If you were a warrior on a fantasy land, what weapon would you use?

[S@tanicoaldo]

I think I would use a crossbow, I hate how ASoIAf make it looks like it's a weapon for cowards, it is such a badass weapon in my opinion.

[Gnoman]

Much also depends on what is meant by "a warrior on a fantasy land" - there are distinct advantages to every sort of weapon except maybe the sword (where the main advantage is that it doesn't particularly suck at anything even if it isn't specatcular when compared to other weapons in any given area), and what kind of fighting you're going to be doing makes a big difference. A soldier in an army will do well with a crossbow. By contrast, a ranger type would be better off with an ordinary bow as a ranged weapon - a decent crossbow is far more complicated and more difficult to deal with if something breaks, while a bow can be replaced relatively easily if you know what you are doing.

Of course, you're going to want to use more than just a bow or crossbow. Using any one weapon is suicidally stupid for somebody who actually expects to fight. That's why the sword was so popular - it made an excellent secondary weapon for the folks using other, more generally practical, weaponry.

[Corsair14]

What kind of technology are we at in this fantasy land? Makes a huge difference in weapons choice. Swords and other light slashing weapons were typically not used as slashing weapons except against unarmored opponents as even a stout jacket of hardened leather would deflect them. If we are talking 1400s era we see a proliferation of heavy plate armors and great weapons and polearms are the weapon of the day. They aren't trying to be fast, just hard hitting. A little later you will see rapiers and light weapons as gunpowder has almost made heavy armor go extinct. If we go back in time to Rome/Greece it depends on who we are fighting with. Vs Romans the Dacians were devastating with their two handed Falx blades. In mass a Greek spear phalanx could stop almost anyone of their day.

Personally I will take power armor and a plasma rifle.

[Lord Raziere]

A spear.

Most melee reach, easily craft-able, easily repairable, just need to stab forward, simple, practical. Bows need lots of skill, crossbows are too complex,and swords are a nobles weapon which means expensive if I recall.

I would have a morning star as backup though.

[Kyberwulf]

Depends on what you mean by this. Do you mean what weapon would we use because we know we are characters? Are we proficient in the weapon? Do we get the ability to use the weapon, I mean muscles and reflexes and what not?

Do we get say, an unlimited supply of ammo for instance. Or do we get the knowledge to make the ammo?

Does the weapon have to be a real weapon or can it be one from a fantasy setting?

By fantasy land, do you mean a historical place like Grethawk, fearun, Ompa lumpa land,... or Fantasia?

From the lack of description, I would say I would want the phaser from star wars. Was a good weapon. Seemed to not need to be recharged, or reloaded. Seem easy enough to fix most of thee time. Could also be pretty utilitarian if I remember correctly.

[Yora]

Assuming fantasyland is anything like planet earth, then the obvious choice would be spear. The king of all weapons. Fast, agile, long reach, good (light) armor penetration, and causing wounds much more deadly than a sword or axe slash.

The only downside is that you have to carry it in your hand all the time and you get problems in cramped spaces. But once they are cramped enough, you actually get a huge advantage again.

[Piedmon_Sama]

A partizan! A partizan with a crossbow on it! The greatest weapon ever invented!

[Mr. E]

Assuming a fairly generic fantasy setting, I would probably agree with the others who have already suggested a spear. Considering my lack of good co-ordination, anything ranged is out of the question, and spears are much easier to handle than a sword. If it is more of a renaissance era fantasy setting, I might trade up for a Bill, Partizan or other polearm instead.

[CharonsHelper]

It depends largely on what I'd be fighting.

Giant monsters? Probably crossbow & boar spear (or a more specialized equivalent).

Goblins? Probably a short sword & a large/light shield. I'll have the reach advantage even with a shorter blade, and it'd be faster. You don't need to deal a ton of damage to kill a goblin, and the shield doesn't have to be super thick to block their attacks. Probably with a nice shield boss on the shield to bash them. Maybe a crank driven crossbow (not much power - but again - you don't need it).

Against goblins the spear would be too much. You'd kill the first one, but then you'd be swarmed.

I think that different beasties would have different things which would work well against them.

[Frozen_Feet]

All the weapons I've been trained to use and get my hands on. To elaborate: I've been trained to shoot with assault rifles, light anti-tank rockets, pistols, hunting rifles and shotguns. I have some ability to construct and shoot a bow. I have some training in karate, kobudo and judo and basic training in krav maga, as well as basic security training. These include techniques for unarmed combat, knives, staff, sai, batons, sickles, nunchaku, pepper spray and handcuffs.

So I'm pretty sure there will be something to use pretty much regardless of place and era.

[Rynjin]

If we're assuming our native level of martial proficiency, a spear or glaive. Or a short bow, I'm a decent bow shot.

[Piedmon_Sama]

Too many people are going with polearms, I gotta be different.... I'd have a warhammer! A long two-handed warhammer that's definitely not a polearm but basically a polearm and also has a spike at the top! Nyah!

[RazorChain]

Wand of nukes, was featured in Dragon magazine 25 years ago or so. That makes it legit!

[Kalmageddon]

Spear, the oldest, most reliable and versatile weapon we ever developed. You can throw it, you can stab with it, you can use the shaft as a blunt instrument and it's as useful both for hunting, for fishing and for fighting.
If it's a fantasy world and it can be enchanted to do all sort of cool things, that's even better.

[Karl Aegis]

A ZAKT-8 Ultimate Edge is the only way to go.

[Squiddish]

If I'm in my scrawny real body:
*Light or hand crossbow
*Recurve bow
*Rapier
If I had some real muscle:
*Longsword: Fairly versatile. As a slashing weapon they spell doom for an unarmored opponent; used in the half-sword or mordhau style they can defeat heavily armored opponents
*Pike/glaive
*Greatsword/Zweihander
*Hammer of any variety
If we stretch the definition of weapon:
*Magic
If magic weapons count:
*Sun Blade
*Staff of Striking
*Javelin of Lightning
*Any of the magical maces
*Dancing Sword

[Whyrocknodie]

A smaller, more competent warrior in one hand and a hefty bribe in the other.

[lunaticfringe]

Pollaxe or Axe for the ridiculous amount of plate I will come across.

[FreddyNoNose]

A state of the art military fighter jet. You know, Da Plane!

[veti]

I'll put myself down for a polearm of some sort, for the same reason as Sgt Colon likes a pike: "Everything happens at the other end, i.e. a long way away."

Obviously, I'd need a secondary weapon for close quarters. Shortsword would probably be the least dangerous (to me) choice for that.

[Potato_Priest]

If I had my choice of fantasy lands and weapons, I'd chose the long-range missile/teleporting missile weapons and a heavily armored planetary base.

However, you probably mean medieval fantasy, so...

I have the most experience using a two-handed spear, but that's not really where I'd want to be on the battlefield.

I'd rather be in the back with a longbow, or up on the castle walls with a crossbow, where the likelihood of getting stabbed is lower.

If I had a lot of time to train, I'd prefer the recurve bow and a fast horse, fighting the way that the mongols did.

Also, remember that even if you are slightly small by today's standards, you're probably of above average height for medieval warriors. Whether that carries over to fantasy lands is anyone's guess.


If it's a fantasy world and it can be enchanted to do all sort of cool things, that's even better.
Unfortunately, it seems like swords get all the cool enchantments.

[Vitruviansquid]

The majority of an adventurer's job is not to fight, it is to travel. Thus, a sword is extremely practical because it can be put in a sheath and left alone.

[S@tanicoaldo]

For everyone who is saying spears. That's boring. What kind of spear? And why?

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/images/oots0136.gif

[Kitten Champion]

A summonable combat pet, possibly contained within an easily conveyed small magic sphere of some sort that I could use to unleash it at will against my adversaries.

[warty goblin]

Unfortunately, it seems like swords get all the cool enchantments.

Not entirely. Odin's spear is definitely magical. Cuchulainn's Gae Bolg isn't precisely magical in the D&D sense perhaps, but it's certainly an extraordinary weapon. Achilles' spear again isn't magical per say, but it's repeatedly noted as exceptional, and IIRC is the only weapon in the Iliad to get its own epithet.

On topic, it very much depends on the time, and also place. If the approximate technology level is in the 3000BC ~ 1200 AD timespan, a spear with shield and sword backup made of the best materials available is a good bet in a lot of places, though definitely not all. After that more advanced polearms become a better bet.

[evocurio]

Presuming I have enough strength to wield it properly, I always thought Bardiches were badass.

[eru001]

give me a spear and a nice big kite shield please. Let me tuck a handaxe in my belt while i'm at it. and a nice seax as well.

[Cluedrew]

Any footwear I can both deliver a good kick with and run away in. Focus on the latter.

... I wouldn't make a very good warrior actually. Maybe a martial artist monk so my hands and feet? I mean in fantasy land, they are probably at least as good as any steel weapon.

[Potato_Priest]

For everyone who is saying spears. That's boring. What kind of spear? And why?


I've always fancied pikes and naginatas. They're fairly simple and light, and are thus easy to use but still quite deadly. Also, as 2-handed spears, they are the same sort of weapon that I have experience using in LARP settings.

I've always found that without a dedicated formation, a one-handed spear is too unwieldy to be much good against sword-wielding enemies. They can simply parry your first stab, possibly grab the spear shaft, and then move in closer than your effective range, all before you can reposition the spear for a second attempt. A two-handed spear can be more easily re-positioned for a second thrust because of the leverage gained by using two hands. Do other people have differing experiences?

[archon_huskie]

From the lack of description, I would say I would want the phaser from star wars. Was a good weapon. Seemed to not need to be recharged, or reloaded. Seem easy enough to fix most of thee time. Could also be pretty utilitarian if I remember correctly.

No one's going to jump on this?

Everyone loses one geek cred.

Phasers were from Star Trek.
Blasters were from Star Wars.

Not sure which you actually meant. Blasters were mostly used as weapons and have unlimited ammo in most video games.

