RL combat

[Aramil Liadon]

So, for those of us who have tried medieval-style combat in RL, what were your experiences? What catgirl-killing comments have you? Mounted combat? Slings are underpowered? Tridents should do more damage? The greataxe is an impossible weapon? Splintmail doesn't work? Is sword and board of THF better that THF? Go ahead and discuss!

My first quibble - spiked chains. It's a classic, but I just wanted to bring it up. There is no way to hit a conscious opponent with something that long and bendy!
My second - the range increment on bows. I just can't work. Robin hood has been so much exaggerated. No way you can shoot without penalty at a range of 70ft. It makes for a very tough shot.

[Bears With Lasers]

As I understand it, sword-and-board is VASTLY better IRL than it is in D&D.

[Yuki Akuma]

Two-handed weapons are vastly inferior to sword-and-board in real life. They're also inferior to dual wielding a pair of one-handed weapons.

Except reach weapons. Reach weapons are good.

[Zincorium]

Well, I'm not what you would call an expert certainly, but since historical background evidence backs me up on this: Two weapon fighting was not designed to give you double your normal number of attacks, it's so you can have one weapon dedicated to parrying as you strike with the other. You can switch between the two fairly rapidly, but if you try to use both for attack you'll have trouble reaching the vulnerable areas that you normally go for with a single weapon.

[Reptilus]

Trust me, Spiked Chains aren't BS. There are entire schools of martial arts dedicated to fighting with long chains, spikes or not. It's because they're bendy that they're deadly; they don't initially cause much damage when they hit, but they bend around an opponent, and the spikes or barbs catch and tear. Something that long is also hard to dodge once it gets its momentum going, since it carries itself with only minute strength to guide it, especially because of the art it moves in.
Two hand fighting is a bad idea unless you're using a polearm or another reach weapon, purely because one cannot block and attack with it. Your single weapon does one or the other. With double-weilding or Sword and Shield, one weapon attacks while the other or the shield blocks. Also, swinging something with two hands limits the dexterity and flexibility you can put into it. Greataxes aren't impossible, but they're just a less efficient, poorly balanced version of a Halbard. They way one would fight with one would be to strain enough to lift it, then hold it until you were close enough to hopefully hit something when your dropped it. Not quite that bad, but it's not really a good idea.

[Raum]

Trust me, Spiked Chains aren't BS. There are entire schools of martial arts dedicated to fighting with long chains, spikes or not.The manriki gusari is the only chain weapon I can think of off the top of my head and it's certainly not spiked. It's used as a combination flail and entangling weapon. It's also fairly short, the one I own is 36" long.

I've never heard of any "spiked chain" in real life. And the one shown in the D&D books would be unusable. Frankly, I don't see any chain weapon giving you a 10' reach...you'd have to pull it back and recoil it any time you threw it out that far. It's far too heavy to be usable as a whip.


It's because they're bendy that they're deadly; they don't initially cause much damage when they hit, but they bend around an opponent, and the spikes or barbs catch and tear. Something that long is also hard to dodge once it gets its momentum going, since it carries itself with only minute strength to guide it, especially because of the art it moves in.Getting past the use of barbs I've never seen, chain weapons rely on momentum for damage. In other words, you have to spin them in circles and keep them going. The worst issue (and why they're a lousy combat weapon) is you have to regain your momentum after every hit. In the time it takes you to whirl the chain back up to speed, the sword wielder is going to hit you at least once.

[martyboy74]

Didn't we have the arguement about the Spiked Chain a couple days ago?

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Having been in the SCA as well as a dedicated martial artist, allow me to put in my own two cents:

1) Sword-and-board fighting is vicious, and extremely easy to learn. In short, you don't need to do much, you've got a sheet of steel between you and your opponents most of the time.

2) TWF requires significant training, however is equally deadly if one is adept at it. Realistic TWF styles include Escrima (twin short-sword, used in the Phillipines to fend off Magellen and his crew), some styles of fencing (rapier and Main Gouche in particular, although the parrying dagger would often accompany a longer blade in many of the more realistic and offensive fighting styles), and some forms of eastern martial arts (Butterfly Swords were intended to be duo-wielded, and while it didn't occur NEARLY as often as many would think, the Katana and Wazakashi can be used paired. More often, however, the Katana was used by itself, more on that later.)

3) Two-handed weapons were massive and slower, however when they hit, they hit HARD. Greataxes weren't used all that often, but greatswords were quite handy. They literally COULD hit a shield and break the arm behind it and if not actually cut through then at least crumple the shield. Moreso with a two-handed blunt instrument. Also, once they got their momentum going, they were very hard to stop, and have the reach to keep you from being able to close with them. The other side of the two-handed weapon coin is the Katana, which was traditionally used two-handed. Iado, and it's precursor, Iajitsu, focused on the 'strike first, strike last' side of combat, striking as they pull their katana out of the sheath, easily able to cut a man in half, then Kendo, which was the style used after they have the blade out of their sheath, is a two-handed style, using the Katana's speed, and both hands to not only increase power, but accuracy and speed. I defy you to call a two-handed katana slow and ungainly...

4) For sheer damage, a mace beats a sword, particularly a flanged or spiked mace. A one-handed flanged mace can crumple a shield with a good, solid hit (I've seen it happen), and break the arm behind it. It requires considerable upper-body strength, but if you've got the strength for it, this is possibly the deadliest of the melee weapons used in Europe.

5) Hinged or chain weapons, such as the flail or morningstar (or Nunchaku), are EXTREMELY difficult to wield properly, usually resulting in hitting yourself unless you know EXACTLY what you are doing. They are also not very efficent weapons as far as power of blow, however they are far harder to parry with a weapon or block with a shield.

6) A one-handed axe is nearly as dangerous as a mace, particularly a bearded axe. I've seen people cleave through shields, plate mail, and more, with these weapons. They're also vicious against unarmored targets, even more so than a sword. However, they aren't as fast as a sword.

7) The staff is VASTLY under-appreciated. I can, with nothing but quarterstaff, helm, and leather jerkin, defeat a belted knight in full plate using a longsword and shield. Not only are they fast, they hit HARD, and can be used to 'ring their bell' very easily.

8) Unarmed combat vs weapon combat is insane. Unless you are a Master, and perhaps your opponent is a newbie, using bare hands against an armed and armored opponent is tantamount to suicide.

9) Large weapons, like polearms, are not intended as single-person weapons, they are intended to be used as a unit. One polearm user is in serious trouble against a sword-user (unless he takes some oriental style like Tiger Fork or Monk's Spade, or the Naginata). However, a phalanx of polearm wielders is an extremely effective formation, and was used extensively until the advent of gunpowder, in which case they used the same formation and handed the soldiers muskets rather than polearms. In particular, a formation of Pikemen was one of the very few things which could stop a heavy calvary charge. To simulate this, imagine if you will, four rows of soldiers each wielding a Pike, which has a reach of 20', although cannot attack anyone inside 15'. A Heavy Calvary unit charges. He provokes an AoO at 15', then again at 10' from the second line, then again at the 5' mark from the 3rd row, before he closes into melee with the first row. The 4th row can still attack the guy in melee (assuming he survives four AoO's), although the first through third cannot.

