|
Just a couple of weird weapon weights I wanted to bring up.
• 10 sling bullets = 5 lbs! That 1/2 a pound each. Woe! Seems high. Maybe 2 lbs?
• A "light" mace weights 4 lbs. That's twice as much as any other light weapon and twice as much as a light hammer. It's a "light" weapon and is even finessible! Maybe it should be a one-handed weapon instead.
• A heavy mace weighs 8 lbs (more than a warhammer) and is still a one-handed weapon.
• 5 lbs for a warhammer actually seems a little light.
• 2 lbs for a whip?
• 10 lbs for a spiked chain seem high given that is 2x a warhammer. The chains in the illustrations look fairly light weight. More on sharp than heavy.
• Repeating crossbow bolt have no weight. Neither does a net. Typo? Oh, wait, the weights are in the range column.
Any other strange weights anyone has noticed?
yes almost everything is over weight...I mean come on 5 pound longsword 10 pound twohander...
Are you guys trying to add some realism to the game? What is up with that?
Accuracy is a slippery slope.
But something at least approaching accuracy would be nice.
CJ
yes almost everything is over weight...I mean come on 5 pound longsword 10 pound twohander...
d20 srd says 4 lb longsword, 8 lb greatsword
I think a good portion of what is considered weapon "weight" is, in fact, weapon "encumbrance". The classic issue of a pound of feathers versus a pound of iron once again has been abstracted in game terms, so that greatswords are well overweight for their historic equivalents, but not, possibly, under proper encumbrance figures. A 4 lbs greatsword is likely as difficult to carry around as a gallon of milk, so that abstraction works out okay.
I think sling bullets should be far more portable, though. 10 clay or lead pellets, at about 2-3 oz, shouldn't take 5 lbs of encumbrance, since a bag of marbles or gold coins doesn't have a higher weight. It is likely that the numbers need some examination.
Actually weapon weight are well done.
As some friends and I are collectors of real replica weapons, I can tell you that 8lbs for a two handed sword is a real weight (some two handed swords were bigger than others, but this is a good average).
4lbs for a longsword is also a good average.
8lbs for a light mace is perhaps a little too light. I have a light flail (haft in wood, where haft for mace is in steel), and it's a little heavier than 8lbs.
I don't have spiked chain, but 20lbs seems good, since it's very long and all in steel.
For whip, I don't know, but it doesn't seem too big.
As for light mace being a "light weapon" and which can be used with weapon finesse, it's another matter....
As for the spiked chain which can be used with weapon finesse, I really laugh !! But well...
Actually weapon weight are well done.
As some friends and I are collectors of real replica weapons, I can tell you that 8lbs for a two handed sword is a real weight (some two handed swords were bigger than others, but this is a good average).
4lbs for a longsword is also a good average.
8lbs for a light mace is perhaps a little too light. I have a light flail (haft in wood, where haft for mace is in steel), and it's a little heavier than 8lbs.
I don't have spiked chain, but 20lbs seems good, since it's very long and all in steel.
For whip, I don't know, but it doesn't seem too big.
As for light mace being a "light weapon" and which can be used with weapon finesse, it's another matter....
As for the spiked chain which can be used with weapon finesse, I really laugh !! But well...
Again, these seem heavy. My research puts most 2-hander weights at around 5 pounds.
A twenty pound spiked chain? Are you serious? Where does that number come from? I guess my experience with weighted chains you are trying to entangle folks with says something lighter.
CJ
Again, these seem heavy. My research puts most 2-hander weights at around 5 pounds.
A twenty pound spiked chain? Are you serious? Where does that number come from? I guess my experience with weighted chains you are trying to entangle folks with says something lighter.
CJ
Maybe we don't have the same research result, but a two handed sword is around 8lbs, I can tell you that (I have one).
Compare with modern firearms made mostly of composite material, plastic, and their weight goes up quickly.A simple pistol I was equipped with in gendarmerie was around 900g (2lbs), without ammos. And only the canon and a few parts are made of metal, most is in composite material.
No, it's 10lbs for a spiked chain as per the PHB (sorry for the typo). Again it seems too light for me. It's supposed to be 10 feet long and entirely made of steel.
But spiked chain is certainly more a fantasy weapon than a real weapon, like the two bladed sword, and the absurd dire flail and double axe.
Don't forget though the chain is just that... a chain. It's not a solid piece of metal and when I think of the blade at the end of such a weapon I see more of a leaf shaped spear head then little barbs running the whole length of the chain... almost like some sort of pendulum.
|
Remember the game tracks encumbrance for the players, not just weight.
I have suggested they rename weight to Load Units. Somethings are just awkward to carry. The Spiked Chain is a perfect example. It probably weighs less, but is going to be difficult to carry. It is flexible and has sharp points so as it moves around you can get poked and scratched, so carrying it becomes more difficult than a solid piece of metal.
A sword is not very heavy, but no matter what it tends to be a pain in the butt to carry. You have to watch your surroundings so you don't hit something, knock something off and break it, poke your comrade in the groin with it or whatever.
