PDA

View Full Version : Sabres?



...Eh?
2007-09-30, 05:03 PM
I have a character concept in my mind of a character who dual-weilds sabres. Since this would mostly be a fluff thing, what would be a good weapon to use as stats for a sabre?

Rex Blunder
2007-09-30, 05:07 PM
I believe the scimitar is the standin for sabres and cutlasses, correct?

Lord Tataraus
2007-09-30, 05:09 PM
I have a character concept in my mind of a character who dual-weilds sabres. Since this would mostly be a fluff thing, what would be a good weapon to use as stats for a sabre?

A rapier that does slashing damage.

Edit: the scimitar is a rapier that does slashing, except its not finessable, the sabre would be finessable.

UserClone
2007-09-30, 05:10 PM
A rapier that does slashing damage.
Erm, you mean like a scimitar?

Rex Blunder
2007-09-30, 05:15 PM
But I believe a sabre is heavier and slower, and I'm not sure it should be finesseable.

Perhaps this conversation is getting perilously close to "Questions about Real-Life Weapons"...

Spiryt
2007-09-30, 05:20 PM
But I believe a sabre is heavier and slower, and I'm not sure it should be finesseable.


It all depends on what you mean by "saber".

I think it's all up to you. Both are quite good : "slashing rapier" and normal scimitar too.

DraPrime
2007-09-30, 05:23 PM
I have to agree. Either slashing rapier or scimitar will work best. Maybe even a falchion, but probably not.

BardicDuelist
2007-09-30, 05:24 PM
What kind of sabre? A calvary sabre would be similar to a scimitar or longsword. A dueling sabre would be finessable (though their use was rare).

Personally, I allow scimitar's to be finessable (since I don't see this as gamebreaking at all).

UserClone
2007-09-30, 05:29 PM
I just meant that, IIRC, a Scimitar is identical to a rapier except that it does slashing damage and is not "Finesse-able".

Spiryt
2007-09-30, 05:29 PM
This thread could use a pic.

You mean something like that?

http://users.wpi.edu/~jforgeng/17cIQP/weapon_files/sword1.png

Guy_Whozevl
2007-09-30, 05:30 PM
Faerun has a sabre as a weapon. It's basically a longsword that gets bonuses to attack/damage (can't remember which one) when charging. It's one-handed and non-fineseable.

Lord Tataraus
2007-09-30, 05:36 PM
Faerun has a sabre as a weapon. It's basically a longsword that gets bonuses to attack/damage (can't remember which one) when charging. It's one-handed and non-fineseable.

?Bonuses when charging? How does that work? But as others have said, it really depends on what type of sabre you're thinking about. I think of a quick, slashing sword like the dueling sabre.

Guy_Whozevl
2007-09-30, 05:49 PM
?Bonuses when charging? How does that work? But as others have said, it really depends on what type of sabre you're thinking about. I think of a quick, slashing sword like the dueling sabre.

There are the dueling sabres, as you mentioned, but the historical sabre is used by cavalry. Thus the bonus on charges (I recall that it was a mounted charge; sorry if putting just "charge" confused you). Here's a wikipedia link to clarify things:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabre

Lemur
2007-09-30, 06:48 PM
The Forgotten Realms saber is essentially a slashing and piercing longsword that gives you a +1 bonus to attack when mounted. If you just want an approximation, a normal longsword or a scimitar are your best bets.

A saber in D&D should probably be thought of mostly as a cavalry weapon, since that was indeed it's orginal purpose, instead of a light dueling weapon. Actually, if you look at modern saber fencers, a lot of the time they'll just charge towards each other, more or less, and have at each other.

@VV - FRCS book has a statted-out saber, p. 97

Lord Tataraus
2007-09-30, 10:30 PM
There are the dueling sabres, as you mentioned, but the historical sabre is used by cavalry. Thus the bonus on charges (I recall that it was a mounted charge; sorry if putting just "charge" confused you). Here's a wikipedia link to clarify things:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabre

Ah, that does make sense. The plain 'charge' threw me off.

Renegade Paladin
2007-09-30, 11:00 PM
I'm fairly certain that sabers are statted out somewhere; I'm just not sure which book. (Cutlasses are in the FRCS and Stormwrack.)

