Why isn't the great club Heavy?

[hymer]

All the other two-handed weapons are Heavy. And speaking in pounds, the greatclub is only outweighed by the pike and the heavy crossbow.

What do you guys think?

[Potato_Priest]

All the other two-handed weapons are Heavy. And speaking in pounds, the greatclub is only outweighed by the pike and the heavy crossbow.

What do you guys think?

I imagine that it's a mechanical design choice to ensure that you can't use Great Weapon feat without a martial weapon. It doesn't make much sense, but it's what the designers wanted I guess.

[hymer]

It's a mechanical design choice to ensure that you can't use Great Weapon feat without a martial weapon.

Why would they want to prevent that?

[Potato_Priest]

Why would they want to prevent that?

I imagine so that monks couldn't use a dex-based GWM attack

[Malifice]

In my games it is heavy and it does 1D10 damage.

[hymer]

I imagine so that monks couldn't use a dex-based GWM attack

The two-handed property excludes greatclubs from being monk weapons, though.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Heavy is a gameplay algorithm with no real bearing on fluff. It doesn't really denote the weight or method of attack of the weapon in question, just if it's awkward for small races to use them and if certain other gameplay functions interact with them. It might have been better to call these weapons 'big', because it communicates what the rule does better.

[Potato_Priest]

The two-handed property excludes greatclubs from being monk weapons, though.

Oh, yeah, I'd forgotten about that. I don't know why then.

[JackPhoenix]

Heavy is a gameplay algorithm with no real bearing on fluff. It doesn't really denote the weight or method of attack of the weapon in question, just if it's awkward for small races to use them and if certain other gameplay functions interact with them. It might have been better to call these weapons 'big', because it communicates what the rule does better.

This. It's a matter of size, not weight. Longbow doesn't weight much, but halfling or gnome (or even dwarf, though they are medium) would be unable to draw it properly it simply because their arms are too short. Greatswords are too large to be used properly by small folk without messing up their balance. Greatclub may be heavy, but mostly because it's thick, solid piece of wood, not because it's overly long.

[GlenSmash!]

This. It's a matter of size, not weight. Longbow doesn't weight much, but halfling or gnome (or even dwarf, though they are medium) would be unable to draw it properly it simply because their arms are too short. Greatswords are too large to be used properly by small folk without messing up their balance. Greatclub may be heavy, but mostly because it's thick, solid piece of wood, not because it's overly long.

I've notice "Light" weapons seem to also have that property due to length rather than weight. All of the weapons it applies to seem to be short rather than non-heavy.

[hymer]

Heavy is a gameplay algorithm with no real bearing on fluff. It doesn't really denote the weight or method of attack of the weapon in question, just if it's awkward for small races to use them and if certain other gameplay functions interact with them. It might have been better to call these weapons 'big', because it communicates what the rule does better.

I'm wondering if we're thinking the same thing when we talk of a greatclub. The PHB doesn't specify most of the weapons, so it's hard to say what exactly it's supposed to be.


This. It's a matter of size, not weight. Longbow doesn't weight much, but halfling or gnome (or even dwarf, though they are medium) would be unable to draw it properly it simply because their arms are too short. Greatswords are too large to be used properly by small folk without messing up their balance. Greatclub may be heavy, but mostly because it's thick, solid piece of wood, not because it's overly long.

So in your view, a greatclub is perhaps more of a quarterstaff?


I've notice "Light" weapons seem to also have that property due to length rather than weight. All of the weapons it applies to seem to be short rather than non-heavy.

I agree that weight seems to have little bearing on the Light property. I'm not sure length is a better fit, though. The scimitar is supposedly light, and I don't think they are shorter than, say, flails and war picks. Given that they weigh the same as a longsword, they likely have similar blade lengths, although the scimitar's will of course be curved.

[GlenSmash!]

I agree that weight seems to have little bearing on the Light property. I'm not sure length is a better fit, though. The scimitar is supposedly light, and I don't think they are shorter than, say, flails and war picks. Given that they weigh the same as a longsword, they likely have similar blade lengths, although the scimitar's will of course be curved.

Good point, though the Scimitar seem to be a bit of an outlier to me. The cynical part of me thinks the only reason it got the Light property was to make it so Drizzt clones could use TWF with them without a feat.

[hymer]

Good point, though the Scimitar seem to be a bit of an outlier to me. The cynical part of me thinks the only reason it got the Light property was to make it so Drizzt clones could use TWF with them without a feat.

I wouldn't rule that out. :smallsmile:

[ZorroGames]

This. It's a matter of size, not weight. Longbow doesn't weight much, but halfling or gnome (or even dwarf, though they are medium) would be unable to draw it properly it simply because their arms are too short. Greatswords are too large to be used properly by small folk without messing up their balance. Greatclub may be heavy, but mostly because it's thick, solid piece of wood, not because it's overly long.

Logical or not, RAW, I believe Dwarf can use Longbow weirdly enough. AFB currently...

Not that this Dwarf is complaining, just confused.

[hymer]

Logical or not, RAW, I believe Dwarf can use Longbow weirdly enough. AFB currently...

Not that this Dwarf is complaining, just confused.

I'm pretty sure you're right, ZG. There's nothing in the 'Heavy' property description that indicates this, nor under Dwarf Traits.

[Contrast]

So there's a two hander for halflings and gnomes? :smallwink: Pretend the versatile trait doesn't exist...

[hymer]

So there's a two hander for halflings and gnomes? :smallwink: Pretend the versatile trait doesn't exist...

Well, the warhammer is Versatile. I'm pretending!

[suplee215]

Fluff wise I think the greatclub is just too awkward to use with GWM and is why. Or they wanted clerics without martial weapons to not use GWM? MAybe they foresaw the UA for the redemption paladin years in advance?

[JackPhoenix]

Logical or not, RAW, I believe Dwarf can use Longbow weirdly enough. AFB currently...

Not that this Dwarf is complaining, just confused.

Indeed. Perhaps I've made it unclear, I mean that logically, dwarf would have the same problems with using longbow as small races, though RAW they aren't limited.


