Weapon/armor weight

[Eko]

Does anyone else find this silly? I get that many people don't track weight, but come on! A greatsword weighs 6 lb. A maul weighs 10 lb. These are both "heavy" weapons! Armor is also pretty silly, but to a lesser extent. A full suit of plate armor weighs 65 lb, which realistically would be about twice as much.

I get that D&D is not supposed to emulate reality, but can we not at least be accurate to the same order of magnitude? What is to be gained from cotton weapons?

Does this ever come up in anyone else's games? I can't be the only one!

[Mitth'raw'nuruo]

You're on the wrong forum mate, you're looking for the AD&D forum.

[Laurefindel]

Those numbers are about right, historically speaking.

Granted, historical weaponry does not always mesh with the disproportionately large weapons we see in fantasy art and video games.

[suplee215]

weapons didn't weigh much. The benefit of a lighter weapon because speed is more important than mass when determining force. A lighter weapon you can swing faster will do more damage.

[Dienekes]

Does anyone else find this silly? I get that many people don't track weight, but come on! A greatsword weighs 6 lb. A maul weighs 10 lb. These are both "heavy" weapons! Armor is also pretty silly, but to a lesser extent. A full suit of plate armor weighs 65 lb, which realistically would be about twice as much.

I get that D&D is not supposed to emulate reality, but can we not at least be accurate to the same order of magnitude? What is to be gained from cotton weapons?

Does this ever come up in anyone else's games? I can't be the only one!

Huh? Greatswords, as in the Zweihander typically did weigh between 5-7 lbs. 8 being about the maximum for ones that were actually used in combat. There are some ceremonial swords that are bigger, the biggest European one I know was about 15 lbs. But I know there are some ceremonial Odachi which were over 20 lbs. But again, these were ceremonial.

That maul does seem a bit heavy, I know kanabo were about 4-8 lbs, and those are generally considered on the heavy side of mass weaponry.

The armor, seems totally reasonable. War plate weighed in at about 45-70 lbs, depending on the era you're talking about.

However, there was also tournament plate, meant specifically to be used when charging at each other in tournaments, not battlefields. Those could get a bit heavier. But in general, you're not meant to be moving around much in them. I think tournament plate armor could get as high as 100 lbs, but honestly that's more of a guess on my part as I haven't actually seen a full tournament plate armor weighed. Or if I did, I forgot it.

But if we're complaining about funky weights in games. How come katanas are always considered light weapons when they weighed basically the same as a longsword? How come rapiers are considered so incredibly light when they weighed the same as an arming sword?

And why aren't spears just in general made more awesome in games? Because spears are awesome.

[Aett_Thorn]

Keep in mind that the packs that soldiers wear nowadays tend to weigh MORE than a full suit of armor did. And at least armor was usually pretty well distributed in weight over the body thanks to straps.

[CrackedChair]

Well, you do know how 18 pound pikes in something like this is rather off, is it? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?524962-Am-I-the-only-one-who-sees-the-Pike-as-ridiculous
)

[Knaight]

Does anyone else find this silly? I get that many people don't track weight, but come on! A greatsword weighs 6 lb. A maul weighs 10 lb. These are both "heavy" weapons! Armor is also pretty silly, but to a lesser extent. A full suit of plate armor weighs 65 lb, which realistically would be about twice as much.

I get that D&D is not supposed to emulate reality, but can we not at least be accurate to the same order of magnitude? What is to be gained from cotton weapons?

Does this ever come up in anyone else's games? I can't be the only one!

Are you honestly saying that you think a great sword weighs 60 lbs and a maul 100? A really heavy sledge hammer, which isn't a weapon and doesn't have to be light enough to hit moving targets gets to about 14 lbs. As for the 60 lb greatsword, consider the density of steel. Taking the already ludicrous dimensions of 6' long and 3" wide, and using a steel density of 0.284 lb/in^3, the necessary thickness of a blade to hit 60 lbs can be calculated easily. That works out to 60 lbs = 0.284 lb/in^3 * t * 216 in^2, for a thickness of 0.978 inches. That's without considering how edges make that number go up in the center, and without considering the weight of the handle compared to the hypothetical blade (and it's certainly lighter than an inch thick, 3 inch wide piece of solid steel). The numbers are clearly ludicrous, which means one of a few things. Either six feet is too long for the sword, three inches is way too narrow for the sword, the sword is actually an inch thick on average, or that 60 lb number is off.

It's the 60 lb bit.

[Eko]

Are you honestly saying that you think a great sword weighs 60 lbs and a maul 100? A really heavy sledge hammer, which isn't a weapon and doesn't have to be light enough to hit moving targets gets to about 14 lbs. As for the 60 lb greatsword, consider the density of steel. Taking the already ludicrous dimensions of 6' long and 3" wide, and using a steel density of 0.284 lb/in^3, the necessary thickness of a blade to hit 60 lbs can be calculated easily. That works out to 60 lbs = 0.284 lb/in^3 * t * 216 in^2, for a thickness of 0.978 inches. That's without considering how edges make that number go up in the center, and without considering the weight of the handle compared to the hypothetical blade (and it's certainly lighter than an inch thick, 3 inch wide piece of solid steel). The numbers are clearly ludicrous, which means one of a few things. Either six feet is too long for the sword, three inches is way too narrow for the sword, the sword is actually an inch thick on average, or that 60 lb number is off.

It's the 60 lb bit.

I never said the greatsword should weigh 60 lb, or that the maul should weigh 100 lb. I do think those are closer approximations than what's in the book, but whether or not a 20 strength barbarian could use a 60 lb greatsword is a different discussion.

If you do the same math you carried through with the 6 lb greatsword you will find that your thickness is 0.3 inches. This is not accounting for edges ramping off, sure, but this is still a silly number. Remember, this is a greatsword we're talking about, not a rapier.

[coredump]

I never said the greatsword should weigh 60 lb, or that the maul should weigh 100 lb. I do think those are closer approximations than what's in the book, but whether or not a 20 strength barbarian could use a 60 lb greatsword is a different discussion. I think he was playing off your desire to be 'at least within an order of magnitude', which is a factor of 10.



If you do the same math you carried through with the 6 lb greatsword you will find that your thickness is 0.3 inches. This is not accounting for edges ramping off, sure, but this is still a silly number. Remember, this is a greatsword we're talking about, not a rapier.
And yes, accounting for edges and furrows and taper.... a 1/3 or 1/4" is pretty good, even for a greatsword.
How thick do you think a greatsword would be in real life?

[Lombra]

Weapons and armors were lighter than the common poepole nowadays think, they had to be practical during chaotic battle so freedom of movement was a big plus when they got designed back in the days.