[Aramil Liadon]

^^ Now that's discussion!

In my experience, one sword, one empty hand isn't all that bad, but requires a lot of parrying and waiting for a chance to counterattack. Is this that same for sword and shield? Or does the shield allow more impunity in the area of swinging whenever you want? I mean, with one sword, I always wait for the other combatant to make the first move. TWF, I swing offhand first to draw their defense/offense away from the real attack. Ooh, and what sort of TWF stances work well? Does that cinematic 'off hand at waist and pointing up, good hand next to head and pointing down' thing actually work on skilled opponents? What about a leftie? Are they hard to defeat due to the attacks coming from an unaccustomed direction?

What I have found with the spear (not a pike or other such thing, but maybe 7-8ft long) is that I can defeat a sword-wielding opponent by keeping them at a distance and pocking, then switching to a quarterstaff style of fighting if they get close (which I agree is great until they start to sunder you into submission).

Also, back to the spiked chain genre of weapons, while I realize that they are tough to block, an armored opponent would take almost no damage from those little spikes and that barbs would slide, not rip and tear. Also, would not spinning that thing around make your net attack somewhat predictable and easy to dodge?

Nothing to add to unarmed suicidal practices.

On the topic of a heavy ax or mace. IF they can dodge, would not your momentum bring you way off balance, leaving you open for counterattack?

Second last thing, what do you think about armored/unarmored fighting? I prefer unarmored, but see the necessity of good protection. Does that mean I should go looking for leather?

And finally, opinions on ranged combat? The range of bows, the utility of thrown axes/knives on a moving target?

[Matthew]

Surely this discussion should be in the Real World Weapons and Armour Thread?

[Yahzi]

Having been in the SCA as well as a dedicated martial artist, allow me to put in my own two cents:
What he said...

I was taught that the staff was the ultimate defense against the sword (the katana). But you can't hack your way through 3 dozen peasants with a staff as easily as you can with a sword, you can't wear a staff on your hip 24/7, and you can't use it indoors or in tight quarters.

In my game, the staff is not a double weapon (I hate that), but instead it grants +1 AC in melee combat.

[Yahzi]

Second last thing, what do you think about armored/unarmored fighting?
As I understand it, the point of armor is to stop arrows and stones.

You know what weapon killed the most people on the Japanese medieval battlefield?

Thrown rocks.

That's why the knights wore platemail. So peasants couldn't just throw rocks at them and win.

[storybookknight]

Thrown Rocks.

Now, suddenly, Final Fantasy Tactics makes sense!

[Miles Invictus]

As does Return of the Jedi.

...oh, wait. There, the armor did nothing.

[Indon]

In my view, it's the hit point system what makes damage output (THF) viewed as more critical than being able to make hits while well-defended (sword+board, or TWF with Two-weapon defense).

If a one-handed weapon kills about as well as a two-handed one, why sacrifice the defense of a shield?

[Saph]

Have to agree with Shneeky.

From what I've seen while LARPing and practising in general, the most effective hand weapons in a battle situation are:

1) Sword and shield
2) Polearms

And they're best of all when you can combine them together, i.e. shield wall with polarms in the second rank. Charging a polarm-studded shield wall is utter suicide, no-one can get away with it if the defenders hold their ground.

Two-handed weapons are NOWHERE near as good IRL as they are in D&D, due to the amount of space needed to swing them effectively and how vulnerable you are to a second person hitting you while you're swinging at the first. The only really effective two-handed weapon I've seen is a staff, and even that only works because it can be used as a semi-polearm.

Nunchaku, spiked chains, three-section staffs, and most exotic weapons in general suck.

Caveat: I haven't done much practice with properly weighted weapons, so that might be messing with my judgement a bit.

[Bears With Lasers]

Incidentally, best weapons--for what? Two guys in 12th century European armor and a couple of guys in a street brawl in modern Bangkok are going to want totally different weapons.

[Jack Mann]

Indeed. Situation defines everything. If you're part of a formation, and cavalry is charging at you, you probably want a nice, long pike on which to skewer a horse. If you're on your own, facing off against some fellow with a sword and shield, then it's probably the wrong weapon for you.

[HeinleinFan]

I have to put a plug in here for Two-Weapon Fighting.

Yes, you have to work at it. Hard. For years. But when done well, it is amazing. The local SCA has a fellow, perhaps eighteen years old, who has been working at it since he was about ten. In the eight or so fights I've seen him in, he "died" once - and his opponent was "killed" in the same instant. He fights one-on-one, three-on-three, and eight person everyone-versus-everyone, and he is always (except that once) the last man standing.

Part of it is his size, I'm sure - he's a little short and can move more quickly. But the rest of it is sheer ability. He has mastered two-weapon defense, against both reach weapons and shield/sword combinations. As far as I could tell, he made the same number of attacking moves as his opponents, but his off hand threw their defense awry. (Hmm. Actually, if I recall correctly, he was more likely than the others to study his opponents' styles first while defending, but that may just have been the result of him either getting tired or realizing that the others were pretty good, too.)

I understand that for the average fighter, mace and shield is probably a good combination, and the various reach weapons are also useful. BUT - if a person is willing to put in the time and the effort to learn how to weild a short sword / long sword combination effectively, in addition to learning how to put one's speed to good use, then that person can become very hard indeed to bring down.

By the way - all this was done in steel armor including helmets, with rattan weapons. I think the reach weapons (can't remember what they called them - used with a buckler, usually) were additionally padded. A hit to the leg meant that the person had to kneel or sit the way they would if their leg muscles were severed; again, the young guy using TWF rarely was struck in the leg, and was only once dealt a "mortal wound".

[YPU]

A staff can indeed be a great weapon against many opponents, give it a spiky tip and it can be used as a spear two. It’s the ultimate peasants weapon. Also, I would like to insert the psychological effect of a unit of full plated knight with tower shields and swords, backed up by spear wielders and behind that a row of crossbowmen, I have faced that in a LARP, (tough luckily usually being one of the crossbowmen) this is seriously fearsome. the sound of them marching itself is scary. And very few tactics that work against it.
Also, considering two handed weapons. They indeed leave you open to counters now and then, but those counters had to be swift. So when you are wearing a very thick suit of armour (full plate) those quick counters would only rarely be hard enough to hurt you.

[Pocket lint]

I haven't had a lot of training, but longswords (meaning, the 14th-15th c. version - think bastard swords) wielded two-handed are highly versatile. Generally, you defend with the part of the blade closer to the hilt and attack with the outer part. I'd much prefer it over sword and board since you have a lot more control over the blade. For the true zweihanders, what I've read is that they were used against pike formations, and used the weight of the sword to sunder the enemy pikes. The guys who used them got twice the pay of the others, but they tended to have short lifespans.