Good point, though the Scimitar seem to be a bit of an outlier to me. The cynical part of me thinks the only reason it got the Light property was to make it so Drizzt clones could use TWF with them without a feat.

I'm pretty sure this is the correct answer

[djreynolds]

Because it is a stick.

A club or great club is found out in the woods, its not balanced. You didn't carve it

Now if you wrapped in straps of metal, I would call that a war mace... which evidently we don't have either

I think perhaps heavy incorporates a design feature of the weapon, and club or great club is just a stick

[hymer]

Because it is a stick.

A club or great club is found out in the woods, its not balanced. You didn't carve it

I think something has been done to shape it, and likely treat it, too. The price is 2sp, the same price you pay for a day for an unskilled hireling. I'm sure s/he could go to the wood and fetch a piece of wood more than once in a day.

[djreynolds]

I think something has been done to shape it, and likely treat it, too. The price is 2sp, the same price you pay for a day for an unskilled hireling. I'm sure s/he could go to the wood and fetch a piece of wood more than once in a day.

But perhaps that is why, that it isn't a crafted weapon. It might be an improved weapon?

You could find a special club out of thousands that happens to be just perfectly balanced, and it has the heavy property

That said, I would be willing to allow a player who casted shillelagh on a great club to have be considered with the heavy property for that 1 minute.

I gotta say it is a good question, I would ask Sage advice. Perhaps to be heavy it must also be martial?

[Unoriginal]

Some definitions:


Heavy. Small creatures have disadvantage on attack rolls with heavy weapons. A heavy weapon's size and bulk make it too large for a Small creature to use effectively.
Light. A light weapon is small and easy to handle, making it ideal for use when fighting with two weapons.

A club is Light and is used one-handed, because it's small. A quaterstaff is Versatile, because it's balanced to be used with one or two hands, but when it's two-handed it does the same damages as a greatclub. A greatclub is not balanced, so you need two hands to use it properly, but it's not big or bulky enough that Small beings would have troubles using it.



Indeed. Perhaps I've made it unclear, I mean that logically, dwarf would have the same problems with using longbow as small races, though RAW they aren't limited

Why? Dwarfs aren't *that* small

[JackPhoenix]

Why? Dwarfs aren't *that* small

Average longbow is around 6'. Average dwarf is 4'5" (mountain dwarf, hill dwarves are shorter). Max possible height for a dwarf is 4'8". I'd say foot and half is a lot of difference.

[Willie the Duck]

Suffice to say, looking at the entries for club, staff, and quarterstaff, I have to assume that the designers are thinking of very different cut-offs between the 3 categories than I do. Or more likely they imagined certain roles for each entry and made rules for that. Clubs being light makes sense to allow you to make an escrima/arnis/etc martial artist, fighting with two 2' rattan sticks, not because that's the common concept you or I might have for a "club" (which is more likely a quarterstaff, of all things, because that's a 1-2 handed weapon). Greatclub is just the 2-handed-only club weapon. It doesn't have the heavy property for I guess game-balance reasons (although the game-balance of the heavy property in general seems off).

[xanderh]

Given that they weigh the same as a longsword, they likely have similar blade lengths, although the scimitar's will of course be curved.

Sorry, but this is wrong. The longsword blade was typically 90-110 cm, while the blade of the scimitar was more like 76-90 cm. Additionally, the scimitar was typically a one-handed weapon (though two-handed versions do exist), while the longsword is a decidedly two-handed weapon that can feasibly be used in one hand if the situation calls for it. Also, scimitars typically weigh around 300 grams less than the typical longsword.

Note that the length of the blade is measured along the blade, so that the curvature doesn't shorten the measurement. This makes it a significantly shorter sword, which makes the balance of the sword much closer to the handle, compared to a longsword optimised for cutting. The balance of the sword is likely why it's considered light; the balance of the weapon means that it feels light to wield. Same with shortswords.
The probable reason why the rapier isn't considered light as well is probably because the length of the blade means there's a very high chance of two rapiers interfering with each other while dual wielding them, requiring a LOT of training to not be an issue.

[N810]

Because the regular club is merely Billy club/night stick sized (about 1 foot)
While I suspect he great club is baseball/cricket bat sized. (about 3 feet/ 1 meter)

[ZorroGames]

Average longbow is around 6'. Average dwarf is 4'5" (mountain dwarf, hill dwarves are shorter). Max possible height for a dwarf is 4'8". I'd say foot and half is a lot of difference.

I view a D&D "Longbow" being more a class division from it's root in the predecessor "Chainmal" rules where you had short bow, horse bow, long bow, and, IIRC, compound bow.

Basically peasant/levy weapon, horse born warrior weapon, "English"/Welsh based longbow, and the built from layers of materials like horn, etc., stereotype "Turkish" or more powerful but shorter Asian bows. Historicity today would be questioned but it worked, sort of...

Since 5e wisely compressed so many weapons (look at the 1e/2e PHBs for insanity) I see this as just that - compressing weapons into categories. The Hobbit Five Armies Battle dwarf "horn bows" were frequently categorized as horse bows for that reason by many DMs.

Hence I suspect 5e "Longbows" are more than just the Anglocentric prejudice of 6' weapons but include more powerful layered/"built" bows than short bow/self bow weapons that are "like" the Longbows of the 100 years war in range and power.

I can see a dwarf using a shorter powerful bow that is heavier pull than a simple self bow like used by the pre-contact/pre-gunpowder American Indians that were frequently stopped by wood armor or padded armor at engagement ranges. At 5' 4" (plus a fraction:smallsmile:) I could in my younger years pull a longbow but the thought of using it repeatedly in a fight accurately showed me why Sunday practice sessions were legally mandated for many years. I donot have statistics for that era but in a professional historian paper back when I read that kind of thing it was stated British/English recruitment records from the late Napoleonic era showed a drop of 2 inches in height of the average city born recruit from decades prior of his counterpart from the countryside. My memory wants to say fron 5' 4" to 5' 2" but it is more likely a drop from 5' 6" to 5' 4" since it is the 5' 4" number that sticks in my head.

Hence I do not see a Mountain Dwarf pulling a Hundred Years War long bow but something "more powerful" than the alternative in 5e.