[Daremonai]

Oh wow. Speaking as a medieval reenactment fighter (like the SCA, but British...sort of) if my sword weighed anything CLOSE to 60lb I wouldn't have to try to hit anyone with it - I could just drop it on them.
60lb is a pretty accurate weight for full plate harness. 6lb is pretty heavy for a sword - even a greatsword. If you really think that a 60lb sword is anything even slightly approaching accurate, then I can only assume that you've never actually picked up a sword.

[Lombra]

Oh wow. Speaking as a medieval reenactment fighter (like the SCA, but British...sort of) if my sword weighed anything CLOSE to 60lb I wouldn't have to try to hit anyone with it - I could just drop it on them.
60lb is a pretty accurate weight for full plate harness. 6lb is pretty heavy for a sword - even a greatsword. If you really think that a 60lb sword is anything even slightly approaching accurate, then I can only assume that you've never actually picked up a sword.

He never proposed 60lbs, what the hell?

[Gryndle]

[QUOTE=Dienekes;22028557]snipped

But if we're complaining about funky weights in games. How come katanas are always considered light weapons when they weighed basically the same as a longsword? How come rapiers are considered so incredibly light when they weighed the same as an arming sword?

QUOTE]

Are we talking D&D longsword or historical longsword? most actual katana would weigh less than 2 pounds without saya. my antique weighs 1.8, my modern katana is a tad heavier at 2.2 pounds. most of my European blades are modern (but very high quality) reproductions, and even my arming sword and my sabre weigh more than my katana (though to be fair, the sabers weight is affected by the basket hilt). My longsword (which is closer to what would have been a bastard sword in D&D) is 3.4 pounds.

my point is weight of historical weapons is usually significantly lighter than portrayed in games. not only did they have to be light enough to use in combat, but you had to be able to carry the things long distances. this is especially true of weapons that were sidearms, carried in everyday life.

as for rapier weight vs. arming sword, are the rapiers you are comparing equipped with basket, cup or swept hilts? that adds a lot of weight. my rapier's hilt weighs twice that of the blade.

and yeah, according to my wife I have a ludicrous number of blades. All are antiques or at minimum museum quality reproductions.

oh and on the topic of blade thickness. 0.3 of an inch is pretty thick for the spine of a blade. Any thicker than that and we are talking about axes not swords. the thicker the spine is, the more taper you need towards the edge to retain cutting ability. At 0.3" you would need a fairly wide blade (double edged blades needing to be wider than single edge in this example). larger swords don't need to be razor sharp, but they still have to be able to cut.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Weapons and armors were lighter than the common people nowadays think

Apparently that's because people based their estimates on ceremonial and display pieces, which tend to be much heavier than anything you'd actually use, and their numbers stuck. I mean, imagine how tiring it'd be to swing a 6lb sword around for hours on end!

[Unoriginal]

I never said the greatsword should weigh 60 lb, or that the maul should weigh 100 lb. I do think those are closer approximations than what's in the book,

This is completely wrong.



If you do the same math you carried through with the 6 lb greatsword you will find that your thickness is 0.3 inches. This is not accounting for edges ramping off, sure, but this is still a silly number. Remember, this is a greatsword we're talking about, not a rapier.


In a brief article on swords specimens of the 15th to 16th centuries from three major museum collections, including samples from the Stibbet Museum in Florence, Dr. Timothy Dawson noted no single-hand sword weighed more than 3.5 pounds and no greatsword weighed more than 6 pounds. He concludes, “From these examples it can be seen that the ideal that medieval and Renaissance swords were heavy, clumsy objects is far from true.” (Dawson, p. 34 & 35).

http://www.thearma.org/essays/weights.htm#.WSbKhuvyjIU


EDIT:

Also, note that D&D's greatswords are actually longswords, historically speaking. And D&D longswords are actually arming swords.


Apparently that's because people based their estimates on ceremonial and display pieces, which tend to be much heavier than anything you'd actually use, and their numbers stuck. I mean, imagine how tiring it'd be to swing a 6lb sword around for hours on end!

It was mostly Renaissance people pretending that the Middle Age's weapons were crude, clumsy and brutish.

[N810]

I'll just leave this here...
http://www.strongblade.com/prod/sba-twistedclaymore.html
Classic historical claymore


Twisted Hilt Claymore
Overall Length: 58 inches
Blade Length: 42 inches
Width: 11.5 inches
Depth: 1.5 inches
Weight: 6 lbs.


Compared to the ridiculously huge FF7 buster sword


Buster Sword
Overall Length: 50"
Blade Length: 37"
Blade Width: 6"
Blade Thickness: 1/8"
Weight: 10.7 lbs


Edo period Katana
Overall: 34.5 Inches Long
Blade: Dull (Not Sharp)
Blade Length: 24 Inches
Blade Width: 1 Inch
Handle Legth: 8 Inches
Guard: 3" Diameter
Sword Weight: 1.8 lbs
Sword and Scabbard Weight: 3.3 lbs


basic Long Sword
Overall Length: 44 inches
Blade Length: 36 inches
Width: 9 inches
Depth: 1.5 inches
Weight: 3 lbs.



basic Rapier
Overall length: 45.5 Inches
Blade Length: 39 Inches
Blade Width: .75 Inch
Weight: 3 lbs


basic Short Sword
Product Details
Overall Length: 21 in.
Blade Length: 15 in.
Blade Width at Widest Point: 2 in.
Sword Weight Without Scabbard: 1.4 lbs.

[Morty]

Sometimes I feel like links to various informative materials on this subject should be stickied on every RPG forum. It might save some time.

[Laurefindel]

Sometimes I feel like links to various informative materials on this subject should be stickied on every RPG forum. It might save some time.
Yes it would.

On the other hand. We're bombarded with images of weapons, sometimes within the rule books, that are unrealistically large and therefore would not correspond to these historical values.

We often see greataxe art depicting two 18" blades that look to be about 1 and half inch thick, or a maul with a stone of about a cubic foot in size. That would realistically weight something like 150 lbs!

[ThurlRavenscrof]

Yes it would.

On the other hand. We're bombarded with images of weapons, sometimes within the rule books, that are unrealistically large and therefore would not correspond to these historical values.

We often see greataxe art depicting two 18" blades that look to be about 1 and half inch thick, or a maul with a stone of about a cubic foot in size. That would realistically weight something like 150 lbs!

Totally agree. I think what's happening here is that OP has played video games and watched movies but hasn't ever worn a full plate of armor or fought with a real sword which I think is true for a lot of people. Having done the latter, I can promise those weights are reasonable.
I think something important to remember is that battles weren't 5 minute scenes in real life. They lasted hours. 6 pounds would have started to feel pretty heavy pretty quickly. It's just like that challenge where you have someone hold a glass of water at arms length and no human can hold it longer than a few minutes because it feels so heavy after a while

[Joe the Rat]

I get that D&D is not supposed to emulate reality, but can we not at least be accurate to the same order of magnitude?

