Is Second Edition a new chance for Longswords?

[Lemartes]

Falcata is 19-20/x3 and 17-20/x3 when increased.

I'm going to respond to a bunch of stuff on here later.

I think some common ground shouldn't be that out of the question here. :)

[Lemartes]

Bah ninja'd by Kalindlara. :P

[Davor]

Woops!

Still, also a feat tax for Nodachi, which some campaigns won't even have regular access to. Same goes for the Falcata, for what it's worth, but the extra feat is actually quite nice, and Nodachi only, on average, does about 0.5 damage more than a Falchion. That's a wasted feat in most circumstances.

[Lemartes]

Nodachi is a martial weapon.

[Davor]

Well, I'll just be going then.

[Kalindlara]

Yeah, the "feat or two" I was referring to was Shield Brace (and, if you don't have armor training, Shield Focus) to wield both the nodachi and a shield. ^_^

[Lemartes]

A few things to say in response to a number of posts as well as some additions to various thoughts already mentioned.

For the renaming of weapons. I think there is only really 3-5 or so that really bug me. That being said I agree Polearms are a mess. I was going to say to not bother too much with them.

I do like Dr. Weasel's idea and that was something I was thinking about all weapons in general to some point. Where you have general names that you can apply the most logical weapon to, and there would be overlap.

Rough example:(Very Rough. ;))

Sword A vs Sword B. Sword A is a cut and thrust sword. Sword Sword B is a more nimble sword that favours the thrust but can also cut.

Rules wise, Sword A is what is currently under the rules a longsword.

Sword B is what currently under the rules as a rapier.

I have a Sidesword and it could use either set of rules.

So a DM outfitting two bad guys could say that they both have Sideswords but the larger villain has the longsword version and the more nimble villain has the rapier version.

On your character sheet it would be Sword A(Rapier) or whatever.

I don't think this will happen but I would like that option the best.

Poleaxes are awesome. I will add that the ones I've seen also have a spike at the bottom of the haft. We need these in the game.

As for armour here is where I think we can do something that would open up a ton of options kind of like what is being hinted at with weapons by the designers. Not to mention be super cool. :)

Correct names would be nice as well anyways. Layering armour would be amazing for so many reasons.

First of all it gives you more tactical flexibility and makes any given piece of armour viable longer. As well as some really cool things with magical sets of armour.

Gambeson, chainmail and then brigandine is as good as example as any.

Starting your pc you might only have money and or training for it. After sometime you can afford and now know how to use chainmail. After sometime you add brigandine. So you save that armour and it opens up story things like starting with heirloom armour that you might never give up. :)

Tactical wise, you have to climb up a cliff or swim or stealth. Might be an idea to remove a layer or two. Fall in a lake. :)

This might be a reason why you would stay with this armour over plate as it is much harder to remove and plate should only really have two layers in the later periods. ie: Arming doublet with chainmail voiders and then well the plate. :)

So there is some real choice not just plate is best.

Finally each layer could have its own enhancement that could be mixed and matched as well as maybe better when part of a set.

Example of a unique set: Gambeson stops bleed effects, chaimail is light fortification, brigandine has spell resistance. All together they give you +1 to your saving throws.

I doubt this will happen but it would be damn cool if it did. :)

[Dean HS Jones]

So long as there are a variety of weapons that cover all the bases and the full spread of weapon properties I'm willing to overlook minor historical inaccuracies

[Staffan Johansson]

Doktor Weasel wrote:

Oh yeah. The armor naming is just horrible. Like the use of 'mail' for things that aren't mail (mail means chainmail, not a generic term for armor). I cringe every time I hear someone say Platemail (which thankfully is no longer in Pathfinder, but people still use it because of Gygax's use of bad Victorian sources).

A quick look in the AD&D 1e PHB doesn't give any descriptions of armor (at least not in the equipment chapter). However, by the time of AD&D 2e (and in the red box Basic D&D set, though there it was part of the introductory solo adventure), plate mail had been defined as essentially "plate and mail" - a backing of mail, with things like a breastplate, pauldrons, and so on. In D&D3/PF1 terms, that would be a suit of half-plate.