Ceridan
2007-09-30, 11:28 PM
Faerun has a sabre as a weapon. It's basically a longsword that gets bonuses to attack/damage (can't remember which one) when charging. It's one-handed and non-fineseable.

No. It gives a +1 to hit while mounted, as Sabers where primarily used by officers and cavalry.

Zeal
2007-10-01, 01:05 AM
I'm pretty sure Stormwrack has a Sabre. Otherwise the rapier with slashing damage would work.

Darrin
2007-10-01, 07:31 AM
Edit: the scimitar is a rapier that does slashing, except its not finessable, the sabre would be finessable.

Use a scimitar. The curved blade allows the full force of the blow to be focused to a single point on the blade rather than spreading it along a straight edge. I would guess the curved blade is also more suited to chopping/hacking downward and also slashing at a solid/stationary object as you charge by on horseback, whereas a completely straight blade striking an immovable object might be more likely to break/shatter. You'd probably want a softer, more flexible metal as well, easier to nick/dull the blade but flexible enough to survive the rigors of mounted combat. The exact definition of scimitar is vague enough to cover all that.

A one level dip into Dervish would make scimitars finessable, as well as drzztable.

Leon
2007-10-01, 08:51 AM
I'm pretty sure Stormwrack has a Sabre. Otherwise the rapier with slashing damage would work.

It has the Cutlass

Runolfr
2007-10-01, 08:55 AM
I think you should go with the scimitar. A cavalry sabre was designed as a cutting weapon, with the curved blade concentrating the force of the blow on a smaller area. The "dueling sabre" is a relatively modern invention associated with sport fencing, as far as I know, and not really well suited to genuine combat.

The scimitar is not Weapon Finesse-compatible, but I think that's appropriate, since a cutting weapon of this sort needs the mass to do its work properly.

alexi
2007-10-01, 12:58 PM
well considering that the term sabre covers everything from the light Italian dueling sabre (what fencing sabre's are intending to cover) to big honking swiss 2 handers (a falchion could be used for this) and swords inbetween why not use a rapiers stats. The pictures or rapiers in most dnd books look like sabre's to my eyes anyways.

Iudex Fatarum
2007-10-01, 04:33 PM
I would like to defend fencing real quick here, yes a fencing sabre is finesse and is actualy quite difficult, they don't as one person states it, "just charge". they do use finesse its just hard to see if you are not trained to see it or doing it yourself. I personaly have not done sabre but did foil for quite a few years under some of the top instructors in the states. my instructors didn't teach sabre because it was so complex. they stuck to foil and epee only.

If you haven't fenced don't comment on how they just charge please. its quite a respected sport.

Also the difference between a calvary sabre and a fencing or dueling sabre. the dueling sabre would be finesseable and I would give it the same stats more or less like that of a rapier, maybe bump up its damage a die or something but maybe take a minus on its use, so finesable but a -1 to use it that way.

Lemur
2007-10-01, 04:50 PM
I've fenced for about 8 years :smallsigh: . Which means I get to make all the cracks I want about the sport :smalltongue: . Compared to foil and epee, saber fencers are more aggressive about closing distance, from what I've seen. I'm not suggesting there's no grace involved, but the style of it is rather fast.

Raum
2007-10-01, 05:02 PM
Per WotC (in the Arms and Equipment Guide) a saber is another name for a scimitar. Not sure I entirely agree, the scimitar is usually significantly more point heavy. Of course WotC may contradict themselves in other books. :)

On fencing, isn't saber the only weapon allowed to score with the edge as well as the point? Fencing with the saber also disallows the hands as valid targets. Both rules will tend to encourage closing the range compared to foil or epee.

Sundog
2007-10-01, 05:11 PM
Per WotC (in the Arms and Equipment Guide) a saber is another name for a scimitar. Not sure I entirely agree, the scimitar is usually significantly more point heavy. Of course WotC may contradict themselves in other books. :)

On fencing, isn't saber the only weapon allowed to score with the edge as well as the point? Fencing with the saber also disallows the hands as valid targets. Both rules will tend to encourage closing the range compared to foil or epee.

It's been a while, but IIRC, Sabre allows the edge, but not hands or feet, and does follow the right-of-way rules.

