[Greenish]

Uhhh... just FYI, if we want realistic weapon weights in something like D&D, why aren't we all using Codex Martialis??Maybe we just don't care enough. Swinging around 8 lbs greatsword in a 5'-by-'5 hallway might not be a perfect simulation of real life, but given the genre, it hardly needs to be.

On the other hand, complaining on the forums is fun.

[Coidzor]

Uhhh... just FYI, if we want realistic weapon weights in something like D&D, why aren't we all using Codex Martialis??

Probably because it's rarely mentioned in addition to other factors, brother.

[Gavinfoxx]

But Codex Martialis is SO FREAKING AWESOME. Also, the guy that makes it hangs out on Giantitp!

Basically, if you want to know about realistic combat in a D&D-like system, get it and the splatbooks for it.

[herrhauptmann]

On the flip side, 1 pound gauntlets make you wonder at the terrible level of protection they provide. Especially the oh-so-historical spiked ones, which presumably add more weight in spikes.

Presumably the weights were sent by someone guessing at what sounded about right to them at the time. They are not particularly accurate.
Regarding the gauntlets, I own a pair that are probably 4.5 pounds for the pair. So a little over 2 pounds each. (Remember, the 1lb weight is for ONE gauntlet) And those are considered heavy for SCA gauntlets. The smith who made them (Grettir the Slow), also does heat treated ones, that are about a pound each.
I did get to try the spring stainless steel ones on at Pennsic this year, and they feal about as heavy as my winter gloves. Since his regular gauntlets are already super protective, something that's been heat treated should be nigh impenetrable.
Now, a real axe or pick to the fingers would cause damage, but that's it for bladed weapons. Anything else, would require a club or mace of some sort. And guess what, those are MADE to go through 'plate.'
So the 1 pound gauntlet in D&D doesn't sound too bad, especially since there's no real benefit to wearing one beside getting to punch people.


Probably because it's rarely mentioned in addition to other factors, brother.
I've never heard about that book. Ever.
When was it published, and by who(m)?


Xtomjames:
Personally, I don't think the rules work too badly as written for the common weapons. Yes something like the trident is a bit of an odd duck, but how many people would use it, even if it became a simple weapon? Not many.

I do think the rules get especially wonky for believability when you start scaling weapons up for gargantuan giants or something, doubling the weight each size category.

Also, I applaud you for workign to create a system that you think would better represent something, but I have 2 critiques for it.
1)Don't reinvent the wheel. Weapon groups are in UA (among other places I think), and already do something similar to what you're starting with
2)Don't make it overly complicated. This is a game. And one intended to be done simply.

[faceroll]

I do think the rules get especially wonky for believability when you start scaling weapons up for gargantuan giants or something, doubling the weight each size category.

Shouldn't weight increase by a factor of 8? The dimensions are cubic, so a simple doubling wouldn't work.

[Godskook]

No, I actually own a number of weapons listed. If a longspear actually weighed nine pounds, I'd be shocked. Most cultures tended to make spears fairly light, and mostly of wood.

Spears were probably made of dense hardwoods, like Oak. Doing a google search, I found that Oak ranges in density of 37-56 lbs/(ft^3). Assuming a 2in square shaft, and minimum density oak, that's just over a pound per foot in the spear. A 9lb spear would be approximately 9 feet long, and that's before including the weight of a spear tip.

That seems pretty accurate to me, considering a longspear in D&D is supposed to be quite long(read: taller than you) and grant reach. The short and regular spears weight a more conservative 6 and 3 lbs respectively, and the javelin(the only one made for throwing) weights a meager 2lbs.


On the flip side, 1 pound gauntlets make you wonder at the terrible level of protection they provide. Especially the oh-so-historical spiked ones, which presumably add more weight in spikes.

Huh? I can't tell what you're saying here, are you suggesting that a 1lb gauntlet is under or over expected weights for the needed protection?

[dgnslyr]

Doesn't the weapon weight include the scabbard?

Well, since there's no fatigue-related penalty to using weapons of any weight or size, it's weapon weights are listed solely for purposes of inventory management, and how it works with your carry capacity. Most weapon experts in the playground seem to find some of the weapon weights a pound or more than what's expected. My explanation is that the extra weight includes the scabbard and whetstone and maybe a vial of oil for the whetstone and whatever else you might need for keeping your pointy things pointy. If you're going to shell out for a Deluxe Orc-Impaler 2000, why not spend a little extra for the State-of-the-Art Storage Case, alongside a Premium Maintenance Stone?