He never proposed 60lbs, what the hell?

This is a fair point - "accurate to an order of magnitude" and "off by an order of magnitude" are different issues. He's suggesting that some of these magnitude 1 (1-9lb) heavy weapons should be magnitude 2 (10-99lb) weapons. Unless you are rounding, in which case anything 5-49lb is a 1 and 50-499lb is a 2... which puts some under 5's in the wrong scale.

I think perhaps "geometric" (off by about a factor of 2) is closer to what is intended.


BUT, it is important to consider that "light" and "heavy" are not indicators of mass, but strange descriptors for size/leverage. Longbow is a heavy weapon with the same weight as most light weapons (2lb), and is in fact lighter than a "light" missile weapon (hand crossbow, 3lb). But what most heavy weapons are primarily is longer. You need a longer handle and a wider 2-handed grip to wield, a center of mass further in absolute distance from the pommel, or need a minimal amount of ground clearance or reach to use effectively. "difficult for Small characters" and "can get a good swing on (GWM feat)" is all it really means. "Large" or "Bulky," or perhaps "Great" would have been a better label.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Totally agree. I think what's happening here is that OP has played video games and watched movies but hasn't ever worn a full plate of armor or fought with a real sword which I think is true for a lot of people. Having done the latter, I can promise those weights are reasonable.
I think something important to remember is that battles weren't 5 minute scenes in real life. They lasted hours. 6 pounds would have started to feel pretty heavy pretty quickly. It's just like that challenge where you have someone hold a glass of water at arms length and no human can hold it longer than a few minutes because it feels so heavy after a while

It's also worth pointing out that Europeans around the time period were greatly malnourished compared to today, being shorter and scrawnier on average. Even noblemen, given how they lacked the refrigeration necessary to get a balanced nutrition, a few weird beliefs regarding food and food preparation, and far worse medical knowledge.

Could you effectively wear 100 lbs. armor and swing around a 60 lbs. sword for 4-6 hours at a time? Why would anyone believe someone smaller and malnourished could?

[Gryndle]

Totally agree. I think what's happening here is that OP has played video games and watched movies but hasn't ever worn a full plate of armor or fought with a real sword which I think is true for a lot of people. Having done the latter, I can promise those weights are reasonable.
I think something important to remember is that battles weren't 5 minute scenes in real life. They lasted hours. 6 pounds would have started to feel pretty heavy pretty quickly. It's just like that challenge where you have someone hold a glass of water at arms length and no human can hold it longer than a few minutes because it feels so heavy after a while

there is a common meditation/conditioning exercise in Japanese swordsmanship where you are seated in seiza and hold your sword out at arms length, level with your eyes. doesn't take more than few minutes of that for your arms to feel like wet noodles and your gi to be drenched in sweat. I always hated doing that. Pretty sure my sensei only had us doing that when he was in a bad mood or felt like he needed to make a point.

sadly I know from experience, that when you are defending yourself against a determined attacker that is completely bent on ending you, well 30 seconds seems like an eternity and a blink of the eye at the same time. I can't imagine what being in battle (historical OR modern) for an hour, much less hours would be like.

[ThurlRavenscrof]

It's also worth pointing out that Europeans around the time period were greatly malnourished compared to today, being shorter and scrawnier on average. Even noblemen, given how they lacked the refrigeration necessary to get a balanced nutrition, a few weird beliefs regarding food and food preparation, and far worse medical knowledge.

Could you effectively wear 100 lbs. armor and swing around a 60 lbs. sword for 4-6 hours at a time? Why would anyone believe someone smaller and malnourished could?

That's a great point I had not even realized. Malnutrition was much more common then.

However, while people were much shorter during the 17th and 18th centuries, it's actually a common misconception that people were shorter in the Middle Ages

https://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/medimen.htm

What's funny though is that as height was gradually declining, use of plate armor was becoming more prominent. So even though it's a myth that people were much shorter in the Middle Ages, what you said is very close to true because what we think of as plate armor was mostly worn in the 15th and early 16th centuries (right as people were just starting to get shorter

[Willie the Duck]

He never proposed 60lbs, what the hell?
Ahem:

A greatsword weighs 6 lb. A maul weighs 10 lb. These are both "heavy" weapons! Armor is also pretty silly, but to a lesser extent. A full suit of plate armor weighs 65 lb, which realistically would be about twice as much.

I get that D&D is not supposed to emulate reality, but can we not at least be accurate to the same order of magnitude?

Order of Magnitude (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_magnitude)


Anyways, I think we are done here. allusions to video games and buster swords and such don't benefit this discussion any. The OP has an ahistoric expectation of what a weapon should weigh. That's fine (except for the pretending otherwise part). Smart of them not to waste their time on SCA or money on replicas. :smallbiggrin::smalltongue: Anyways, the real lesson learned is that if you aren't knowledgeable on a subject, the smart thing to do is form your topic as an honest inquiry. If they'd started with something along the lines of "does that seem reasonable?" or "anyone know if that's historically accurate? My knee-jerk assumption would be that the numbers should be higher," people would probably be tripping over each other trying to help them out, instead of giving them grief.

[N810]

Hmmm... I did manage to find a complete suit of gothic full plate at 135 lb
http://www.kultofathena.com/product.asp?item=AB0024&name=Gothic+Suit+of+Armour
and very early suit of full plate at 165 lb.
http://www.kultofathena.com/product.asp?item=AB0072&name=Churburg+Suit+of+Armour
I suspect this was about as heavy as armor got.

[ThurlRavenscrof]

there is a common meditation/conditioning exercise in Japanese swordsmanship where you are seated in seiza and hold your sword out at arms length, level with your eyes. doesn't take more than few minutes of that for your arms to feel like wet noodles and your gi to be drenched in sweat. I always hated doing that. Pretty sure my sensei only had us doing that when he was in a bad mood or felt like he needed to make a point.


Cool! Sounds awful haha Most of our punishments involved low stances for long periods of time

[Berenger]

Does anyone else find this silly? I get that many people don't track weight, but come on! A greatsword weighs 6 lb. A maul weighs 10 lb. These are both "heavy" weapons! Armor is also pretty silly, but to a lesser extent. A full suit of plate armor weighs 65 lb, which realistically would be about twice as much.

I get that D&D is not supposed to emulate reality, but can we not at least be accurate to the same order of magnitude? What is to be gained from cotton weapons?

Does this ever come up in anyone else's games? I can't be the only one!

Even 65 lb is too much for plate armor. It should be closer to 40-50 lb. Plate armor doesn't have to be very thick, around 1.5 to 3.0 millimeters (depending on the body part being armored) were generally sufficient. The 6 lb for the greatsword are also much too heavy, 3 lb are more realistic. Don't worry for getting that wrong, though, that's a very common misconception. Keep in mind that both early scholarship and most media tend to exaggerate the size and shape of weapons for various reasons and real weapons often look outright delicate by comparison.