About the quarterstaff: This weapon was actually responsible for the highest number of murders in the middle ages. It's simply unparallelled - against unarmoured opponents. If your enemy is armoured, run. Because "ringing his bell" is all you'll do. You can probably succeed in making him highly annoyed before he gets into range, but that's about it. A few bruises don't outweigh him cutting you open to the navel, which is what he'll do with his first hit.

I've seen a guy demonstrate what swords will do to unprotected flesh; a solid hit with a sharp, one-handed sword will usually cut through an arm, severing the bone and possibly lopping it off altogether. A two-handed cut will do the same to a leg. Armour helps a lot here - he said he'd tried to chop at a helmet, but couldn't penetrate (IIRC with one hand, dunno about two). Maille will reduce the effects of a good hit, but won't stop it flat. Plate will, which is why you usually go for the gaps against plate-armoured opponents. It becomes a whole other fighting style, frankly - wielding your sword half-handed style, trying to slide along the armour into the gaps and joints. Lots of strange stuff - I haven't tried it.

About bows: D&D ranged rules are just odd, though, especially about rates of fire. A *good* archer might loose 12 arrows a minute and reach 200 yards. I'm not too sure about crossbows, but I think they'd be lucky to achieve even half that rate, and the bolts also lose too much accuracy to be much use beyond 100 yards or so. The crank-operated kind is more powerful but also more complicated, and would probably take about a minute to reload. They're dead easy to use, though, so light crossbows really should be simple weapons rather than martial.

And using a ranged weapon in anything resembling a melee situation is just demented - at 10' range, not only won't you hit, but your opponent will probably bitch-slap you before you can loose. (Note to Hollyweird: You loose an arrow. You might fire it beforehand, but that's not the same as when you fire a gun)

The problem with archery is again that maille (the riveted kind, not the cheap butted kind you can buy today) will stop an arrow, though you might get a bruise. There are stories from the crusades about the mailled knights looking like hedgehogs from all the arrows stuck in their maille, and modern-day tests verify this. Bodkin arrows will do more penetration, but are easier to pull out than broadhead arrows. And crossbow bolts will penetrate even maille.

Spoken like someone who mostly dabbles in this, so feel free to correct me...

[Bears With Lasers]

Halfswording: freakin' weird, but the kind of thing you do when armor tech is better than weapon tech.

[Cyborg Pirate]

Psssst

*Points everybody to the Real-World-Weapons-and-Armour thread stickied above*

*Also points out that reading that thread and it's predecessors should yield tons of information*


Edit: *notices that all points here have been covered, discussed and rediscussed too*

[Gryndle]

The manriki gusari is the only chain weapon I can think of off the top of my head and it's certainly not spiked. It's used as a combination flail and entangling weapon. It's also fairly short, the one I own is 36" long.

I've never heard of any "spiked chain" in real life. And the one shown in the D&D books would be unusable. Frankly, I don't see any chain weapon giving you a 10' reach...you'd have to pull it back and recoil it any time you threw it out that far. It's far too heavy to be usable as a whip.

Getting past the use of barbs I've never seen, chain weapons rely on momentum for damage. In other words, you have to spin them in circles and keep them going. The worst issue (and why they're a lousy combat weapon) is you have to regain your momentum after every hit. In the time it takes you to whirl the chain back up to speed, the sword wielder is going to hit you at least once.


While its not really comparative to the Spiked chain, the kau sin ke (chain whip/iron whip) is both beuatiful and freaking scary to see in use. It was my former kung fu instructor's weapon of choice. Good for offense or defense. But incredibly difficult to master. i earned my black belt in his school, and never got comfortable with the danged thing.

A little more on topic, I've foound that the simple staff and spear get very little respect in rpg's, but are very versatile and competent weapons in the real world.

[Fhaolan]

RL Combat vs RPG Combat

There are conventions in RPG combat that come about because of the abstraction necessary to make it a fun game. If you had a completely realistic RPG combat & weapon system, the game would bog down to the point of being unplayable.

Because RPG combat is abstracted, weird effects are going to show up that wouldn't happen in RL. It's the compexity of RL that causes these 'corner cases' like spiked chains to work completely differently from the way they are portrayed in the game.

Things I find that don't work in RPG Combat as they do in RL:

Polearms: In RL, I find there are two different categories of polearms.

Long polearms like spetums, ranseurs, pikes, etc. can only be effective in formations because they are 'facing' weapons. Due to their length, they tend to point in one direction (hopefully towards the enemy), and are slow to move to point towards another direction. If you can come at them from the side, it is very likely you will get within their reach before the weapon can be swung to threaten you.

Short polearms like bardiches, halberds, quarterstaves, spears, have 'reach', being able to attack farther out than other weapons, but still can't get out to the range that long polearms can, and can be used in one-on-one fighting. You can use the butt end as a secondary bludgeoning attack (unless it has a butt spike, in which case you can get a secondary thrust on occasion), as they are all just quarterstaves with a blade on one end in effect.

Sheilds: Shields are considerably more effective than presented in D&D. 3.x makes them better than they were in previous editions, as previously they were simply a +1 to AC, at least 3.x has higher values for different shields.

Specific Weapons vs Specific Armors: This is an optional rule in most editions of D&D, so technically this is covered but it's rarely used. In RL, some armors protect against some attack types better than others. Maille, for instance, is excelent against slashing, but not quite as good against bludgeoning (it does disperse the energy of the blow some, of course). This is a level of complexity that gets dropped from RPGs for ease of play.

Flails: In this I count spiked chains, scourges, whips and other similar weapons. Flails are considerably harder to use properly than other weapon types and require more training. They are also not that impressive damage-wise relative to maces of the same weight because the loose connection (chain) means the head can't be 'pushed' harder once impact has been made. The head tends to bounce back. They are much more difficult to defend against though, which is why they are an effective weapon. They curl around shields and blocking weapons.

Lethal vs Subdual damage: The idea that hitting someone with your fist is somehow less lethal than hitting someone with a stick is just odd. It's all bludgeoning impact. If you take enough damage, you can be incapacitated or simply die, but it doesn't matter what weapon did that damage. You could have your face battered in by a boxer, or have your legs broken with a baseball bat. Your body doesn't care what did the damage, just that damage was done.

There's probably more, but nothing else comes to mind at the moment.

[Leon]

Thrown Rocks.

Back when i played W40K a lot, the general term we used for combat where those were behind the front line was that - its allways funny when the rocks do more than the normal weapons

[martyboy74]

Hey, Hulking Hurlers throw rocks that hurt!

[Raum]

Flails: In this I count spiked chains, scourges, whips and other similar weapons. Flails are considerably harder to use properly than other weapon types and require more training. They are also not that impressive damage-wise relative to maces of the same weight because the loose connection (chain) means the head can't be 'pushed' harder once impact has been made. The head tends to bounce back. They are much more difficult to defend against though, which is why they are an effective weapon. They curl around shields and blocking weapons.I agree with your other points Fhaolan, but i think flails need to be split into chain weapons and hinged (or a much shorter chain) weapons. When it comes to chain weapons, whether manriki gusari or morning star, you're correct chain weapons are difficult to use and require significant investment in training to be at all effective. In addition, gathering momentum for a strike and recovering after a strike both take time.