[Slim Jim]

Dean HS Jones wrote:

So long as there are a variety of weapons that cover all the bases and the full spread of weapon properties I'm willing to overlook minor historical inaccuracies

For a game featuring ubiquitous melee combat to water down one of the most effective swords IRL into one of the poorer d8 choices is a wee bit beyond a "minor" inaccuracy. (By the numbers, the falcata is the highest DPR one-handed weapon in the game; IRL, falcatas were obsolescent a millennia before the knightly sword evolved into the longsword.)

[Gorbacz]

Slim Jim wrote:

Dean HS Jones wrote:

So long as there are a variety of weapons that cover all the bases and the full spread of weapon properties I'm willing to overlook minor historical inaccuracies

For a game featuring ubiquitous melee combat to water down one of the most effective swords IRL into one of the poorer d8 choices is a wee bit beyond a "minor" inaccuracy. (By the numbers, the falcata is the highest DPR one-handed weapon in the game; IRL, falcatas were obsolescent a millennia before the knightly sword evolved into the longsword.)

You have any statistics for the "most effective swords IRL"? Disregarding the obvious fact that no Western blade could match the katana, that is.

[Slim Jim]

See the first page.

[Gorbacz]

Oh, but that's incidental videos, not even a scientific study by anybody with a relevant degree, from Earth, where people didn't fight dragons, t-rexes, ochre jellies and enemies clad in armor made from dwarven stone or demon glass.

[Dracoknight]

I think we have gotten to the point where the argument of immersion doesnt mean anything anymore.

Plus when it comes to names of weapons and historical accuracy the "weapon classes" as our dear weapon expert talk so much about were not even used during the times before the catagorization and naming schemes were applied by historians way past its time. So in all reality its a fruitless effort to make it "accurate" as it was never accurate to begin with.

Argument of immersion is fruitless in general as there is always something that takes you out of it, but the game have never claimed to be more than a game which simulate a adventure in a fantasy setting. Having historical accuracy to real life counterparts or its handling of magic within the laws of thermodynamics is way out of the scope of the game to begin with.

So what we have here is history VS established fantasy tropes, and considering this is a fantasy game you can take a guess which one wins out in terms of relevancy.

[MerlinCross]

Side question, what do people use as their main weapon when using a shield?

I just use insert sword or axe here. Sometimes hammer or mace, depends on the character

[Slim Jim]

Gorbacz wrote:

Oh, but that's incidental videos, not even a scientific study by anybody with a relevant degree, from Earth, where people didn't fight dragons, t-rexes, ochre jellies and enemies clad in armor made from dwarven stone or demon glass.

Right after you show me anyone using falcatas to face off against knights with longswords during the Hundred Years' War. Good luck.

--If you want to be pure fantasy, then don't give the mundane weapons the same names as actual historical weapons IRL unless they're along the same sliding-scale of effectiveness. Given them never-used IRL names -- then they can be anything you want without sounding like a skittering record-scratch to the historically-inclined. Elven Curve Blade and Dwarven Longhammer are perfect examples: Even though they look like they probably aren't that good (not that Peter Jackson movies are any authority) compared to actual medieval weapons, they get a pass because they're clearly made-up.

(But let's not get into Klingon weaponry; those things are ropy old toss.)

[Chest Rockwell]

On the clearly made-up tip, I don't mind some, but others, like the dire flail, sawtooth anything, make me wince a bit.

[Gorbacz]

Slim Jim wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

Oh, but that's incidental videos, not even a scientific study by anybody with a relevant degree, from Earth, where people didn't fight dragons, t-rexes, ochre jellies and enemies clad in armor made from dwarven stone or demon glass.

Right after you show me anyone using falcatas to face off against knights with longswords during the Hundred Years' War. Good luck.

--If you want to be pure fantasy, then don't give the mundane weapons the same names as actual historical weapons IRL unless they're along the same sliding-scale of effectiveness. Given them never-used IRL names -- then they can be anything you want without sounding like a skittering record-scratch to the historically-inclined. Elven Curve Blade and Dwarven Longhammer are perfect examples: Even though they look like they probably aren't that good (not that Peter Jackson movies are any authority) compared to actual medieval weapons, they get a pass because they're clearly made-up.

(But let's not get into Klingon weaponry; those things are ropy old toss.)

By your logic most of in-game animals shouldn't be called the way they are, because their stats are an abstraction and not results of somebody quantifying biology. Bears and household cats, I am looking at you.