The Dominion War in ST:DS9 gives us more background on the phasers namely they have power packs and need them replaced and recharge. This does not come up much outside of war as the power pack's life span is longer than the average away mission. Also phasers are not constantly being fired on typical away missions. There's one episode were the Major Kira is explaining to a new solider the pros and cons of the federation phaser vs the Cardassian disruptor. The federation's has in excess of 15 settings and various power level allowing it to vaporize walls to substituting for a surgical knife. Kira dismisses the Federation's weapon as too complicated for war and recommends the two setting disruptor.

[rrgg]

If available probably a good sword, dagger, and hargubut. Maybe a dag as well.

If those aren't around yet and I'm supposed to be an "adventurer" then I'd probably stick to trying to get really good with a sword then supplanting that with whatever other arms are available at the time. I don't want to have to haul a massive polearm everywhere, and that masterwork, Damascus-steel warhammer isn't going to make people much deader than some rusty one I've borrowed anyways.

[Luz]

I've always found that without a dedicated formation, a one-handed spear is too unwieldy to be much good against sword-wielding enemies. They can simply parry your first stab, possibly grab the spear shaft, and then move in closer than your effective range, all before you can reposition the spear for a second attempt. A two-handed spear can be more easily re-positioned for a second thrust because of the leverage gained by using two hands. Do other people have differing experiences?

In theory, but actually being able to parry a very fast lancer is not that easy.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8RWLxlzTiM&t=16s

Random video I found online.

I would use a mace for armored oponets and a Rapier for non-armroed ones.

[CharonsHelper]

No one's going to jump on this?

Everyone loses one geek cred.

Phasers were from Star Trek.
Blasters were from Star Wars.

https://dykewriter.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/trek-wars.jpeg

[rrgg]

No one's going to jump on this?

Everyone loses one geek cred.

Phasers were from Star Trek.
Blasters were from Star Wars.

Not sure which you actually meant. Blasters were mostly used as weapons and have unlimited ammo in most video games.

The Dominion War in ST:DS9 gives us more background on the phasers namely they have power packs and need them replaced and recharge. This does not come up much outside of war as the power pack's life span is longer than the average away mission. Also phasers are not constantly being fired on typical away missions. There's one episode were the Major Kira is explaining to a new solider the pros and cons of the federation phaser vs the Cardassian disruptor. The federation's has in excess of 15 settings and various power level allowing it to vaporize walls to substituting for a surgical knife. Kira dismisses the Federation's weapon as too complicated for war and recommends the two setting disruptor.

Just imagine fighting in the middle ages with Obi-Wan's sonic screwdriver though.

[CharonsHelper]

In theory, but actually being able to parry a very fast lancer is not that easy.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8RWLxlzTiM&t=16s

Random video I found online.

I would use a mace for armored oponets and a Rapier for non-armroed ones.

That's not a one-handed spear - which was his entire point. (Plus - rapier/buckler is about the worst sword & board combination to deal with a polearm wielder.)

[Luz]

If available probably a good sword, dagger, and hargubut. Maybe a dag as well.

If those aren't around yet and I'm supposed to be an "adventurer" then I'd probably stick to trying to get really good with a sword then supplanting that with whatever other arms are available at the time. I don't want to have to haul a massive polearm everywhere, and that masterwork, Damascus-steel warhammer isn't going to make people much deader than some rusty one I've borrowed anyways.

What's a hargubut?


That's not a one-handed spear - which was his entire point. (Plus - rapier/buckler is about the worst sword & board combination to deal with a polearm wielder.)

Sorry, for some reason i read two instead of one.

[Gastronomie]

I'm surprised at the number of people who are willing to get in melee range of enemy monsters.

Seriously, that's damn dangerous to do. Don't want to risk that. Ranged weapons all the way.

[Lord Raziere]

Seriously, that's damn dangerous to do. Don't want to risk that. Ranged weapons all the way.

Well if we're being THAT sensible and flexible about "weapon" and "fantasy" my real weapon of choice is an orbital laser station that can accurately kill any single thing from continents away with a single thin laser shot while I chill in a cozy chair inside that station. Take no chances.

[Knaight]

Statistically speaking, probably a spear - they tended to be what was handed out in most armies (and other military organizations), and said organizations do the bulk of fighting with weapons. If we're talking about weapons we actually like and are good at, it works out pretty similar - I do various armed sparring type stuff, and favor two handed hewing spears.

With that said, if we remove the restriction for just one weapon that changes a bit - I'm adding at least two slings. I already know how to use them, although I'd need to put some serious time into practicing them to get my accuracy up. I already know how to make them, and have made somewhere in the vicinity of a hundred in my life; this includes one I made literally an hour and a half ago*. I'd need to pick up some new skills to get there, because I generally use commercially available twine, but given how bad of an archer I am and how making acceptable string doesn't seem that hard the sling is likely still my best option.

*Based on when I finished it, starting time gets pushed back another two hours or so.

[rrgg]

What's a hargubut?


Either that or a hackbut, hargubus, harkubus, harquebus, arquebus, etc. Any of those would be good whether you're fighting men or monsters. Plus hunting is way easier with birdshot than with a bow or crossbow.

Also on the subject of obscure Tudor terminology: a "dag" refers to a small, wheellock pocket pistol of the kind that was used to shoot young Edward VI's dog in 1549.

[Noje]

I think Rod of Lordly Might is the clear winner here. It's like, four weapons in one!

[Lvl 2 Expert]

In a world like D&D? Something with a lot of range. Definitely. Anything, maybe two things. Bows take too long to train in, so maybe a combination of an (early) firearm (if available) or a crossbow and a sling. A sling is light, fast firing, just kind of rubbish for hunting because you have to announce yourself by wildly swinging a stone around just before your shot. (Even if that only takes a fraction of a second, it's a fraction of a second in which the target can start running.) The firearm is heavy and slow to reload, but packs way more of a punch to anything armored. After that a nice long spear, possibly with some sort of hook or side blade to it, and at least one form of close quarters backup, some type of short sword maybe. Possibly with some sort of basic throwing weapon, a club or a dart, for that extra bit of emergency ranged attack. or, given that this is a fantasy setting, a wand of any spell that will give me time to run away. Maybe some tanglefoot bags, stuff like that. Most things I can't kill with a blunderbuss (loaded with a nice ball and shot mix maybe, to utterly shred anything in front of it) I won't be able to stop with a fireball either anyway, so something designed for stopping power for me.

I don't care if I break my back under all that stuff, this world is dangerous! Why am I even a warrior? Can't I just collect alchemic ingredients for a living or something? I bet I could do that reasonably safely while carrying only two or three weapons. Sling, spear and a knife I'd need anyway seems pretty reasonable. As a baker I might even be able to get away with carrying only one weapon, a smoke bomb for when PC's enter my shop.

[Knaight]

A sling is light, fast firing, just kind of rubbish for hunting because you have to announce yourself by wildly swinging a stone around just before your shot. (Even if that only takes a fraction of a second, it's a fraction of a second in which the target can start running.)

They're actually not bad for hunting - that wildly swinging a stone around takes an amount of time pretty comparable to just throwing it*. They're also pretty quiet for the most part, right up until the loud crack that accompanies a release - a problem that bows and crossbows don't exactly avoid. The big thing is that getting good enough to aim at a small target as in hunting is tricky**, and slings don't do super well with underbrush and the like.

*In most styles, if you're trying to hunt with figure 8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJjXXnDSB4s) that delay is on you.
**"Simple weapon" my foot.

[Shinn]

I would use loads and loads of alchemical grenades, plus a mace for close-quarters and a crossbow for really ranged foes.

[Dappershire]

In theory, but actually being able to parry a very fast lancer is not that easy.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8RWLxlzTiM&t=16s

Random video I found online.

I would use a mace for armored oponets and a Rapier for non-armroed ones.

What did I just watch? That sword was flimsier than most cardboard blades ive seen. And if he had just dropped the damn buckler (really? against a spear?) he'd have had control over the spear in over half of those attacks. I really don't wanna armchair general this, but pretty sure I could have won two out of three matches against that spear with just a long knife.

As for what weapon would I specialize in? Siegecraft. Never enough Catapulteers in the realm, am I right? Its got its weak spots, so secondary and triciary would copy everyone else here. Cross bow, loaded and waiting (mostly for flying attacks). And a spear to brace against charges.

[Cluedrew]

**"Simple weapon" my foot.Does that not refer to the simple construction and hence easy access? Although honestly, out of bows, crossbows, javelins and guns, slings seem to be the hardest to aim, it is the only one where aim requires good timing as well. They are also way more deadly than popular culture would give them credit for.

[Gastronomie]

Well if we're being THAT sensible and flexible about "weapon" and "fantasy" my real weapon of choice is an orbital laser station that can accurately kill any single thing from continents away with a single thin laser shot while I chill in a cozy chair inside that station. Take no chances.Well, if that were permitted I'd go that way, but if restricted to medieval technology I'd go for ranged weapons and boobie traps. Like, why fight ogres head-first when you can guide them into trap holes (use that "legendary stupidity" to your advantage, folks) and assault them safely from above?

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Does that not refer to the simple construction and hence easy access? Although honestly, out of bows, crossbows, javelins and guns, slings seem to be the hardest to aim, it is the only one where aim requires good timing as well. They are also way more deadly than popular culture would give them credit for.

The existence of weapon proficiencies suggests it's mainly about use. A fighter trained using a longsword and a halberd in the kings court can now pick up most weapons and use them, a wizard who has mostly een studying at the feet of his master can only use simple weapons well. Despite the double axe of Gortak the Destroyer hanging on the wall of his masters castatorium. For most weapons it sort of works. A quarterstaff may not be super simple, but if you wield it like a basic polearm it is lighter and has less extra features than other polearms, and is thus a bit simpler to use.

[Corsair14]

I am curious to everyone who keeps saying spears and pikes are easy to use, how many of you have actually used a pole arm in combat in modern combat sports involving actual armor and having to hit with force. One on one, pretty much anyone with a spear is toast vs an opponent with a shield. In a group you have an advantage as a shield cant cover every angle. That's how people get gigged in a melee, its never the spearman in front of you, its the one on either side of him. Second, spears actually do take quite bit of skill and quickness to use correctly. One of the exercises one of our super-dukes recommends is hanging three tennis balls on thin rope or 550 cord from a tree branch at varying heights(head, chest, stomach level) and standing back about 6-9 feet and hitting each one in order while moving, counting 100 strikes. If you miss one, start over. Couldn't tell you how many times I have had muscle failure doing this over a period of hours and after several years of admittingly sporadic practice, have never finished the exercise.