Iudex Fatarum
2007-10-01, 05:14 PM
saber does close distance faster, I do aknowledge that. yes they are the only weapon that uses edge of blade. but the rule about hands is sort of true
can't hit the hands I believe (I can't say with certainty) but you can hit the entire arm. Foil is where the arm is off limits. because you hit with edge there is no rules about pressure so the object is to hit even a glancing blow can give a point whereas in foil or epee a glancing blow won't normaly set off the lights so no point made

Mike_G
2007-10-01, 05:19 PM
On fencing, isn't saber the only weapon allowed to score with the edge as well as the point? Fencing with the saber also disallows the hands as valid targets. Both rules will tend to encourage closing the range compared to foil or epee.


The hand is a valid target in Sabre fencing. Anything above the waist is valid.

It's not a valid target in Foil, but it is in Epee and Sabre.

You are correct that Sabre is the only weapon where you can score touches with the edge. Sabre follows Right of Way rules like Foil (basically, if you counterattack into the opponent's attack, and you both get hit, he gets the point, since you reacted wrong. You are supposed to defend yourself first, since Fencing was initially developed as a training aid for swordplay, and the idea was to train you to survive, not trade fatal blows. Epee ignores Right of Way and goes solely on timing, so if you ignore his attack and hit him a half second before he runs you through, it's your point. Epee is silly.)

I hold a national rating in Sabre.

Raum
2007-10-01, 05:50 PM
The hand is a valid target in Sabre fencing. Anything above the waist is valid.The hand isn't valid according to United States Fencing Association's (http://www.usfencing.org/usfa/content/view/1272/110/) website. Here's a quote:
The saber is the modern version of the slashing cavalry sword. As such, the major difference between saber and the other two weapons is that saberists can score with the edge of their blade as well as their point. In saber, the target area is the entire body above the waist, excluding the hands.

Mike_G
2007-10-01, 06:17 PM
The hand isn't valid according to United States Fencing Association's (http://www.usfencing.org/usfa/content/view/1272/110/) website. Here's a quote:

It's possible that changed with the introduction of electric scoring.

I saw bouts won and lost by hand touches when in college.

Ah, yes, I just checked the FIE international rules and I stand corrected. When Electronic scoring was introduced to Sabre in 1988 at the Olypic level, later for us poor college students, the necessity of a conductive lame over target area changed the target area, prboably since a metal lame glove would have made holding the weapon impossible. The target are now ends at the cuff of the glove, and excludes the hand. It also changed the results of an off target touch from a stop in the action to no effect at all, and made the crossover of the feet illegal.

Huh. That takes away my trademark "point to the ball of the thumb" attack that used to catch people with a sloppy en garde position.

Renegade Paladin
2007-10-01, 06:50 PM
Bah. Fencing. Give me a good arming sword and I'll beat any fencer any day of the week. Going back and forth in a straight line is for losers. :smallamused:

Mike_G
2007-10-01, 06:54 PM
Bah. Fencing. Give me a good arming sword and I'll beat any fencer any day of the week. Going back and forth in a straight line is for losers. :smallamused:

If you're ever in New England, PM me and I'll take you up on that.

Overweight and pushing forty after two wrist surgeries though I am, I still eat heavy melee reenactors for lunch.

Consider the cyber gauntlet thrown.

Renegade Paladin
2007-10-01, 06:59 PM
Who said anything about heavy fighting? There's a simple solution to any and all fencers: Get out of the way. Their rules say you can't do that, but hang the rules. Going back and forth in a straight line is for suckers. :smalltongue:

Mike_G
2007-10-01, 07:11 PM
Who said anything about heavy fighting? There's a simple solution to any and all fencers: Get out of the way. Their rules say you can't do that, but hang the rules. Going back and forth in a straight line is for suckers. :smalltongue:


If you are talking about fighting arming sword against rapier, you have to igonre certain rules, or establish a shared set of rules.

Fencing is linear because of the old judging conventions. Foil and sabre were used as training weapons for real swordfighting. Just because I'm a rated sabre fencer doesn't mean I'm incapable of turning.

I still meet with a group of mixed olympic style fencers, SCA rapier fencers and some SCA heavy list guys. Good fencers beat the SCA guys at their own game much more often that SCA guys outfence fencers.