[Tyndmyr]

Spears were probably made of dense hardwoods, like Oak. Doing a google search, I found that Oak ranges in density of 37-56 lbs/(ft^3). Assuming a 2in square shaft, and minimum density oak, that's just over a pound per foot in the spear. A 9lb spear would be approximately 9 feet long, and that's before including the weight of a spear tip.

That seems pretty accurate to me, considering a longspear in D&D is supposed to be quite long(read: taller than you) and grant reach. The short and regular spears weight a more conservative 6 and 3 lbs respectively, and the javelin(the only one made for throwing) weights a meager 2lbs.

A 2" square shaft is a bit ridiculous, frankly. First off, spear shafts aren't generally square. They're round. And a 2" diameter circle is less than a 2" by 2" square. And even a 2" thick round shaft is pretty big. That's larger than you would expect anywhere. And plenty of cultures used lighter woods for spears

6-8 feet is about normal for a spear. I'm willing to go to nine as this is specifically a long spear, but let's not get muddled up in other types of polearms. D&D is oddly specific on polearms. You've got a lot of variation between cultures, but in any of them, a nine pound spear is fairly extreme.

Long story short, you can buy a more-or-less authentic seven foot chinese spear from a martial arts company, and it weighs about two pounds.


Huh? I can't tell what you're saying here, are you suggesting that a 1lb gauntlet is under or over expected weights for the needed protection?

Under. I'd estimate 2 pounds as pretty standard. Spikes would presumably add to this weight, but I'm not sure how much, as frankly, I'm not familiar with spiked gauntlets in history, and am a bit doubtful that they were a common weapon at all.

Do remember that in D&D, armor is considered to come with the accessories, such as helmet in case of certain armor, padding underneath, etc. In addition, historical armor generally has a bit less awesome metallurgy to work with than modern stuff. We're talking vanilla armor, not masterwork, not with special materials.

Now, I don't actually have any problem with the idea of purchasing a one pound spiked metal glove so I can punch people...but I have no illusions that doing so is "realistic".

[herrhauptmann]

Shouldn't weight increase by a factor of 8? The dimensions are cubic, so a simple doubling wouldn't work.

Stop killing the catgirls!
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#weight
It doesn't specify going past size large, but it's a safe assumption that it doubles at each step.

Though something I just noticed:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/armor.htm#armorForUnusualCreatures
Armor for extremely small creatures, is actually half as protective. So full plate for a squirrel would only boost AC by 4. Which almost makes sense. I saw a guy who armored teddy bears, and did them in 26 ga steel he could bend by hand. And then there's this guy, who uses 16ga steel.
http://www.pitbullarmory.com/images/stories/armor/animal-armor/Naked_squirrel_dressed.JPG

[Xtomjames]

I would like to point out a Hand and a Half sword is shorter than a Long Sword by 3 inches.

Hand and a Half swords ranged from 100-124 cm (which varied with region and era)http://www.a-work-of-art.net/pages/page10c.jpg

Longsword http://images.wikia.com/deadliestfiction/images/c/cf/Longsword.jpg is around 136 cm.

The Shortsword (which wasn't often used because it became obsolete and wasn't as effective as later swords) http://www.gnwtc.com/wea062.JPG (INDO PERSIAN, SILVER-INLAID, TULWAR SHORT SWORD 15.5 inches) and http://www.gnwtc.com/wea1561.JPG (FRENCH 'BRIQUETTE' - INFANTRY - SHORT SWORD 28.25 inches)

Was roughly the same length as the hand and a half sword (about an inch shorter and up to 15 inches shorter varied with era.)

Arming swords are in between a hand and a half sword and a longsword and are technically a broadsword because of the broader base hilt and tapering to blade point. http://www.strongblade.com/prod/prodimages/sbx-nutarmingswordbronze1_l.jpg They're roughly 128 cm in length.

The Rapier is the same length as an hand and a half sword but thinner and lighter. http://www.swordsofmight.com/images/products/display/Hanwei_Antiqued_Torino_Rapier.jpg

And the Cutlass is close to a cross between a Rapier and an infantry short sword. Being roughly 3 inches longer than an infantry short sword it's close again to the length of the hand and a half sword with a curved edge. http://www.stanleylondon.com/cutlass1860-1.jpg

A greatsword is nearly 6 feet in length (can be up to 7 feet) and is purely a two handed weapon. http://spellboundsports.com/images/coldpic88wgss.jpg

A bastard sword is smaller than a Greatsword but longer than a longsword http://www.armsofvalour.com/miva/graphics/00000001/SH2250.jpg and can either be one or two handed.