Which leads me to the OP issue of Great Club via a long round about course - D&D weapons are not their historical counterparts but "like" classifications of historical weapons.

[ZorroGames]

Because the regular club is merely Billy club/night stick sized (about 1 foot)
While I suspect he great club is baseball/cricket bat sized. (about 3 feet/ 1 meter)

That makes sense.

[Willie the Duck]

Sorry, but this is wrong. The longsword blade was typically 90-110 cm, while the blade of the scimitar was more like 76-90 cm. Additionally, the scimitar was typically a one-handed weapon (though two-handed versions do exist), while the longsword is a decidedly two-handed weapon that can feasibly be used in one hand if the situation calls for it. Also, scimitars typically weigh around 300 grams less than the typical longsword.

Clearly the two of you are not thinking of the same longsword. The longsword of D&D is the other way around. (and yes, we are aware that what most people who play D&D think of as a longsword would have really been called an arming sword and what you are talking about is technically right based on non-D&D terminology).

[Unoriginal]

Sorry, but this is wrong. The longsword blade was typically 90-110 cm, while the blade of the scimitar was more like 76-90 cm. Additionally, the scimitar was typically a one-handed weapon (though two-handed versions do exist), while the longsword is a decidedly two-handed weapon that can feasibly be used in one hand if the situation calls for it. Also, scimitars typically weigh around 300 grams less than the typical longsword.

Generally speaking, DnD's longswords are the equivalent of real life's arming swords, and DnD's greatswords are the equivalent of real life's longswords.

[xanderh]

Clearly the two of you are not thinking of the same longsword. The longsword of D&D is the other way around. (and yes, we are aware that what most people who play D&D think of as a longsword would have really been called an arming sword and what you are talking about is technically right based on non-D&D terminology).

Actually, that would be a bastard sword. The arming sword is a massive hassle to wield in two hands. The bastard sword is essentially an arming sword, but with the handle of a longsword.

Also, it's worth pointing this stuff out, because most people have no idea that they're wrong. It's not exactly common knowledge, and it's a very common mistake.

Edit: I'm not sure that the D&D longsword is closer to an arming sword. The weight is dead-on for a longsword, and you can use a longsword in one hand (fiore teaches this specifically in some of his manuscripts). The greatsword is also correct in terms of weight, and the restrictions on one-handed use are reasonable for a greatsword (it's possible, but a terrible idea), but not for a longsword.

[Willie the Duck]

Ok, fair enough. Since they added the versatile quality in, it's more of a bastard sword than an arming sword. It's a fair cop.

But it still comes down to AD&D long ago labeling their primary primarily one-handed sword to be a longsword, when longsword historically referred to a primarily two-handed sword. I disagree that most people have no idea that they're wrong or that it is not exactly common knowledge. Certainly not on a D&D forum where every third nerd thinks they are a medieval weaponry expert well in excess of anyone else reading the thread ( Decidedly not claiming that about anyone here, and sorry if I come off as overly snarky, I've just run into entirely too many D&D-ers lately who think they are the smartest people in whatever room they enter).

In the end, I don't think there's enough there there to say that a 5e D&D longsword "is" a specific thing. It is a slashing sword you can use one-handed or two-handed. Sure, weight is correct for a actual (mostly 2h) longsword, but in a system where they routinely mis-step with the weapon weights, is that actually a evidence for or against? It kind of gets too navel-gazing for me once you get to that level.

[xanderh]

Ok, fair enough. Since they added the versatile quality in, it's more of a bastard sword than an arming sword. It's a fair cop.

But it still comes down to AD&D long ago labeling their primary primarily one-handed sword to be a longsword, when longsword historically referred to a primarily two-handed sword. I disagree that most people have no idea that they're wrong or that it is not exactly common knowledge. Certainly not on a D&D forum where every third nerd thinks they are a medieval weaponry expert well in excess of anyone else reading the thread ( Decidedly not claiming that about anyone here, and sorry if I come off as overly snarky, I've just run into entirely too many D&D-ers lately who think they are the smartest people in whatever room they enter).

In the end, I don't think there's enough there there to say that a 5e D&D longsword "is" a specific thing. It is a slashing sword you can use one-handed or two-handed. Sure, weight is correct for a actual (mostly 2h) longsword, but in a system where they routinely mis-step with the weapon weights, is that actually a evidence for or against? It kind of gets too navel-gazing for me once you get to that level.

My "most people" comment was based entirely on empirical evidence, since I often see people make the mistake because of previous (wrong) knowledge (not to mention the "European swords were actually blunt pieces of steel you used to bludgeon the enemy with").
And from what I've seen, and seem to remember seeing on twitter, they tried their best to use correct terminology and data in regards to the weapons and armour in this edition. The weights for European weapons certainly seem to match pretty closely, and the plate armour weight is only 5 pounds heavier than a typical heavy historical 14th-15th century harness would have weighed.

And don't worry, I don't think anyone here feels singled out, the snark is well deserved ;)

[Unoriginal]

Average longbow is around 6'. Average dwarf is 4'5" (mountain dwarf, hill dwarves are shorter). Max possible height for a dwarf is 4'8". I'd say foot and half is a lot of difference.

Pretty sure you don't have to draw a longbow vertically

[N810]

Arm length may still be a problem as they won't be able to get a full draw.
Heavy Crossbows on the other hand.... Not a problem.

[Willie the Duck]

My "most people" comment was based entirely on empirical evidence, since I often see people make the mistake because of previous (wrong) knowledge (not to mention the "European swords were actually blunt pieces of steel you used to bludgeon the enemy with").

Okay. My own personal experience has been boards full of people all desperate to point out that European swords weren't actually blunt pieces of steel you used to bludgeon the enemy with, but had to pre-emptively presume or misinterpret someone else to find someone who "didn't know" that for them to seem smart in front of.

It's like the katana-- is there anyone out there in D&D forum-land who doesn't know that the katana-making process was a method to shore up a material weakness, not some near-magical thing that made them the ultimate weapon that could cut through rifle barrels, etc. etc.?