You will also notice in Armored combat league and battle of the nations, no one uses a spear. Its because they do jack to an armored opponent, unlike heavier polearms.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Personally I just figured it would be nice to have a few extra feet of weapon between me and whatever monster is trying to eat me this time. It's nice that characters in the games have hit points, but I figure a single hit from an owlbear flesh golem might take me out altogether, so I'd prefer having some extra tools for not getting hit over tools for damaging my opponent.

Plus polearms are generally pretty decent as anti-cavalry weapons, a lot of large monsters will be more like cavalry than like infantry when you're fighting them.

(And going with both a firearm and a lucerne hammer or something seemed like it might break my back just a little too much.)

[Twizzly513]

When my father was in the coast guard he did tournament fighting and legitimately had a suit of armor in our living room when I was little. Because of this he taught me how to wield a lot of weapons with at least some degree of skill.

My preferred weapon is a quarterstaff. Simple, fast, versatile, can be used in nonlethal situations, even a little showy if you want. Problem is it's harder to use in lethal situations since blunt force trauma is hard to do on something like a dragon.

However, as mentioned upthread, carrying one weapon is a bad idea. So I'd probably carry two short-swords to wield together in addition to a staff. Maybe some throwing knives/daggers.

[CharonsHelper]

I am curious to everyone who keeps saying spears and pikes are easy to use, how many of you have actually used a pole arm in combat in modern combat sports involving actual armor and having to hit with force. One on one, pretty much anyone with a spear is toast vs an opponent with a shield.

I wasn't thinking a boar spear for use against other people, I was thinking for use against slavering beasties.

Animals coming after you almost always do so in a straight line and don't generally do a lot of parrying.

[Theoboldi]

If I was a warrior? Well, I'd love to say that I have the finesse and strength necesarry for wielding a serious polearm, or good enough aim for a ranged weapon. But I really don't have either, being a gangly, nearsighted basement-dweller. :smalltongue:

As such, I'd personally have to opt for a big stick. So, uh, quarterstaff for me, I guess? And then I'd try and learn magic or become a cleric as quickly as I can.

[Cluedrew]

The existence of weapon proficiencies suggests it's mainly about use.I explained that badly. I meant that because it is simple to make and acquire anyone who wants to could get one and practice. ("Simple weapons" are the ones everyone can use right?) So for simplicities sake you could just say any character than wants one could of had practice with it. Mind you I might be thinking into this too much.

[Gnoman]

More likely, the D&D designers conflated the sling and the slingshot, using the appearance of the former and the attributes of the latter. A slingshot (the Y-shaped thing with a rubber band that Dennis The Menace and Bart Simpson carry around) is very simple to use and very low powered (until you get into some of the really fancy wrist-mounted kind with very heavy rubber), so the "sling=weak but easy" idea fits well enough for it.

[Potato_Priest]

I am curious to everyone who keeps saying spears and pikes are easy to use, how many of you have actually used a pole arm in combat in modern combat sports involving actual armor and having to hit with force. One on one, pretty much anyone with a spear is toast vs an opponent with a shield. In a group you have an advantage as a shield cant cover every angle. That's how people get gigged in a melee, its never the spearman in front of you, its the one on either side of him. Second, spears actually do take quite bit of skill and quickness to use correctly. One of the exercises one of our super-dukes recommends is hanging three tennis balls on thin rope or 550 cord from a tree branch at varying heights(head, chest, stomach level) and standing back about 6-9 feet and hitting each one in order while moving, counting 100 strikes.


Didn't people still use pikes in the days of heavy armor? Those are just extra-long regular spears.

There's a difference between being able to stab a mosquito out of the air and using a weapon mostly properly. The former is really hard with any weapon, the latter is easier with a spear (but not a one-handed spear). Can you think of any other weapon that's easier to use with little to no training?

In the LARP game I've played it's not how hard you hit that matters, true. However, I've been known to accidentally send people out of the game by stabbing them too hard with a foam spear, which I've never had a problem with using other weapons. That probably speaks more to my poor force control than to my godlike spear proficiency, but it does at least demonstrate that you can stab pretty hard with a big 2-handed spear. And yes, spears do really suck if the enemy has a shield and you don't have a formation.

[Corsair14]

Pikes as in the 15 foot version were a later period weapon when the age of gun powder was taking over and people were wearing less heavy armor, meaning more spots to target. Even the last of the armored cavalry(horsemen) were only wearing a bullet proofed breastplate(which not a spear on the planet would penetrate) and some light curved plates over other likely hit exposed points. I say light in that it was maybe 16-20 gauge steel and a spear wouldn't penetrate that either for the most part but an axe or two handed sword wouldn't have any trouble even if it was just damaging or breaking what was under it. Most of that armor's purpose was to turn direct blows into glancing shots, something that took another 200 years to remember after the age of armored cavalry ended(mid 1700s)**. People were armoring down, since 50 cal musket balls really didn't care about armor, and making themselves lighter and more maneuverable was more advantageous than being a walking tank that couldn't tank anymore. The Polish Hussars rode with their "light" armor and 18 foot lances(intentionally longer than the Swede's Pikes) until guns were just too much for them. Even in their final days thanks to their armor they still lost far more horses than they did riders. Spears and pikes made that resurgence for a short while and at the same time two handed polearms and swords went away, until someone went "hey, why don't we just strap a big knife on the end of this here five foot long musket and use it like a spear." Now every infantryman could assault other unarmored infantry and shoot them without specialized formations of each(and why they are still used to this day however infrequently).

An effective spearman in an age where there is armor would have to be able to hit a moving fly, its the only way they would be able to hit weak points in the armor. But yes it did make a convenient if ineffective weapon for a peasant in an early age. But peasants were hardly considered effective infantry. Note most professional soldiers carried real weapons post 1000AD and also note peasants as conscripts ended as well when it was found professional soldiers were far more economically efficient. In ancient Greek times, when the spear was at its zenith, they had a solid breastplate at most, but often just layered linen armor instead and they mostly relied upon their shield and a helm for protection along with that of their buddies next to them. Catch even a skilled hoplite out of formation and they would likely drop their spear and draw their short sword. Of course spear and polearm people cheated too and often went for the feet and lower legs. Naginata wielders were notorious for this and its actually an important part of the art form.

**Funny little known story, even during the American Revolution, General Washington was still enamored of light armored cavalrymen in the style of Polish Hussars who had ceased in their role the decade or two before. Von Stueben had to work very hard to convince him of the error of this expensive endeavor and that its time had passed.

[Lord Raziere]

Well, if that were permitted I'd go that way, but if restricted to medieval technology I'd go for ranged weapons and boobie traps. Like, why fight ogres head-first when you can guide them into trap holes (use that "legendary stupidity" to your advantage, folks) and assault them safely from above?

Well here is the thing with bows:
-there is a saying "you want to train a good archer, start with his grandfather" archers take a LONG time to train, bow and are arrows are not something thats easy to learn, and people who are good at it often end up with deformed arms due to the strength and skill needed.
-crossbows while easier to learn, has the problem of the medieval ages banning it because it makes ranged combat easier and thus a "cowards weapon" because they were in love with knights. and has the whole mechanism thing going on, so hope you can repair it if it breaks. yeah, hope you can find people to help repair an illegal weapon. that and crossbows require their own special bolts, they're not interchangeable with normal arrows, and what if you run out?

because the big problem with ranged weapons is your ammo is limited to how much you can carry while still being mobile. a shield and spear is at least reliable in that you don't need constantly keep the supply up.

[Gnoman]

Well here is the thing with bows:
-there is a saying "you want to train a good archer, start with his grandfather" archers take a LONG time to train, bow and are arrows are not something thats easy to learn, and people who are good at it often end up with deformed arms due to the strength and skill needed.
-crossbows while easier to learn, has the problem of the medieval ages banning it because it makes ranged combat easier and thus a "cowards weapon" because they were in love with knights. and has the whole mechanism thing going on, so hope you can repair it if it breaks. yeah, hope you can find people to help repair an illegal weapon. that and crossbows require their own special bolts, they're not interchangeable with normal arrows, and what if you run out?

because the big problem with ranged weapons is your ammo is limited to how much you can carry while still being mobile. a shield and spear is at least reliable in that you don't need constantly keep the supply up.

Both of those are largely nonsense.

The first part only really applies to the Welsh/English longbow, which was an immensely inefficient weapon that required a massive amount of strength for the power it put out. The long years of training were not really for aiming, just for building up the musculature to use the thing at all.

The second applies only to a very short period in actual history, and an edict that was completely ignored. 99.99% of fantasy settings don't have a Central Authority that could issue such a decree, and thus no "crossbow ban" would ever be enacted.

As for ammunition, both arrows and bolts are very easy to make. Making your own arrows is the ages of archery was just about as common as people in the black powder era casting their own bullets, and far more common that the (still fairly common) folks that reload their own cartridges today. Even if you can't supply your ammo yourself, any village fletcher could turn them out for you with great ease. Running out in the middle of a battle can be an issue - that's one reason why only an idiot carries only one weapon.

[Corsair14]

A crossbow in its most basic form is stupidly easy to make and aside from some metal work, is easier to make a more powerful version than it is a bow. You have the prod, the wooden stock with a notch cut into it and a lever on a swivel that you push down to push the string out of the notch. These high speed mechanical ones with triggers and such are much later developments. They don't have near the range or speed of fire of a long bow which is why they never actually over took the bow in usage before gunpowder took the stage.

[thamolas]

Easy peasy: bolas.