Hmmm... I did manage to find a complete suit of gothic full plate at 135 lb
http://www.kultofathena.com/product.asp?item=AB0024&name=Gothic+Suit+of+Armour
and very early suit of full plate at 165 lb.
http://www.kultofathena.com/product.asp?item=AB0072&name=Churburg+Suit+of+Armour
I suspect this was about as heavy as armor got.

This is not as heavy as real armor got, this much heavier. You don't get the craftsmanship involved in authentic medieval plate armor for anywhere near 2,000 $.

[N810]

The second one looks to be so heavy because of all the chainmail,
also it appears poorly made according to the single review,
but alas these where the only two full sets with listed weights.
I wonder if that set of gothic was intended for jousting ?
Because those suits are heavier, although it doesn't seem to have the
typical traits of jousting armor.... :/ I may just be made of thicker steel than nectary.
I also assume they are including the layers of fabric under the armor in the weight.

Edit: man I need to type faster.

[Waterdeep Merch]

This is not as heavy as real armor got, this much heavier. You don't get the craftsmanship involved in authentic medieval plate armor for anywhere near 2,000 $.

Extrapolating on this, it's made of a steel type that requires modern forging techniques to produce and is a good 2-4 times thicker than real plate armor, as the 16/14 gauge steel used to make it would be 0.0598" thick and 0.0747" thick, respectively. Which, considering the weight of actual plate armor, makes sense given the weight here.

There's even a review about how poorly manufactured the 165 lbs. armor is on that same page.

[Laurefindel]

I'm not an expert in medieval armor, but I have a feeling that 11th-12th century knight armor (basically a doubled layered chain hauberk and a thick can for a helmet) was significantly heavier than your typical low middle-age / early renaissance full plate armor.

I don't think the metalsmiths of the 12th century lacked the skills to make a plate armor so much as lacked the refinement techniques to make durable light-gauge steel.

[Findulidas]

I'm not an expert in medieval armor, but I have a feeling that 11th-12th century knight armor (basically a doubled layered chain hauberk and a thick can for a helmet) was significantly heavier than your typical low middle-age / early renaissance full plate armor.

I don't think the metalsmiths of the 12th century lacked the skills to make a plate armor so much as lacked the refinement techniques to make durable light-gauge steel.

Im not so sure. I know its a fact that as time went on they made the armor thinner at certain parts and thicker at others. Since at some places it was just way more likely to get hit with more force or more vital to protect.

[Dienekes]

Are we talking D&D longsword or historical longsword? most actual katana would weigh less than 2 pounds without saya. my antique weighs 1.8, my modern katana is a tad heavier at 2.2 pounds. most of my European blades are modern (but very high quality) reproductions, and even my arming sword and my sabre weigh more than my katana (though to be fair, the sabers weight is affected by the basket hilt). My longsword (which is closer to what would have been a bastard sword in D&D) is 3.4 pounds.

my point is weight of historical weapons is usually significantly lighter than portrayed in games. not only did they have to be light enough to use in combat, but you had to be able to carry the things long distances. this is especially true of weapons that were sidearms, carried in everyday life.

as for rapier weight vs. arming sword, are the rapiers you are comparing equipped with basket, cup or swept hilts? that adds a lot of weight. my rapier's hilt weighs twice that of the blade.

and yeah, according to my wife I have a ludicrous number of blades. All are antiques or at minimum museum quality reproductions.

oh and on the topic of blade thickness. 0.3 of an inch is pretty thick for the spine of a blade. Any thicker than that and we are talking about axes not swords. the thicker the spine is, the more taper you need towards the edge to retain cutting ability. At 0.3" you would need a fairly wide blade (double edged blades needing to be wider than single edge in this example). larger swords don't need to be razor sharp, but they still have to be able to cut.

Historic longsword, of course. The average weights for a historic longsword were between 2-3.5 lbs. Yours is a pretty heavy one. Mines only 2.7 lbs.

Katanas were in a range, and honestly, I know less about them than European swords. But the ones I've used were between 2-3 lbs, about the same as historic longswords, maybe a little smidgeon lighter. Which the longsword makes up for by being usually a good deal longer.

As to the rapier, yes the hilt adds a lot of weight, more than an arming swords crossguard. But that's to be expected, and doesn't change that as far as weight averages go, they were about the same. Only rapiers put more metal in their fancier (and more protective) hilts than arming swords did.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Historic longsword, of course. The average weights for a historic longsword were between 2-3.5 lbs. Yours is a pretty heavy one. Mines only 2.7 lbs.

Katanas were in a range, and honestly, I know less about them than European swords. But the ones I've used were between 2-3 lbs, about the same as historic longswords, maybe a little smidgeon lighter. Which the longsword makes up for by being usually a good deal longer.

As to the rapier, yes the hilt adds a lot of weight, more than an arming swords crossguard. But that's to be expected, and doesn't change that as far as weight averages go, they were about the same. Only rapiers put more metal in their fancier (and more protective) hilts than arming swords did.

Katanas were, on average, slightly heavier than longswords due to the blade itself being fatter. We're not talking about a huge difference here, somewhere in the neighborhood of a quarter pound average. It's also worth mentioning that proportionately more of this weight was in the blade as well, as European swords tended to counterbalance the weight at the hilt and pommel.

Speaking of, rapier weight tends to be closer to longswords due to the need to counterbalance the blade more, with a center of weight closer to the wielder. This allowed the tip to be maneuvered more quickly, a must for a thrusting weapon. To accomplish this, the hilt tends to be a lot weightier. Thus the basket hilt accomplishes two objectives- protecting the hand and offering a good counterbalance to the blade.

[Knaight]

I never said the greatsword should weigh 60 lb, or that the maul should weigh 100 lb. I do think those are closer approximations than what's in the book, but whether or not a 20 strength barbarian could use a 60 lb greatsword is a different discussion.
If you're saying that it's the wrong order of magnitude, that sets the absolute minimum weight you're proposing at 30 and 50 lbs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_magnitude) for the weapons.


If you do the same math you carried through with the 6 lb greatsword you will find that your thickness is 0.3 inches. This is not accounting for edges ramping off, sure, but this is still a silly number. Remember, this is a greatsword we're talking about, not a rapier.
You'll find the average thickness of 0.3 inches given the parameters given, yes. Said parameters were deliberately selected to get the thickness as low as possible, to make a really conservative estimate and demonstrate that it's still too high, so yes, it produces unrealistically low numbers when applied to a more reasonable mass*. That 6' length is a little excessive, that 3" width is downright unreasonably high, and lowering these numbers increases that 0.3. On top of that there's the matter of edges raising the height non insignificantly (the rectangular prism approximation is a lower bound, a more reasonable approximation would be a diamond shape that doubles the center thickness). The 6 lb figure works, and it lines up pretty well with historical information, assuming that "great sword" refers specifically to the really big swords that showed up in the late medieval period and not smaller swords that are still too big for one handed use. The 10 lb figure is a few pounds too heavy.