The worst experience was someone on Dragonsfoot maybe 1-2 years ago basically screaming at the rest of the thread 'you are all picturing studded leather* wrong!' and then described how it wouldn't be this soft leather thing that no one was picturing that apparently came from the 2e Arms&Equipment guide. And everyone had to say, "no, that's not what we were picturing or talking about at all, you just assumed we didn't know anything."
*caveat: everyone already had stipulated that studded was ahistoric, this was more about how it might be made to work


And from what I've seen, and seem to remember seeing on twitter, they tried their best to use correct terminology and data in regards to the weapons and armour in this edition.

Well, the "pike" weighs as much as a historic pike, but is clearly a longspear at most (at least I would think so, since you can use it at all outside of formation, and it only has a 10' reach). The mace is finally not 12 lbs or whatever it was in 2e/3e (woof! wtf?). If you just go with their naming convention that a "club" is a escrima stick, quarterstaff includes all hand-and-a-half clubs as well for some reason, and a greatclub is something you wouldn't normally try to use one handed, then the clubs work okay-ish. I would say it's maybe half-and-half a fair attempt. They removed the buckler, but it would be interesting to have seen whether it was a held-in-hand affair or strapped to forearm, to see whether they intended to favor adding historical accuracy or favor game-legacy.

I guess I took the fact that the 5e-game-longsword as being 1D8, versatile (1d10) as an indicator that it was considered a 'predominantly one handed weapon that can be used two handed' which to me says bastard sword, and not a 'predominantly two handed weapon you can use in one hand' which to me would be historic longsword. However, looking at quarterstaff makes me doubt that that is an implication of the term versatile.

[xanderh]

Okay. My own personal experience has been boards full of people all desperate to point out that European swords weren't actually blunt pieces of steel you used to bludgeon the enemy with, but had to pre-emptively presume or misinterpret someone else to find someone who "didn't know" that for them to seem smart in front of.

It's like the katana-- is there anyone out there in D&D forum-land who doesn't know that the katana-making process was a method to shore up a material weakness, not some near-magical thing that made them the ultimate weapon that could cut through rifle barrels, etc. etc.?

The worst experience was someone on Dragonsfoot maybe 1-2 years ago basically screaming at the rest of the thread 'you are all picturing studded leather* wrong!' and then described how it wouldn't be this soft leather thing that no one was picturing that apparently came from the 2e Arms&Equipment guide. And everyone had to say, "no, that's not what we were picturing or talking about at all, you just assumed we didn't know anything."
*caveat: everyone already had stipulated that studded was ahistoric, this was more about how it might be made to work



Well, the "pike" weighs as much as a historic pike, but is clearly a longspear at most (at least I would think so, since you can use it at all outside of formation, and it only has a 10' reach). The mace is finally not 12 lbs or whatever it was in 2e/3e (woof! wtf?). If you just go with their naming convention that a "club" is a escrima stick, quarterstaff includes all hand-and-a-half clubs as well for some reason, and a greatclub is something you wouldn't normally try to use one handed, then the clubs work okay-ish. I would say it's maybe half-and-half a fair attempt. They removed the buckler, but it would be interesting to have seen whether it was a held-in-hand affair or strapped to forearm, to see whether they intended to favor adding historical accuracy or favor game-legacy.

I guess I took the fact that the 5e-game-longsword as being 1D8, versatile (1d10) as an indicator that it was considered a 'predominantly one handed weapon that can be used two handed' which to me says bastard sword, and not a 'predominantly two handed weapon you can use in one hand' which to me would be historic longsword. However, looking at quarterstaff makes me doubt that that is an implication of the term versatile.

Yeah, I don't think you can make a generalised conclusion about versatile, but the way it's written, it's more logical to assume one-handed weapon that can be used in two hands. Though, the way it's written certainly doesn't exclude the opposite.

[Knaight]

Because it is a stick.

A club or great club is found out in the woods, its not balanced. You didn't carve it

About that:
https://www.arthurbeaupalmer.com/cms/images/maori/MaoriclubTiki.JPG
http://www.kiwitreasure.com/ProdImages/AA01/Patu-Maori-War-Club-p.jpg
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=127410&stc=1
https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4007/4453749041_577e1c62d1.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/d8/f4/27/d8f4279e6d30e1f937eb046738dc5e1f.jpg[img]
[img]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/c7/2e/49/c72e492ce910d86c81bc7e86ac0be6bd.jpg"]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/c7/2e/49/c72e492ce910d86c81bc7e86ac0be6bd.jpg
http://publications.newberry.org/indiansofthemidwest/wp-content/gallery/americanexpansion8/99club.jpg
http://www.nihonzashi.com/japanese_weapon_pictures/tetsubo_640_3131.jpg"]http://www.nihonzashi.com/japanese_weapon_pictures/tetsubo_640_3131.jpg
http://www.oldeshillelagh.com/Fighting-Sticks-Staffs/ref52a.JPG

[N810]

http://www.wrtcleather.com/1-ckd/warclubs/gswarclub-004.jpg
https://cdn.antiquestradegazette.com/media/1615/14-01-10-2123ar01b-peter-wilson.jpg
https://image.invaluable.com/housePhotos/Thomaston/82/559382/H0134-L67774014.jpg
http://eshop.tappoo.com.fj/images/Categories/Handicraft/ext/SO22000022C_ext.jpg
https://auctions.bidsquare.com/images/lot/1953/195366_0.jpg

[Coidzor]

Good point, though the Scimitar seem to be a bit of an outlier to me. The cynical part of me thinks the only reason it got the Light property was to make it so Drizzt clones could use TWF with them without a feat.

I think they also shortened scimitars in 5e to facilitate that process.

[Willie the Duck]

I think they also shortened scimitars in 5e to facilitate that process.

Perhaps dragged in the 3e kukri aficionados?

[JackPhoenix]

Speaking of longswords and bastard swords, I found it funny 3.5 had it exactly around: longsword was one-handed weapon that could be used in two hands, while bastard sword was two-handed weapon that could be used with one hand with some extra training.

But IIRC, the difference between both seems to be a little fuzzy, and different historians use different terminology anyway.