Yet, you have no problem with that.

Worse, you can't call T-rex a "T-rex" because hey, Golarion doesn't have Latin.

So either you go full monty and request the game, top down, from animal names through plant names to weapon names, to divorce itself from the reality it somewhat approximates, or you just make your peace with the fact that the longsword doesn't live up to your expectations.

[Slim Jim]

For what's it worth, I never cared for dinosaurs in Tolkienesque fantasy. Better idea: make more dragons.

(Stupid "Jurassic Park" movies....)

[Malthraz]

Kalindlara wrote:

Perhaps I'm missing something, but... why is the falchion better than the nodachi? (Heck, if you have a feat or two to spare, why is scimitar and shield better than nodachi and shield?)

The only advantage that falchion has is that it is a core weapon rather than some codex-creep rubbish that should not be in the game.

[Kalindlara]

Malthraz wrote:

Kalindlara wrote:

Perhaps I'm missing something, but... why is the falchion better than the nodachi? (Heck, if you have a feat or two to spare, why is scimitar and shield better than nodachi and shield?)

The only advantage that falchion has is that it is a core weapon rather than some codex-creep rubbish that should not be in the game.

This is... definitely a take.

[Zaister]

Slim Jim wrote:

For what's it worth, I never cared for dinosaurs in Tolkienesque fantasy. Better idea: make more dragons.

Good thing then that Pathfinder isn't really tolkienesque at all.

By the way, I think Tolkien's books had just one more dragon than they had dinosaurs.

[Dragonstriker]

Zaister wrote:

Slim Jim wrote:

For what's it worth, I never cared for dinosaurs in Tolkienesque fantasy. Better idea: make more dragons.

Good thing then that Pathfinder isn't really tolkienesque at all.

By the way, I think Tolkien's books had just one more dragon than they had dinosaurs.

Only if you limit Tolkien’s books to The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. If you include all his works, there are plenty of dragons. The First Age dragons make Smaug look like an amateur.

[Vidmaster7]

Ancalagon the Black makes Smaug look like a monitor lizard.

[Chest Rockwell]

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Ancalagon the Black makes Smaug look like a monitor lizard.

Yep, and 1st Age Elves are like demigods, taking our balrogs and such.

[Zaister]

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Ancalagon the Black makes Smaug look like a monitor lizard.

OK, yes, that is true. I take that back about the dragons. :)

[master_marshmallow]

Supposedly we are getting those stories from Amazon in film form.

[wraithstrike]

MerlinCross wrote:

Side question, what do people use as their main weapon when using a shield?

I just use insert sword or axe here. Sometimes hammer or mace, depends on the character

Sword 99% of the time. Occasionally I've used an axe. I've never chosen a bludgeoning weapon such as a warhammer.

[MerlinCross]

Slim Jim wrote:

For what's it worth, I never cared for dinosaurs in Tolkienesque fantasy. Better idea: make more dragons.

(Stupid "Jurassic Park" movies....)

I mean, fight one flying lizard, fought them all right?

Okay that's a reach but I think we have MORE than enough dragons to the points I think we might be running out of stuff to MAKE dragons out of? Time Dragon? Occult Dragon? The heck even is a Paradise Dragon?

I propose we make we make a Dragon Dragon. A dragon made up of smaller tinier dragons. Insert Power Rangers/Voltron joke here.

wraithstrike wrote:

MerlinCross wrote:

Side question, what do people use as their main weapon when using a shield?

I just use insert sword or axe here. Sometimes hammer or mace, depends on the character

Sword 99% of the time. Occasionally I've used an axe. I've never chosen a bludgeoning weapon such as a warhammer.

I sometimes have a Mace or hammer as a just in case myself. Swords usually yes.

[Athaleon]

I care less about the historical naming than just the goofiness of certain weapon properties. Longswords can't pierce, short swords can't cut, but daggers can do both? What the f#@@ is that?

[Slim Jim]

Zaister wrote:

Slim Jim wrote:

For what's it worth, I never cared for dinosaurs in Tolkienesque fantasy. Better idea: make more dragons.

Good thing then that Pathfinder isn't really tolkienesque at all. By the way, I think Tolkien's books had just one more dragon than they had dinosaurs.