Jan Zizka (http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/matthaywood/main/Hussite_Tactics_and_Organisation.htm) shows us what can be done with flails. He took Czech peasants and turned them into an army capable of defeating Teutonic knights...primarily with converted farm tools such as the flail. (Zizka did use innovative tactics and weapon mixes against a traditionally armed and led feudal army so the flail wasn't the only reason.)

The flail used was long handled with a relatively short chain (compared to the handle length) which used the handle's leverage to impart momentum to the flail. Zizka's peasant army was so effective with the flail that the weapon was closely identified as a Bohemian weapon for years.

As for sword & board effectiveness, I agree it will generally beat a two hander of equal skill. It's also more likely to keep you alive. However, sometimes SCA two handers will charge a shield wall in a "suicidal" attempt to break unit cohesiveness, and it's often effective though those charging the wall usually take one for the team. I do wonder how valid a tactic it would be with your life on the line though.

[Dausuul]

I do have to ask how applicable SCA rules are to combat in full plate, which is what most fighters in D&D wear. As I understand it, the SCA combat rules assume the fighter is wearing maille and a helmet (even though lots of folks actually wear plate for safety reasons). The situation changes drastically if you assume the fighter is in plate.

[Cybren]

Two-handed weapons are vastly inferior to sword-and-board in real life. They're also inferior to dual wielding a pair of one-handed weapons.

Except reach weapons. Reach weapons are good.
That's not entirely true. using shields became less and less common as armor became better. Full suits of plate armor weren't worn to great degrees until the same time as other advents such as gunpowder.

The problem is the relationship between all of the weapons, armor, and other factors is poorly modeled in D&D

[Matthew]

There's all kinds of problems comparing SCA and RPG combat with Real Life Combat, not least the quality of the equipment and the lack of real death, but that's to be expected.


Slings are underpowered?
Probably, but they do the same as a Dagger.

Tridents should do more damage?
Nope, they already do more than a Short Sword...

The greataxe is an impossible weapon?
Don't think so, but then that depends on what you think it represents. Danish Axe, as far as I'm concerned, is the closest 'real world' analogue.

Splintmail doesn't work?
Well, it works just about as well as any other Body Armour of that technology level, such as Mail, Scale or Laminated. Of course, it is misnamed, the translation being Lamellar [Splint = Splinted = Lamellar] Armour [Mail = Armour], though it could be worn in combination with some sort of Mail.

Is sword and board of THF better that THF?
Depends on the situation. The Shield was more or less abandoned by more heavily armoured soldiers. Both have advantages and disadvantages, none of which are reasonably represented by D&D mechanics.

My first quibble - spiked chains. It's a classic, but I just wanted to bring it up. There is no way to hit a conscious opponent with something that long and bendy!
Not a battlefield weapon, but some sort of Martial Arts display weapon, sure. It's D&D capabilities are probably a bit excessive.

My second - the range increment on bows. I just can't work. Robin hood has been so much exaggerated. No way you can shoot without penalty at a range of 70ft. It makes for a very tough shot.
An often debated area of discussion. Range increments may or may not be reasonable, depending on your point of view, but the main difficulty is the non representation of direct and indirect shooting. Interestingly, tests suggest that quite a lot of power is lost over range with direct shooting, but that's not represented either. Bows in D&D are a mess, that's for sure.

As I understand it, sword-and-board is VASTLY better IRL than it is in D&D.

Two-handed weapons are vastly inferior to sword-and-board in real life. They're also inferior to dual wielding a pair of one-handed weapons.
Shields are very underpowered in D&D, but they were occasionally abandoned in real life in favour of two handed use, especially as better armour was developed.

Except reach weapons. Reach weapons are good.
Again, depending on the circumstances, this may or may not be true. Once somebody gets past your reach, you may find yourself royally boned.

Well, I'm not what you would call an expert certainly, but since historical background evidence backs me up on this: Two weapon fighting was not designed to give you double your normal number of attacks, it's so you can have one weapon dedicated to parrying as you strike with the other. You can switch between the two fairly rapidly, but if you try to use both for attack you'll have trouble reaching the vulnerable areas that you normally go for with a single weapon.
Always a tricky one this. Two Weapon fighting was certainly not commonly practiced on the conventional battlefield, probably because it requires some space to use effectively or maybe because Shields are much better to have when being shot at or what have you. All the same, the whole 'double your number of normal attacks' thing always leaves me confused. It definitely presents more opportunities, but requires significant co ordinational skills. Weapon and Shield does too, I suppose, but to a lesser degree.

Trust me, Spiked Chains aren't BS. There are entire schools of martial arts dedicated to fighting with long chains, spikes or not. It's because they're bendy that they're deadly; they don't initially cause much damage when they hit, but they bend around an opponent, and the spikes or barbs catch and tear. Something that long is also hard to dodge once it gets its momentum going, since it carries itself with only minute strength to guide it, especially because of the art it moves in.
Well, they aren't BS in the sense that they do exist and were used, but their stats in D&D are definitely BS.

Two hand fighting is a bad idea unless you're using a polearm or another reach weapon, purely because one cannot block and attack with it. Your single weapon does one or the other. With double-weilding or Sword and Shield, one weapon attacks while the other or the shield blocks. Also, swinging something with two hands limits the dexterity and flexibility you can put into it.
It does, however, appear to have become a more popular style as heavy armour became more common, so I think the necessity of a Shield is proportional to the effectiveness and completeness of body armour.

Greataxes aren't impossible, but they're just a less efficient, poorly balanced version of a Halbard. They way one would fight with one would be to strain enough to lift it, then hold it until you were close enough to hopefully hit something when your dropped it. Not quite that bad, but it's not really a good idea.
Why on earth would this be the case? A large number of D&D Weapons look poorly balanced and ineffective (I'm looking at you War Hammer), but a 'real world' Great Axe is presumably just a Danish Axe type. Halberds pretty much are Great Axes with spikes, as far as I can tell.

The manriki gusari is the only chain weapon I can think of off the top of my head and it's certainly not spiked. It's used as a combination flail and entangling weapon. It's also fairly short, the one I own is 36" long.
I've never heard of any "spiked chain" in real life. And the one shown in the D&D books would be unusable. Frankly, I don't see any chain weapon giving you a 10' reach...you'd have to pull it back and recoil it any time you threw it out that far. It's far too heavy to be usable as a whip.
Getting past the use of barbs I've never seen, chain weapons rely on momentum for damage. In other words, you have to spin them in circles and keep them going. The worst issue (and why they're a lousy combat weapon) is you have to regain your momentum after every hit. In the time it takes you to whirl the chain back up to speed, the sword wielder is going to hit you at least once.
Indeed. Yet, we have to leave some room for bad representation, I suppose.

Didn't we have the arguement about the Spiked Chain a couple days ago?
Yep.