About that:
https://www.arthurbeaupalmer.com/cms/images/maori/MaoriclubTiki.JPG
http://www.kiwitreasure.com/ProdImages/AA01/Patu-Maori-War-Club-p.jpg
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=127410&stc=1
https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4007/4453749041_577e1c62d1.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/d8/f4/27/d8f4279e6d30e1f937eb046738dc5e1f.jpg[img]
[img]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/c7/2e/49/c72e492ce910d86c81bc7e86ac0be6bd.jpg"]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/c7/2e/49/c72e492ce910d86c81bc7e86ac0be6bd.jpg
http://publications.newberry.org/indiansofthemidwest/wp-content/gallery/americanexpansion8/99club.jpg
http://www.nihonzashi.com/japanese_weapon_pictures/tetsubo_640_3131.jpg"]http://www.nihonzashi.com/japanese_weapon_pictures/tetsubo_640_3131.jpg
http://www.oldeshillelagh.com/Fighting-Sticks-Staffs/ref52a.JPG

Note: the last picture is what real-life shillelagh looks like (and seeing the link in the quote instead of picture, it's even in the name of the site)

[Tanarii]

Some definitions:


A club is Light and is used one-handed, because it's small. A quaterstaff is Versatile, because it's balanced to be used with one or two hands, but when it's two-handed it does the same damages as a greatclub. A greatclub is not balanced, so you need two hands to use it properly, but it's not big or bulky enough that Small beings would have troubles using it.
Heavy has nothing to do with requiring Two Hands to use. That's the property Two Handed, which great clubs have. Other examples of Two-handed weapons that are not Heavy are Short Bow and Light Crossbow.

In theory, it's possible to design a Heavy weapon without the Two-Handed property, although none exist. For example, possibly a Bastard sword. 1d8, Versatile (2d6), Heavy. (This probably isn't balanced, but hey I just made it up on the spot.)

[GlenSmash!]

Heavy has nothing to do with requiring Two Hands to use. That's the property Two Handed, which great clubs have. Other examples of Two-handed weapons that are not Heavy are Short Bow and Light Crossbow.

In theory, it's possible to design a Heavy weapon without the Two-Handed property, although none exist. For example, possibly a Bastard sword. 1d8, Versatile (2d6), Heavy. (This probably isn't balanced, but hey I just made it up on the spot.)

I thought Katanas were 1d12, Heavy, Light, Finesse, Versatile (2d6)?

[xanderh]

Heavy has nothing to do with requiring Two Hands to use. That's the property Two Handed, which great clubs have. Other examples of Two-handed weapons that are not Heavy are Short Bow and Light Crossbow.

In theory, it's possible to design a Heavy weapon without the Two-Handed property, although none exist. For example, possibly a Bastard sword. 1d8, Versatile (2d6), Heavy. (This probably isn't balanced, but hey I just made it up on the spot.)

How does that make any sense? As stated earlier, a bastard sword is basically just a shorter longsword, so why would it (1) do more damage when wielded in two hands and (2) have the heavy property when the longsword doesn't? If anything, that would be a war sword (a longer and heavier longsword, but not quite a greatsword).

[Knaight]

Note: the last picture is what real-life shillelagh looks like (and seeing the link in the quote instead of picture, it's even in the name of the site)

Googling "shillelagh" is how I found that last picture - most of the rest are Maori clubs, with one Japanese kanabo and a full table of clubs from different Plains Indian tribes. The point is, clubs have been developed by a bunch of different cultures, and while a stick that one finds is a starting point the end point on club design involved clubs with extensive work put into them.

[GlenSmash!]

How does that make any sense? As stated earlier, a bastard sword is basically just a shorter longsword, so why would it (1) do more damage when wielded in two hands and (2) have the heavy property when the longsword doesn't? If anything, that would be a war sword (a longer and heavier longsword, but not quite a greatsword).

I wouldn't get bogged down on the name.

I think Tanarii's point was Heavy is a weapon property as is Two Handed, and while they sometimes go together, sometimes they don't, so just like Great Club, Short Bow, and Light Crossbow are Two Handed but not Heavy there could be a weapon that is Heavy but not Two Handed.

In fact I'd love to have a weapon for my Barbarian that worked with GWM but that I could use in one hand when Grappling. And I don't think it would break much of anything.

[Knaight]

I think Tanarii's point was Heavy is a weapon property as is Two Handed, and while they sometimes go together, sometimes they don't, so just like Great Club, Short Bow, and Light Crossbow are Two Handed but not Heavy there could be a weapon that is Heavy but not Two Handed.

Maybe, maybe not - "Heavy" might specifically be a category of two handed weapons. Two handed weapons that aren't heavy demonstrably exist though, and there's a fair few where it wouldn't make sense as a label (e.g. spears, staffs, some clubs) and a few others where it would be weird not to have it (halberds, warhammers, some clubs).

[Unoriginal]

Heavy has nothing to do with requiring Two Hands to use. That's the property Two Handed, which great clubs have.

Yes, which is why I never implied that Heavy had anything to do with Two Handed, and in fact talked about why the greatclub had Two Handed but not Heavy.

[Tanarii]

I thought Katanas were 1d12, Heavy, Light, Finesse, Versatile (2d6)?Oh of course, silly me. :smallamused:


How does that make any sense? As stated earlier, a bastard sword is basically just a shorter longsword, so why would it (1) do more damage when wielded in two hands and (2) have the heavy property when the longsword doesn't? If anything, that would be a war sword (a longer and heavier longsword, but not quite a greatsword).Maybe historically. But in D&D terms it's always been a bigger longsword, that can be used one or two handed. Of course, in 5e the longsword can already be used one or two handed. I was just stepping up from that because of D&D tradition. And because it was convenient to show a weapon that might be between the Longsword (Versatile, not Heavy) and the Greatsword (Two Handed, Heavy).


Maybe, maybe not - "Heavy" might specifically be a category of two handed weapons. Two handed weapons that aren't heavy demonstrably exist though, and there's a fair few where it wouldn't make sense as a label (e.g. spears, staffs, some clubs) and a few others where it would be weird not to have it (halberds, warhammers, some clubs).The Heavy weapon trait isn't specifically tied to Two Handed by the PHB. Although that none exist might be a good indicator of design intent.