I could as easily say I can beat any boxer because they aren't allowed to grapple, or that a hockey player can beat a basketball player since checking isn't allowed in basketball.

Still, my offer stands. If you ever find yourself in Mass, NH, or Maine, and want to go a few rounds with any blade, PM me and I'll be there.

Renegade Paladin
2007-10-01, 07:17 PM
Not likely; I don't have much cause to go up that way. I'll keep it in mind, though.

Until then, my record of beating my university's entire fencing club, instructor included, when some of them decided to be snotty about how fencing was such a superior combat style stands. :smallamused: Sure, they were capable of turning, but they weren't any good at it, having never studied anything else. But this is getting seriously off topic.

Mike_G
2007-10-01, 07:39 PM
Not likely; I don't have much cause to go up that way. I'll keep it in mind, though.

Until then, my record of beating my university's entire fencing club, instructor included, when some of them decided to be snotty about how fencing was such a superior combat style stands. :smallamused: Sure, they were capable of turning, but they weren't any good at it, having never studied anything else. But this is getting seriously off topic.

Fencing is not a martial art, or a combat style. It is a sport derived from a martial art. As a sport, there are rules. Boxers can't leave the ring in a bout, because ist's a sport with rules. That doesn't mean you can hope to beat one because he can only fight in a 20 foot square area.

If you understand the history of fencing, and why the moves work, and how being a sport has changed them, you can learn a lot about rapier fighting. In fact, a good fencer who takes up rapier will quickly become good, while a good rapier fighter who takes up fencing will struggle. Fencing competitively against a large pool of people who learn techniques from Olympians, in a sport that constantly evolves from it's practice at a high level of athleticism, will beat the basics into you in a way that the small pool of more combat oriented enthusiasts simply doesn't do. There are many more college fencers and private clubs than there are members of ARMA or the SCA or whatever.

The rules and the sportiness encourage speed and accuracy, which is why I, and any of my old fencing buddies, routinely defeat SCAdians, whose techniques are... less precise.

Actually, to avoid derailing the thread further, I think I addressed this topic before here: http://para-cynic.livejournal.com/18247.html

Renegade Paladin
2007-10-01, 07:59 PM
Sucking gut wounds don't care how precise the blade that caused them was. The fact of the matter is that fencing, being a sport, doesn't teach practical combat techniques by itself, and in fact actively discourages many of them. It takes study of rapier fighting, not fencing, to learn that, at which point you aren't facing a fencer; you're facing someone who knows and is using a practical combat style, or as practical a combat style as you can have using outdated weapons. Someone who only knows fencing would doubtless beat me (or an SCA heavy fighter for that matter) at fencing, but would lose and lose hard taken out of the rules that have shielded him and that he's molded his style around for his entire experience with the blade.

By the by, beating heavy fighting stick jockeys one on one isn't really that impressive; the idea of heavy fighting is to get a whole bunch of guys on each side. (It's also something that I don't do; getting run over by a charging horde isn't my idea of a good time.) A skilled swordsman (which I'm not, really; I'm better at the staff) is something completely different, especially with a sword-and-shield style; a properly used shield is a massive advantage. (To sort of tie this into gaming in some small way, that's been one of my gripes with D&D; sword-and-board should be the most effective melee style, when the rules make it into the least.)

Ozymandias
2007-10-01, 08:10 PM
Sucking gut wounds don't care how precise the blade that caused them was. The fact of the matter is that fencing, being a sport, doesn't teach practical combat techniques by itself, and in fact actively discourages many of them. It takes study of rapier fighting, not fencing, to learn that, at which point you aren't facing a fencer; you're facing someone who knows and is using a practical combat style, or as practical a combat style as you can have using outdated weapons. Someone who only knows fencing would doubtless beat me (or an SCA heavy fighter for that matter) at fencing, but would lose and lose hard taken out of the rules that have shielded him and that he's molded his style around for his entire experience with the blade.