[Knaight]

An effective spearman in an age where there is armor would have to be able to hit a moving fly, its the only way they would be able to hit weak points in the armor. But yes it did make a convenient if ineffective weapon for a peasant in an early age. But peasants were hardly considered effective infantry. Note most professional soldiers carried real weapons post 1000AD and also note peasants as conscripts ended as well when it was found professional soldiers were far more economically efficient. In ancient Greek times, when the spear was at its zenith, they had a solid breastplate at most, but often just layered linen armor instead and they mostly relied upon their shield and a helm for protection along with that of their buddies next to them. Catch even a skilled hoplite out of formation and they would likely drop their spear and draw their short sword. Of course spear and polearm people cheated too and often went for the feet and lower legs. Naginata wielders were notorious for this and its actually an important part of the art form.

Going for feet and lower legs isn't cheating, even in periods with lots of armor people routinely left most of their face exposed (with the notable exception of shock cavalry), and spears absolutely stuck around through the late middle ages (albeit usually in modified forms).

[rrgg]

Pikes as in the 15 foot version were a later period weapon when the age of gun powder was taking over and people were wearing less heavy armor, meaning more spots to target. Even the last of the armored cavalry(horsemen) were only wearing a bullet proofed breastplate(which not a spear on the planet would penetrate) and some light curved plates over other likely hit exposed points. I say light in that it was maybe 16-20 gauge steel and a spear wouldn't penetrate that either for the most part but an axe or two handed sword wouldn't have any trouble even if it was just damaging or breaking what was under it. Most of that armor's purpose was to turn direct blows into glancing shots, something that took another 200 years to remember after the age of armored cavalry ended(mid 1700s)**. People were armoring down, since 50 cal musket balls really didn't care about armor, and making themselves lighter and more maneuverable was more advantageous than being a walking tank that couldn't tank anymore. The Polish Hussars rode with their "light" armor and 18 foot lances(intentionally longer than the Swede's Pikes) until guns were just too much for them. Even in their final days thanks to their armor they still lost far more horses than they did riders. Spears and pikes made that resurgence for a short while and at the same time two handed polearms and swords went away, until someone went "hey, why don't we just strap a big knife on the end of this here five foot long musket and use it like a spear." Now every infantryman could assault other unarmored infantry and shoot them without specialized formations of each(and why they are still used to this day however infrequently).

An effective spearman in an age where there is armor would have to be able to hit a moving fly, its the only way they would be able to hit weak points in the armor. But yes it did make a convenient if ineffective weapon for a peasant in an early age. But peasants were hardly considered effective infantry. Note most professional soldiers carried real weapons post 1000AD and also note peasants as conscripts ended as well when it was found professional soldiers were far more economically efficient. In ancient Greek times, when the spear was at its zenith, they had a solid breastplate at most, but often just layered linen armor instead and they mostly relied upon their shield and a helm for protection along with that of their buddies next to them. Catch even a skilled hoplite out of formation and they would likely drop their spear and draw their short sword. Of course spear and polearm people cheated too and often went for the feet and lower legs. Naginata wielders were notorious for this and its actually an important part of the art form.

**Funny little known story, even during the American Revolution, General Washington was still enamored of light armored cavalrymen in the style of Polish Hussars who had ceased in their role the decade or two before. Von Stueben had to work very hard to convince him of the error of this expensive endeavor and that its time had passed.

Pikes began to dominate warfare in the late 15th century, when firearms were used in small numbers and plate armor technology was reaching it's peak. Originally the Swiss had used phalanxes of halberds, but as knights became more heavily armored with longer lances these became insufficient. Once fielded it was also found that disciplined swiss pike squares were an extremely powerful offensive arm, capable of steamrolling over lines of infantry armed with shorter weapons such as halberds, spears, or sword and shield.

Pikes were vulnerable on rough ground or if the formation fell apart, which is why pike squares typically included a proportion of short weapons mixed in to back them up if that happened. the Swiss and Germans preferred halberds or greatswords, the English used billmen, and the Spanish preferred troops armed with sword and target. Different writers tended to have a slight preference for one or the other, but for the most part they were considered pretty interchangable and I don't think any of them should be considered "bad" outside of formation. George Silver even thought the pike was a pretty effective weapon one on one since you could shorten your grip and use it as a half-pike, (the 8-9 foot half pike being the single best weapon in one on one combat in his opinion).

One-handed Spear and shield seems to have largely fallen out of use at the end of the middle ages. However it was so popular in the 2000 years prior that I don't think it should be considered a bad weapon in disordered or one-on-one fighting either. Typical hoplite fighting wasn't nearly as organized as you might think, and from Greek stories and artwork it seems that they were quite satisfied with using their spear and aspis when dueling or outside of formation.

[CharonsHelper]

One-handed Spear and shield seems to have largely fallen out of use at the end of the middle ages. However it was so popular in the 2000 years prior that I don't think it should be considered a bad weapon in disordered or one-on-one fighting either. Typical hoplite fighting wasn't nearly as organized as you might think, and from Greek stories and artwork it seems that they were quite satisfied with using their spear and aspis when dueling or outside of formation.

I think a lot of that is people mixing up formations from different periods.

The Macedonian phalanx (like Alexander and his father used) weren't really one-handed spears. They were two-handed 20ft pikes with a small shield on the left forearm. These were TERRIBLE out of formation. An even heavier version of this is what the Romans eventually fought (they'd gotten heavier armor and longer pikes because they were mostly only fighting other similar phalanxes, which made them less and less nimble).

The earlier Greek phalanx (like at Thermopile) was a large shield and a light 7-9ft spear. This was effective out of formation as well, though still at its best in formation.

[Quertus]

Am I a troll-blooded warrior? Am I invincible? Am I Superman?

Assuming the answer to all of these questions is, "no", then...

Do I have access to modern technology? If yes, then a (sniper) rifle. If not, then a bow. Because that's what I'm good with.

[rrgg]

On the subject of pre-firearm weapons for hunting, one interesting yet somewhat obscure one would be the stone bow, a special handbow with a pouch designed to shoot bullets made out of clay or stone. The principle is similar to an elastic slingshot in that it's very accurate, ammo is cheap, the high velocity makes it easier to hit what you're aiming at than an arrow, and it's still powerful enough to kill birds or small game. A good shot could apparently even kill a bird in flight.

Eventually a crossbow version was developed and they were popular for sport shooting well into the 19th century.

[Lemiel14n3]

I'm kind of loving the military history lessons that are coming with this thread.

So I presume magic is off the table and that weapons couldn't be too anachronistic. In that case I'd probably go with a rapier. It's flexible, not too heavy, appropriate for high society, and it's primarily a civilian's weapon so I get to avoid the battlefield.

[Jay R]

The question can't be answered without knowing who I'm fighting and what armor they're wearing. Also am I fighting alone or in formation? And if in formation, what are my allies carrying?

[SirBellias]

Environmental factors aside, a kopesh and a longbow. Punching holes and hacking foes.

[Blackhawk748]

Not entirely. Odin's spear is definitely magical.

Gungir is a very odd magical weapon. Its enchanted to just be the best spear ever, its so well balanced anyone could strike any opponent with it regardless of skill or strength. Basically it is the distilation of the spear, and that makes it rather neat.

Personally i would go with a spear with a crossguard under the spear head. I dont want big things falling on me when they stab themselves. Oh and a Mace and shield for close work, as i dont want to have to deal with edge alignment.

[S@tanicoaldo]

Gungir is a very odd magical weapon. Its enchanted to just be the best spear ever, its so well balanced anyone could strike any opponent with it regardless of skill or strength. Basically it is the distilation of the spear, and that makes it rather neat.

It also always come back to his hand if thrown.

[Shamash]

Dual wield daggers? Is that a thing? I mean it's a fantasy land so no need to be realistic right?

Also, NERF spear. Srsly OP as hell.

[Jay R]

An elegant weapon, for a more civilized age.

[Guizonde]

i just read through page one of the thread. my loadout would be as follows:

6ft halberd (7ft including the spear-head with a cross-haft, so truly a boar spear, but single-edged), that's what i call my walking stick when out in the mountains.
backup is a 4ft mace that doubles as a walking cane. (ideally under the 4lb mark)
my last resort is my knife. it's 13in of steel that's kept me alive for the last 10 years. if you're 40k inclined, think of it as a catachan fang and you're not far off the mark on how much that blade is close to me.

now why weapons and tools that can keep me walking? i've got a very bad and noticeable limp. it slows me down and it sucks, but not enough to warrant any special status. i've a paranoid nature. i'd rather belt someone with a weighted cane than duel. the blade is standard with me. it's a part of me. in my forests, however, i've had to fend off wild pigs using stakes. i'd rather have steel on top. the 6ft requirement is for when i inevitably fall (something as tall as me can get lodged between two trees and stop a descent down the mountainside). and as a matter of fact, i do go into the forests with a spearhead that is ready to be mounted on a haft. given 2 hours, it becomes both mounted and my walking cane for the duration. my friends have gotten used to it, since i use it to clear brush when we go a-wandering. it does cause odd stares, though.

i know how to use a bow, but frankly, i'm not that confident an archer, as opposed to some of my friends. i'm much better using firearms. in a standard fantasy setting, get me a weapon that doubles as a walking tool. and my knife, but seriously, who goes out into the woods without a good blade?

[The Eye]

A sabre or scimitar. Maybe both if dual wielding is viable.

[Quertus]

i just read through page one of the thread. my loadout would be as follows:

6ft halberd (7ft including the spear-head with a cross-haft, so truly a boar spear, but single-edged), that's what i call my walking stick when out in the mountains.
backup is a 4ft mace that doubles as a walking cane. (ideally under the 4lb mark)
my last resort is my knife. it's 13in of steel that's kept me alive for the last 10 years. if you're 40k inclined, think of it as a catachan fang and you're not far off the mark on how much that blade is close to me.

now why weapons and tools that can keep me walking? i've got a very bad and noticeable limp. it slows me down and it sucks, but not enough to warrant any special status. i've a paranoid nature. i'd rather belt someone with a weighted cane than duel. the blade is standard with me. it's a part of me. in my forests, however, i've had to fend off wild pigs using stakes. i'd rather have steel on top. the 6ft requirement is for when i inevitably fall (something as tall as me can get lodged between two trees and stop a descent down the mountainside). and as a matter of fact, i do go into the forests with a spearhead that is ready to be mounted on a haft. given 2 hours, it becomes both mounted and my walking cane for the duration. my friends have gotten used to it, since i use it to clear brush when we go a-wandering. it does cause odd stares, though.

i know how to use a bow, but frankly, i'm not that confident an archer, as opposed to some of my friends. i'm much better using firearms. in a standard fantasy setting, get me a weapon that doubles as a walking tool. and my knife, but seriously, who goes out into the woods without a good blade?