All in all however, if you have the muscle to swing a bastard sword you have the muscle to swing a hand and a half or short sword, if you have the finesse to use a short sword you have the finesse to use a rapier. The categories are wonk.

**

No the game does not include scabbard weight in the weight of the weapon.

**

Spears can weigh a great deal actually. A longspear is 14 feet in length and if made from wood with a stone or steel tip can be between 8 and 20 lbs. The D&D version goes on the light side for them.

A shortspear is 5-7 feet in length and can be between 6-14 lbs.

A pike is usually 8 feet in length with a 5 foot lance tip or driving tip made from steel. It can be as much as 30 lbs. We're talking war time field armaments not hunting spears. War spears weren't meant to be thrown they were meant to be jabbed with.

[Amphetryon]

The Romans, the Greeks, and the Iberian peoples of the ancient world would probably take issue with the "wasn't often used" claim for short swords.

In D&D terms, a hand-and-a-half sword and a bastard sword are considered identical, real world accuracy by d*mned, in the same way that falchions and scimitars aren't quite the same as what the game claims they are.

[Spiryt]

I'm not sure where are you taking those terms from really, and there are some terribly outlandish claims here.

Longswords weren't "136" cm in lenght, they rarely exceeded 125cm.

Bastard swords weren't " smaller than a Greatsword but longer than a longsword". They were indeed some kind of "bastard" between average "true longsword" and one handed sword - so in most cases there would be shorter, more handy form of longsword, more easily bearable in one hand.

Most of the time, no real clear distinctions had really existed here, it's mostly modern drive for systematics spawning them.


Arming swords are in between a hand and a half sword and a longsword and are technically a broadsword because of the broader base hilt and tapering to blade point.

Wut.

"Arming sword" is simply a one handed sword, and that's it. Oakeshott XIII types without pretty much any taper could be called "arming sword" as well, so taper doesn't enter it at all.


Your choice of Cold Steel, Windlass and similar rather cheap modern recreations can only create greater chaos as well. Doesn't have anything to do with your fantasy clarification.


For example this stuff:

http://images.wikia.com/deadliestfiction/images/c/cf/Longsword.jpg

Offered by Windlass is about 115 cm long, so it can't serve as any kind of example for your "136cm longsword"

Link (http://www.myarmoury.com/review_ws_15cls.html)


A pike is usually 8 feet in length with a 5 foot lance tip or driving tip made from steel. It can be as much as 30 lbs

Pike usually had pretty short, stubby point... Haven't seen one with anything close to 5 foot tip. :smallconfused:

30 pounds is also pretty much outlandish....

Pike head weighing 4 pounds (http://users.wpi.edu/~jforgeng/CollectionIQP/artifact.pl?anum=490) - no way for 30 pounds with even most beefy haft.

[Partysan]

Xtomjames, this is the first time I have ever seen someone making a difference between a hand and a half sword and a bastard sword. You given lengths also seem a bit... long at times. Are you sure about this?

[Spiryt]

Xtomjames, this is the first time I have ever seen someone making a difference between a hand and a half sword and a bastard sword. You given lengths also seem a bit... long at times. Are you sure about this?

"Half and half" pictures he had linked seem to be Del Tin recreations about something like XXa, XVI, and XIIa-ish (from the top to the bottom).

None of them has much in common with the others, 5142 is significanlty shorter than 100 cm (http://www.kultofathena.com/product.asp?item=DT5142) and can be in no way called "half and half" - aside from the fact that term itself is 19th century and stupid one. It would be one handed to the boot.

[Xtomjames]

I'm not sure where are you taking those terms from really, and there are some terribly outlandish claims here.

Longswords weren't "136" cm in lenght, they rarely exceeded 125cm.

Bastard swords weren't " smaller than a Greatsword but longer than a longsword". They were indeed some kind of "bastard" between average "true longsword" and one handed sword - so in most cases there would be shorter, more handy form of longsword, more easily bearable in one hand.

Most of the time, no real clear distinctions had really existed here, it's mostly modern drive for systematics spawning them.



Wut.

"Arming sword" is simply a one handed sword, and that's it. Oakeshott XIII types without pretty much any taper could be called "arming sword" as well, so taper doesn't enter it at all.


Your choice of Cold Steel, Windlass and similar rather cheap modern recreations can only create greater chaos as well. Doesn't have anything to do with your fantasy clarification.