By the by, beating heavy fighting stick jockeys one on one isn't really that impressive; the idea of heavy fighting is to get a whole bunch of guys on each side. (It's also something that I don't do; getting run over by a charging horde isn't my idea of a good time.) A skilled swordsman (which I'm not, really; I'm better at the staff) is something completely different, especially with a sword-and-shield style; a properly used shield is a massive advantage. (To sort of tie this into gaming in some small way, that's been one of my gripes with D&D; sword-and-board should be the most effective melee style, when the rules make it into the least.)

Your entire argument is kind of silly, as using any sword, or most variants thereof, has been more or less obsolete as a "practical combat style" for about a century - adding an addendum "as practical a combat style as you can have using outdated weapons" does not change the fact that any pursuit of any sword art is considerably less useful than one involving a gun, or unarmed combat, or a knife, or analogous weapons. Sure, SCA may be marginally more applicable to 'real combat situations' than fencing, but it's still by and large useless. Ditto for fencing, but it's a well-established sport in the Olympics so it's actually a much more useful skill, in my opinion.

Ultimately, do what you enjoy, because you are not learning something useful. If you want to be a really skilled fighter, A.) avoid fighting as much as possible, or B.) Buy a gun.

As far as the original intent of the topic goes, it depends upon what you want a 'sabre' to be - I've seen many soi-disant sabres in many different places, sharing only a few traits (backsword, curved).

BardicDuelist
2007-10-01, 08:53 PM
Bah. Fencing. Give me a good arming sword and I'll beat any fencer any day of the week. Going back and forth in a straight line is for losers. :smallamused:

I am very offended by this, and if you are even in Michigan, I will take you up on that. We don't have to stay in a straight line.

The other posts as well: I have fought against many different styles, and found that fencing is the best fighting style for unarmored, two-person fights. That is what its predecessors were developed for. Even against a shield, the advantage in speed can quickly translate to an advantage over all. If these were not true, the swords would not have evolved to what they became after armor became impractical due to the invention of guns. It isn't great against a bunch of guys in armor, but that is not what these styles and weapons were developed for. It is like comparing apples to oranges. If you want to compare the effieiceny of "sword and board" fighting, compare it to weapons of the period, not of different time periods. You will find that hammers, maces, and spears were actually used more in the middle ages than swords, but that the sword was symbolic and thus is seen more in media.


All of that said and done, I still stand by "finessable scimitar" for a light dueling sabre, or the FRCS for a heavy calvary sabre.

Tallis
2007-10-01, 08:59 PM
Use a scimitar. The curved blade allows the full force of the blow to be focused to a single point on the blade rather than spreading it along a straight edge. I would guess the curved blade is also more suited to chopping/hacking downward and also slashing at a solid/stationary object as you charge by on horseback, whereas a completely straight blade striking an immovable object might be more likely to break/shatter.

I'm pretty sure that a big part of the reason for a curved blade was so that it would continue to cut as the attacker rode by and dragged it across his target. A straight blade would be more inclined to bouce away. A cavalry sabre isn't really a chopping weapon; it doesn't have the weight behind it to make it effective.
I'm guessing that the OP is looking for a lighter weapon like modern fencing sabres. I recommend a scimitar for stats.

Renegade Paladin
2007-10-01, 09:49 PM
Your entire argument is kind of silly, as using any sword, or most variants thereof, has been more or less obsolete as a "practical combat style" for about a century - adding an addendum "as practical a combat style as you can have using outdated weapons" does not change the fact that any pursuit of any sword art is considerably less useful than one involving a gun, or unarmed combat, or a knife, or analogous weapons. Sure, SCA may be marginally more applicable to 'real combat situations' than fencing, but it's still by and large useless. Ditto for fencing, but it's a well-established sport in the Olympics so it's actually a much more useful skill, in my opinion.

Ultimately, do what you enjoy, because you are not learning something useful. If you want to be a really skilled fighter, A.) avoid fighting as much as possible, or B.) Buy a gun.
There's a reason the shotgun's what's under the bed rather than either of the swords. :smalltongue:

As for BardicDuelist, I have also fought against many different styles. The primary weakness I've found in fencers is that, even when taken out of their ruleset, they tend to fall back rather than circle when threatened. The other is the fondness for long lunging, with the expectation that the opponent won't get out of the way. It works great in the structure of fencing, but in an unstructured match it simply leaves the fencer incredibly vulnerable. And if you're really that offended, then I recommend simply growing a thicker skin; I'm not the one who started talking about fencing rules in the context of trying to figure out the game stats of an actual weapon. Especially talking about the fencing rules prohibiting hitting the opponent in certain areas; post about that and then immediately turn around and call fencing the most effective style for unarmored duels and I can't help but laugh. "Oh, we're not allowed to hit him in places X, Y, and Z, but it's still the best way!" That, my friend, is hilarious.

