Something that always irked me about slashing weapons

[Phosphate]

...is that almost and nearly all of them can be used for impaling (though not all as elegantly as the dagger, obviously).

So please tell me guys, why can't I stab through your guts with a greatsword? It is hard, naturally, but why does D&D make it impossibly hard? I mean, I should at least be able to do it to someone unconscious.

I mean, a penalty to damage or attack would make much more sense than saying "nee, you can only use this with long swings".

[Ashtagon]

...is that almost and nearly all of them can be used for impaling (though not all as elegantly as the dagger, obviously).

So please tell me guys, why can't I stab through your guts with a greatsword? It is hard, naturally, but why does D&D make it impossibly hard? I mean, I should at least be able to do it to someone unconscious.

I mean, a penalty to damage or attack would make much more sense than saying "nee, you can only use this with long swings".

In the case of most swords, the tip, which logically would have been used for stabbing (Piercing damage type) attacks, was not sharpened. It was, in fact, about as sharp as your average spoon.

[Phosphate]

In the case of most swords, the tip, which logically would have been used for stabbing (Piercing damage type) attacks, was not sharpened. It was, in fact, about as sharp as your average spoon.

You should still have enough momentum to stab with that given the length and the acceleration you'd confer to the blade.

[Spiryt]

In the case of most swords, the tip, which logically would have been used for stabbing (Piercing damage type) attacks, was not sharpened. It was, in fact, about as sharp as your average spoon.

Define "most swords" I guess....

Because anyway, regardless of actual edge sharpness a lot of swords were indeed predominately thrusting, be it European or other...

Swords that wouldn't have any sort of thrusting ability on the other hand would be extremely rare.

In fact, in swords that would be not really intend for thrusting, point would be often extremely keen - for tip cuts.

But 3.5 is simple stuff, so there is your answer.

[Lord_Gareth]

Plus the difference in the kind of trauma caused by being stabbed by a four foot longsword and getting sliced by it is only very minimally different, whereas there's a massive difference in the kind of trauma caused by, say, an arrow, dagger, or spear.

[Gavinfoxx]

If you want more realistic weapons in D&D 3.5e, look up Codex Martialis.


http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=65250

[Spiryt]

Plus the difference in the kind of trauma caused by being stabbed by a four foot longsword and getting sliced by it is only very minimally different, whereas there's a massive difference in the kind of trauma caused by, say, an arrow, dagger, or spear.

For game purposes, probably, but can't see how it would be even marginally similar in reality.

[Hylas]

For game balance, letting the weapon do more than one damage type is an advantage (however small). So weapons usually only do one kind.

Also, historically, the longsword was indeed used for thrusting and swinging. D&D really should have called it a broadsword, but whatever.

[Phosphate]

You know, maybe it would be too much to give everyone a go at dealing piercing damage with slashing weapons, and uniting them into a single type of damage would be fallacious because while slashing weapons can pierce, piercing weapons can't slash (imagine cutting off a limb with the tip of an arrow).

But maybe at least a FEAT should exist that allows you to convert from slashing to piercing. I mean, weapon proficiency/finesse feats shouldn't just make you hit more often or deal more damage, but also increase your options.



If you want more realistic weapons in D&D 3.5e, look up Codex Martialis.


http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=65250

Sorry, I'm poor.

[Spiryt]

For game balance, letting the weapon do more than one damage type is an advantage (however small). So weapons usually only do one kind.

Also, historically, the longsword was indeed used for thrusting and swinging. D&D really should have called it a broadsword, but whatever.

Historically, longsword would be two handed weapon, in the first place.

And 'broadsword' could have decent thrusting capability as well.

Anyway, since swords are a bit 'behind' especially on higher levels, when that higher dice doesn't really matter compared to critics/tripping/range whatever, I suppose that giving them additional damage type would be just alright.

Scythe has two and is already quite potent.

[hamishspence]

Historically, longsword would be two handed weapon, in the first place.

D&D longswords can be wielded in two hands, but they're light enough to be used one handed as well.

[Etrivar]

In the case of most swords, the tip, which logically would have been used for stabbing (Piercing damage type) attacks, was not sharpened. It was, in fact, about as sharp as your average spoon.