For example this stuff:

http://images.wikia.com/deadliestfiction/images/c/cf/Longsword.jpg

Offered by Windlass is about 115 cm long, so it can't serve as any kind of example for your "136cm longsword"

Link (http://www.myarmoury.com/review_ws_15cls.html)



Pike usually had pretty short, stubby point... Haven't seen one with anything close to 5 foot tip. :smallconfused:

30 pounds is also pretty much outlandish....

Pike head weighing 4 pounds (http://users.wpi.edu/~jforgeng/CollectionIQP/artifact.pl?anum=490) - no way for 30 pounds with even most beefy haft.

Uh...no, on everything you've said.

Reiteration time: One I make swords as a hobby and have sold them.
Two I know the length of the swords and so do pretty much all official swords men who have trained with them, and the blacksmiths that make them.
Three I gave picture examples showing the wide range in terminology of what the swords were.


Four, and most importantly, I gave direct lengths relative to each sword type and a picture of that sword type.


A bastard sword is not the same thing as a great sword, nor was it a Long sword. Medieval period Bastard Swords, Long Swords and Hand and a Half swords become much closer to each other in design weight and length, but as I've said before, swords, while having the same name, varied by design length and weight from region to region and over time. The bastard sword was heavier and longer than a long sword but lighter than a great sword so that it could be used with one hand but was preferably used with two.

Further an Arming sword is a simple straight bladed sword with a broad hilt and guard. It was shorter than a longsword and longer than a short sword. It was heavier and more sturdy than a rapier and was often made of lesser or more impure metals. An arming sword was given to the men at Arms (the peasants recruited into the army for war) because these people died quickly and the arming swords were easily replace, cheaply replaced, and over all easily scrounged and reworked.

Longswords and Bastard Swords ranged in length on average between 40 - 48 inches, that does not mean that they didn't exceed this and bastard swords at times went up to 55 inches in length. (That's 100-135 cm).

None the less the point of this thread is to point out the fallacious nature of the D&D system and revise it, and the real life measurements and weights tell us that the differentiation that exists in D&D doesn't in real life and that there should be no variation in usability of these swords in game.

As for the images, I was trying to give visual cues to which sword I was referring, not trying to present them as the real deal (except for the short swords which weren't pictures of replicas, nor the great sword which is a battle ready carbon steel sword).

The War Pike has many forms, most are 10-25 feet long and have a steel spear head. (Some were shorter and designed to work with shields and act much more like a spear).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/Pike_square_img_3655.jpg/600px-Pike_square_img_3655.jpg

This is not the only type however, some pikes weighed up to 30 lbs because of the full steel tip and blade at their ends (usually consisting of the last 5 feet of the pole). http://www.antiqueweaponstore.com/Pikes.jpg

Note the one on the far left.

[Spiryt]

So you're making swords and you seriously claim that medieval and post medieval "arming swords" were:


They're roughly 128 cm in length.


Arming swords are in between a hand and a half sword and a longsword

:smallconfused::smallconfused:

Not really sure what to say about it.

Other that Oakeshott (http://www.albion-swords.com/articles/oakeshott-typology.htm) dares to claim that one handed ("arming") swords were very rarely exceeding 1 meter in lenght.


An arming sword was given to the men at Arms (the peasants recruited into the army for war) because these people died quickly and the arming swords were easily replace,

No, the events of actually handing any weapon into the hand of the "recruits" before XVII century were completely sporadic... :smallconfused:

Even after 1450 in populated Polish or Prussian areas decent sword would cost as much as a cow, and no one sane would hand such relatively expensive item to some peasant.


Medieval period Bastard Swords, Long Swords and Hand and a Half swords become much closer to each other in design weight and length, but as I've said before, swords, while having the same name, varied by desig

I don't even get this sentence. There was no such a thing as "long sword" or "bastard sword" before ~ 1200 at earliest, so there was no long swords before "Medieval". So when should they become "closer to each other"?

Furthermore, the "hand and half" term was mostly coined in 19th century to describe "bastard" swords, so longwords that could be used in one hand more naturally.

The familiar modern term "hand-and-a-half" was more or less coined to describe bastards swords specifically.The term "hand-and-a-half sword" is often used in reference to long-swords is not historical and is sometimes misapplied to other swords (although during the late 1500's, long after such blades fell out of favor, some German forms of this phrase are believed to have been used). (http://www.thehaca.com/terms4.htm)



You can find in pretty much any article about swords.

No serious historian had ever really proposed any fundamental difference between "hand and half" and "bastard". If you know one, I will be delighted to see some citation.


nor the great sword which is a battle ready carbon steel sword

Lol, which is Cold Steel large sharpened crowbar which has not much to do with any period originals save general look....