Sounds like you've got some good stories. Share?

Me, I'm blessed. Walk through the woods, stumble across a mother bear & her cubs at spitting distance, and she just stared at me for a few moments before calmly walking off. I've walked up to a bird, talked to it for a few moments, & picked it up with my bare hands without it trying to resist. And those are just a few of the many stories of just the animal kingdom portion of my blessed existence.

Sometimes, I forget to be grateful for just how blessed my existence has been.

So, I go walking through the woods without a good blade. But I wholeheartedly agree on the walking stick - especially one you can use to stop an unplanned descent.

[Kane0]

Probably a stout spear with a smaller backup blade, like a good shortsword or the like.
Plus a sling in my pocket.
Easy to travel with, prepared for most occasions.

Edit: would it be cheating to have Yondu's arrow?

[NovenFromTheSun]

Orbital bombardment.

Hey, you didn't specify technology level.

Speaking seriously, I could see myself defaulting to a shield and hammer, though would try to learn other types as well for a variety of situation.

[khadgar567]

depends on setting but my go to choices probably lotus revolver and zulu ikiwa and custom made sword
as why ikiwa its short and used with sword like motions for lotus revolver more like desing then usability but good old six shooter can be used as club and parry dagger custom sword part depend more on were the f i dropped in the setting more then my skills

[Guizonde]

Sounds like you've got some good stories. Share?

Me, I'm blessed. Walk through the woods, stumble across a mother bear & her cubs at spitting distance, and she just stared at me for a few moments before calmly walking off. I've walked up to a bird, talked to it for a few moments, & picked it up with my bare hands without it trying to resist. And those are just a few of the many stories of just the animal kingdom portion of my blessed existence.

Sometimes, I forget to be grateful for just how blessed my existence has been.

So, I go walking through the woods without a good blade. But I wholeheartedly agree on the walking stick - especially one you can use to stop an unplanned descent.

unlike you, i don't seem to have "disney princess syndrome", which is a shame, because that is awesome. there isn't much to tell, i'm a knife-nut and it's family tradition to have a blade on oneself from the age of 8 and beyond. the limp came from a mispent reckless youth and sprains and falls that never healed right. i live in a place with beautiful areas of mountains and forests, but i also live in boar country. i was taught to recognize their trails and avoid them, thankfully. i'm a bit on a survivalist in the woods, and i often forget that i'm not in fact "unstoppable", thus the spear. just because it's nearly a sheer ascent doesn't mean that mountain will stop my hike! my friends did give me odd stares whenever i sharpened my walking staff into a walking stake, but one day we were hiking and it rained a lot. those stakes helped us stay standing long enough to get back to the chalet. my friends started sharpening their walking staves too, from that day on.

i don't know if it's "fun stories", but there's a reason why it's so specific: it's what works for me in the mountains.

(come on, disney princess syndrome? lucky stiff....)

[red_kangaroo]

Fantasy weapon, right? This one:

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mcxrdrvZjv1qmfehro1_500.gif

A retractable spear that can be also used as a shortsword.

[khadgar567]

Fantasy weapon, right? This one:

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mcxrdrvZjv1qmfehro1_500.gif

A retractable spear that can be also used as a shortsword.
to much dex and int dependent mate but if setting in path finder then good choice

[sengmeng]

Sword and board, and if I had to drop one, I'd drop the sword.

[Guizonde]

Sword and board, and if I had to drop one, I'd drop the sword.

i like the way you think. sword and board is fun (ok, i prefer mace and board when larp'ing). the trick to dropping your sword is to drop it just right into someone's face before running away. that way you can end the fight rightly.

(obligatory skallagrim reference)

[Kiero]

Spear and body shield. With an axe as backup.

[sengmeng]

My friend and I were watching Spartacus: Blood and Sand, and when Spartacus beats Theociles, his master makes him switch from sword and shield to two swords. He said adopting the style of the previous champion would cement his place as the new champion. My friend asked me which style I would choose, and I said "sword and shield. If you can't kill someone with your shield, you should get out of the business."

He said "Good answer!"

[khadgar567]

My friend and I were watching Spartacus: Blood and Sand, and when Spartacus beats Theociles, his master makes him switch from sword and shield to two swords. He said adopting the style of the previous champion would cement his place as the new champion. My friend asked me which style I would choose, and I said "sword and shield. If you can't kill someone with your shield, you should get out of the business."

He said "Good answer!"
nice one mate it make me laugh real good

[Yora]

A state of the art military fighter jet. You know, Da Plane!
If you have to kill a dragon, an A-10 would be just the thing to use.

[FabulousChester]

Hmm, hard question. I'd probably go with sword and buckler for the ease of carry for general traveling. Do we get armor too? If so, I'd wear tried and true mail. Protective, easy to maintain, and breathes.

Also daggers. You can never have too many daggers.

[Velaryon]

Give me a lightsaber (and hopefully the reflexes and Force powers to go along with it). Or if I have to stick to medieval fantasy, give me a spellbook and wizard's staff.

If I HAVE to be a mundane, give me a poisoned shortsword, crossbow, and daggers. I know I'm not any good with a bow, sword, or spear, so I don't want to fight fair.

[Cluedrew]

said "sword and shield. If you can't kill someone with your shield, you should get out of the business."Nice. And honestly, I think shields belong on the list of underrated weapons. Although I don't know how common they were but I have heard of sharpened shields that could be used to cut people up. Maybe not quite as effectively as an axe, but it is there. Plus there more general blunt trauma options, locking up or jamming enemy weapons and the whole stops incoming attacks thing.

[Thrudd]

A.) The one I am most proficient with
B.) The most effective one the land has to offer for whatever sort of combat I will be involved in
C.) A dancing, holy, ghost touch, vorpal sword of swiftness and time stopping.

[Knaight]

Nice. And honestly, I think shields belong on the list of underrated weapons. Although I don't know how common they were but I have heard of sharpened shields that could be used to cut people up. Maybe not quite as effectively as an axe, but it is there. Plus there more general blunt trauma options, locking up or jamming enemy weapons and the whole stops incoming attacks thing.

Actually hitting people with your shield as a direct source of injury is if anything overstated - they're just not that good at it. The ridiculous number of ways having a shield gives you new offensive options is where it tends to get ignored, and even defensively they're hardly just a wall you hang in front of you. Center grip shields (which were if anything more common than strapped shields) have all sorts of active defenses that can lock up opponent's weapons, get in the way of vision, and just generally let you get a shot off with whatever you have in your other hand.

[Rynjin]

Is it too late to add a light mace or hammer to the arsenal? I can swing a ball-peen like nobody's business.

[Cluedrew]

To Knaight: I wouldn't be surprised, actually, but considering how pathetic shields are in most representations I still think they are undervalued. A lot of systems seem to assume that you just hold the shield at your side and hope things hit it. Active defences or supporting your main weapon just doesn't seem to come up very often. I feel like they should.

[Yora]

Nice. And honestly, I think shields belong on the list of underrated weapons. Although I don't know how common they were but I have heard of sharpened shields that could be used to cut people up. Maybe not quite as effectively as an axe, but it is there. Plus there more general blunt trauma options, locking up or jamming enemy weapons and the whole stops incoming attacks thing.

Modern developers of weapons and tactics commonly speak of weapon systems instead of just weapons. All the additional equipment that comes with the thing that kills can be a very major component in making that weapon do its thing.
By this paradigm, sword and board would certainly be a single weapon system.

[sengmeng]

Modern developers of weapons and tactics commonly speak of weapon systems instead of just weapons. All the additional equipment that comes with the thing that kills can be a very major component in making that weapon do its thing.
By this paradigm, sword and board would certainly be a single weapon system.

That's a fine sentiment, but the original question posed to me was sword + another sword, or sword + shield. So yes, it was taking the shield as part of a weapon system. I guess I also said I'd take the shield alone over sword alone, though. So does including a shield make for a better weapon system? History seems to say yes, and I agree. I just agree for a weird reason. If someone suggested I get another weapon for my left hand, I'd scoff and say "this IS another weapon."

[khadgar567]

as swat shields show you can still shot with light gun with tower shield which on combat gives quite benefits like chunk of solid material against most harmful attacks plus you can always body block some thing until friendly alchemist can throw some thing to solve the problem ( we need ball of sound spell ) my another choice would be probably good shield and light auto cross bow or blaster with sword as back up ( but shield needs to be similar to reinhearts one so i can help group more

[Quertus]

unlike you, i don't seem to have "disney princess syndrome",
(come on, disney princess syndrome? lucky stiff....)

Thanks for the stories.

And I'd... Never really thought of my blessing in that light before. :smalleek:

[Jormengand]

In a D&D mashup-medieval world? Probably some kind of bow with a short enough draw that I could actually use it, and a handaxe, 'cause you don't have to be that strong to hurt someone with a a handaxe. Also I can actually pick up and swing a handaxe, albeit two-handed, and the grip is long enough that you can actually hold it with both hands.

Of course, if we're using D&D rules, too, then obviously I'm gonna use a greatsword for the sweet 2d6-3 damage it deals. :smalltongue:

[Guizonde]

Thanks for the stories.

And I'd... Never really thought of my blessing in that light before. :smalleek:

lemme see, you managed to approach a mama bear and cub and not get mauled, furry woodland critters and birds land on you? all that's missing are giant sing-alongs and complicated dance routines and it's identical. i thought it was a common name for being a friend to wildlife. it's awesome for you, truly. so, no sarcasm from me, pure respect only.