Yes, which is why I never implied that Heavy had anything to do with Two Handed, and in fact talked about why the greatclub had Two Handed but not Heavy.
Ah. Then I misinterpreted your comment on great clubs being used two handed.

[xanderh]

Maybe historically. But in D&D terms it's always been a bigger longsword, that can be used one or two handed. Of course, in 5e the longsword can already be used one or two handed. I was just stepping up from that because of D&D tradition. And because it was convenient to show a weapon that might be between the Longsword (Versatile, not Heavy) and the Greatsword (Two Handed, Heavy).

Why keep using the wrong term, though? Especially when you know it's the wrong term. All that does is perpetuating misinformation and potentially introducing confusion.
D&D used to get it wrong, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to get it right in the future.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Why keep using the wrong term, though? Especially when you know it's the wrong term. All that does is perpetuating misinformation and potentially introducing confusion.
D&D used to get it wrong, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to get it right in the future.

What is right? Historical accuracy is not the only (or even main) concern of game writers. Names of weapons (especially swords) are likely one of the sacred cows of dnd that would cause a huge uproar to change, and all for what purpose? Satisfying the time minority of ancient weapon geeks who a) notice, b) care, and c) would actually play DND?

[xanderh]

What is right? Historical accuracy is not the only (or even main) concern of game writers. Names of weapons (especially swords) are likely one of the sacred cows of dnd that would cause a huge uproar to change, and all for what purpose? Satisfying the time minority of ancient weapon geeks who a) notice, b) care, and c) would actually play DND?

Game designers shouldn't sacrifice game design for historical accuracy. But that's not what's happening here. If WotC were to introduce a sword between the greatsword and longsword, they have to choose between using the term bastard sword (historically wrong, but it's what they used to do) or war sword (historically accurate, but not the term D&D gamers are used to). If WotC anticipate people getting angry over them using the historically correct term, they should state their reason for using the term (in this case, because it's historically accurate). If they explain why they chose that term (potentially in a sidebar in the book), any remotely reasonable person is going to accept that rationale. And I don't think you should make decisions based on the reactions of unreasonable people.

Also, why in the world would using the term War Sword cause a "huge uproar"? That just seems unreasonable to me, especially when it's done for the sake of correctness.

[Tanarii]

Why keep using the wrong term, though? Especially when you know it's the wrong term. All that does is perpetuating misinformation and potentially introducing confusion.
D&D used to get it wrong, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to get it right in the future.
Because I don't know it's wrong. I'm just guessing you think that it's wrong. I have absolutely nothing to show me that you're right, nor, to be frank, do I care. I play D&D, not 'historical weaponry'. And in D&D, the bastard sword has always been a bigger Longsword. So I'll stick with that.

Edit: more importantly, a Longsword in D&D is not a two handed weapon, and you seem to think historically it was. That's irrelevant to a discussion of D&D mechanics, in which it is a one handed sword. With the versatile trait in 5e.

[Vogonjeltz]

All the other two-handed weapons are Heavy. And speaking in pounds, the greatclub is only outweighed by the pike and the heavy crossbow.

What do you guys think?

It's intended for use by small creatures with no martial weapons training as a two-handed option.

You might note no simple weapon has the heavy trait. Whereas all two-handed martial weapons have the heavy trait.

The "upgrade" for those small creatures with martial training is the use of Longswords/Warhammers/Flails that feature the versatile trait.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Game designers shouldn't sacrifice game design for historical accuracy. But that's not what's happening here. If WotC were to introduce a sword between the greatsword and longsword, they have to choose between using the term bastard sword (historically wrong, but it's what they used to do) or war sword (historically accurate, but not the term D&D gamers are used to). If WotC anticipate people getting angry over them using the historically correct term, they should state their reason for using the term (in this case, because it's historically accurate). If they explain why they chose that term (potentially in a sidebar in the book), any remotely reasonable person is going to accept that rationale. And I don't think you should make decisions based on the reactions of unreasonable people.

Also, why in the world would using the term War Sword cause a "huge uproar"? That just seems unreasonable to me, especially when it's done for the sake of correctness.

My point is that historical accuracy, when talking about a fantasy land, is completely irrelevant to anything. Words have multiple meanings and context lets you tell the difference. If this were a period game set in the real world, then it would matter. As it is, it's not wrong. It's just not what you expect. Changing longsword -> greatsword, bastard sword -> war sword, greatsword -> something else would be a significant change for people who are already change averse. And all for something that has absolutely no relevance to 99+% of all users.


Because I don't know it's wrong. I'm just guessing you think that it's wrong. I have absolutely nothing to show me that you're right, nor, to be frank, do I care. I play D&D, not 'historical weaponry'. And in D&D, the bastard sword has always been a bigger Longsword. So I'll stick with that.

Edit: more importantly, a Longsword in D&D is not a two handed weapon, and you seem to think historically it was. That's irrelevant to a discussion of D&D mechanics, in which it is a one handed sword. With the versatile trait in 5e.

Exactly. Names only matter in context--this isn't historical earth.

[SharkForce]

Googling "shillelagh" is how I found that last picture - most of the rest are Maori clubs, with one Japanese kanabo and a full table of clubs from different Plains Indian tribes. The point is, clubs have been developed by a bunch of different cultures, and while a stick that one finds is a starting point the end point on club design involved clubs with extensive work put into them.

thanks for finding them.

i would also add that in 5e, "club" probably includes a variety of other things, like tonfa or nunchaku.

also, most likely many clubs would be a lot less decorated than some of those really fancy-looking ones you found... but still, it's reasonable to presume it's more than just a stick you pick up off the ground, rather it is probably a stick that has been worked with to make it nicely balanced, handle wrapped in leather for better grip, etc.

[Knaight]

thanks for finding them.

i would also add that in 5e, "club" probably includes a variety of other things, like tonfa or nunchaku.

also, most likely many clubs would be a lot less decorated than some of those really fancy-looking ones you found... but still, it's reasonable to presume it's more than just a stick you pick up off the ground, rather it is probably a stick that has been worked with to make it nicely balanced, handle wrapped in leather for better grip, etc.