*A lower bound is a much better tool to demonstrate that a figure must be too high than to demonstrate that it must be too low.

[Gryndle]

Historic longsword, of course. The average weights for a historic longsword were between 2-3.5 lbs. Yours is a pretty heavy one. Mines only 2.7 lbs.

Katanas were in a range, and honestly, I know less about them than European swords. But the ones I've used were between 2-3 lbs, about the same as historic longswords, maybe a little smidgeon lighter. Which the longsword makes up for by being usually a good deal longer.

As to the rapier, yes the hilt adds a lot of weight, more than an arming swords crossguard. But that's to be expected, and doesn't change that as far as weight averages go, they were about the same. Only rapiers put more metal in their fancier (and more protective) hilts than arming swords did.

true. and to muddle the waters even further most people lump tachi and kodaichi in with the katana, which swings weight further in both directions. for those not familiar kodaichi (a.k.a. ko-katana or sometimes o-wakizashi) were too long to be wakizashi but too short to be katana. The Japanese get REALLY specific about classifying their blades.

[Eko]

Ok, thanks for the replies!

So now I'll ask two questions, and hopefully we'll keep up this good discussion:

1. D&D characters are, by their nature, heroic. They're not regular people. Should someone with 20 strength (magic can bring this even higher) utilize such "regular" weapons? In a fantastical universe, where you need to slay dragons and rock golems, would there not be reason to craft larger, heavier weapons?

2. What do we prefer, light weight, realistic weaponry as the book provides, or heavier, more fictional alternatives? Or is this a not important enough to consider?

P.S. when i said order of magnitude, i was referring to logarithmic intervals (1-10, 10-100, 100-1000, etc.). I understand where confusion may have risen, though.

[Ninja_Prawn]

1. D&D characters are, by their nature, heroic. They're not regular people. Should someone with 20 strength (magic can bring this even higher) utilize such "regular" weapons? In a fantastical universe, where you need to slay dragons and rock golems, would there not be reason to craft larger, heavier weapons?

That comes down to personal taste, but I'd think a smaller, lighter weapon would be better against these monsters. They have thick, armoured hides that you're not going to be able to slash through no matter how big your sword is. As Dwarf Fortress teaches us, it only takes one lucky crossbow bolt to fell the mightiest dragon.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Ok, thanks for the replies!

So now I'll ask two questions, and hopefully we'll keep up this good discussion:

1. D&D characters are, by their nature, heroic. They're not regular people. Should someone with 20 strength (magic can bring this even higher) utilize such "regular" weapons? In a fantastical universe, where you need to slay dragons and rock golems, would there not be reason to craft larger, heavier weapons?

2. What do we prefer, light weight, realistic weaponry as the book provides, or heavier, more fictional alternatives? Or is this a not important enough to consider?

P.S. when i said order of magnitude, i was referring to logarithmic intervals (1-10, 10-100, 100-1000, etc.). I understand where confusion may have risen, though.

1. A strength of 20 represents the peak of human(oid) potential, and is roughly analogous to the strongest people on our planet. It would be ridiculous to wield things much larger than how they are presented historically, because...

2. Unless you're okay completely throwing any pretense of realism out the window, increasing the weight of weaponry to what you see in, say, anime and video games gets completely preposterous FAST. The reason melee weapons only weigh a few pounds is so that you can move them very quickly. All increasing weight will do is make them slower- an abnormally strong superhuman will generally be better served by a lighter weapon so that they can move it abnormally fast instead, as the warrior who strikes first and most often is almost always the winner.

There's also the question of structural integrity. Steel isn't going to be of similar tensile strength at any and all sizes. Swords at realistic weights already bend and flex. It's even a desired trait to a degree, as it keeps them from cracking or snapping in half. You add unnecessary weight to it, and it's very, VERY likely to break itself.

Then there's any weapon that relies on piercing or slashing. These weapons can only be so thick or wide before they lose all effectiveness.

Next, there's the handle. Some huge slab of steel connected to any handhold that is actually wieldable will snap off the moment you swing it with any serious force.

Finally, we have centrifugal force. When you swing a weapon, the pressure generated from it is multiplied by the speed and force you swing it at. Suddenly that 3.5 pound sword has the force of something dozens of times heavier. If you increase the poundage to ludicrous levels and still swing it like a normal weapon, even something seemingly less crazy like 20 pounds, it's going to generate enough force to dislocate all of your joints and pull you along with the strike. To stop this, you'd need both superhuman resilience, which a D&D character likely has, and several times the weight of any D&D character I've ever seen played.

So you'd have to be a freakish superhuman weighing somewhere around a ton with nearly impervious joints just to swing a 20 pound sword at a rate that could keep up with a normal human with a regular sword.

D&D in general is supposed to give a lot of leeway for realism, but this is too ridiculous for anything that's even trying to maintain suspension of disbelief.

[ThurlRavenscrof]

I agree with waterdeep. Fantasy authors sometimes say that you get one "what if" and if you add on any more, readers (players) get upset. Like in xmen, the what if is what if superhero powers were genetic. Everything weird in the world ties back to that question. But if suddenly one of the xmen movies had Jupiter crashing into earth and the xmen trying to save the day, people would be upset because it's nearly impossible for Jupiter to do that and it doesn't relate to the what if. It's a brand new what if of "what if physics didn't work correctly"

Same for d&d. Our what if is "what if gods and magic existed in history". If you suddenly add on "what if physics doesn't work correctly" people get upset because it doesn't make sense.

[Gryndle]

I would prefer games where weaponry atleast approached realism. For me its based in suspension of disbelief. I find it easier to accept fantastic ideas of something I have no experience with. I have to much exposure to real weaponry to easily accept video-game/anime sized swords etc.

[Laurefindel]

Ok, thanks for the replies!

So now I'll ask two questions, and hopefully we'll keep up this good discussion:

1. D&D characters are, by their nature, heroic. They're not regular people. Should someone with 20 strength (magic can bring this even higher) utilize such "regular" weapons? In a fantastical universe, where you need to slay dragons and rock golems, would there not be reason to craft larger, heavier weapons?

2. What do we prefer, light weight, realistic weaponry as the book provides, or heavier, more fictional alternatives? Or is this a not important enough to consider?

I think it's perfectly ok to set-up a particular aesthetics for your game world. So go nuts and have bulky armors like in World of Warcraft and big ass swords like in Final Fantasy! IMO, that should be done universally rather than have regular weapons alongside oversized weapons. Consistency is the key.