The important take-away is that Tolkien had the good sense to call them dragons instead of dinosaurs. --You can have dragons with four legs, two legs, no legs, wings or no wings, they can talk or they can't, etc. With dinosaurs, you get what the paleontologists dig up.

"Dragons" are clearly fantasy creatures: you can do whatever you want with them without breaking immersion. (Except give them hair. <cringe> TSR tried doing that once a long, long time ago. Yeeg....)

[Tarik Blackhands]

Slim Jim wrote:

"Dragons" are clearly fantasy creatures: you can do whatever you want with them without breaking immersion. (Except give them hair. <cringe> TSR tried doing that once a long, long time ago. Yeeg....)

Hey man, there's a long standing tradition for eastern dragons to have long, luxurious whiskers! (It's hair, it counts)

[Haywire build generator]

Note to self: Make a dragon White-Haired Witch.

[lemeres]

Athaleon wrote:

I care less about the historical naming than just the goofiness of certain weapon properties. Longswords can't pierce, short swords can't cut, but daggers can do both? What the f$*# is that?

Well, the short sword is more reasonable if it is a Stiletto/rondel/rapier-esque type deal. The really thin type meant for stabbing in deep through leather or in the joints/chainmail. It was a fairly common variety of weapon worn by various strata of society.

Such weapons might not even have an edge at all- i personally own a replica that has a triangular cross section (which would result in a wound that would be difficult to stitch up; makes it far more deadly). Some examples might have a vestigial edge that is only there so the other side doesn't try to get cute and grab the blade (ie- how would an action hero deal with a spear?).

Now, whether to call it a 'short sword' or not is another bit of semantics. But it is a metal stick about 2 feet long with a handle that you stick in the other person, so I guess it could be called a 'short sword'.

[Grand Magus]

Slim Jim wrote:

To heck with the animals, 2e needs to fix the dang *weapons*.

* If glaives can't do piercing, then neither should naginatas.

* katanas should be "S or P" (ditto arming sword and longswords).

* nodachis are basically huge katanas and don't have the Brace property (they're too excessively curved).

* The game lacks a finessable arming sword. And it's not just Hollywood either, as the Celts used similar swords a thousand years before the Norman Conquest.

* falcions (AKA messers) are one-hand-hilted weapons; the two-handed version is the kriegsmesser.

* The longsword which has never gotten the respect it deserves from RPGs, with HEMA fans and practitioners taking a jaundiced view of that.

* These two lovelies here and here deserve a place in the game.

.

> walk on the sun <

.

[Athaleon]

lemeres wrote:

Athaleon wrote:

I care less about the historical naming than just the goofiness of certain weapon properties. Longswords can't pierce, short swords can't cut, but daggers can do both? What the f$*# is that?

Well, the short sword is more reasonable if it is a Stiletto/rondel/rapier-esque type deal. The really thin type meant for stabbing in deep through leather or in the joints/chainmail. It was a fairly common variety of weapon worn by various strata of society.

Such weapons might not even have an edge at all- i personally own a replica that has a triangular cross section (which would result in a wound that would be difficult to stitch up; makes it far more deadly). Some examples might have a vestigial edge that is only there so the other side doesn't try to get cute and grab the blade (ie- how would an action hero deal with a spear?).

Now, whether to call it a 'short sword' or not is another bit of semantics. But it is a metal stick about 2 feet long with a handle that you stick in the other person, so I guess it could be called a 'short sword'.

Again, I'm fine with "short sword" encompassing everything from a leaf-bladed bronze sword, to a gladius, viking sword, arming sword, and smallsword. 99% of them, all but a very few exceptions, had cutting edges.

[Fumarole]

The Sideromancer wrote:

Mapping a near-continuous spectrum to discrete categories is hard. It's why I fail to understand why categorizing generations of people has any value.

Because it can be useful shorthand to describe groups of people. For instance, in the case of millennials in western countries, this is a group of people who likely do not have any memory of a time before the internet was a thing. Likewise, for generation X, they were the last generation to be raised without the internet. For something as ubiquitous as the internet, the generations before and after its rise mostly regard it in different ways. Obviously, there will be individual variation, but as a rule of thumb it is useful.