Having been in the SCA as well as a dedicated martial artist, allow me to put in my own two cents:

1) Sword-and-board fighting is vicious, and extremely easy to learn. In short, you don't need to do much, you've got a sheet of steel between you and your opponents most of the time.
With you until the 'sheet of steel' bit? I'm never sure whether these actually ever existed. Most of the time I hear that Heaters were primarily reinforced wood, which makes good sense to me. Is there any evidence for metal only shields (maybe Bucklers?) and does the SCA make use of them for any particular reason?

2) TWF requires significant training, however is equally deadly if one is adept at it. Realistic TWF styles include Escrima (twin short-sword, used in the Phillipines to fend off Magellen and his crew), some styles of fencing (rapier and Main Gouche in particular, although the parrying dagger would often accompany a longer blade in many of the more realistic and offensive fighting styles), and some forms of eastern martial arts (Butterfly Swords were intended to be duo-wielded, and while it didn't occur NEARLY as often as many would think, the Katana and Wazakashi can be used paired. More often, however, the Katana was used by itself, more on that later.)
I think we often have to distinguish between types of fighting, some weapons are better suited to the individual combatant than the formation. The Katana and Wakizashi were very rarely used paired and only ever in the context of a duel as far as I know, and not earlier than the seventeenth century. It's worth noting that the Katana was secondary to the Bow and Spear on the battlefield as well (as was the case in the west, as well).

3) Two-handed weapons were massive and slower, however when they hit, they hit HARD. Greataxes weren't used all that often, but greatswords were quite handy. They literally COULD hit a shield and break the arm behind it and if not actually cut through then at least crumple the shield. Moreso with a two-handed blunt instrument. Also, once they got their momentum going, they were very hard to stop, and have the reach to keep you from being able to close with them. The other side of the two-handed weapon coin is the Katana, which was traditionally used two-handed. Iado, and it's precursor, Iajitsu, focused on the 'strike first, strike last' side of combat, striking as they pull their katana out of the sheath, easily able to cut a man in half, then Kendo, which was the style used after they have the blade out of their sheath, is a two-handed style, using the Katana's speed, and both hands to not only increase power, but accuracy and speed. I defy you to call a two-handed katana slow and ungainly...
Slower is a relative term. Certainly many Two Handed Weaons were not much heavier than their one handed counterparts and since they were being used in two hands the difference in speed needn't be too great. Still, there are very heavy two handed 'weapons' which would fit this criteria. I assume you have something in mind like the 'true' Zwei Hander type weapons here.

4) For sheer damage, a mace beats a sword, particularly a flanged or spiked mace. A one-handed flanged mace can crumple a shield with a good, solid hit (I've seen it happen), and break the arm behind it. It requires considerable upper-body strength, but if you've got the strength for it, this is possibly the deadliest of the melee weapons used in Europe.
This is untrue, since it rest on a rather odd idea of 'damage'. A Mace can do serious damage and better impact damage than a Sword, that's for sure, but a sword has plenty of advantages, not least it's increased ability to cut and stab. Still, whether you get hit in the head with a Mace or Sword I wouldn't fancy your chances.

5) Hinged or chain weapons, such as the flail or morningstar (or Nunchaku), are EXTREMELY difficult to wield properly, usually resulting in hitting yourself unless you know EXACTLY what you are doing. They are also not very efficent weapons as far as power of blow, however they are far harder to parry with a weapon or block with a shield.
Yep, that's my understanding of it.

6) A one-handed axe is nearly as dangerous as a mace, particularly a bearded axe. I've seen people cleave through shields, plate mail, and more, with these weapons. They're also vicious against unarmored targets, even more so than a sword. However, they aren't as fast as a sword.
This is interesting, but it rests on whether you have seen it go through 'real' armour or not. All the same, whether Axe, Spear, Sword, Hammer or Mace Body Armour is never going to be fully proof. I wouldn't be inclined to hold one up above another.

7) The staff is VASTLY under-appreciated. I can, with nothing but quarterstaff, helm, and leather jerkin, defeat a belted knight in full plate using a longsword and shield. Not only are they fast, they hit HARD, and can be used to 'ring their bell' very easily.
Really? All I ever hear is how great they are. Yeah, the staff is a great weapon, but I'd bet on a Knight who knew what he was doing every time. That's not to disparage skilled staff users, mind.

8) Unarmed combat vs weapon combat is insane. Unless you are a Master, and perhaps your opponent is a newbie, using bare hands against an armed and armored opponent is tantamount to suicide.
Very true. Of course, there is a difference between Unarmed and Unarmoured.

9) Large weapons, like polearms, are not intended as single-person weapons, they are intended to be used as a unit. One polearm user is in serious trouble against a sword-user (unless he takes some oriental style like Tiger Fork or Monk's Spade, or the Naginata). However, a phalanx of polearm wielders is an extremely effective formation, and was used extensively until the advent of gunpowder, in which case they used the same formation and handed the soldiers muskets rather than polearms. In particular, a formation of Pikemen was one of the very few things which could stop a heavy calvary charge. To simulate this, imagine if you will, four rows of soldiers each wielding a Pike, which has a reach of 20', although cannot attack anyone inside 15'. A Heavy Calvary unit charges. He provokes an AoO at 15', then again at 10' from the second line, then again at the 5' mark from the 3rd row, before he closes into melee with the first row. The 4th row can still attack the guy in melee (assuming he survives four AoO's), although the first through third cannot.
Sounds plausible, but of course, a Heavy Cavalry Unit should never ever be deployed in this way.

What I have found with the spear (not a pike or other such thing, but maybe 7-8ft long) is that I can defeat a sword-wielding opponent by keeping them at a distance and pocking, then switching to a quarterstaff style of fighting if they get close (which I agree is great until they start to sunder you into submission).
True, though, a lot depends on the context (by wich I mean environment and degree of armour)

On the topic of a heavy ax or mace. IF they can dodge, would not your momentum bring you way off balance, leaving you open for counterattack?
Not really. Axes and Maces are surprisingly agile, even compared to swords, apparently.

Second last thing, what do you think about armored/unarmored fighting? I prefer unarmored, but see the necessity of good protection. Does that mean I should go looking for leather?
Pretty much anybody who could afford it wore armour. Again, though, context is everything and there is an obvious trade off to be made. There's a reason combined arms forces are almost always better than specialised forces. Most armies need both light and heavy infantry.

And finally, opinions on ranged combat? The range of bows, the utility of thrown axes/knives on a moving target?
Bows are a huge debating point, as is most ancient and medieval arms and armour discussion, but Long Bow / Katana discussion is particularly visible and comes up time and again. The long and short of it is that the Bow was always an effective weapon. The stronger the man, the heavier the pull, the more effective the bow. effective range of the Long Bow is often cited as 300', but the extreme range of the Long Bow may be three or four times as much, depending on who you talk to, shooting conditions and so on.
Throwing Axes and Knives and such was a staple part of warfare. You can see Axes, Spears and even Maces being thrown on the Bayeux Tapestry. the main disadvantage is that once you throw it you don't have it and it might be coming back.