[Lord Torath]

If you have to kill a dragon, an A-10 would be just the thing to use.VF-1S Super Veritech. :smallbiggrin:

[eru001]

An effective spearman in an age where there is armor would have to be able to hit a moving fly, its the only way they would be able to hit weak points in the armor. But yes it did make a convenient if ineffective weapon for a peasant in an early age. But peasants were hardly considered effective infantry. Note most professional soldiers carried real weapons post 1000AD and also note peasants as conscripts ended as well when it was found professional soldiers were far more economically efficient. In ancient Greek times, when the spear was at its zenith, they had a solid breastplate at most, but often just layered linen armor instead and they mostly relied upon their shield and a helm for protection along with that of their buddies next to them. Catch even a skilled hoplite out of formation and they would likely drop their spear and draw their short sword. Of course spear and polearm people cheated too and often went for the feet and lower legs. Naginata wielders were notorious for this and its actually an important part of the art form.




As to the historical point. The use of the spear in medieval warfare did not fall out of favor at 1000AD. Troops equipped with spears and sheilds as their primary weapons were fielded well into the 1100's and 1200's as evidenced by archeological finds and records from noteable battles such as,

Fulford, Stamford, and Hastings (England) (1066)

Civetot and Doraleum (Turkey) (1097)

Meander Valley (Turkey) (1147)

Hattin (Levant) (1187)

Acre (Levant) (1191)

Falkirk (Scotland) 1293

It wasn't until the mid 14th century (about the 1330's-40's) that the use of the spear in conjunction with the shield fell out of favor. It did so for the reasons you mentioned, the difficulties of dealing with plate armored opponents when you have a spear, but remember untill the 14th century, mail not plate, was the available armor. And a good thrust with a spear can defeat mail. I've done a fair bit of fighting with medieval weapons myself and I'd caution against underestimating the spear and sheild combination. In formation it's damn near unstoppable, hence why it was used from the dawn of recorded history up through the mid 1300's. In single combat it is not as dominant, but a skilled oponand with a short to mid length spear and a shield is no pushover. They have better reach than most other weapons, and solid defensive capabilities with the shield. If you get in too close they will likely drop the spear and pull their backup weapon, be it a sword, dagger, or axe. But they won't drop the spear unless the have to, as the reach advantage is nice and getting past the point of the spear is much more difficult than people seem to think.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

To Knaight: I wouldn't be surprised, actually, but considering how pathetic shields are in most representations I still think they are undervalued. A lot of systems seem to assume that you just hold the shield at your side and hope things hit it. Active defences or supporting your main weapon just doesn't seem to come up very often. I feel like they should.

I agree, even if only from a meta perspective.

Shields were used a lot in real life, in games things get used if they're interesting to use. Shield mechanics are boring so people don't go shield.

Maybe with some sort of attack of opportunity system where (offhand) weapons can e used before your turn if a good occasion arises? A shield gets a bit less to attack than a dagger, but it's much better if you choose to block instead, or maybe you can block multiple attacks until you choose to use your weapon/shield offensively or something?

Anyway, too much detail. Let's just stick to "I agree".

In fact, even if I try to go ranged in this scenario, a light shield or just some sort of extended arm guard might be a good investment. It's easy enough to handle that you could still use an atlatl or sling in the other hand, with the right design you could even potentially still use that hand semi-competently as the second hand on a light polearm, and your reflex of throwing your hands over your head if you're lucky enough to see a projectile come toward you might actually accomplish something. Atlatl (short darts, so you can take more than one or two), spear, hide/small wooden/light metal shield and really good running shoes, that might actually be a decent adventuring setup. Soldiering maybe less so...

[Orcus The Vile]

I also love spears. Best weapon ever, it keeps you away from the other guy trying to kill you, you don't need to be tall or a pile of muscle to sue it well.

I'm in love in special with Japanese spears, the Yari.

https://i2.wp.com/www.tuxedounmasked.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/kamayari.jpg?resize=1024%2C349&ssl=1

The Kamayari are known as "sickle spears" are awesome, their extra blades allow you to do everything, poke, slash, hook, lock and everything else.

My favorite kind of Kamayari is the Jūmonji yari(cross-shaped spear), they are cool looking(a big problem for the usual plain looking spears) and can do so much.

https://i.giphy.com/d2Z1gSMeWVwqu0Fy.webp

[Guizonde]

@orcus: the cross-shaped spear is nice, but offers one problem to me. above i mentionned a boar spear. it is a cross-hilted spear, but unlike yours, the cross-hilt is just like on a sword, meaning that it is meant to stop a charge dead (in this case, a charging boar). yours would inflict more damage, since it has a blade hilt, but a sufficiently persistent opponent might be able to hit you even though they were dead or dying. love those spear designs, though. they combine elegance and lethality.

[Amphetryon]

I'll take weapons with which I am at least slightly familiar: Bow, Guisarme, and Light Hammer.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

https://i2.wp.com/www.tuxedounmasked.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/kamayari.jpg?resize=1024%2C349&ssl=1

I've actually wondered before, why is something like number 4 not more common throughout history, possibly with the blade pointing slightly down rather than up and/or being a bit more of a spike rather than a blade? It seems that weapon can perform pretty much all of the functions of weapons like pole hammers (not an actual term, I know). They stab, they hook, they block, both weapons (maybe add a little bump on the other side as well) and horses falling onto it, and the spike can be used for downward blows VS armor. With those functions, do you really need a larger "front" head on a pole arm? Or is the secret that this weapon does not weigh enough for a good blow, and having a large axe- or hammerhead on the other side makes the spike more effective? Or, alternatively, is a weapon with a head on both sides just physically and mechanically sturdier for some metallurgic reason?

[Guizonde]

I've actually wondered before, why is something like number 4 not more common throughout history, possibly with the blade pointing slightly down rather than up and/or being a bit more of a spike rather than a blade? It seems that weapon can perform pretty much all of the functions of weapons like poll hammers (not an actual term, I know). They stab, they hook, they block, both weapons (maybe add a little bump on the other side as well) and horses falling onto it, and the spike can be used for downward blows VS armor. With those functions, do you really need a larger "front" head on a pole arm? Or is the secret that this weapon does not weigh enough for a good blow, and having a large axe- or hammerhead on the other side makes the spike more effective? Or, alternatively, is a weapon with a head on both sides just physically and mechanically sturdier for some metallurgic reason?

i think it has to do with follow-up. most poleaxes and halberds with latteral spikes had tapered spikes to punch through armor, something otherwise not needed versus unarmored opponents or prey. putting a latteral blade would put tremendous strain on it unless it was designed as a dagger (to be exact, a misericordus), and would have a chance to get stuck in armor, leaving you open to a blow.

one major difference between a spear and other polearms is balance. a good spear is balanced to allow much easier thrust-work, whereas a good halberd or a poleaxe is unbalanced to have more impact for less effort. in european history, there are a lot of examples of spears and polearms with quillons, but they were not offensive add-ons, rather they were to prevent the weapon getting lodged in armor or a weapon (or opponent, or prey) sliding down the haft and getting into range of the spearman.

fun thing, looking for photos of what i'm talking about, i went on wikipedia and seems there is testimony of using the wings of a boar spear to hook shields out of the way. check it out here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boar_spear)

[Dappershire]

Actually hitting people with your shield as a direct source of injury is if anything overstated - they're just not that good at it. The ridiculous number of ways having a shield gives you new offensive options is where it tends to get ignored, and even defensively they're hardly just a wall you hang in front of you. Center grip shields (which were if anything more common than strapped shields) have all sorts of active defenses that can lock up opponent's weapons, get in the way of vision, and just generally let you get a shot off with whatever you have in your other hand.

Its actually the vision thing I like most about shields. The enemy is hard pressed to know where your next blow is coming from, when your shield is in their face. It doesn't make for the killing blow, but it adds up. However...


To Knaight: I wouldn't be surprised, actually, but considering how pathetic shields are in most representations I still think they are undervalued. A lot of systems seem to assume that you just hold the shield at your side and hope things hit it. Active defences or supporting your main weapon just doesn't seem to come up very often. I feel like they should.

...I don't think the systems assume any such thing. The mechanics can be fluffed any way to want. Is your AC higher because you have a steel plate protecting your whole left side? Or is it higher because you are actively shoving the enemies blows away before the full force can be brought? It can go either way, and both are acceptable uses of the shield. Its up to the player and DM to determine how the rules are applied. As for supporting your weapon, yes, many shield technique do this, but your chance to hit, damage, number of attacks, etc, can all be assumed to be utilizing this.
IE Your foe misses. Your attack crits. "Cool. Stopping his axe upon the face of my shield, I shove upwards, to throw him off balance, and interfere with his sight; as I thrust my blade forward, under my shield, and into his torso."
The mechanics are already in place to explain the role of the shield in combat. Its up to us, to give them meaning.

[TeChameleon]

Depends on what kind of resources I have available to me, and whether or not we magically get proficiency with the weapon when we get dumped into fantasy-land.

Assuming magical proficiency-gaining so that I'd have the actual skills to use them, I'd likely go with weird, offbeat weapons just to screw with opponents, like the sansetsukon/triple iron/jointed staff. Not necessarily the most effective weapon, but still a fairly capable bludgeoning tool, looks awesome in use, and can be an absolute ***** to defend against. Bolas would be fun as well, although I guess tanglefoot bags would probably do much the same job.

Going a little higher magic (and cost >.O), a bow and a set of YGBN ("You Go Boom Now") Arrows. Simple in concept, little more difficult in execution, but the short form is, you take the basic arrow, rebalance it a bit, and add a slide to it that will shift a small load from one end of the arrow to the other on impact, and a sort of light wire cone dealie to foce a bag open attached to said slide. Then you put a portable hole (folded) on the slide and a wadded-into-shape bag of holding as the 'arrowhead' with the tip of the wire-cone-thing already in the mouth of the bag. When the arrow hits, whatever troubles you had now have enough of them on some random bit of the Astral Plane that they're probably not troubling you all that much anymore.