[lemeres]

Athaleon wrote:

Again, I'm fine with "short sword" encompassing everything from a leaf-bladed bronze sword, to a gladius, viking sword, arming sword, and smallsword. 99% of them, all but a very few exceptions, had cutting edges.

Well.... Gary Gygax circa 1974 didn't have a very good book on historical weapons. So his idea of 'short sword' mostly consisted of weapons common to about the 1300's to 1500's.

Thus is the problem with a grandfathered system that still relies upon terminology used by a guy publishing his first table top game...

[Darksol the Painbringer]

This is something that I've discussed about PF2 already, and one thing that people need to consider is that PF2 isn't supposed to be a historic recreation of real life weaponry; it is a fantasy game, after all, not a history game (yes, the game has history, but not the point here). In fact, I'm a little more shocked that PF2 hasn't instead created some of their own unique weapons apart from real life weapons. (Maybe they have and I haven't noticed. Either way...)

I'm of the opinion that the weapons provided in the game are more abstract of reality than an actual representation. A greatsword could be things like a Claymore, a Flamberge, etc. All of these (effectively) equate to "Big destructive sword requiring two hands," so with these generic weapon entries listing examples of some specific weapons to fit in there would be pretty nice for both parties involved. And with the game being abstract, it shouldn't particularly matter if a weapon is a Claymore or a Flamberge, if they are quantified under the same type of weapon (Greatsword), it is most likely being done for balance and simplicity purposes.

Having weapon names being abstract of specifics should give players more freedom in permitting them to have the kinds of weapons they want, whether they be based in reality (as the above examples), or if they want a more fantasy-based approach.

I'm sure people can point out the differences between Claymores and Flamberges, but if I wanted to play Historyfinder, I certainly wouldn't be using a fantasy-based book to derive accurate details of real-life weaponry.

[lemeres]

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

I'm of the opinion that the weapons provided in the game are more abstract of reality than an actual representation. A greatsword could be things like a Claymore, a Flamberge, etc. All of these (effectively) equate to "Big destructive sword requiring two hands," so with these generic weapon entries listing examples of some specific weapons to fit in there would be pretty nice for both parties involved. And with the game being abstract, it shouldn't particularly matter if a weapon is a Claymore or a Flamberge, if they are quantified under the same type of weapon (Greatsword), it is most likely being done for balance and simplicity purposes.

Having weapon names being abstract of specifics should give players more freedom in permitting them to have the kinds of weapons they want, whether they be based in reality (as the above examples), or if they want a more fantasy-based approach.

I am in favor of a more representational weapon list- instead of scimitar, cutlass, and katana, I'd prefer "curved sword, one handed". I'd like a simple set of stats with a blank slate for players and GMs to add onto.

The "rollplayers" don't care past the "Slashing, 1d6, 18-20", while the blank slate would allow the historical role players a chance to be as accurate as they like.

[RiverMesa]

I might be coming into this thread with a bit of an ignorant/naive mindset - but really, even though some people expressed how the inaccurate weapon names break their immersion and is being made into a great issue - how many tables out there will actually get into a discussion over the names?

The D&D bloodline of TTRPGs never prided itself on any sort of historical accuracy - it is first and foremost a fantasy RPG after all. Words which have specific meanings in the real world (whether it's "longsword", "paladin", "druid" or "bard"), have different meanings in the gaming space, and they come frontload certain info into your mind as soon as you hear it and know what to expect of it if you're even remotely accustomed to roleplaying games (tabletop or otherwise), even if they don't quite match up with what the dictionary definition or a Wikipedia article on their real-world counterparts might tell you about them.

So really, while some cleanup for the sake of historic accuracy might seem nice/easy to do, going against established genre tropes and naming conventions for the sake of appeasing the vocal minority of history buffs is probably not high on Paizo's priority list - and again, it's really not going to impact that many people's sense of immersion out there, despite what some people visiting this thread might suggest.

I mean, ultimately nothing stops you from trying to push this to Paizo when the Playtest rolls around - but again, I don't imagine there being a huge push for this kind of naming overhaul, because it really isn't some huge flaw that ruins games and turns people off Pathfinder or other D&D-lineage games.