BardicDuelist
2007-10-01, 09:53 PM
There's a reason the shotgun's what's under the bed rather than either of the swords. :smalltongue:

As for BardicDuelist, I have also fought against many different styles. The primary weakness I've found in fencers is that, even when taken out of their ruleset, they tend to fall back rather than circle when threatened. The other is the fondness for long lunging, with the expectation that the opponent won't get out of the way. It works great in the structure of fencing, but in an unstructured match it simply leaves the fencer incredibly vulnerable. And if you're really that offended, then I recommend simply growing a thicker skin; I'm not the one who started talking about fencing rules in the context of trying to figure out the game stats of an actual weapon. Especially talking about the fencing rules prohibiting hitting the opponent in certain areas; post about that and then immediately turn around and call fencing the most effective style for unarmored duels and I can't help but laugh. "Oh, we're not allowed to hit him in places X, Y, and Z, but it's still the best way!" That, my friend, is hilarious.

I apologize, as I was offended (and in a bad mood) at the time of my last post. I am not now. It is simply that, honestly, fencing and D&D do not go well together because D&D is traditionally set centuries before light, unarmored, sword combat really developed.

On the issue of limited target, that is not true for epee. All areas are target, and there are not right of way conventions. For foil and sabre, it came out of the traditional teaching practices of hitting in the vital areas (except the head, as it was difficult and unsafe to practice strikes there before the advent of fencing masks).

crimson77
2007-10-01, 10:02 PM
what would be a good weapon to use as stats for a sabre?

I would say

{table]Martial Weapons |Cost|Dmg (S)|Dmg (M)|Critical |Range Increment |Weight|Type
Rapier|20 gp|
1d4|
1d6|18-20/×2|
—|
2 lb.|Piercing
[/table]

BardicDuelist
2007-10-01, 10:04 PM
Wow, I just read my posts. I am sorry for beligerance. We should just agree to disagree.

Deepblue706
2007-10-01, 10:58 PM
As a former epee fencer, I recognize fencing doesn't quite prepare people for real combat. It's a sport. Rapiers weren't exactly used in all-out war, either - They were primarily used by civilians, in duels. So, fencing is like learning the basics of a weapon that was better than no-weapon. The smallsword, on the other hand, was a good weapon.

But anyway, while I agree few fencers really get much chance to turn, I never had any trouble...in fact, in fights with some SCA chums, I was noted for having excellent footwork and was highly evasive. I was able to adapt to their ways of fighting in no time. I don't see why this would be a large enough factor to mention.

Those SCA chaps did keep yelling at me for doing too many feints, though. "JUST HIT HIM!!!"

Unfortunately, stamina was never my strong point. I'm not overweight, but I'm unhealthy. That was a large problem during my high school fencing career - I think I actually picked up mono my senior year...It made it rather difficult to keep up with more energetic fencers. And I vomitted a lot. Though, I managed to amuse my teammates by leaving the room to vomit between each round, and then when I'd return, I'd still win a majority of the time.

Still, while I managed to humiliate a few people, my status as a fencer had greatly declined. I still can't fence as well as I did at my "high point". A lot of people thought I was pretty capable, too.

Wait, we're not talking about me? Oh, yeah. Sorry.

Sabres should = Cutlass. Also, Falchions should be one-handed.

dr.cello
2007-10-01, 11:32 PM
As a former epee fencer, I recognize fencing doesn't quite prepare people for real combat. It's a sport. Rapiers weren't exactly used in all-out war, either - They were primarily used by civilians, in duels. So, fencing is like learning the basics of a weapon that was better than no-weapon. The smallsword, on the other hand, was a good weapon.


Not quite. The rapier was a self-defense weapon. It was never intended primarily for dueling--but it was never used in out-and-out warfare, you're right--neither was the smallsword (which would probably be less useful in warfare). The chroniclers of history have a tendency not to write about barroom brawls, but they do write about duels--and they were used for duels. But that wasn't their primary use.