And? In what way is that a limitation?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSUGp9Yz1sk

[HunterOfJello]

Stabbing someone with a greatsword would be quite difficult. Could it be done? Obviously, yes. It could be allowed in a game if the character has a high enough strength and takes a penalty to attack or something.


You could have masterwork swords be able to do additional damage types or something like that. I'm pretty sure the wakizashi and katana could be used for stabbing quite easily, though not as well as they were for slashing.

[Spiryt]

Stabbing someone with a greatsword would be quite difficult.

Why, exactly?

There were quite a few 'greatswords' (however you define it) more thrust than cut oriented, and manuals etc. frequently show thrusts with two handed swords. (http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Goliath/106.jpg)

[KillianHawkeye]

and manuals etc. frequently show thrusts with two handed swords. (http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Goliath/106.jpg)

Not to play devil's advocate, but that picture doesn't look like it contains any thrusting to me. It looks more like Left-Guy is parrying an overhead swing from Right-Guy. A solid thrust really ought to have been lower to start with to make that type of parry impossible (or at least extremely difficult). Especially since, without armor, there's no reason to go for the face rather than the torso.

[Spiryt]

It's pretty clearly thrusting action, especially considering that parrying overhead and thrusting aren't be any means mutually exclusive.

But completely unambiguous example can be quickly organized too.


http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Goliath/78.jpg

[HunterOfJello]

It's pretty clearly thrusting action, especially considering that parrying overhead and thrusting aren't be any means mutually exclusive.

But completely unambiguous example can be quickly organized too.


http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Goliath/78.jpg


If both individuals in a fight are using foils or very lengthy swords designed for stabbing, then it could be done. However, in a normal fight of someone with some other type of weapon like a dagger, short sword, or mace it would extraordinarily easy to parry, sidestep, and attack a person using a weapon like that. The longer a weapon is, the more difficult it is to stab someone with once they get into a closer range. This is usually offset by making the weapon lighter, give it a better shape, and allow it to be held in multiple positions. A fairly lengthy spear can be used to stab with in close quarters combat, but it can also be held all along the haft. A greatsword, on the other hand, can only be held at the small hilt and would be extremely difficult to wield in the manner you're suggesting. Is it theoretically possible for someone to fight that way if they're a highly trained expert? Yes. Is it viable for anyone with just basic weapon training. Probably not. I just can't see it happening.

[Gavinfoxx]

Why can't you hold a greatsword along the blade? Doing that is a ridiculously common historic technique, called half-swording. The things aren't razor sharp, you know.

[Ashtagon]

Why can't you hold a greatsword along the blade? Doing that is a ridiculously common historic technique, called half-swording. The things aren't razor sharp, you know.

Half-right. Most of the blade is razor-sharp, or at least sharp enough to does serious injury if you grip it (making a sword too sharp is a form of false economy). The exception is the first six inches of the blade, which were left blunt for precisely this purpose - gripping the blade for improved leverage.

[Gavinfoxx]

Especially the bigger swords where you are expected to do this have more than just the lower six inches for half swording. Also, sharp swords (of this style) CAN be gripped -- you just have to not slide your hand along the sword, or maybe be wearing leather gloves.

[Spiryt]

If both individuals in a fight are using foils or very lengthy swords designed for stabbing, then it could be done. However, in a normal fight of someone with some other type of weapon like a dagger, short sword, or mace it would extraordinarily easy to parry, sidestep, and attack a person using a weapon like that. The longer a weapon is, the more difficult it is to stab someone with once they get into a closer range. This is usually offset by making the weapon lighter, give it a better shape, and allow it to be held in multiple positions. A fairly lengthy spear can be used to stab with in close quarters combat, but it can also be held all along the haft. A greatsword, on the other hand, can only be held at the small hilt and would be extremely difficult to wield in the manner you're suggesting. Is it theoretically possible for someone to fight that way if they're a highly trained expert? Yes. Is it viable for anyone with just basic weapon training. Probably not. I just can't see it happening.

I'm sorry, but you're now shunning actual historical practice, weapons and fencing arts, instead putting up your own assumptions...