I'd consider a tonfa or nunchaku a club, and my set of example pictures was far from comprehensive - I didn't have any examples from Australia, Africa, South America, or mainland Asia, and there were clubs in all of those places.

[xanderh]

I'm not actually advocating that WotC change any names of weapons that are already implemented, because they seem to be mostly accurate in 5e. But if they were to introduce a sword between longsword and greatsword, it makes sense to use the English word that is correct, and not one that refers to a different thing.
Using bastard sword to refer to a war sword is like using the word crawling to refer to dashing.

My opinion is that either you should use the correct term (assuming you know what the correct term is), or you should make up your own word. Avoid confusion if you can. Kicking up a fuss because the authors decided to get the words right in this edition would be an utterly ridiculous and unreasonable thing to do, and in my opinion, you shouldn't pander to those people.

If you care to learn a little about sword classification, I recommend this video: https://youtu.be/nb2Cvd_amEc
It's a little silly, especially at the start, but it's only about 15 minutes long and it covers everything from shortsword to greatsword.

[SharkForce]

I'm not actually advocating that WotC change any names of weapons that are already implemented, because they seem to be mostly accurate in 5e. But if they were to introduce a sword between longsword and greatsword, it makes sense to use the English word that is correct, and not one that refers to a different thing.
Using bastard sword to refer to a war sword is like using the word crawling to refer to dashing.

My opinion is that either you should use the correct term (assuming you know what the correct term is), or you should make up your own word. Avoid confusion if you can. Kicking up a fuss because the authors decided to get the words right in this edition would be an utterly ridiculous and unreasonable thing to do, and in my opinion, you shouldn't pander to those people.

If you care to learn a little about sword classification, I recommend this video: https://youtu.be/nb2Cvd_amEc
It's a little silly, especially at the start, but it's only about 15 minutes long and it covers everything from shortsword to greatsword.

english is not a dead language. 20 years ago, "buff" probably meant a different thing to most people than it is likely to be understood now by a typical young person (though in some places, if you say "buff" they're still going to think about polishing things. "gay" meant pretty much the same thing as "happy" at one point (still does, to some extent, though it's mostly only still around in some older songs, poetry, etc), and so on.

in historic england, bastard sword meant one thing. in a D&D group today, it does not have to mean the same thing as it did in a different time and place. thanks to decades of use, in D&D "bastard sword" no longer means the same thing as it would mean to a scholar of some variety (historian, archeologist, etc) studying the history of england. the word has essentially gained an additional meaning.

[xanderh]

english is not a dead language. 20 years ago, "buff" probably meant a different thing to most people than it is likely to be understood now by a typical young person (though in some places, if you say "buff" they're still going to think about polishing things. "gay" meant pretty much the same thing as "happy" at one point (still does, to some extent, though it's mostly only still around in some older songs, poetry, etc), and so on.

in historic england, bastard sword meant one thing. in a D&D group today, it does not have to mean the same thing as it did in a different time and place. thanks to decades of use, in D&D "bastard sword" no longer means the same thing as it would mean to a scholar of some variety (historian, archeologist, etc) studying the history of england. the word has essentially gained an additional meaning.

Actually, longsword is a term modern historians and enthusiasts use, not a historical term. Most swords were just called "sword", and the longsword was called "long sword". Longsword and bastard sword are technical terms used by historians to refer to a specific type of sword. If you're going to use those terms, you may as well use them correctly, especially when the information is so prevalent and easy to find.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Actually, longsword is a term modern historians and enthusiasts use, not a historical term. Most swords were just called "sword", and the longsword was called "long sword". Longsword and bastard sword are technical terms used by historians to refer to a specific type of sword. If you're going to use those terms, you may as well use them correctly, especially when the information is so prevalent and easy to find.

And work is used by physicists to mean force integrated over a path. Words have different meanings in different contexts, especially when used by non specialists (ie not as jargon). You're stealing a base by claiming correctness. In this context, a longsword is a sword mainly used in 1h that can be used in two for slightly increased power. That's it.

[ZorroGames]

Actually, longsword is a term modern historians and enthusiasts use, not a historical term. Most swords were just called "sword", and the longsword was called "long sword". Longsword and bastard sword are technical terms used by historians to refer to a specific type of sword. If you're going to use those terms, you may as well use them correctly, especially when the information is so prevalent and easy to find.

No.

Simply no.

As a trained and professional Historian (one, and the original, of my occupational choices in my long life) playing D&D I do not care what is the IRL name is (historians seldom have consensus despite their fetish of wanting to appear that way when it is their term,) but just understanding what the game calls it. Preferably consistent naming ( even if deemed "wrong") between versions.

Now as a retired career Cartographer if you want to discuss bad mapping/world creation I can spiel pedantry all day long... but won't.

Fantasy game not = historical simulation.

[xanderh]

And work is used by physicists to mean force integrated over a path. Words have different meanings in different contexts, especially when used by non specialists (ie not as jargon). You're stealing a base by claiming correctness. In this context, a longsword is a sword mainly used in 1h that can be used in two for slightly increased power. That's it.

Please point me to the post in which I advocated changing the name of longswords. All I did was point out that the weapon described as a bastard sword would be more accurately labelled a war sword (which is essentially a large longsword).

Also, please point me to the part of the rules that state that a longsword can't be a two-handed weapon that can be used in one hand. Versatile only tells us that the weapon can be used effectively in one and two hands.


No.

Simply no.

As a trained and professional Historian (one, and the original, of my occupational choices in my long life) playing D&D I do not care what is the IRL name is (historians seldom have consensus despite their fetish of wanting to appear that way when it is their term,) but just understanding what the game calls it. Preferably consistent naming ( even if deemed "wrong") between versions.

Now as a retired career Cartographer if you want to discuss bad mapping/world creation I can spiel pedantry all day long... but won't.

Fantasy game not = historical simulation.

Was your field of study medieval arms and armour? If not, you don't actually have anything more meaningful to add than any other person here.
And I don't believe I claimed to speak for anyone else here, I simply said that longsword is a technical term used by historians to refer to a specific type of sword (coincidentally one that includes bastard swords and war swords), which is objective fact.
I'm not asking that anyone change anything that has already been added to the system by official sources, I'm merely asking that future editions use correct terminology when doing so isn't inconvenient the game already does so, so why not continue?