Just leave the stats alone (bulky plate is still AC 18, big ass sword is still 2d6 damage, all conserve their RaW weight). If you must, just slap a x2 weight across to board for giggles but if you ask me, you threw realism out the window the moment you brought the big-ass FF sword into the world, which is fine, just don't bother too much with unrealistic weight then.

[Unoriginal]

1. A strength of 20 represents the peak of human(oid) potential, and is roughly analogous to the strongest people on our planet.

It is not analogous to that. A STR 16 human is as strong as a gorilla. 20 is the top of humanoid potential for DnD, but it's much higher than what an human in our world can have.





1. D&D characters are, by their nature, heroic. They're not regular people. Should someone with 20 strength (magic can bring this even higher) utilize such "regular" weapons? In a fantastical universe, where you need to slay dragons and rock golems, would there not be reason to craft larger, heavier weapons?

There would be no reason to do so, because weapon use is not a question of weight, but of shape and of balance.

If we're talking about taller beings, sure, they will have tailored proportionally for them. But there is little reason for a human-sized person to have bigger-than-human weapons, so to speak.

[Naanomi]

It is not analogous to that. A STR 16 human is as strong as a gorilla. 20 is the top of humanoid potential for DnD, but it's much higher than what an human in our world can have.
20 Str is dragging 600 lbs, or pretty much exactly the common 'strongman' anchor drag

A Goliath bearbarian, with the UA Brawny feat, who has read books to increase his Str to 30, and has someone cast Enlarge and Enhance Ability: Bull's Strength can lift... 28,800 lbs? Now *there* is someone who should be using an oversized anime weapon

(Note: there may be a way to wildshape into a pack animal to increase carrying weight further but... doesn't help in wielding enormous weapons)

[ad_hoc]

It is not analogous to that. A STR 16 human is as strong as a gorilla. 20 is the top of humanoid potential for DnD, but it's much higher than what an human in our world can have.



The record deadlift is now 500kg/1100lbs.

Last year the Yoke Carry at the Arnold Classic was 700kg/1540lbs for 16ft. The winner did it in 8.9 seconds.

People are ridiculously strong.

[Waterdeep Merch]

The record deadlift is now 500kg/1100lbs.

Last year the Yoke Carry at the Arnold Classic was 700kg/1540lbs for 16ft. The winner did it in 8.9 seconds.

People are ridiculously strong.

That's kind of interesting, actually. The maximum lift weight of a strength 20 character is 600 pounds. To achieve 1,540 pounds, you'd need a strength score of 52 (!). Or another multiplier, which many threads here have gone into.

This is why I like to say stats are 'roughly analogous', because they really don't match up too great when you start scrutinizing them.

[Dienekes]

Ok, thanks for the replies!

So now I'll ask two questions, and hopefully we'll keep up this good discussion:

1. D&D characters are, by their nature, heroic. They're not regular people. Should someone with 20 strength (magic can bring this even higher) utilize such "regular" weapons? In a fantastical universe, where you need to slay dragons and rock golems, would there not be reason to craft larger, heavier weapons?

2. What do we prefer, light weight, realistic weaponry as the book provides, or heavier, more fictional alternatives? Or is this a not important enough to consider?

P.S. when i said order of magnitude, i was referring to logarithmic intervals (1-10, 10-100, 100-1000, etc.). I understand where confusion may have risen, though.

I mostly agree with Laurefindel, if you want big bulky anime swords then more power to you. Go do your thing, it's an entirely fictional world in your imagination. Run wild!

As to me though? I hate the "anime" aesthetic. A lot. I think it looks stupid. The Buster Sword remains as one of the dumbest looking weapons I think I have ever seen.

But it's entirely your prerogative to disagree with me and go big!

Now, as to what a bonus strength should do to weaponry. Well, this has a lot to do with an oddity of muscle mass and how martial arts functions. Now, in general, all else being equal the stronger opponent has the advantage, but, if muscles function like they do in real life you're going to get diminishing returns and even obstruction after awhile. The power lifters can only lift as much as they can by altering their bodies in ways that aren't really beneficial for sword fighting. There's a reason why a power lifter doesn't have the same body type as, say, an MMA fighter. So there's a distinct chance that the theoretical Strength 24 Fighter can actually be worse than a Strength 16 Fighter, whose body is more fit to fight.

But let's say, because magic, that our warriors don't gain radically huge muscle and fat increase with these high Strength scores. They can still fight as well as ever but now they can theoretically put more energy behind their attacks. What will they do?

Well, swinging a normal 5-8 lb greatsword around like it's a 3 lb longsword has a lot of practical advantages. But the big question would be, what advantages would you get from increasing the weight? And in theory, a heavier weapon could deal more damage to an armored opponent. Normally sword don't really deal damage to a guy wearing armor. Now greatswords can have enough force to deal percussion damage to the warrior beneath the armor, but it's design really isn't actually good for that. A mace, is just a better suited design for armor bashing, and those were about 2-3 lbs as well, but they worked because the weight was all in that tight little ball that you're smacking people with. A pole-axe or warhammer is good too, those are a bit heavier.

Which brings me to my point. With the exception of maybe a pound here or there, increasing the weight of a sword doesn't do much. You're going to swing the weapon at a pretty consistent speed, and what a sword is designed to do, it already does pretty well.

But, increasing the weight of an anti-armor weapon, that is potentially interesting. Especially if we consider that there are people in the setting wearing certain magic armors. Increasing the weight of an anti-armor weapon exactly up to the point where it can deal with these magic armors, and you can still handle it well. That's an advantage. If everyone else is wielding a normal pole-axe and can damage normal armors. But you're using a 10 lb heavier poleaxe made of adamantium that can damage dragon scales. That could theoretically be useful.

But this is sort of ignoring the main feature of armored weapon fighting. The weapons only weigh so much, not because a trained knight couldn't carry more, but because swinging 3-6 lbs around is tiring. I'd argue more important than Strength, when determining a successful fantasy warrior, would be Constitution and how long they can keep swinging these heavier weapons around.

The other neat thing that could be done, is super big longbows. Archery, unlike how D&D portrays it, really does require Strength. An English longbow had a draw weight of around 100 lbs. Now, if our super warrior can somehow get a bow with a draw weight of 200-300 lbs, and can aim somewhat decently? That would be more terrifying than any 60 lb sword.

[RickAllison]

It is useful to remember that the 15*2*Strength number does not reflect max total capacity, but the maximum to continue such actions continuously. A 20 Strenfth character can carry 300 pounds up and down hills for eight hours, climb with it, sprint with it, and do everything without being impaired. They can lift 600 pounds and continuously walk with it at a much slower pace and consistently. The dead lift weight is the absolute max, what they can do once or twice a day. What is more is they in PC terms are probably variant humans who grabbed the Brawny feat because they are fully dedicated to this lifting as a job. The anchor drag even is a temporary gig, something they do and have to recover from. In game terms, they are making either a Strength or (Strength) Athletics check to exceed their normal limits.