Lycurgus
2007-10-02, 06:38 AM
Use the rapier stats if you are going for the light version. In the 2e Fighter's Handbook the rapier and sabre stats were identical except for damage type. The fencing sabre would generally sit more back in your hand, while a scimitar is weighted more toward the tip.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-10-02, 07:55 AM
The "dueling sabre" is a relatively modern invention associated with sport fencing, as far as I know, and not really well suited to genuine combat.

So is a rapier, but we're expected to use those in a medieval world as well.


well considering that the term sabre covers everything from the light Italian dueling sabre (what fencing sabre's are intending to cover) to big honking swiss 2 handers (a falchion could be used for this) and swords inbetween why not use a rapiers stats. The pictures or rapiers in most dnd books look like sabre's to my eyes anyways.

Not to mention Katana, Dao and Shamshir, which can also be called sabres.

Runolfr
2007-10-02, 09:15 AM
Bah. Fencing. Give me a good arming sword and I'll beat any fencer any day of the week. Going back and forth in a straight line is for losers. :smallamused:

I do Renaissance fencing, not modern fencing, and I do not go back and forth in a straight line.

Runolfr
2007-10-02, 09:24 AM
So is a rapier, but we're expected to use those in a medieval world as well.

The rapier described in the rules is comparable to a 16th-century rapier, which is considerably heavier than a modern foil or epee. They're rather late for "medieval" setting, but they're genuine weapons rather than sporting equipment.

Sundog
2007-10-02, 10:18 AM
Huh. That takes away my trademark "point to the ball of the thumb" attack that used to catch people with a sloppy en garde position.

Heh. And my friends used to wonder why I "slowed myself down" with a full bell instead of a cut-down.

Mike_G
2007-10-02, 12:37 PM
As a former epee fencer, I recognize fencing doesn't quite prepare people for real combat. It's a sport. Rapiers weren't exactly used in all-out war, either - They were primarily used by civilians, in duels. So, fencing is like learning the basics of a weapon that was better than no-weapon. The smallsword, on the other hand, was a good weapon.

But anyway, while I agree few fencers really get much chance to turn, I never had any trouble...in fact, in fights with some SCA chums, I was noted for having excellent footwork and was highly evasive. I was able to adapt to their ways of fighting in no time. I don't see why this would be a large enough factor to mention.

Those SCA chaps did keep yelling at me for doing too many feints, though. "JUST HIT HIM!!!".


Most fencers I know had similar experiences with SCA fighters. Competeive fencing drills parries and point control and speed into you very well, and forces you to have good clean footwork and a tight guard to win. The simple addition of sideways footwork is much easier to integrate than a SCA trained fighter fixing the generally sloppier form that rapier fighters learn.

Renegade Paladin
2007-10-02, 05:18 PM
Sloppy form? Let one of the reigning kings hear you say that. :smalltongue: I still say it sounds like you've been facing off against heavy fighting stick jockeys rather than rapier swordsmen.

Foxer
2007-10-02, 08:22 PM
With regard to the fencing/real sword-fighting thing, the footwork taught by sports fencers is a first-rate technique, and lends itself to lateral movement just as readily as linear movement (advancing and retreating). I taught an amateur re-enactment group for a couple of years and always made sure that our new members got the footwork right first.

Modern fencing is obviously a sport, but, that said, it is a sport based on the need to train people for genuine combat and, as such, provides an excellent grounding in real swordplay.

As for sabres in D&D, I have to ask, though: is there really enough difference between a sabre and any other slashing weapon to warrant a different weapon profile? There's not an awful lot to choose between the longsword, scimitar and rapier in the PhB in terms of weight, cost, damage and critical threat range and multiplier. If the only issue is whether or not a sabre can be wielded using Weapon Finesse (like a rapier), personally I'd rule that any single-handed sword is finesse-able. You really don't have to be all that strong to use even quite heavy blades effectively, and speed and precision (i.e. Dexterity) count for a lot more than simple strength. Fitness and conditioning are probably the most important factors in real melee combat though; what matters is not how hard you can swing, nor how powerful a blow you can parry, but how long you can continue to do so.