[Erk Ander]

Slim Jim wrote:

Hollywood fight-scenes have never accurately depicted technique with a longsword; they are always shown as cumbersome bashers even though historical examples seldom weighed over 3 lbs and were frighteningly nimble. The so-called German school of fencing ("Deutsche Schule; Kunst des Fechtens") specialized in longsword and trained to defeat armored adversaries. In the Orient, the spear was considered superior to the sword on the battlefield; in the West, the longsword was superior to the spear.

Never ever heard that the longsword was superior to the the spear in Europe. Sure it was a nobles weapon and at least one Master said it was the weapon to start with (due to complexity). But its actual superiority to the spear is very questionable.

Slim Jim wrote:

No culture without longswords developed fully-enclosed, articulated plate armor, and no such culture's best lesser armor would have stopped a longsword whose point was designed to be levered into joints. But to this day, games treat it as a cheap "starter" sword that your hero almost immediately throws away upon acquiring a better weapon, when in actuality they were the top-shelf and far beyond the monetary means of the commoner. They were the apex European war sword for over 400 years.

This is also a very questionable claim. The emergeance of plate armour has less to do with longswords. A maiille or even gambeson can stop the cuts of a longsword. Let alone plate, which is barely scratched. Yes you can thrust with the point but you can do that with a LARGE variety of weapons just as well. And thursting through the mail and gambeson in joints, armspits of plate (because you can't thrust through plate) is very hard. Even if you half-sword. Swords (longsword. katana) as a weapon are not very good against maille or better. Yes you can strike with hilt, pommel etc. But you can also just use a mace, warhammer. LongsSwords were secondary weapons and were good SECONDARY because of the versatility, since in a pinch they can do alot of different things, but you don't start with it. As main weapons they are not super good if the opponent is wearing more than maille. The Poleaxe is however. Thats why knights usually had swords as secondary weapons.

Slim Jim wrote:

You might think that a rapier's hand-protecting hilt cups and/or basket-work were innovations over the longsword; actually they are not, because you can't spin a sword with a round guard (or tsuba). Rapiers, and their ever more diminutive "smallsword" descendants, flourished in "polite society" because they were less deadly and therefore suitable for use in affairs-of-honor, which, despite depiction of duels in movies, were usually fought "to the blood" (or first scratch, hopefully something that would heal to leave a handsome scar on the forehead or cheek; the Prussians in particular were really into that sort of thing, and students at military academies were accounted cowards if they did not duel). Longswords were not designed for such niceties; they were made for expediently putting the enemy down permanently.

When you say spin, do you mean "winding" in the "bind" ? Also there were plenty of longswords that had complex hilts, they are absolutely beautiful and they protect you hands. If anything the complex hilt longswords were the apex of swords. Google Swiss sabers (technically not "longswords") or complex hilt longswords. Also longswords were used to duel sometimes to first blood. Sometimes to death, I think talhoffer or some such guy was a "champion" who fought duels on behalf of people

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Talhoffer

[Erk Ander]

I wanna point that while some masters romanticized the sword, reality is clearly another issue. Example is the first verse here.

http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Fiore_de%27i_Liberi/Sword_in_Two_Hands/Wide_Play

The strength of the Longsword lay in its versatility. Its the bard of swords. Thats why it was secondary weapon in all Europe, together with the dagger ofc.

[Slim Jim]

Erk Ander wrote:

Never ever heard that the longsword was superior to the the spear in Europe. Sure it was a nobles weapon and at least one Master said it was the weapon to start with (due to complexity). But its actual superiority to the spear is very questionable.

Hold the thought...

Quote:

The emergeance of plate armour has less to do with longswords. A maiille or even gambeson can stop the cuts of a longsword. Let alone plate, which is barely scratched. Yes you can thrust with the point but you can do that with a LARGE variety of weapons just as well. And thursting through the mail and gambeson in joints, armspits of plate (because you can't thrust through plate) is very hard.

While it's true that a longsword has room for two hands on the hilt, that's not always where both hands were. A knight (as opposed to a fencing master as seen in some of the videos linked on the first page) with a longsword was typically well-armored and could grip his sword anywhere along the length of the blade with his gauntlets. --He could swing it like a club, smashing his opponent's helm with the crossguard, stun him, then jimmy the point through a chink. A spear is too ungainly for that kind of work versus an armored opponent, especially in a very crowded melee with an adjacent opponent while the back end of your spear is hanging out several feet and being knocked around by other movement. The longsword was an all-purpose weapon: it wasn't the best crowbar, the best basher, the best pig-sticker, or the best slicer, and it didn't have lengthy reach -- but it did them all adequately in one package.