If you want, you can take it to the Real Weapons thread, where somebody will explain it to you nicely without further derail of this thread.

In short though, greatsword could be held by blade or ricasso, could be thrust with, and were often employed like that. Some where obviously more thrusting oriented too.

Thrusting was extremely vital in "normal fight" and many period masters were favoring it while fighting with long/greatsword.



Half-right. Most of the blade is razor-sharp, or at least sharp enough to does serious injury if you grip it (making a sword too sharp is a form of false economy). The exception is the first six inches of the blade, which were left blunt for precisely this purpose - gripping the blade for improved leverage.

Most of halfswording techniques are based on gripping blade in it's half, or even further, so six inches wouldn't really be useful.

First inches of blades where usually blunt because there was small chance of actually doing any striking with it, and it was more robust for parries and deflections.

Blade must be ridiculously sharp to injury your hand by just gripping it firmly, and swords simply weren't made that sharp in 99% of cases.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/32/De_Fechtbuch_Talhoffer_067.jpg/800px-De_Fechtbuch_Talhoffer_067.jpg

[Lord_Gareth]

Half-right. Most of the blade is razor-sharp, or at least sharp enough to does serious injury if you grip it (making a sword too sharp is a form of false economy). The exception is the first six inches of the blade, which were left blunt for precisely this purpose - gripping the blade for improved leverage.

European blades are best kept knife-sharp, as razor-sharp blades turn on armor, are more prone to shattering, and also tend to get stuck in bone.

Most Japanese blades, on the other hand, are basically giant razors. In response to their swords getting stuck, Samurai kicked them out. It, ah, it got pretty gory.

[FMArthur]

You could finagle into game usage by using it as an improvised weapon. Maybe a greatsword is really crappy at dealing piercing damage but is nonetheless capable of doing it, so you use it as an improvised weapon to deal piercing damage. -4 penalty, done. It would be kind of dumb to put it out of the realm of possibility altogether for people lacking a feat or class feature, after all.

[Heatwizard]

You could finagle into game usage by using it as an improvised weapon. Maybe a greatsword is really crappy at dealing piercing damage but is nonetheless capable of doing it, so you use it as an improvised weapon to deal piercing damage. -4 penalty, done. It would be kind of dumb to put it out of the realm of possibility altogether for people lacking a feat or class feature, after all.

I thought I saw an optional rule somewhere, maybe UA or something, that said you could take -4 to hit to deal a different damage type; to bludgeon them with the flat of your blade, or something. Might have been a house rule, but it seems like it makes an amount of sense.

[KillianHawkeye]

You could finagle into game usage by using it as an improvised weapon. Maybe a greatsword is really crappy at dealing piercing damage but is nonetheless capable of doing it, so you use it as an improvised weapon to deal piercing damage. -4 penalty, done. It would be kind of dumb to put it out of the realm of possibility altogether for people lacking a feat or class feature, after all.

I like this interpretation. It would probably not deal the same damage as the weapon normally does, but rather use whatever it says for improvised weapons of the weapon's size.

[ngilop]

ahh this old schoeeel

for me ive alwasy understood the reason why damage was bludgeoning/slashing/peiceins was not in any way a function of ways a weapon could damage, but HOW that weapon could damage

think on that for a moment

then look at a spear then a longsword then a mace and get back to me if you need further explanation on what i just said.

[gomipile]

One of the 10 basic techniques in Tenshin Ryu kenjutsu is a thrust to the head/neck/collarbone target area.

[DiBastet]

Okay, we're set. -4 is the way to go.

Pommel strike with a greatsword for bludgeoning? Set.

Cut with the tip with a rapier? Set.

Thrust with a scimitar? Set.

They are "not intended" for that but you can do it. Amazing.


...thrust with a mace? Well, set, I guess... I believe there's no problem with such things, after all it's a WARFORGED, holding a MAGIC mace made of ADAMANTINE shining with LIGHTNING. Realism can go so far, I believe...

[Leon]

...thrust with a mace?

Going to be Bludgeoning unless you have a point on the end.

[Lord_Gareth]

Going to be Bludgeoning unless you have a point on the end.

Put a great big whacking spike on the pommel.