I was taught that the staff was the ultimate defense against the sword (the katana). But you can't hack your way through 3 dozen peasants with a staff as easily as you can with a sword, you can't wear a staff on your hip 24/7, and you can't use it indoors or in tight quarters.
The staff is a good weapon, but the ultimate defence? Maybe, but I doubt it.

As I understand it, the point of armor is to stop arrows and stones.
Well, the point of armour is to stop everything. It may not work equally against everything, but there's more to it than that.[/quote]

You know what weapon killed the most people on the Japanese medieval battlefield?
Hey, whether you get his by a rock or an arrow, the potential for death is always going to be there. Sling stones spring readily to mind.

That's why the knights wore platemail. So peasants couldn't just throw rocks at them and win.
Highly doubtful, but I would be interested in the evidence for this assertion.

As does Return of the Jedi ...oh, wait. There, the armor did nothing.
Frikin' Ewoks. "Two entire Legions of my best troops," my arse.

In my view, it's the hit point system what makes damage output (THF) viewed as more critical than being able to make hits while well-defended (sword+board, or TWF with Two-weapon defense).
If a one-handed weapon kills about as well as a two-handed one, why sacrifice the defense of a shield?
Yeah, that's the problem with inactive / passive D&D defence. You can't roll to parry or block, you just get +X AC. Sucks.

Have to agree with Shneeky.

From what I've seen while LARPing and practising in general, the most effective hand weapons in a battle situation are:

1) Sword and shield
2) Polearms

And they're best of all when you can combine them together, i.e. shield wall with polarms in the second rank. Charging a polarm-studded shield wall is utter suicide, no-one can get away with it if the defenders hold their ground.
You would think so, but it did go on, apparently, and it must have been quite successful or everybody would just stand around in Shield Walls. I think the ting to remember is that the peope doing the charging had Spears and Shields as well. Hard to say, really, as the evidence goes both ways.

Two-handed weapons are NOWHERE near as good IRL as they are in D&D, due to the amount of space needed to swing them effectively and how vulnerable you are to a second person hitting you while you're swinging at the first.
Certainly the 3.5 Power attack version is broken (Damn you 3.0to 3.5 conversion), but again this depends on the circumstances, especially with regard to types of two handed weapons, relative levels of body armour and the tactics emplyed preceding any such charge.

Incidentally, best weapons--for what? Two guys in 12th century European armor and a couple of guys in a street brawl in modern Bangkok are going to want totally different weapons.
Too true.

Indeed. Situation defines everything. If you're part of a formation, and cavalry is charging at you, you probably want a nice, long pike on which to skewer a horse. If you're on your own, facing off against some fellow with a sword and shield, then it's probably the wrong weapon for you.
Spears do defeat Cavalry, but it would be a rash cavalry commander who charged a Spear wall. You want a nice Long Spear when facing the enemy infantry really and better hope your cavalry sees off the enemy if they approach your flanks or rear.

Yes, you have to work at it. Hard. For years. But when done well, it is amazing. The local SCA has a fellow, perhaps eighteen years old, who has been working at it since he was about ten. In the eight or so fights I've seen him in, he "died" once - and his opponent was "killed" in the same instant. He fights one-on-one, three-on-three, and eight person everyone-versus-everyone, and he is always (except that once) the last man standing.
He could just be really good anyway, but seriously, yeah, there are advantages to two weapon fighting. Ideally, you want to proficient with all three D&D styles and employ the right one at the right time.

A staff can indeed be a great weapon against many opponents, give it a spiky tip and it can be used as a spear two. It’s the ultimate peasants weapon. Also, I would like to insert the psychological effect of a unit of full plated knight with tower shields and swords, backed up by spear wielders and behind that a row of crossbowmen, I have faced that in a LARP, (tough luckily usually being one of the crossbowmen) this is seriously fearsome. the sound of them marching itself is scary. And very few tactics that work against it.
Tower Shields? Pavises or Shields? Yeah, a solid block of competant looking Infantry with ranged weapons is nothing you really want to face. The psychology of warfare is one of most interesting fields of study opening up at the moment. How exactly do you persuade several thousand men to charge several thousand others?

Also, considering two handed weapons. They indeed leave you open to counters now and then, but those counters had to be swift. So when you are wearing a very thick suit of armour (full plate) those quick counters would only rarely be hard enough to hurt you.
Interesting.

I haven't had a lot of training, but longswords (meaning, the 14th-15th c. version - think bastard swords) wielded two-handed are highly versatile. Generally, you defend with the part of the blade closer to the hilt and attack with the outer part. I'd much prefer it over sword and board since you have a lot more control over the blade. For the true zweihanders, what I've read is that they were used against pike formations, and used the weight of the sword to sunder the enemy pikes. The guys who used them got twice the pay of the others, but they tended to have short lifespans.
Yes, indeed, both two handed and weapon and shield have advantages and disadvantages. Not too sure about the Sword and Pike thing. I have heard it a few times (both supported and disparaged), but have no idea as to the source for such views.

About the quarterstaff: This weapon was actually responsible for the highest number of murders in the middle ages.
What is the evidence for this? Sounds suspiciously like a factoid to me.

If your enemy is armoured, run. Because "ringing his bell" is all you'll do. You can probably succeed in making him highly annoyed before he gets into range, but that's about it. A few bruises don't outweigh him cutting you open to the navel, which is what he'll do with his first hit.
Quite agree.

I've seen a guy demonstrate what swords will do to unprotected flesh; a solid hit with a sharp, one-handed sword will usually cut through an arm, severing the bone and possibly lopping it off altogether. A two-handed cut will do the same to a leg. Armour helps a lot here - he said he'd tried to chop at a helmet, but couldn't penetrate (IIRC with one hand, dunno about two). Maille will reduce the effects of a good hit, but won't stop it flat. Plate will, which is why you usually go for the gaps against plate-armoured opponents. It becomes a whole other fighting style, frankly - wielding your sword half-handed style, trying to slide along the armour into the gaps and joints. Lots of strange stuff - I haven't tried it.
Presumably you have seen this demonstrated on animal carcasses? I would tend to agree with most of this, but with the caveat that the actual effectiveness of ancient and medieval Body Armour is an open debate. Not much can be said definitively. All the same, I'd rather be with than without. It should also be noted that combatants were as likely to go for 'unarmoured zones' as much against plate as against any other type of body armour. Why aim for the Mail when you can aim at the flesh?

About bows: D&D ranged rules are just odd, though, especially about rates of fire. A *good* archer might loose 12 arrows a minute and reach 200 yards. I'm not too sure about crossbows, but I think they'd be lucky to achieve even half that rate, and the bolts also lose too much accuracy to be much use beyond 100 yards or so. The crank-operated kind is more powerful but also more complicated, and would probably take about a minute to reload. They're dead easy to use, though, so light crossbows really should be simple weapons rather than martial.
Highly debated and dependent on a number of factors. The fastest I have seen is about one per 1.5 seconds, but the draw was short and I doubt the pace could have been kept up for a full minute. A more normal rate might be once every six seconds and a fast rate once every three. Cross Bows are a different story, but both are subject to indirect and direct shooting limitations in terms of the accuracy and range dynamic.