A level 20 PC who was dedicated to lifting like they are would be deadlifting 1200 pounds and walking around slowly wit it.

[ad_hoc]

That's kind of interesting, actually. The maximum lift weight of a strength 20 character is 600 pounds. To achieve 1,540 pounds, you'd need a strength score of 52 (!). Or another multiplier, which many threads here have gone into.

This is why I like to say stats are 'roughly analogous', because they really don't match up too great when you start scrutinizing them.

They would certainly qualify for 'powerful build'.

Brian Shaw is 6'8" and 425lbs.

Firbolg are 7-8' and weigh 240-300lbs. Goliaths are 7-8' and 280-340lbs.

[Knaight]

1. D&D characters are, by their nature, heroic. They're not regular people. Should someone with 20 strength (magic can bring this even higher) utilize such "regular" weapons? In a fantastical universe, where you need to slay dragons and rock golems, would there not be reason to craft larger, heavier weapons?

2. What do we prefer, light weight, realistic weaponry as the book provides, or heavier, more fictional alternatives? Or is this a not important enough to consider?

P.S. when i said order of magnitude, i was referring to logarithmic intervals (1-10, 10-100, 100-1000, etc.). I understand where confusion may have risen, though.

There are certainly cases where heavier weapons might be advantageous, but they're comparatively rare. Plus, said fantastical universe handles that already with magic items, exotic materials, etc. Still, weight is an easily changed figure, and if you're going for oversized weapons for a mythical feel it's hardly the first time - Achilles and Gilgamesh show up with pretty ludicrous weapons in their comparative stories, and that's before getting into the medieval literature.

[Berenger]

Ok, thanks for the replies!

So now I'll ask two questions, and hopefully we'll keep up this good discussion:

1. D&D characters are, by their nature, heroic. They're not regular people. Should someone with 20 strength (magic can bring this even higher) utilize such "regular" weapons? In a fantastical universe, where you need to slay dragons and rock golems, would there not be reason to craft larger, heavier weapons?

2. What do we prefer, light weight, realistic weaponry as the book provides, or heavier, more fictional alternatives? Or is this a not important enough to consider?

P.S. when i said order of magnitude, i was referring to logarithmic intervals (1-10, 10-100, 100-1000, etc.). I understand where confusion may have risen, though.


I prefer to keep weapon and armor aesthetics as close to real looks and proportions as possible (I often compromise a little bit when I find compelling pictures of not entirely authentic but still plausible equipment that I like, as pictures are an important storytelling tool for me and I try to have one for every character and object of significance). If the character wielding the weapon is outright inhuman in body size and strength, oversized equipment is okay even though not all weapons and armors can be crafted at arbitrary size at most tech levels. Concerning monsters, everything natural up to a mammoth or whale is perfectly killable by rather primitive standard weaponry and tactics. What is needed to kill a dragon or a golem is entirely arbitrary as the physical properties and 'stats' of these creatures are also entirely arbitrary, but if a 5 feet sword has no chance to slay it, my solution wouldn't be a comically oversized 10 feet sword but some kind of magic, siege artillery, poison, negotiation, doing research to find an unexpected weakness on which my ordinary weaponry will work or running away. But that's just my personal inclination. I'm not particularly fond of anime, super heroes and Legolas' craptastic antics in the LotR movies. Other people are and that's okay, so ultimately you should rather ask about the opinion of the players at your table. That said, it's a good thing you think about the differences in style and their storytelling implications instead of choosing one at random.

[CaptainSarathai]

Something a lot of armchair experts are missing when they talk realistic weapon weights is the fact that most reproduction weapons today, are overweight by gross amounts.
I have a cheap-o replica cutlass that I use with my pirate outfit, and it weighs close to 5lbs. Should only way about half that.
My girlfriend wears a dagger with her getup, and it has a really pretty inlaid filigreed handle - made of solid metal.
I've seen katanas with a full tang and handle scales rather than the proper carved-out grip and mekugi pin.

When people make armor, they're buying garbage steel. Armor was never that thick, but thinner steel is used for specialty work and costs more than "buying in bulk."
It doesn't help that most people refuse to fit their armor to themselves.


I overpaid for a suit of bad armor and am in the process of having the right people fit me and hand-hammer a suit for me. The difference is astonishing. I'm getting my salet helm and gauntlets done, but I wore the set with my "mitts" last year to the rennfaire and people kept asking me if it was uncomfortable. Honestly, aside from being hot and unable to feel the breeze, I was fine. I was showing people that I could still do jumping-jacks, lie down and jump back up, dance, all that. There are stories of people who can tread water and swim in their armor until it becomes logged, and I think I could probably manage that.

Ironically, Samurai armor is a lot less easy to wear than people think. It's still light and flexible - it's a battle armor after all - but it's definitely not made of leather or bamboo. It's steel plate, and everything hangs off the Do 'cuirass', or your hips. You don't have any leg armor, so you tie your haidate (leather thigh guards with metal plates on the bottom half) off your hips like an apron. Then you strap on your Do, which has the kusazuri hanging off that (the skirt armor). Your Do has watagami, which are basically specialized rigid shoulder straps with mounting points. The mounts hang your kote (armored sleeves) and your sode (the big armor squares at your shoulder).
The issue is that Samurai don't wear any padding beneath their armor, except for a thick gi. It's not like a gambeson. So already, the armor "digs" into you more. Then, you're hanging everything from your shoulders. Well fitted and well laced armor will distribute some of that weight onto your hips, but it's very different than a suit of plate.
My plate armor doesn't bounce, it doesn't jostle and bump into me when I walk. My samurai armor does. Samurai armor isn't meant to sustain blunt force, it's meant to protect from slashes, so it has a lot of flexibility and give. I got kicked hard in my kusazuri once, it bruised my thigh through the armor - never would have happened in my plate.
Also, plate armor settles downward, onto itself. If my thigh armor is not fitted on my plate armor, it will settled down onto my knees, and my knees onto my shin, and so on; it doesn't pull the hip of my cuirass down with it. The same is true for my arms - everything is strapped together of its own accord, it wants to settle down onto my wrists, which help distribute the weight. If anything settles over a joint, you know it because suddenly you can't move, but that's why you get fitted armor.

The only edge in comfort that the samurai armor really has, is that it's mostly fabric. That, and the mempo (face mask) is much easier to breathe in than a closed helm. Incidentally, that is why I'll be going with a salet helm - it's more open and easier to breath. That said, if I took an armored glove to the face in my mempo, you're still gonna break my nose. It's literally just wooden mask tied over my face that makes me look scary. The whole set provides far less protection than plate.