Switching from weight to Load Units makes a lot more sense.
|
|
Actually weapon weight are well done.
As some friends and I are collectors of real replica weapons, I can tell you that 8lbs for a two handed sword is a real weight (some two handed swords were bigger than others, but this is a good average).
4lbs for a longsword is also a good average.
8lbs for a light mace is perhaps a little too light. I have a light flail (haft in wood, where haft for mace is in steel), and it's a little heavier than 8lbs.
I don't have spiked chain, but 20lbs seems good, since it's very long and all in steel.
For whip, I don't know, but it doesn't seem too big.
As for light mace being a "light weapon" and which can be used with weapon finesse, it's another matter....
As for the spiked chain which can be used with weapon finesse, I really laugh !! But well...
Again, these seem heavy. My research puts most 2-hander weights at around 5 pounds.
A twenty pound spiked chain? Are you serious? Where does that number come from? I guess my experience with weighted chains you are trying to entangle folks with says something lighter.
CJ
I know that when I go to the hardware store and get anything but a chain with tiny links, a 10 foot length is going to weigh well over 10 pounds. Chains are a LOT heavier than they look. I would figure 20 pounds about right for a 10 foot length of combat grade chain.
Modern mass made weapons are too heavy. They are made from stamped sheet metal and much heaver then a forged sword really. Correctly made weapons should fall into the limits below with some above or below as each type was a locale make and tented to be made or over seen by the same few people.
A claymore which is about 47-60 inches came in at abound 4-6.5 pounds.
Most long swords were between 2-3 pounds
One handed waraxe 2-3 pounds
Warhammers 2-3 pounds
Maces 4-5 pounds
Pole arms 4-6 pounds
Check out the weights on CAS Iberia's line.
These would be what I consider to be the closest modern equivalent to basic versions of off the shelf swords, like what is described in PFRPG.
Two-Hander or here, max weight: 4lb 14oz.
These are functional weapons, considered more or less the basic standard within the Western martial arts community.
Sure, the weights in the book are wrong. That is fine, because really, the book weight is an abstraction of effective encumbrance.
Edited to cleanup urls.
Most modern mass made weapons are weaker too (I mean to physcial punishment on the weapon itself). This is part of what I have against the mythbusters take on breaking a sword with another sword, they went with off the shelf junk out of a modern store instead of getting actual weapons.
Load Units would be a much better word choice I think, as per Krome's suggestion.
|
|
Most modern mass made weapons are weaker too (I mean to physcial punishment on the weapon itself). This is part of what I have against the mythbusters take on breaking a sword with another sword, they went with off the shelf junk out of a modern store instead of getting actual weapons.
Load Units would be a much better word choice I think, as per Krome's suggestion.
Oh don't even get me started on Mythbusters! such crap!
As I said this is an average weight. You can find some weapons lighter and some heavier.
Two handed weapons ranged from 5.5lbs (claymore) to 14.5lbs (th big zweihander).
The bigger ones were almost too big to use in real combat. It was not unusual to find two handed swords around 7lbs.
Again, the one I have is around 7-8lbs.
You could rule that now in PRPG two handed swords weight 6lbs, but it won't make a huge difference in game play.
Most modern mass made weapons are weaker too (I mean to physcial punishment on the weapon itself). This is part of what I have against the mythbusters take on breaking a sword with another sword, they went with off the shelf junk out of a modern store instead of getting actual weapons.
Load Units would be a much better word choice I think, as per Krome's suggestion.
Tangent alert!
Sorry, I agree with your second point, but not with re: Mythbusters.What is valid to gripe about is the quality of hardening done on many modern low end functional blades, and that is certainly a valid gripe, but also, and more importantly, a valid period gripe as well. Not every smith is going to put a perfect temper on a blade, and some blades will have a poor temper regardless. Masterwork vs. Masterwork this wasn't.
From the slow motion footage, the steel in most of the swords simply had too much flex to break, and that implies that steel is too good, not that it is not good enough. Otherwise, you are veering dangerously close to katanas slicing tanks territory, and I can debunk that stuff all day long.
|
|
As I said this is an average weight. You can find some weapons lighter and some heavier.
Two handed weapons ranged from 5.5lbs (claymore) to 14.5lbs (th big zweihander).
The bigger ones were almost too big to use in real combat. It was not unusual to find two handed swords around 7lbs.
Again, the one I have is around 7-8lbs.
You could rule that now in PRPG two handed swords weight 6lbs, but it won't make a huge difference in game play.
I picked up a real claymore from the way-gone days. It wasn't that heavy, but the sucker was way blade heavy. Was great for swinging, as once you started you didn't really stop until you hit someone or something.
I have several modern swords and only one do I use, a kukri, for clearing brush and small trees. God I live that sword. Funny thing is the shape actually makes the weapon easier to wield, it has a kind of flow to it.
Two handed weapons ranged from 5.5lbs (claymore) to 14.5lbs (th big zweihander).