[SharkForce]

Was your field of study medieval arms and armour? If not, you don't actually have anything more meaningful to add than any other person here.
And I don't believe I claimed to speak for anyone else here, I simply said that longsword is a technical term used by historians to refer to a specific type of sword (coincidentally one that includes bastard swords and war swords), which is objective fact.
I'm not asking that anyone change anything that has already been added to the system by official sources, I'm merely asking that future editions use correct terminology when doing so isn't inconvenient the game already does so, so why not continue?

my field (and his, for that matter) is "D&D player". and in that field, i'm quite confident. i don't care if the word has a different meaning elsewhere. i really don't. it's completely irrelevant. after decades of playing D&D, i'm going to call a D&D longsword a longsword when i'm playing D&D whether that is correct in another field or not. just as i'm going to continue to call the D&D barbarian a barbarian even though that's not really the "proper" meaning either, and just like i'm going to use "arcane magic" to describe magic that is powered by a source other than deities rather than magic that is particularly obscure.

words change. it may have meant something else before. it may mean something else right now when you're in a different group. that isn't relevant to this discussion at this time in this group, in which it is used to mean a specific thing that it doesn't mean in those other places.

[xanderh]

my field (and his, for that matter) is "D&D player". and in that field, i'm quite confident. i don't care if the word has a different meaning elsewhere. i really don't. it's completely irrelevant. after decades of playing D&D, i'm going to call a D&D longsword a longsword when i'm playing D&D whether that is correct in another field or not. just as i'm going to continue to call the D&D barbarian a barbarian even though that's not really the "proper" meaning either, and just like i'm going to use "arcane magic" to describe magic that is powered by a source other than deities rather than magic that is particularly obscure.

words change. it may have meant something else before. it may mean something else right now when you're in a different group. that isn't relevant to this discussion at this time in this group, in which it is used to mean a specific thing that it doesn't mean in those other places.

Well, I see that continuing to discuss this is pointless. I disagree with using the wrong term just because you have traditionally used the wrong term, and I will not budge from that belief as I find that doing so is ridiculous. Just be aware that using the correct term would bring you in line with the rest of the world, making it easier to communicate with people who haven't played D&D for decades (like me), but have an interest in swords.

[SharkForce]

Well, I see that continuing to discuss this is pointless. I disagree with using the wrong term just because you have traditionally used the wrong term, and I will not budge from that belief as I find that doing so is ridiculous. Just be aware that using the correct term would bring you in line with the rest of the world, making it easier to communicate with people who haven't played D&D for decades (like me), but have an interest in swords.

here's the thing: it isn't the wrong term any more. it has become part of the language of D&D, which does not need to be identical or even particularly similar to the language of historians.

way back when the game was first being designed, it was the wrong term. now, it's just part of the language. it is no more wrong than saying that "d" is a short form of the word "die" or "dice", as opposed to being the 4th letter in the alphabet, or that a gorgon is a magical iron bull that breathes petrifying gas rather than being the name of medusa and her sisters as a group (or that there is such a thing as "a medusa" or "a pegasus" rather than just being actual specific individuals).

[ZorroGames]

Well, I see that continuing to discuss this is pointless. I disagree with using the wrong term just because you have traditionally used the wrong term, and I will not budge from that belief as I find that doing so is ridiculous. Just be aware that using the correct term would bring you in line with the rest of the world, making it easier to communicate with people who haven't played D&D for decades (like me), but have an interest in swords.

Does that mean you are going to stop being annoying by leaving? Stating your opinion is fine. Insisting others agree with it is what is making consenus IRL and academia a pit.

[MeeposFire]

I wouldn't get bogged down on the name.

I think Tanarii's point was Heavy is a weapon property as is Two Handed, and while they sometimes go together, sometimes they don't, so just like Great Club, Short Bow, and Light Crossbow are Two Handed but not Heavy there could be a weapon that is Heavy but not Two Handed.

In fact I'd love to have a weapon for my Barbarian that worked with GWM but that I could use in one hand when Grappling. And I don't think it would break much of anything.

Funny enough that would make two weapon and sword and shield style barbs in many ways more viable than two handed weapon barbarians (one exception you could still claim that PAM is slightly better than going two weapon fighting but it would be debatable).

[xanderh]

Does that mean you are going to stop being annoying by leaving? Stating your opinion is fine. Insisting others agree with it is what is making consenus IRL and academia a pit.

I started out being pretty respectful, until I questioned why the term bastard sword was being used to describe what is considered a war sword basically everywhere else. I don't have decades of history with D&D, so I had no way of knowing that the creators of the game had been getting it wrong for so many years.
For some reason, people decided to gang up on me when I questioned the decade old hivemind, and all that accomplished is polarising the opinions. I'm not going to be persuaded by any of you that what you say is reasonable, because you started out by ganging up on me.
But I guess you did prove my point about lots of people being ignorant of the correct terminology...

And yeah, I was planning on leaving the thread. No need to be so rude, though. You cannot tell tone by text, it might help if you stop assuming the worst in people and start assuming they're reasonable until they prove you otherwise.

[SharkForce]

I started out being pretty respectful, until I questioned why the term bastard sword was being used to describe what is considered a war sword basically everywhere else. I don't have decades of history with D&D, so I had no way of knowing that the creators of the game had been getting it wrong for so many years.
For some reason, people decided to gang up on me when I questioned the decade old hivemind, and all that accomplished is polarising the opinions. I'm not going to be persuaded by any of you that what you say is reasonable, because you started out by ganging up on me.
But I guess you did prove my point about lots of people being ignorant of the correct terminology...

And yeah, I was planning on leaving the thread. No need to be so rude, though. You cannot tell tone by text, it might help if you stop assuming the worst in people and start assuming they're reasonable until they prove you otherwise.

except that you did know after we told you about it, and then you kept on insisting that it was wrong. ignorance doesn't work as a defence when you're being given the information you're claiming to be ignorant of after the fact.