And using a ranged weapon in anything resembling a melee situation is just demented - at 10' range, not only won't you hit, but your opponent will probably bitch-slap you before you can loose. (Note to Hollyweird: You loose an arrow. You might fire it beforehand, but that's not the same as when you fire a gun)
Maybe, maybe not. If it's just you and three guys charging you, you're done. If it's just you and one guy, you might be okay. If you are talking about the five foot step crazines, yeah, it's true that's crazy, but context and 'real time (simultaneous)' versus 'game time (turn based)' may make a difference, depending on how far you abstract what's going on. Always a problem with D&D, sometimes combat is precise, sometimes it is abstract, it's a heady mix.

The problem with archery is again that maille (the riveted kind, not the cheap butted kind you can buy today) will stop an arrow, though you might get a bruise. There are stories from the crusades about the mailled knights looking like hedgehogs from all the arrows stuck in their maille, and modern-day tests verify this. Bodkin arrows will do more penetration, but are easier to pull out than broadhead arrows. And crossbow bolts will penetrate even maille.
Yes indeed and this is quite a problem. Some say Bowsare deadly, some say not so much. The exact story you are probably thinking of is Richard's charge into the Saracens at Jaffa (or maybe Ascalon, I can't remember), as depicted in Ambroise's vernacular French and translated into the Latin Itinerarium. It is a rather heroic moment and, thus, potentially very suspect, as Richard basically charges in single handed kills a bunch of Saracens and then rides out again his armour stuck full of arrows. This may be rooted in experience or it may be a total fantasy, hard to say.

Spoken like someone who mostly dabbles in this, so feel free to correct me...
I think we're all dabblers, and one man's correction is another's mistake...

Halfswording: freakin' weird, but the kind of thing you do when armor tech is better than weapon tech.
Nah, it's just another thing you can do with a Sword.

Psssst
*Points everybody to the Real-World-Weapons-and-Armour thread stickied above*
*Also points out that reading that thread and it's predecessors should yield tons of information*
Edit: *notices that all points here have been covered, discussed and rediscussed too*
Indeed.

While its not really comparative to the Spiked chain, the kau sin ke (chain whip/iron whip) is both beuatiful and freaking scary to see in use. It was my former kung fu instructor's weapon of choice. Good for offense or defense. But incredibly difficult to master. i earned my black belt in his school, and never got comfortable with the danged thing.
It's definitely a 'showy' weapon. Scares the crap out of me.

A little more on topic, I've foound that the simple staff and spear get very little respect in rpg's, but are very versatile and competent weapons in the real world.
Too true, but D&D isn't really to blame. People love swords, I think that's about the up and down of it.


*snip*

All agreeable (as usual), except:

Sheilds: Shields are considerably more effective than presented in D&D. 3.x makes them better than they were in previous editions, as previously they were simply a +1 to AC, at least 3.x has higher values for different shields.
(A)D&D 2.x revised its Shield rules on and off, allowing for a 'special' Block (Active Defence) Action (in The Complete Fighters Handbook and Combat and Tactics) and Shield Specialisation (increased AC).
Also:

Lethal vs Subdual damage: The idea that hitting someone with your fist is somehow less lethal than hitting someone with a stick is just odd. It's all bludgeoning impact. If you take enough damage, you can be incapacitated or simply die, but it doesn't matter what weapon did that damage. You could have your face battered in by a boxer, or have your legs broken with a baseball bat. Your body doesn't care what did the damage, just that damage was done.
Totally true. I never understood subdual damage as fluff.

I agree with your other points Fhaolan, but i think flails need to be split into chain weapons and hinged (or a much shorter chain) weapons. When it comes to chain weapons, whether manriki gusari or morning star, you're correct chain weapons are difficult to use and require significant investment in training to be at all effective. In addition, gathering momentum for a strike and recovering after a strike both take time.
Good point. Flails are an odd weapon. Part Mace, part Chain.

Jan Zizka (http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/matthaywood/main/Hussite_Tactics_and_Organisation.htm) shows us what can be done with flails. He took Czech peasants and turned them into an army capable of defeating Teutonic knights...primarily with converted farm tools such as the flail. (Zizka did use innovative tactics and weapon mixes against a traditionally armed and led feudal army so the flail wasn't the only reason.)

The flail used was long handled with a relatively short chain (compared to the handle length) which used the handle's leverage to impart momentum to the flail. Zizka's peasant army was so effective with the flail that the weapon was closely identified as a Bohemian weapon for years.
Interesting. Have to investigate...

As for sword & board effectiveness, I agree it will generally beat a two hander of equal skill. It's also more likely to keep you alive. However, sometimes SCA two handers will charge a shield wall in a "suicidal" attempt to break unit cohesiveness, and it's often effective though those charging the wall usually take one for the team. I do wonder how valid a tactic it would be with your life on the line though.
Yeah, charging an undisturbed Infantry Wall must have been a hard thing to persuade people to do, especially in the absence of a Shield. I think that the success of this sort of tactic must have heavily relied on combined arms operations.

Well, that's my two cents...

[Cybren]

Yeah, charging an undisturbed Infantry Wall must have been a hard thing to persuade people to do, especially in the absence of a Shield. I think that the success of this sort of tactic must have heavily relied on combined arms operations.

Well, that's my two cents...
Well you could get Arnold von Winkelried to do it

[Matthew]

Arnold von Winkelried (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_von_Winkelried). If he existed, he was exceptional.

[Saph]

Anyone watched Rome? The first episode of the first season?

That has a pretty realistic scene of a group of people charging a shield wall. One attacker does a leaping attack on the shield wall of the Roman defenders. The Roman soldier raises his shield. The leaper tumbles off the shield and falls to the ground. A Roman in the second rank stabs him in the gut before he can get up.

- Saph

[Matthew]

Yeah, I saw it. There's also a good scene in the last BBC version of Ivanhoe where Richard and his 'Saxons' do pretty much the same thing when charging a 'Norman' Shield Wall. It looks cool, that's for sure.

[Cyborg Pirate]

Anyone watched Rome? The first episode of the first season?

That has a pretty realistic scene of a group of people charging a shield wall. One attacker does a leaping attack on the shield wall of the Roman defenders. The Roman soldier raises his shield. The leaper tumbles off the shield and falls to the ground. A Roman in the second rank stabs him in the gut before he can get up.

- Saph

That was not a realistic scene. Leaping and attacking is a funny thing. You see it everywhere in games and books... like no-one actually tried it out for real and check what jumping and attacking actually feels like.

Basically, unless the guy you're jumping is a puts, you've just signed your own death warrant.



I have heard of attacking soldiers rolling under pikes tho in an attempt to get within the pikes reaches. Seemed to be effective, but I can't find my source now. Treat as unconfirmed.



Shields in my opinion are heavily overrated these days, and I'm not sure why. History shows us that whenever armour got a little better, shields were the first thing to be dropped. The only "shield" that saw consistent use throughout history were bucklers. And bucklers aren't shields, they're a class of their own.