[INoKnowNames]

If only one side of the sword was sharp enough to slash, it had a nice enough edge point on the front to make impalement, and it had a rather broad otherside, could a sword possibly do Slashing, Piercing, and / or Bludgeoning Damage at the user's choice?

If so, wouldn't that make it superior to other weapons, at least without factoring how much damage it does or any other uses of the weapon?

It's probably a balance reason if anything.

[Ashtagon]

It's probably a balance reason if anything.

Bingo!

(more words to fill the minimum character limit)

[Gavinfoxx]

No no you punch with the quillons, bludgeon with the pommel, and slash with the blade!

[avr]

The difference between slashing and piercing weapons in D&D 3.x is that a few monsters have different DR against them and piercing weapons are more effective underwater, right? I don't really have an issue with swords being less effective than spears underwater and being more effective than spears against zombies.

What actual situation in game have you encountered where the slashing/piercing damage types matter and are wrong?

[Worira]

In the case of most swords, the tip, which logically would have been used for stabbing (Piercing damage type) attacks, was not sharpened. It was, in fact, about as sharp as your average spoon.

...

Um, no. Early swords didn't tend to come to a point, since it was harder to make them that way, but they were certainly sharpened.

Anyway, yes, this has always bugged me a bit, especially for the longsword, which is very much a thrusting weapon.

[Acanous]

Most swords should be able to deal slashing, bludgeoning or piercing damage. There are a few exceptions like Rapier or Foil, but yeah.
Historically, most greatswords weren't very sharp *Anywhere* along the blade. They weren't exactly blunt, but you were breaking bones and denting armor with them more than anything. The cutting force came from leverage, like a pair of scissors.

[Spiryt]

...

Um, no. Early swords didn't tend to come to a point, since it was harder to make them that way, but they were certainly sharpened.



It wasn't harder to make them that way, per small correction, in fact making simple pointy blade is easier than make broad, uniform spatulate tip with fuller almost up to the very point.

See plenty pointy spears and knives/seaxes.

Early european swords weren't just designed to be very pointy at all.



It's probably a balance reason if anything.

More like simplicity and some not very clear general idea of designers, as it's not like weapons are carefully balanced anyway...

Greatsword is already simply superior to greataxe, even if it's completely insignificant difference, scythe has tripping and piercing over falchion, and so on.

[Chronos]

Huh, I thought the OP was going to be complaining about how the rules lump slashing weapons and chopping weapons together. You don't really slash with an axe.

[FMArthur]

Huh, I thought the OP was going to be complaining about how the rules lump slashing weapons and chopping weapons together. You don't really slash with an axe.

Vertex, edge and surface just don't sound very good as damage categories, which is pretty much how they're actually sorted.

[Spiryt]

Huh, I thought the OP was going to be complaining about how the rules lump slashing weapons and chopping weapons together. You don't really slash with an axe.

Again, it depends on an axe...

Defintely not with any woodworking axes, but many broad axes and bardiches definitely give solid possibility.

http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg529/scaled.php?server=529&filename=axe2.jpg&res=landing

[Phosphate]

Huh, I thought the OP was going to be complaining about how the rules lump slashing weapons and chopping weapons together. You don't really slash with an axe.

Hm...actually, that's a valid point too. Though there is the concept of a weapon dealing 2 types of damage at the same time, and chopping could be bludgeoning+piercing.

Axes could also be used for piercing though (with the left or right marginal point of the edge).

As for bludgeoning weapons dealing piercing damage, since it was mentioned...I honestly wouldn't go that far.

[Galloglaich]

Yep, a slice or a slash isn't the same as a chop. You don't attack the same way with a strait razor that you do with an axe.

Most (or at any rate, very many) battle axes were made with long points for thrusting, or had a spike on the top of the haft.

A lot of maces were also made with spikes on the tip for thrusting.

http://antiques-arms.com/image/cache/data/products/tep705-900x900.jpg

And of course there is also the infamous two-handed mace, the godendag, which also has a spike

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Goedendag_flamenco.jpg

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

You can also cut very well with most broad-bladed spears, that is in fact why they made the points so long on a lot of them, such as the (very common) so-called 'hewing spear' that the Vikings liked so much.

