PDA

View Full Version : Great sword or Claymore?



MonkeySage
2015-05-22, 01:17 PM
I was wondering if the great sword that typically appears in D&D games qualifies more as a great sword or as a claymore.
I was going down the list of weapons in my phb, adjusting the weights and such, and renaming a couple, and one thing I noticed was that based on illustrations, a lot of the weights they give are far too heavy, like the mislabled "Longsword" weighs 4 lbs according to the phb. I adjusted it to 2.5 lbs.

I was hoping to give a more accurate weight for the great sword, but before I did that, I wanted to know whether I was really dealing with a great sword or a claymore.
This can be a difference of over 2 pounds, with the great sword being somewhat larger and heavier. If I stuck to the weight differences that I've been going by so far, it's probable that it's a claymore. However, when I did a weight comparison between the short sword and bowie knife, I was pleasantly surprised that the average weight of a bowie knife, 2 lbs, is exactly the same as the short sword in the book.

Yora
2015-05-22, 01:23 PM
I think it's meant to be a longsword.

MonkeySage
2015-05-22, 01:27 PM
I think you may be right.
So, What I've got so far for the adjusted weights:
"Longsword"(Arming sword): 2.5 lbs
Light Mace: 2.5 lbs
Warhammer: 2.7 lbs
Bastard Sword(Pr. Longsword): 3.5 lbs
Great Sword(OS. Longsword/Claymore): 5.5 lbs

Karl Aegis
2015-05-22, 01:28 PM
How thick is your Scottish accent? Great sword sounds a lot like claymore if your accent is thick enough.

Morty
2015-05-22, 01:29 PM
D&D's weapon categories and measurements have very little to do with reality. I also wouldn't treat claymores as a separate weapon group. They're a culture-specific kind of two-handed sword. The original name literally means "great sword" in Scottish Gaelic.

LibraryOgre
2015-05-22, 02:16 PM
Depends on the edition. 2e had a specific claymore, with slightly different stats.

NomGarret
2015-05-22, 05:08 PM
Varies by edition (I remember them having their own stats in 2e as well) but I would generally place them under great swords or maybe bastard swords depending on how confident you are they could be used one-handed.

3.x it costs an extra feat to do so with a bastard sword.

4e is deliberately abstract enough that Greatsword would be fine or blow a feat on bastard sword proficiency to be able to 1 hand it.

Sith_Happens
2015-05-26, 08:47 PM
I actually spent a rather long time once staring at the weapon illustrations in the 3.5 PHB trying to figure out the grid scale and by extension the dimensions of the "greatsword" shown. Based on that I'm pretty sure it's closest to a zweihander.

Mando Knight
2015-05-26, 10:55 PM
4e also has the Fullblade, an Exotic Superior "Great-er" sword, which would be the swords that are very much definitely longer than a claymore, at the upper end of the Zweihänder range.

goto124
2015-05-26, 11:20 PM
So now we have to figure out how a zweihander-sized greatsword is held in one hand.

Xuc Xac
2015-05-26, 11:23 PM
A lot of weights are carried over from first and second edition where they were "encumbrance". A sword might only have 2.5 pounds of metal in it when you put it on a scale but it's not a compact and convenient little ingot in a backpack that distributes the weight evenly over your frame. It's a long awkward belt accessory that burdens you with more than just its weight.

Xuc Xac
2015-05-26, 11:25 PM
So now we have to figure out how a zweihander-sized greatsword is held in one hand.

Grip it by the hilt and rest the blade on your shoulder.

goto124
2015-05-26, 11:27 PM
I suggest this naming convention for all swords:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/telescope_names.png
Source: https://xkcd.com/1294/

Hazzardevil
2015-05-27, 03:35 PM
DnD 3.5 just has far too many weapon types. All we really need is a one and two handed weapons for axes, swords, spears and maces. Wizards of the Coast has no idea how much anything weighs, it makes you wonder where the numbers came from, finding out new weights would make more sense.

LibraryOgre
2015-05-28, 12:06 PM
DnD 3.5 just has far too many weapon types. All we really need is a one and two handed weapons for axes, swords, spears and maces. Wizards of the Coast has no idea how much anything weighs, it makes you wonder where the numbers came from, finding out new weights would make more sense.

Again, most of the weights are based, not on mass, but on encumbrance.