Mike_G
2007-10-02, 08:28 PM
Sloppy form? Let one of the reigning kings hear you say that. :smalltongue: I still say it sounds like you've been facing off against heavy fighting stick jockeys rather than rapier swordsmen.

No, I really haven't.

I routinely beat SCA rapier fencers, at rapier, including Marshalls and instructors.

Because their control is very sloppy, compared to the members of the 1988 US Olympic fencing team that I sparred with when I was in college. And I loudly declare that to their kings, and invite any of them to name a time for a bout when they next are within a hundred miles of Boston.

When you can parry the lunge of an 18 year old Hungarian national champion in the peak of his career, blocking the thrust of the average SCA fencer, whose workout routine involves more Highlander: the Series marathons and oreos than miles run, isn't that tough.

Renegade Paladin
2007-10-02, 11:56 PM
Okay, now you're just blowing hot air. You've gone from beating random SCA people to sparring with the Olympic team? The tales are getting bigger and bigger here.

Runolfr
2007-10-03, 08:28 AM
Regardless, as someone who briefly did sport fencing in college and does a lot of SCA fencing now, I know that sport fencers take to SCA fencing VERY well. They start with good footwork and point control, and that count's for a lot in SCA fencing. Their major issue is learning to use their offhand, since off-hand parrying and the use of daggers, bucklers, etc. simply aren't taught in sport fencing.

alexi
2007-10-03, 04:49 PM
"The rapier was a self-defense weapon. It was never intended primarily for dueling--but it was never used in out-and-out warfare, you're right--neither was the smallsword"

ehhh not quite right, the rapier was used in the ECW extenisvely in the begining but it was found to be a sub par weapon to use from horse back, and the epee du soldat ( a small sword) was the primary side arm of the french and scots (acctualy troops, not levies who's primary weapon was a dirk) armies of the early to mid 18th century.

alexi
2007-10-03, 04:53 PM
"Bah. Fencing. Give me a good arming sword and I'll beat any fencer any day of the week. Going back and forth in a straight line is for losers. "

Bah give me a lochabre ax. getting within reach is for loosers.

Mike_G
2007-10-03, 07:11 PM
Okay, now you're just blowing hot air. You've gone from beating random SCA people to sparring with the Olympic team? The tales are getting bigger and bigger here.

The US Olympic Foil team members, (from 1988 anyway) trained at Tanner City Fencing in Peabody Mass under Joseph Pachinsky.

http://www.tannercity.netfirms.com/Coaches.htm

Peabody is maybe 30 miles from UNH, and maybe 15 from the Boston Fencing Club, which is the headquarters of the New England Division of the USFA. I was a member of the UNH team, and the Dover NH based Seacoast fencing Club from 1987 through 1990, and still show up occaisionally. Seacoast was undefeated in team matches in Boston during my time there. (not to say I was the reason, just that I was a member of a very good club). It became the flagship club of the Northern New England Division under my old coach when they split for the New England division. He has gone on to train national champions.

http://www.seacoastfencingclub.org/


If you fence competetivly and go to local, regional and national events, you will meet the best that colleges have to offer, and where do you think our national team comes from?

I fenced, and was beaten soundly, by several olympians in the late 80's.

I now fence in Portland ME with the local SCA chapter and a handful of old college fencers. Show up at the Sullivan gym any Tuesday. Look for a loud, short guy with a sabre.

http://www.usm.maine.edu/police/portlanddirections.htm

Please, please please use PM to continue this, since we've already driven this thread way off into the weeds. I'm done replying here, but I will not be called a liar.

Deepblue706
2007-10-03, 09:19 PM
Not quite. The rapier was a self-defense weapon. It was never intended primarily for dueling--but it was never used in out-and-out warfare, you're right--neither was the smallsword (which would probably be less useful in warfare). The chroniclers of history have a tendency not to write about barroom brawls, but they do write about duels--and they were used for duels. But that wasn't their primary use.

Oh, I didn't intend to present the idea that Rapiers were meant for duels...I was sure they didn't see much use, aside from being used in one-on-one combat...or as mere jewelry. But, I submit I don't really know much about the history of weapons. Or history. Or things.