I don't know why DnD restricts damage attack types usually to one per weapon, since most swords were both cut and thrust weapons, even swords with a long fuller and spatulate tips could thrust quite effectively. As spyrit pointed out already two-handed swords were commonly used with half-swording techniques to thrust at close-range. Swords can also pommel-strike at close range (a bludgeon attack, roughly similar to a light-mace). And there is also the famous mortsrosse

http://www.stage-combat.de/contentimg/talhoffer.jpg

I suspect though that the reason they vastly simplify the capabilities of weapons is at least partly for the sake of balance. They also distort which weapon is more dangerous and so on; personally I never understood why a strongly made 14" knife would be a 'nuisance weapon', in real life getting stabbed by a dagger would be fatal more often than being shot in most cases.

What I really never understood more generally is why nearly all role playing games take all of the options out of combat and shy away from playing out the actual fun part of a sword fight or a knife fight; the tactical options, trying to stay at long range with a spear, trying to get close with a dagger, the feinting, the counters, the sudden reversals, disarms, throws and other tricks, that make a fight look cool in a movie. They always go on about preferring 'cinematic' combat but usually it's just "Ok I attack, roll the dice, you hit, 7 points of damage..." it's extremely boring compared to the real thing. Doesn't seem 'cinematic' at all to me. Usually the only drama comes from magic.

The downside of the real thing is that you can actually die of course. Even in martial arts, it takes months or years to learn enough to get any good at it, equipment (especially for fighting with weapons) is very expensive, and you are still subject to bruises, broken bones, blown out knees and so on. But it always seemed to me like there wasn't any reason you couldn't have a lot of this fun in a game. I never understood why more games didn't make a cool game out of the fight, since sword fighting (and related activities) are so integral to most of these games, particularly the fantasy role playing games.

G.

[White_Drake]

I think that the main issue isn't that the game is historically innacurate, and over-simplified in many ares, but what can be done to correct this. Can anybody think of a balanced set of rules which would allow both historical accuracy and cinematic appeal without making encounters last several hours, and having dictionary sized Players' Handbooks. I have similar issues with how armor works (vs. chainmail rapier trumps broadsword), and I wish they'd bring back weapon speeds, but the game has to compromise detail with ease of play. If anybody does manage to come up with a system, please let me know.

[Galloglaich]

I did :)

G

[Gavinfoxx]

Yup, the aforementioned Codex Martialis, which Gall made, is GREAT.

BUY IT. SEND GALL MONEY.

[Zeful]

I think that the main issue isn't that the game is historically innacurate, and over-simplified in many ares, but what can be done to correct this. Can anybody think of a balanced set of rules which would allow both historical accuracy and cinematic appeal without making encounters last several hours, and having dictionary sized Players' Handbooks. I have similar issues with how armor works (vs. chainmail rapier trumps broadsword), and I wish they'd bring back weapon speeds, but the game has to compromise detail with ease of play. If anybody does manage to come up with a system, please let me know.

Add a series of combat maneuvers such as pommel strikes, Quillion blows and such assign them to the appropriate weapons/weapon groups, give half-swording a modifier like Two-handing or weapon finesse. And give DR to all armors that is overcome by a certain type of damage (Simplifying as necessary to preserve choice and allow for more "rock-paper-scissors" gameplay). Toss in some feats that enhance the actions (Pommel strikes daze or whatnot) and that's really it as far as I understand swordfighting. It would add like 4 pages or so of rules.

[Galloglaich]

What we did was basically that, plus make a special type of hybrid dice pool specifically for DnD.

Weapons are rated for reach, speed, and defense. Reach counts in your first attack in a fight, speed for subsequent attacks. You can also back out to 'onset' range by forfeiting an attack. Long weapons don't work at close (grappling) range unless you have special feats (like half-swording)

The pool works like this: You get four (20 sided) dice each round. You can use them for either attack, defense, changing range, or movement. You can combine dice for a single attack (you just take the highest roll) or for a single defense. If you roll a 20 in an attack it's a critical hit, damage multiplier is the number of dice you threw into your attack. Potentially very lethal! If you roll a natural 20 on defense you can have an automatic (and immediate) counterattack.