If we don't get weapons skills installed into our brains and bodies on arrival, I'd probably stick with a recurve bow and a longsword, or maybe a viking axe, and hope like crazy that I gained enough muscle tone and (re-)gained enough skill with the things to keep alive. Well, that and my nasty sense of humour/creativity- don't have to dig a pit very deep if it's full of fragile flasks of alchemist's fire, for example >.> And a Wand of Grease could be all kinds of entertaining if you were fighting in a mountainous region... :smallamused:

[Orcus The Vile]

I've actually wondered before, why is something like number 4 not more common throughout history, possibly with the blade pointing slightly down rather than up and/or being a bit more of a spike rather than a blade? It seems that weapon can perform pretty much all of the functions of weapons like poll hammers (not an actual term, I know). They stab, they hook, they block, both weapons (maybe add a little bump on the other side as well) and horses falling onto it, and the spike can be used for downward blows VS armor. With those functions, do you really need a larger "front" head on a pole arm? Or is the secret that this weapon does not weigh enough for a good blow, and having a large axe- or hammerhead on the other side makes the spike more effective? Or, alternatively, is a weapon with a head on both sides just physically and mechanically sturdier for some metallurgic reason?

I've heard that baldes like that are hard to keep sharp, but don't quote me on that.


@orcus: the cross-shaped spear is nice, but offers one problem to me. above i mentionned a boar spear. it is a cross-hilted spear, but unlike yours, the cross-hilt is just like on a sword, meaning that it is meant to stop a charge dead (in this case, a charging boar). yours would inflict more damage, since it has a blade hilt, but a sufficiently persistent opponent might be able to hit you even though they were dead or dying. love those spear designs, though. they combine elegance and lethality.

I think that's a fair trade for the ability of parrying, hooking horseman out of horses and being able to attack with something other than a straight poke.

[Knaight]

...I don't think the systems assume any such thing. The mechanics can be fluffed any way to want. Is your AC higher because you have a steel plate protecting your whole left side? Or is it higher because you are actively shoving the enemies blows away before the full force can be brought? It can go either way, and both are acceptable uses of the shield. Its up to the player and DM to determine how the rules are applied. As for supporting your weapon, yes, many shield technique do this, but your chance to hit, damage, number of attacks, etc, can all be assumed to be utilizing this.

Thing is, your attack generally isn't higher, and that translates to the offensive uses of shields being neglected. There are some exceptions, but they're comparatively rare.

[CharonsHelper]

To Knaight: I wouldn't be surprised, actually, but considering how pathetic shields are in most representations I still think they are undervalued. A lot of systems seem to assume that you just hold the shield at your side and hope things hit it. Active defences or supporting your main weapon just doesn't seem to come up very often. I feel like they should.

Actually - in the system I'm working on you can use it actively.

A shield normally boosts your PD (Physical Defense) which also helps against AOEs (that is one thing that bugs me in D&D - a shield should help block a fireball). But if you want to, you can use your Action on your shield instead of with a weapon/ability, making an active defense roll with your shield. Mostly this is beneficial against ranged attacks or weapons with Reach (Reach gives +5 the first round of a melee - but nothing after that unless you can open the distance again).

Admittedly, shields aren't all that amazing for infantry since they are of limited use against firearms (my game Space Dogs is a swashbuckling space western) but they're pretty sweet for exo-suits & mecha (small scaled mecha - not much more than 3 meters).

*blatant plug*

[Edgeoftheabbys]

Personally Iwould use a flail these things are dangerous, and pretty much negates shield and can hit really hard. But if we aren't proficient in the Weapon I would choose a hand and a half sword pretty versatile. My other two choices will be a great axe and a war hammer both because I like heavy weapons.

[Kiero]

In ancient Greek times, when the spear was at its zenith, they had a solid breastplate at most, but often just layered linen armor instead and they mostly relied upon their shield and a helm for protection along with that of their buddies next to them. Catch even a skilled hoplite out of formation and they would likely drop their spear and draw their short sword.

If by "ancient Greek times" you mean the Classical era, the spear was still the mainstay of battle right throughout the later Hellenistic and well into the Roman era too.

As for dropping a perfectly functional weapon, that's nonsense. You can very easily change the grip on a spear to shorten it, which still remains an effective weapon. Their swords were for the high likelihood of their spear breaking, it was a backup.

[Florian]

Horse, kite shield, lance, followed by warhammer, battleaxe, light mace, crossbow and an arming sword for formal dueling.

Weird that D&D butchered the actually useful weapons. Given my mood: AM BARBARIAN!

[Guizonde]

Horse, kite shield, lance, followed by warhammer, battleaxe, light mace, crossbow and an arming sword for formal dueling.

Weird that D&D butchered the actually useful weapons. Given my mood: AM BARBARIAN!

you'd better have a damn good and strong saddle for all that gear. i'd swap out the light mace and the battleaxe for a falchion, though. you get the kinetic impact from the warhammer (or even better, a bec de corbin, that came in one-handed sizes too), and the cutting power of the battleaxe is taken care of by the falchion that has the added advantage of being wielded like a machete. you're not a barbarian, you're a knight errant with that package!

[Kane0]

Upon further thought i'm going to double down on some sort of spear.
Mostly because its more than just dudes in armor you're fighting in fantasy land. I cant imagine a sword being much good against something like a bulette, nor a shield for that matter really. Those are more for fighting dudes, which i would like to think would be what i fight *least* often in fantasy land. Plus spears are easy to carry around and are generally useful to have on hand when travelling, which is also important because even professional warriors spend most of their time *not* fighting.

A good backup bludgeon like a mace would also be good for things that need to be crushed instead of poked, and no self respecting warrior would be caught dead without a trusty general purpose blade.

Edit: and of course any reliable, transportable ranged weapon i can get my hands on. Slings certainly qualify but smaller bows, crossbows and firearms are also valid. Anything that allows you to attack from a distance is worth it purely because it keeps you out of harms way (enemy ranged weapons notwithstanding)

[Florian]

@Guizone:

Generic fantasy land, generic weapons descriptions. Without specifics, like how we stand in the arms vs armor race, it´s no use to go that deep into details. The gist of it should still be clear.

(And it´s a PF oddity that Barbarians actually make the best lancers)

[Guizonde]

@Guizone:

Generic fantasy land, generic weapons descriptions. Without specifics, like how we stand in the arms vs armor race, it´s no use to go that deep into details. The gist of it should still be clear.

(And it´s a PF oddity that Barbarians actually make the best lancers)

there i go again, overthinking things. in my mind, the first thing that came up was "is it practical to carry all that and if not, how can i make it more manageable without losing in effectiveness"?

indeed, you've got all the bases covered: distance with the lance and crossbow, protection with the heater, the warhammer for crushing (no idea if you prefer one-handed with the heater or two-handed for the sheer oomph), the battleaxe for awesomeness, and finally, the mace and sword.

i didn't know the tidbit about pf barbarians, so i assumed it was to approach all situations in a "rip and tear" manner. i don't know much about barbarians in 3.PF. i've played one only for a one-shot, and iirc used a greatclub and mithril underwear. your load-out screamed late medieval jouster to me, and found it appropriate in a fantasy land to be a knight errant. so far in the thread, there seems to be a consensus on spears, seconded by swords and slings. unless i missed a post, you're the first cavalier.

it's a very good choice, and nothing seems out of place either, except for the sheer volume of gear. that's why i started overthinking it, mostly.

it's as the saying goes, "when you assume you make an @ss out of u and me".

[Florian]

@Guizonde:

Half and half OT: AM BARBARIAN is a build that uses the Mounted Fury and Superstitious archetype, gains you a horse companion and is centered of Mounted Combat / Spirited Charge (Partially sharing rage with the mount)
So you end up with a character that could well be a 5th century Cymrik early knighthood character, with the typical chainmail and kite shield, and so on.

[Corsair14]

I never said they went out of use. Hell, the Japanese were training women and children to use bamboo spears for the expected invasion of the Japanese mainland in WW2. But the high point for spears was the phalanxes in ancient Greece. They ruled the roost for many hundreds of years until the Romans found the formations too rigid and adapted sword, javelin, and shield. Spear is a fairly ineffective weapon in one on one combat without other spear dudes on either side of you. Against anything with halfway decent armor and a spear and sword kind of suck. Yeah a spear can occasionally get through chain but not every time although admittingly its more effectively than a sword vs chain. Also why swords were mostly status symbols for warriors and nobility since the only things they really were effective against were unarmored(or lightly armored) opponents, and this symbol continues to this day in the modern military with officers(again WW2 exceptions in use). In the later middle ages heavy armor reigned supreme and professional troops used heavy pole arms that could actually crack it. Age of gunpowder kicks in, armor gets lighter, spears and pikes make a resurgence along with phalanx type formations like the Swedes and those crazy dressed German mercs whose name I can never pronounce until even they are replaced by guns and bayonets.

In a fantasy world, assuming normal 14th century tech(relative standard D&D world), a utilitarian polearm like a halberd or its many close relatives would be a good all comers weapon. You can hack with it, pierce with it or depending on which relative you picked, you might even have a hammer to smash armor with, and you have a butt spike if people or things get in close.

[Jay R]

The Monks of Cool, whose tiny and exclusive monastery is hidden in a really cool and laid-back valley in the lower Ramtops, have a passing-out test for a novice. He is taken into a room full of all types of clothing and asked: Yo, my son, which of these is the most stylish thing to wear? And the correct answer is: Hey, whatever I select.

What's the best weapon to take in a fantasy world? Whatever weapon I pick up.

[draken50]

Wealth.

I am a big believer that it's easier to survive a fight when you have more people on your side.

[Potato_Priest]

Personally Iwould use a flail these things are dangerous, and pretty much negates shield and can hit really hard. But if we aren't proficient in the Weapon I would choose a hand and a half sword pretty versatile. My other two choices will be a great axe and a war hammer both because I like heavy weapons.

I too, love the look of flails, but unfortunately they are actually pretty bad (they mostly saw use as a peasant's weapon) - either you use the 2 handed flail, which is kind of like a floppy, dull halberd, or you use the historically rare one-handed ball and chain flail, which is easy to hit yourself or your allies with, and even easier to remove from an opponent's hand.