[Gryndle]

[QUOTE=CaptainSarathai;22032810]Something a lot of armchair experts are missing when they talk realistic weapon weights is the fact that most reproduction weapons today, are overweight by gross amounts.
I have a cheap-o replica cutlass that I use with my pirate outfit, and it weighs close to 5lbs. Should only way about half that.
My girlfriend wears a dagger with her getup, and it has a really pretty inlaid filigreed handle - made of solid metal.
I've seen katanas with a full tang and handle scales rather than the proper carved-out grip and mekugi pin.

When people make armor, they're buying garbage steel. Armor was never that thick, but thinner steel is used for specialty work and costs more than "buying in bulk."
It doesn't help that most people refuse to fit their armor to themselves.

see, I've had the opposite experience with armor. Japanese armor does come in many varieties, ALMOST as varied as European. I had the privilege of wearing my sensei's o-yori during a demonstration. Now the armor was fitted for him, but we were close enough in size & the armor allowed for enough adjustments that if fit me "ok". I had no issues with it bouncing or really chafing (other than the fact that I wasn't used to it). I definitely wasn't as mobile as I am without it, but the difference was probably negligible.
On the other hand, I have a chain shirt that was custom made for me. And I hate wearing it for long periods. all the weight is on the shoulders and the chain doesn't move with your body so much. the chain shirt weighs significantly less than that o-yori did, but is nowhere near as comfortable.

[suplee215]

I might be wrong but I think the strongest man in the world can do more damage with the weights in the book than bigger weapons. Speed is more important than mass.this is why Baseball bats are all relatively the same size with the bigger oens not being that big.

[Daremonai]

He never proposed 60lbs, what the hell?
...and I quote:

I never said the greatsword should weigh 60 lb, or that the maul should weigh 100 lb. I do think those are closer approximations than what's in the book
...also, references to orders of magnitude, etc. Let's split the difference; the book says 6lb, the assumption above is "closer to 60lb than to the book"....let's call it 33lb, and my point still stands.
But the discussion has moved on, so:

I might be wrong but I think the strongest man in the world can do more damage with the weights in the book than bigger weapons.
Also, he can manoeuvre it more easily. The difference between my sparring with a reenactment blade and a much lighter federschwert is huge.

[Unoriginal]

It is useful to remember that the 15*2*Strength number does not reflect max total capacity, but the maximum to continue such actions continuously. A 20 Strenfth character can carry 300 pounds up and down hills for eight hours, climb with it, sprint with it, and do everything without being impaired. They can lift 600 pounds and continuously walk with it at a much slower pace and consistently. The dead lift weight is the absolute max, what they can do once or twice a day. What is more is they in PC terms are probably variant humans who grabbed the Brawny feat because they are fully dedicated to this lifting as a job. The anchor drag even is a temporary gig, something they do and have to recover from. In game terms, they are making either a Strength or (Strength) Athletics check to exceed their normal limits.

A level 20 PC who was dedicated to lifting like they are would be deadlifting 1200 pounds and walking around slowly wit it.

This is a good point.

You don't see weightlifters carry their weights all day.

[Cybren]

This is completely wrong.



(Dawson, p. 34 & 35).

http://www.thearma.org/essays/weights.htm#.WSbKhuvyjIU


EDIT:

Also, note that D&D's greatswords are actually longswords, historically speaking. And D&D longswords are actually arming swords.



It was mostly Renaissance people pretending that the Middle Age's weapons were crude, clumsy and brutish.

Technically the bastard sword is the longsword, the greatsword is the greatsword (or two handed sword), but 5E eliminated the bastard sword, leaving us with no mid-sized sword

EDIT: as to heroic characters using bigger, heavier weapons, there is a certain point where the structural integrity of a larger weapon would be worse, especially in the example of a maul. The weight isn't going to scale evenly, it's mostly concentrated in the head, which would increase the chance of breaking. If your argument for using bigger weapons hinges on the 'realism' of a stronger characters capabilities, you're barking up the wrong tree. If it's an aesthetic choice because big ass swords look cool, go for it, though

[Unoriginal]

Technically the bastard sword is the longsword, the greatsword is the greatsword (or two handed sword)

No, not all two-handed swords are greatswords. Most two-handed swords are longswords.

A greatsword has a different shape and purpose.

[Cybren]

No, not all two-handed swords are greatswords. Most two-handed swords are longswords.

A greatsword has a different shape and purpose.

The greatsword depicted in the PHB is very clearly modeled on actual greatswords, with stylized, tiny quillions. The greatsword in D&D is incapable of one handed use, a trait not shared by many longswords, which while typically used two handed, were not exclusively so.

IF your argument is "you called the greatsword a two-handed sword in your parenthetical that's wrong", i'll remind you that the terms used in the period vary wildly, and that the germans literally called the weapons that we call greatswords some variation on "two handed sword"

[N810]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/90/31/25/903125e4db8cde72d12406addc718e83.jpg
I imagine D&D great swords to be in the zweihander great sword size range,
or maybe a claymore, which is only slightly smaller.

[Cybren]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/90/31/25/903125e4db8cde72d12406addc718e83.jpg
I imagine D&D great swords to be in the zweihander great sword size range,
or maybe a claymore, which is only slightly smaller.

hey wonder what that means in english...

[N810]

Fine I'll Google it for you then....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zweih%C3%A4nder
(basically it means two hander in German) :smallannoyed:

[Daremonai]

Fine I'll Google it for you then....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zweih%C3%A4nder
(basically it means two hander in German) :smallannoyed:


hey wonder what that means in english...

Sense Motive: Natural 1?

[N810]

Fighting sarcasm with sarcasm. :smallamused:

[Unoriginal]

The greatsword depicted in the PHB is very clearly modeled on actual greatswords, with stylized, tiny quillions. The greatsword in D&D is incapable of one handed use, a trait not shared by many longswords, which while typically used two handed, were not exclusively so.

IF your argument is "you called the greatsword a two-handed sword in your parenthetical that's wrong", i'll remind you that the terms used in the period vary wildly, and that the germans literally called the weapons that we call greatswords some variation on "two handed sword"

My point was not that greatswords aren't two-handed swords. Greatswords are two-handed.

[Cybren]

Fighting sarcasm with sarcasm. :smallamused:

I respect this approach

[Unoriginal]

Honestly I see no sword in the PHB's equipment section that could be similar to an historical greatsword.

[Cybren]

Honestly I see no sword in the PHB's equipment section that could be similar to an historical greatsword.

I was mis-remembering from the 3.5 or 4E PHB I think, the 5E one doesn't actually label the illustrations and they don't illustrate every weapon. But most editions consistently seem to give the greatsword tiny little quillions