Quote:

Swords (longsword. katana) as a weapon are not very good against maille or better. Yes you can strike with hilt, pommel etc. But you can also just use a mace, warhammer. LongsSwords were secondary weapons and were good SECONDARY because of the versatility, since in a pinch they can...

You can stun the opponent in armor with a mace or hammer, but you'll then you'll need a second weapon to get through the chinks, and if it's a small weapon, you won't be able to bear in with a lot of leverage. A longsword crossguard bashes nearly as well, and held by the hilt can poke a target five feet away without closing distance.

Where longswords were secondary, it was to the lance, to be pulled after a mount was felled.

[Pink Dragon]

I think the weapon list should look like this:

Melee weapons:
Small weapon - used in one hand and throwable, 1d4 damage
Medium weapon - used in one hand and not throwable, 1d10 damage
Big weapon: - used in two hands and not throwable, 2d6 damage
Reach weapon - used in two hands and not throwable, 1d10 damage

Range weapons:
All - used in two hands, 1d8 damage

Flavor as desired.

[Claxon]

Pink Dragon wrote:

I think the weapon list should look like this:

Melee weapons:
Small weapon - used in one hand and throwable, 1d4 damage
Medium weapon - used in one hand and not throwable, 1d10 damage
Big weapon: - used in two hands and not throwable, 2d6 damage
Reach weapon - used in two hands and not throwable, 1d10 damage

Range weapons:
All - used in two hands, 1d8 damage

Flavor as desired.

I've been suggesting something along this line for a long time.

With more options than what you're suggesting, but basically weapons stats without any name attached to it so you can flavor it as whatever you like. Including selecting B/P/S damage.

[Voss]

Pass. I'll take 'possibly inaccurate flavor' over Generic Branding: the Game, even if it increases the possibility of 'Well, actually...' historc opinion discussions.

[Claxon]

Voss wrote:

Pass. I'll take 'possibly inaccurate flavor' over Generic Branding: the Game, even if it increases the possibility of 'Well, actually...' historc opinion discussions.

What's really to be gained by assigning names like arming sword or longsword or whatever, versus just having sets of stats that you select for you weapon that you can then call whatever you like.

Character 1: "How do you have a sword that has the reach quality?"

Character 2: "Well, it's my Really Long Sword".

[Erk Ander]

Slim Jim wrote:

While it's true that a longsword has room for two hands on the hilt, that's not always where both hands were. A knight (as opposed to a fencing master as seen in some of the videos linked on the first page) with a longsword was typically well-armored and could grip his sword anywhere along the length of the blade with his gauntlets. --He could swing it like a club, smashing his opponent's helm with the crossguard, stun him, then jimmy the point through a chink. A spear is too ungainly for that kind of work versus an armored opponent, especially in a very crowded melee with an adjacent opponent while the back end of your spear is hanging out several feet and being knocked around by other movement. The longsword was an all-purpose weapon: it wasn't the best crowbar, the best basher, the best pig-sticker, or the best slicer, and it didn't have lengthy reach -- but it did them all adequately in one package.

Quote:

This is exactly what I said. I am not sure you read my reply at all.

You can stun the opponent in armor with a mace or hammer, but you'll then you'll need a second weapon to get through the...

You can do more than just stun. The weapons can deform plate armour and you will feel it. Especially warhammers had spikes that could be used to penetrate plate. The best weapon to deal with armour is bludgeoning weapons. All knights had daggers also such misericords to stabb through visors.

[Voss]

Claxon wrote:

Voss wrote:

Pass. I'll take 'possibly inaccurate flavor' over Generic Branding: the Game, even if it increases the possibility of 'Well, actually...' historc opinion discussions.

What's really to be gained by assigning names like arming sword or longsword or whatever, versus just having sets of stats that you select for you weapon that you can then call whatever you like.

Character 1: "How do you have a sword that has the reach quality?"

Character 2: "Well, it's my Really Long Sword".

Well, specifically not having an interaction like that.

Names have a place in the game world, haphazardly jammed together stats and mechanical terminology doesn't.