[S@tanicoaldo]

Flails are like Fail weapons, it's easier for you to hurt yourself than someone else with it.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Age of gunpowder kicks in, armor gets lighter, spears and pikes make a resurgence along with phalanx type formations like the Swedes and those crazy dressed German mercs whose name I can never pronounce until even they are replaced by guns and bayonets.

Age of gunpowder kicks in while pikes are already on the rise again as the most effective anti-cavalry weapon (in well drilled formations), then armor gets much and much thicker and heavier, mostly because of the power of muskets, until it eventually gets abandoned completely for not being worth it anymore (for infantry, cavalry often keeps wearing a decent amount because their carrying capacity is that of a horse and their mobility means they don't always get shot full on at close range).

Plug bayonets (the ones that go inside the barrel of your gun) are an immediate hit upon invention, now all your guys can be both shooting and stabbing at the enemy. But they're not anywhere near as good at stabbing as pikes. Lancers and other close combat cavalry was almost gone in the early 17th century, yet post bayonet they come around again and keep on trucking right past Napoleon. Even infantry charges make a comeback. Plug bayonets mean that when you suddenly charge the enemy they can shoot at you or try to fix their own bayonets, but not both.

Bayonets that go anywhere other than in the barrel get invented pretty quickly after, but they won't be very sturdy until the early 18th century, when infantry charges fall mostly out of use again, leading to the type of combat seen in the American civil war. (You'd think they'd just immediately have added an extra bit of barrel to the guns or something, being able to fire your weapon sounds important.)

Your points are all fair, especially on why to (sometimes) prefer other pole arms, but the order of things is slightly different (as far as I know), and pikes were used to great effect in the late age of armor. But yeah, they do require a trained formation.

[Knaight]

Flails are like Fail weapons, it's easier for you to hurt yourself than someone else with it.

If you're halfway competent, not really. Not hitting yourself isn't hard at all, and they do do a good job getting around shields. They're also about the worst parrying weapons in existence, which is why they were always pretty niche (although two handed footman's flails showed up a lot in the general vicinity of Czechoslovakia).

[Kiero]

I never said they went out of use. Hell, the Japanese were training women and children to use bamboo spears for the expected invasion of the Japanese mainland in WW2. But the high point for spears was the phalanxes in ancient Greece. They ruled the roost for many hundreds of years until the Romans found the formations too rigid and adapted sword, javelin, and shield. Spear is a fairly ineffective weapon in one on one combat without other spear dudes on either side of you. Against anything with halfway decent armor and a spear and sword kind of suck. Yeah a spear can occasionally get through chain but not every time although admittingly its more effectively than a sword vs chain. Also why swords were mostly status symbols for warriors and nobility since the only things they really were effective against were unarmored(or lightly armored) opponents, and this symbol continues to this day in the modern military with officers(again WW2 exceptions in use).

No, "ancient Greece" (which again from your sloppy use of terminology I can only assume you mean the Classical era) was not the "high point" for spears. It continued right through into the Roman age (several centuries later), where the legionary was an exception to the ubiquity of the spear as primary weapon everywhere and for everyone else. Hellenistic infantry had already evolved to make use of the thureos, javelin and spear long before Rome's rise to Mediterranean dominance (courtesy of their conflicts with Celtic invaders).

That's without getting into the period where the pike was the dominant weapon from Philip of Macedon on for a couple of centuries. Nor do I have much confidence in your understanding of the multifaceted reasons why the Roman legions were successful, which wasn't as simple as "gladius and scutum is better than everything else".

Armour was neither widespread nor commonplace aside from the Romans later on, when the state equipped their soldiers with mail. Nor do you need to be able to pierce mail to kill people, even a well-equipped Roman legionary had plenty of unarmoured points on their body and relied on their shield first and foremost.

You've glossed over huge periods of history with little real analysis, the details make your broad point rather suspect.

[eru001]

Plug bayonets (the ones that go inside the barrel of your gun) are an immediate hit upon invention, now all your guys can be both shooting and stabbing at the enemy. But they're not anywhere near as good at stabbing as pikes. Lancers and other close combat cavalry was almost gone in the early 17th century, yet post bayonet they come around again and keep on trucking right past Napoleon.



Close combat cavalry did not disappear from the battlefield during that time. Yes the caricole became popular, but it is noteworthy that most armies still maintained at least some cavalry that were primarily melee troops. Of particular note are the famous Finnish Hakapellita, and of course the fact that the Poles never really stopped utilizing Lancers and Hussars, they didn't "come back" in Poland, they never left in the first place. Russia and the Ottomans also never abandoned them during this time.

[The Eye]

If you're halfway competent, not really. Not hitting yourself isn't hard at all, and they do do a good job getting around shields. They're also about the worst parrying weapons in existence, which is why they were always pretty niche (although two handed footman's flails showed up a lot in the general vicinity of Czechoslovakia).

I think some historians say that they weren't real.

[Florian]

I think some historians say that they weren't real.

I´ve followed some of the discussions on this and find the thesis a bit faulty. While I readily agree that the one-handed ball-and-chain version makes for a incredibly dangerous weapon for tightly packed infantry formations, I´ve, so far, only seen pictures and references for them being used by dueling knights.

[CharonsHelper]

I´ve followed some of the discussions on this and find the thesis a bit faulty. While I readily agree that the one-handed ball-and-chain version makes for a incredibly dangerous weapon for tightly packed infantry formations, I´ve, so far, only seen pictures and references for them being used by dueling knights.

I think that's true of chain weapons generally. If you're skilled they can be highly effective in a duel/skirmish, but they kinda suck in a full melee.

I know that was true of the kusari-gama as well.

[S@tanicoaldo]

I´ve followed some of the discussions on this and find the thesis a bit faulty. While I readily agree that the one-handed ball-and-chain version makes for a incredibly dangerous weapon for tightly packed infantry formations, I´ve, so far, only seen pictures and references for them being used by dueling knights.

I think the conclusion was that they were real but not widely used.


I think that's true of chain weapons generally. If you're skilled they can be highly effective in a duel/skirmish, but they kinda suck in a full melee.

I know that was true of the kusari-gama as well.

Or the Nunchaku.

[xroads]

Assuming pre-gunpowder era, an English longbow & a short sword. Since the premise is that I am a warrior, I'll assume I'm trained enough to use the longbow. And a short sword for if I can't get away from a melee fight. Plus the latter will work as a machete in a pinch and I can probably carry it around on my persons in more areas.

[Knaight]

I think that's true of chain weapons generally. If you're skilled they can be highly effective in a duel/skirmish, but they kinda suck in a full melee.

I know that was true of the kusari-gama as well.

There's a definite exception for hinged footman's flails here (the two handed polearm version). Those showed up in mass combat all the time, and they worked quite well. They're also much better documented than the one handed version.

[Fearan]

I dunno, I'd rather go fo utility. Spears are nice and all, but they kinda awkward to carry around. Shield - double so, also, I suck in shieldplay. Sword? Those tend to carry social repercussion, like "Who the hell are you to carry a noble sword?" Soo...
Enter Valaska (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepherd%27s_axe) A walking stick with a spike on one end and a small axe on the other. Looks less threatening to authorities, good as utility tool, has some reach, while being light.
If crossbow ban isn't around - perhaps a repeating crossbow. No idea, why D&D put it into exotic category, that's actually a peasant's home defence weapon. Maybe, hunting small game too. Light, easy to use, range, rapid fire.

[Corsair14]

Outside of China where are you finding repeating crossbows? Even in China they were not common. Now a light hunting crossbow perhaps as its purpose was well, hunting. Easily reloaded and fired unlike military crossbows which took a bit more work and had more powerful prods.

[Fearan]

Outside of China where are you finding repeating crossbows? Even in China they were not common. Now a light hunting crossbow perhaps as its purpose was well, hunting. Easily reloaded and fired unlike military crossbows which took a bit more work and had more powerful prods.

In a fantasy land, isn't it obvious?

[kedirimakmur1]

Much also depends on what is meant by "a warrior on a fantasy land" - there are distinct advantages to every sort of weapon except maybe the sword (where the main advantage is that it doesn't particularly suck at anything even if it isn't specatcular when compared to other weapons in any given area), and what kind of fighting you're going to be doing makes a big difference. A soldier in an army will do well with a crossbow. By contrast, a ranger type would be better off with an ordinary bow as a ranged weapon - a decent crossbow is far more complicated and more difficult to deal with if something breaks, while a bow can be replaced relatively easily if you know what you are doing.

Of course, you're going to want to use more than just a bow or crossbow. Using any one weapon is suicidally stupid for somebody who actually expects to fight. That's why the sword was so popular - it made an excellent secondary weapon for the folks using other, more generally practical, weaponry.

I like this that you're going to want to use more than just a bow or crossbow.

[khadgar567]

you know if we have the our worlds meta knowledge proper bribe to artifcer can get us geniue modern crossbow and if you watck skallagrims last videos it went right through regular armor with normal arrow pop some setting magic and you dont need diffrent weapon so our debate needs setting info

[Corsair14]

@Fearan- ok I was wondering. They are exotic because most people have never seen one let alone used one unless you are a drow. I don't think any crossbow bans would matter since most people wouldn't know what they were looking at.

[Orcus The Vile]

@orcus: the cross-shaped spear is nice, but offers one problem to me. above i mentionned a boar spear. it is a cross-hilted spear, but unlike yours, the cross-hilt is just like on a sword, meaning that it is meant to stop a charge dead (in this case, a charging boar). yours would inflict more damage, since it has a blade hilt, but a sufficiently persistent opponent might be able to hit you even though they were dead or dying. love those spear designs, though. they combine elegance and lethality.

I started palying dragon quest VIII again and take a look at this spear:


http://dragon-quest.org/images/8/88/IronLance.png


It's a cross shaped spear with the little boar spear "wings", so I guess this is my new favorite video game weapon. :D

Too bad it's one of the first spears so it's not very strong :(

[Yllin]

Scythe, definitely.
Because fantasy scythes are awesome

[Wampyr]

Maul for sure. Inconspicuous, looks like I'm just a low class worker with his lead hammer for driving stakes, but really it's for crushing skulls and steel plate. And its cheap to replace.