Active defense is optional, you also have a 'passive' defense.

The (limited) pool lets you for example, make the tactical decisions to maintain your distance or try to close-in, depending on what weapon you are using (and what special fighting abilities you have). It's all very intuitive and goes very fast, since you only have 4 dice per round to do anything with. In my group we also use a hit-point ceiling so fights are pretty deadly, but that is up to you.

The various special feats (we call them 'martial feats') can enhance the die rolls in various ways. For example a "master cut" lets you apply your attack die roll to your next defense, conversely a "mutierin" lets you roll another die against your opponents last defense roll, the only catch is you have to make a different type of attack, so a slash must change to a thrust for example. The Japanese "Nukitsuki" feat gives you a "free dice" when you try to make a cut from a sheathed sword, like in Iaido. "Distance fighting" lets you add a 'free dice' to your defense rolls so long as you have room to keep moving backward. Shields also give you a 'free dice'.

In the original rules, this all did in fact add up to about 4 pages, plus another 4 or 5 pages for the "Martial Feats". In the expanded added some more examples and explanations of how to convert the standard D20 feats and so on, which some people had asked for. But the core of it is still basically the same 4 pages.

It works great, the only downside is that it's only a combat system, not a complete game. It's designed to be tacked on to OGL but you have to do a little tinkering to use it in your game, it's not 'plug and play'. I also think it's best suited for Low Magic games.


G

[Galloglaich]

Anyway, I wasn't trying to sell it, just trying to use it to make a point in the discussion. Which was the actual reason I made it (you don't make much money on these things)

If anyone who already posted in this thread wants a free copy to look at in the context of making melee weapons more interesting / realistic / cinematic, PM me and I'll send you a comp copy from DriveThruRpg.

G

[Zombimode]

I don't know why DnD restricts damage attack types usually to one per weapon, since most swords were both cut and thrust weapons, even swords with a long fuller and spatulate tips could thrust quite effectively.

Well, if this thread is any indication, one could argue for almost any weapon in D&D that it should be able to deal damage of any type. If so, the diversification of damage types become pointless. But it appears that having different weapon damage types was a conscious design decision: there are lots of DR/damage types.
If (almost) any weapon could deal bludgeoning damage, DR 5/bludgeoning of skeletons is pointless.
I'm pretty sure thats your answer: the designers wanted that different weapons are of different effectiveness against certain types of enemies. And thus, weapon damage types are assigned rather strict.

[Galloglaich]

one could argue for almost any weapon in D&D that it should be able to deal damage of any type

I wouldn't actually make this argument, there are very generalist weapons (say, a halberd) and there are very specialist weapons (say, a stiletto), but they all have some kind of trade-off. Swords can be used with bludgeoning attacks but only with special training really, and almost exclusively at close range.

What I've done in my game is allow many attack types but only critical hits with certain attack types, emphasizing what the weapon is best at. This way the choice of a weapon can really be part of the characters fighting strategy, not just essentially another adornment. And definitly not all alike.

But I agree with you that limiting each weapon to one attack type was an arbitrary decision on the part of WoTC and very likely intended for different monsters resistances. Given that most RPG's are not very strict about encumbrance rules most players can carry a stabbing weapon and a cutting weapon and a bludgeon weapon with them regardless.

Effectively in most RPG's the weapon is just a cosmetic adornment, it really makes no difference if it is a spear or an axe or a sword, it does roughly the same damage, doesn't count for defense and doesn't have much 'personality' as a weapon. Unless you get some of the really ridiculous exotics like an "urgosh" or a "double-sided sword". I guess the question which remains is, are you comfortable with the weapon as a cosmetic adornment and the only 'personality' it can have derives from Magic, or do you want to be able to play around a little more with different fighting styles which work with different types of weapons. If it's the former then the RaW are fine, if it's the latter, in the way that the OP seems to imply dissatisfaction ... then maybe you should look at alternatives.

G

[Deadlights]

Most Japanese blades, on the other hand, are basically giant razors. In response to their swords getting stuck, Samurai kicked them out. It, ah, it got pretty gory.

[citation needed]

Actually your average katana is about as sharp as a longsword, while remaining twice as thick (therefore heavier). It also required two hands (so no shield), despite being shorter than your average longsword. Nor could you easilly use it to stab, although it is doable.