It can be "battle ready" or not, but it's even worse "real deal" than Windlass stuff, so I'm not sure why are you mentioning it specifically.

Most "real deal" stuff among the pictures you posted are probably "half and half" Del Tin's from the first picture, which have decent similarity to orginals they're portraying. In fact, almost anyone interested can tell which swords from "Records of Medieval Swords", they're modeled after, so they do at very least adequate job.


This is not the only type however, some pikes weighed up to 30 lbs because of the full steel tip and blade at their ends (usually consisting of the last 5 feet of the pole).

And none of the actual period pikes I've had ever witnessed exceeded 6 pounds as far as blade and langets are concerned, and blade & langets are probably majority of listed weight in most cases.

[Greenish]

And none of the actual period pikes I've had ever witnessed exceeded 6 pounds as far as blade and langets are concerned, and blade & langets are probably majority of listed weight in most cases. Are langets those sideburn thingies riveted to the shaft?

[Spiryt]

Are langets those sideburn thingies riveted to the shaft?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's what they're usually called in English, dunno if there are some other terms.

Linking some 17th century pikes (http://users.wpi.edu/~jforgeng/CollectionIQP/artifactsearch.pl?sortstyle=Pike)

[Gavinfoxx]

I've never heard about that book. Ever.
When was it published, and by who(m)?


http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product_info.php?products_id=65250&filters=0_0_0_10114
or
http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=65250

You really really really just need to buy the whole set. It's FANTASTIC. It's an indie game, which is why you haven't heard of it.

Here's the forum / homepage:

http://www.codexmartialis.com/

(Mostly forum).

[Greenish]

You really really really just need to buy the whole set. It's FANTASTIC. It's an indie game, which is why you haven't heard of it.I've heard of Codex Martialis before, so by definition it's not indie. :smalltongue:

[Gavinfoxx]

Heh, as long as we can get people playing it!

[Panartias]

@OP: To true about the different difficulty-categories!
To open another can of worms: There is no rule about the required strength to use a weapon (we once had a strength 6 character with a great-sword in our group)
My rule of thumb was that a one-handed weapon shouldn’t exceed 5% of your max press – 10% for a two-handed weapon to be used without penalty.
So for example the 10lbs bastard-sword required a strength of 16 to wild it one-handed without penalty.
The Penalty was -1 to hit for every strength category below the required one.
It worked well for our group. You can do the math very easy. And it wouldn’t be complicated to include the required strength in the base rules like:
Bastard-sword (10-11 two-handed)(16 one-handed)

[JackRackham]

A 2" square shaft is a bit ridiculous, frankly. First off, spear shafts aren't generally square. They're round. And a 2" diameter circle is less than a 2" by 2" square. And even a 2" thick round shaft is pretty big. That's larger than you would expect anywhere. And plenty of cultures used lighter woods for spears

6-8 feet is about normal for a spear. I'm willing to go to nine as this is specifically a long spear, but let's not get muddled up in other types of polearms. D&D is oddly specific on polearms. You've got a lot of variation between cultures, but in any of them, a nine pound spear is fairly extreme.

Long story short, you can buy a more-or-less authentic seven foot chinese spear from a martial arts company, and it weighs about two pounds.



Under. I'd estimate 2 pounds as pretty standard. Spikes would presumably add to this weight, but I'm not sure how much, as frankly, I'm not familiar with spiked gauntlets in history, and am a bit doubtful that they were a common weapon at all.

Do remember that in D&D, armor is considered to come with the accessories, such as helmet in case of certain armor, padding underneath, etc. In addition, historical armor generally has a bit less awesome metallurgy to work with than modern stuff. We're talking vanilla armor, not masterwork, not with special materials.

Now, I don't actually have any problem with the idea of purchasing a one pound spiked metal glove so I can punch people...but I have no illusions that doing so is "realistic".

Actually, Alexander the Great's (read: Phillip of Macedon's) phalanx used 12' spears. Moreover, keep in mind that longer spears were necessarily thicker, or they would have snapped like toothpicks. 2" diameter sounbs right to me (FWIW) for a 9 foot spear. Probably more for a 12'-er.

[JackRackham]

Also, the standard for a greek hoplite was 9-ft, while thebans' spears were a bit longer. These spears would have hed to be strong and stiff enough to pierce armor (try putting a piece of wood through leather sometime) and hold a point. Moreover, spears in the mideival period typical of d&d were likely larger and thicker, as they were used to repel cavalry charges, so....