[Matthew]

Interesting view, care to elaborate on why you think Shields are overrated? It's definitely a sticking point, so I am open to suggestions and explanations.

[kamikasei]

That was not a realistic scene. Leaping and attacking is a funny thing. You see it everywhere in games and books... like no-one actually tried it out for real and check what jumping and attacking actually feels like.

Basically, unless the guy you're jumping is a puts, you've just signed your own death warrant.

Yeah... that's what Saph is describing. Someone leaping at a shield wall, bouncing off, and being killed.

[Saph]

That was not a realistic scene. Leaping and attacking is a funny thing. You see it everywhere in games and books... like no-one actually tried it out for real and check what jumping and attacking actually feels like.

Basically, unless the guy you're jumping is a puts, you've just signed your own death warrant.

And that was why it was realistic. :) Shows what actually happens when you try and do a leap attack on a shield wall.

- Saph

[Cyborg Pirate]

And that was why it was realistic. :) Shows what actually happens when you try and do a leap attack on a shield wall.

- Saph

Oh yes yes, that was realistic. It's more the way the guy jumps... I keep thinking that micheal jordan could learn a thing or two from him. :smalltongue:




Interesting view, care to elaborate on why you think Shields are overrated? It's definitely a sticking point, so I am open to suggestions and explanations.

Part testing, part history observation. In practice, I've always found that when I see two guys these days go at each other for a mock battle, one armed with a large shield and one with a two-handed weapon, the one with the two-handed weapon always goes at it strangely carefully and then gets pasted. Shields protect a person a lot, but you've got to keep in mind that some of the protection counts for the opponent too. A shield aggressively rushed and grappled can easily be used against its wielder. Hell, simply just rushing a shield will give you all its protection, and while you can be hit by the shield, you can hit back with it too.

"medium" sized shields seem to do better, but are still not all too great. Mainly, because of the weapons you carry with a shield. They're all relatively short in terms of reach. Most two-handed weapons can stay out of reach and happily hit or poke away at the unprotected spots. Legs are a favourite. Remember, reach is not only good for hitting someone when they can't hit back. Reach is also good for hitting someone extra low or extra high while the other can only reach you with a stab to the chest. And there are many good ways to protect against a stab to the chest, less ways to protect against a hit to the ankle.

But that's the modern day observation part of it. It's ofcourse flawed because we aren't trying to kill each other. That's why half of my theory comes from looking at history, and history tells us that shields were dropped fast once armour got better. History also shows us that there were very militaristic cultures who didn't even bother with shields alltogether except for the occasional pavise for stationary arrow protection.


So, based on what I've tried out and observed, and on what history tells us, I'd say this:

Shields are good for personal protection as they can block blows and missiles, but force the wielder to fight with less reach (or too much reach if you're carrying a long pike one handed, but this has the problem of allowing the opponent a safe zone after the pike's head). In a melee, this is a disadvantage as a person with a longer weapon can exploit the weaknesses in the shield user's defense while preventing the shield user from doing the same. The two-handed weapon user doesn't sacrifice much defense for that.



Btw, forgot to mention. I disagree strongly that two-handed weapons are inferior "because they need more space". Two-handed weapons don't need any more space then one handed weapons to be deadly.



[edit] Holy.... did I write that much?

[Fhaolan]

(A)D&D 2.x revised its Shield rules on and off, allowing for a 'special' Block (Active Defence) Action (in The Complete Fighters Handbook and Combat and Tactics) and Shield Specialisation (increased AC).


That's true, I keep forgetting about the Combat and Tactics stuff, as I've never been in a gaming group that actively used that ruleset.

And re: Raum about the flails [I'd quote it, but my brain's going to mush and need to get to sleep...]

I'm willing to divide hinged weapons out of the chain group. I keep forgetting about the simple one-link flails as I've gotten used to seeing long-chain, multi-headed flails. Hinged weapons don't need anywhere near the training that long-chain flails and the like need. However, I still say they don't hit quite as hard as a solid mace of the same length and weight would, because the hinge allows the head to rebound. Of course, my personal experience says that flails tend to be longer, and heavier than maces on average, so that cancels out. :smallsmile: I've seen far more two-handed flails than I've seen two-handed maces, for instance.

[JaronK]

First my qualifications: I spent a good bit of time as an actor, training for stage combat with a variety of realistically weighted weapons, plus I did some time with Ampgaurd, which lacks the realistic weights but puts a little combat in there.

Two weapon fighting is incredibly effective. It augments your defense incredibly, and despite what D&D says it makes you more effective at hitting opponents as you can throw off their defense with one weapon and then attack with the other. It does require a lot more concentration and training, though.

Larger weapons, I would say, require a lot more finesse to use properly. A greatsword, for example, will tire you out in seconds if you try to use it like a baseball bat. Instead, you have to learn to make swings that will set you up for the next attack, so you're rarely doing any sudden reversals of direction. Done properly, you can solve that whole problem of opponents getting too close (at least, when we're talking about slashing large weapons like the Ransuer or Naginata). A Naginata (my prefered weapon) is in fact quite effective at close range, a fact many opponents have found out the hard way. With the right movements, it's possible to get such a weapon moving incredibly fast with surprisingly little energy input, making them a very effective tool on the battlefield.

I'll second what others have said about shields: they have the advantage of being very easy to master, as well as being very effective in infantry formations, but for one on one combat they begin to suffer. Realistically, good armour can do almost everything a shield can do without using up one of your hands and potencially getting in the way of the user. Still, a shield wall with pokey bits sticking out is not easy to get around.

Flexible weapons are great for getting past enemy defenses, as they're almost impossible to block and the usual tactics for defence just don't work for them. The downside is the incredible amount of training required to use them, plus the fact that there are other defenses that do work, such as watching the rythm of such weapons. Flexible weapons, after all, cannot change direction very quickly and can often bounce back and hit the weilder.

Pikes were useless in one on one combat, but dominant on the battlefield in formation. The general formation was a group of pikemen with a few arbalescers (early handgunnners) and halberdiers inside. The formation would shoot at the enemies, then close up when enemies got close, presenting an impenetrable wall of spikes. The halberdiers could keep anyone from making it through. That formation was nearly invincible at the time.

JaronK

[Raum]

And re: Raum about the flails [I'd quote it, but my brain's going to mush and need to get to sleep...]

I'm willing to divide hinged weapons out of the chain group. I keep forgetting about the simple one-link flails as I've gotten used to seeing long-chain, multi-headed flails. Hinged weapons don't need anywhere near the training that long-chain flails and the like need. However, I still say they don't hit quite as hard as a solid mace of the same length and weight would, because the hinge allows the head to rebound. Of course, my personal experience says that flails tend to be longer, and heavier than maces on average, so that cancels out. :smallsmile: I've seen far more two-handed flails than I've seen two-handed maces, for instance.Having successfully avoided being hit with either I don't have any direct evidence either way. :) However I tend to think you're correct that a mace of equal length to a flail will hit harder. If nothing else, the lack of flexibility allows the wielder to continue pressure past the point of impact.