It is great for slicing defenceless unarmored peasants, however.

Sourced (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLWzH_1eZsc)

[Anxe]

Figured I'd throw this in. I always assumed the Underwater Combat rules assumed you were using your slashing weapons as piercing weapons. They give a -2 on attack rolls and half damage rolls. It should obviously be less of a minus if you're out of water, but its a good place to start.

Underwater Combat Rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/wilderness.htm#underwaterCombat)

[Deadlights]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Wallerstein_219.jpg

Just wanted to throw this out there on the subject of improvising slashing weapons as piercing/bludgeoning. I have yet to successfully convince the fighter in our group to attempt the maneuver on the right.

[Galloglaich]

It's very dangerous to practice that (Mortschlag) except slowly and very carefully... it's banned in every HEMA tournament I have been to or know about.

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

G

[Ashtagon]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Wallerstein_219.jpg

Just wanted to throw this out there on the subject of improvising slashing weapons as piercing/bludgeoning. I have yet to successfully convince the fighter in our group to attempt the maneuver on the right.

I've seen this picture many times now. Do we have any commentary from the original artist concerning this drawing? For all we know, he may have intended the caption to be "Remember, the pointy end goes into the enemy, you simpleton".

[Zombimode]

I've seen this picture many times now. Do we have any commentary from the original artist concerning this drawing? For all we know, he may have intended the caption to be "Remember, the pointy end goes into the enemy, you simpleton".

Unlikely, since it also appears in other fighting manuals. Well at least in Talhoffers Fechtbuch in addition to Codex Wallerstein:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ca/De_Fechtbuch_Talhoffer_047.jpg/800px-De_Fechtbuch_Talhoffer_047.jpg

And this seems like a genuine instruction.

[AslanCross]

More like simplicity and some not very clear general idea of designers, as it's not like weapons are carefully balanced anyway...


I think this is pretty much the case. I mean, look at the illustration of the warhammer in the PHB. :smallsigh: It's like Mjolnir and looks nothing like what warhammers looked like historically. Oh well.

[Averis Vol]

i think they ruled weapons to do the damage they do simply because the creators don't know about all the different ways of using a blade/axe/mace. lets be honest, the half-sword isn't exactly a common (to people who don't study weaponry) technique. so they must figure; greatsword has a 4 foot cutting surface, therefore its a slashing weapon. rapier-like weapons are used in fencing competitions and for the most part points are scored on a connecting thrust, etc. my point is they generalize, because if they did deep research, most people wold be totally lost under what condition warranted what type of damage.

that being said, i know a lot more about weaponry then all my group (some people brag, but its empty) so whilst i DM i throw in some extra spice so instead of " okay you hit" it could be " you sidestep his swing and slam the pommel of your blade on the back of his head" or " you swat away the longsword and drive your blade fully through his chest" is he still doing the same damage? ofcourse, am i going to keep switching up the types of damage they do to immerse them in the fight? totally.

[Ashtagon]

Unlikely, since it also appears in other fighting manuals. Well at least in Talhoffers Fechtbuch in addition to Codex Wallerstein:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ca/De_Fechtbuch_Talhoffer_047.jpg/800px-De_Fechtbuch_Talhoffer_047.jpg

And this seems like a genuine instruction.

If he is holding that weapon bare-handed, as it appears in that drawing, it's certainly not a bladed weapon. Considering where he is holding it, that portion would certainly be sharp enough to cut a hand.

Again, I think this is either artistic licence or a "how not to" drawing. Just because the illustration appeared in a guidebook written by a master doesn't mean every illustration is an example of correct usage, even if "correct" is taken to mean "in the opinion of the expert who wrote the book".

Have you read the text in the original Middle High German?

[Zombimode]

If he is holding that weapon bare-handed, as it appears in that drawing, it's certainly not a bladed weapon. Considering where he is holding it, that portion would certainly be sharp enough to cut a hand.

Again, I think this is either artistic licence or a "how not to" drawing. Just because the illustration appeared in a guidebook written by a master doesn't mean every illustration is an example of correct usage, even if "correct" is taken to mean "in the opinion of the expert who wrote the book".

I just picked one picture. Talhoffers Fechtbuch is available (http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Fechtbuch_%28Talhoffer%29) on Wikipedia. You can browse it yourself. The Mordschlag comes up a lot, sometimes beneficial, sometimes not. I would dare to say, that a technique that is referenced so often and with a good portion of beneficial outcomes, it is neither something the author has made up nor a showcase of an error.



Have you read the text in the original Middle High German?

It reads: "Den mordstraich erlogen vnd schlahen In den schenckel"

I will not try a direct translation, but it seems that the Mordstraich in this maneuver was a feint ("erlogen" today mean "untruthful"/"made-up", it is derivate of "lügen" (= "to lie")) and then turned into an blow against the leg.

[Spiryt]

If he is holding that weapon bare-handed, as it appears in that drawing, it's certainly not a bladed weapon. Considering where he is holding it, that portion would certainly be sharp enough to cut a hand.

Again, I think this is either artistic licence or a "how not to" drawing. Just because the illustration appeared in a guidebook written by a master doesn't mean every illustration is an example of correct usage, even if "correct" is taken to mean "in the opinion of the expert who wrote the book".

Have you read the text in the original Middle High German?

You're trying to break trough the open doors, I'm afraid.

All kinds of halfswording don't lead with cutting wielders hand, if he knows what he's doing. And even if it does, it's usually decent trade if one managed to incapacitate opponent due to it.

It's not 'how not to' drawing, as all kinds of halfswording/mordhau maneuvers appear in a lot of manuals, often with description of use of such technique.


If you thrust at his face at the Halb Schwert (half-sword) and he displaces this, immediately strike him on the other side of the head with the pommel. Or jump with the right foot behind his left foot, move your pommel around his neck from the right shoulder (i.e., his right side) and tear him down over your right leg.

Source : http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Ringeck.htm


So yes, swords were being used that way barehanded at least since about 1400.

[NNescio]

If he is holding that weapon bare-handed, as it appears in that drawing, it's certainly not a bladed weapon. Considering where he is holding it, that portion would certainly be sharp enough to cut a hand.

Au contraire... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xfb6g786Y8M)

(Or "Im Gegenteil!", as the case may be.)


It reads: "Den mordstraich erlogen vnd schlahen In den schenckel"

I will not try a direct translation, but it seems that the Mordstraich in this maneuver was a feint ("erlogen" today mean "untruthful"/"made-up", it is derivate of "lügen" (= "to lie")) and then turned into an blow against the leg.

I'll translate it as this:
"Fake a Mordstreich (Murder Strike) and strike the thigh strongly."

("Schlag" carries a more 'forceful' connotation when compared with "Streich")

[Ashtagon]

Au contraire... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xfb6g786Y8M)

(Or "Im Gegenteil!", as the case may be.)

Okay, I'm convinced you can hold a sword sharp enough to cut paper by the blade. I'm not at all convinced that you could hold it that way and use it to attack something significantly tougher, such as flesh and bone.

[Spiryt]

Okay, I'm convinced you can hold a sword sharp enough to cut paper by the blade. I'm not at all convinced that you could hold it that way and use it to attack something significantly tougher, such as flesh and bone.

Here you see dude halfswording some bearable mail representation. Pretty tough stuff.

ARMA Hellas, Thrust on the maille (http://www.thearma.org/Videos/NTCvids/testingbladesandmaterials.htm)

Aside from the whole historical use, obviously.

[fryplink]

[citation needed]

Nor could you easilly use it to stab, although it is doable.


Sourced (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLWzH_1eZsc)

This isn't entirely true, because of the surface area. Even when using training swords stabbing is STRICTLY prohibited. Most Gumdo (a Korean Weapons Martial art, they use swords that "not-katanas" strictly speaking a Gumdo blade is slightly straighter IIRC, but I might have it backwards, it's been a awhile) forms I know include considerable stabbing. It's just that when you stab, your point doesn't need to be sharp, it just needs to be pretty small and slowly become wider. It's why steak knives can be used to stab people when they aren't designed to be used for stabbing. The surface area is simply so small that it can't help but poke holes in things.