Zweihanders came in about 6.5 pounds. Anything heaver was never ment for combat but show only. Non ceremonial swords did not get that heavy
Modern mass made weapons are too heavy. They are made from stamped sheet metal and much heaver then a forged sword really. Correctly made weapons should fall into the limits below with some above or below as each type was a locale make and tented to be made or over seen by the same few people.
A claymore which is about 47-60 inches came in at abound 4-6.5 pounds.
Most long swords were between 2-3 pounds
One handed waraxe 2-3 pounds
Warhammers 2-3 pounds
Maces 4-5 pounds
Pole arms 4-6 pounds
Having been trained with shotguns and Famas, I can tell you that these weapons are not too heavy to use. But they're not made entirely of metal.
Zweihanders came in about 6.5 pounds. Anything heaver was never ment for combat but show only. Non ceremonial swords did not get that heavy
As I said in my post, these ones were too big to use. But the one I have is 7-8lbs. And it's not a ceremonial sword.
Rifles and shotguns are far heaver then a sword of the same length. Not sure how guns got brought in however
As I said in my post, these ones were too big to use. But the one I have is 7-8lbs. And it's not a ceremonial sword.
what I am saying is that about 2 pounds over the normal heavy end of such weapons.
In regards to sling bullets, historical shaped lead bullets weighted about 1 ounce. However, there are example of heavy stone about the size of a person's fist. These weight about a pound. There are also a number of sizes in between.
To account for the range of sizes, 8 bullets to the pound might be a good balance point.
Remember the game tracks encumbrance for the players, not just weight.
I have suggested they rename weight to Load Units. Somethings are just awkward to carry. The Spiked Chain is a perfect example. It probably weighs less, but is going to be difficult to carry. It is flexible and has sharp points so as it moves around you can get poked and scratched, so carrying it becomes more difficult than a solid piece of metal.
A sword is not very heavy, but no matter what it tends to be a pain in the butt to carry. You have to watch your surroundings so you don't hit something, knock something off and break it, poke your comrade in the groin with it or whatever.
The problem is that it depends on how you carry it. For example, 50 coins is 1 lb encumberance. But if you tried to carry all 50 in your hands they'll be falling over the edges or slipping between your fingers. Put them in a sack and hold it in one hand, it is much easier. Tie that sack to the frame of your backpack and it gets easier still.
Carrying the sword in your hand is one thing, sticking it in your scabbard and belt is another, and tying the sword & scabbard to your pack is again the least encumbering.
Carrying a spiked chain at the ready is going to be very encumbering. Dropping it into a leather satchel at your side isn't so much, but dragging the chain out to fight will entail significant delay.
I did some friendly heckling of a GM online about putting coins in a backpack. It doesn't really matter how much food and clothing you have crammed into the pack, coins can fit into the interstices until you can't lift it (or the seams tear open, etc). I once had over 50 lb of coins in a hard hat.
In regards to sling bullets, historical shaped lead bullets weighted about 1 ounce. However, there are example of heavy stone about the size of a person's fist. These weight about a pound. There are also a number of sizes in between.
To account for the range of sizes, 8 bullets to the pound might be a good balance point.
They need to specify range and damage for a variety of stones and slugs
|
Having been trained with shotguns and Famas, I can tell you that these weapons are not too heavy to use. But they're not made entirely of metal.
You do not use a shotgun, or other longarm, in the same way that you use a melee weapon.
There is no reasonable comparison of the weights on the basis of weight alone.
Load Units would be a much better word choice I think, as per Krome's suggestion.
I like the Load Unit idea as well.
Old Runequest used a similar mechanic...I'll see if I can find it when I have access to my library.
CJ
LOL
Having spent way too many years dealing with the military's and the government's love of renaming things or giving things vague names I find the term Load Units amusing.
If it's meant to be a measure of encumbrance then call it Encumbrance or Encumbrance Units.
Cheers
|
|
This is what I have collected on weapon weights and lenghts
Table One Swords
Date(aprox) Length Weight Origin Wt/Lgth Source
(lb/oz) (lb/ft)
9th-10th c. 30 1/8" 2/8 Scand? 1.0 Wallace
1150-1200 32 3/8" 2/10 German .97 Wallace
13th c. 33 3/8" 1/8 .53 Wallace
1340 33 3/4" 2/9 French? .98 Wallace
1375-1400 30" 3/0 French 1.2 Wallace
14th c. 29 3/8" 2/1 .84 Wallace
1350-1400 29 3/16" 3/3 French 1.31 Wallace
1375-1400 23 5/8" * 2/8 1.27 Wallace
1380 31 1/8" 2/1 .8 Wallace
1400 34 3/8" 2/12 .96 Wallace
1460 34 3/4" 2/15 Italian? 1.01 Wallace
early 16th c. 36 1/8" 3/2 German 1.04 Wallace
9th-10th c. 75.5 cm. .5 Kg. Nordic .44 Wagner
9th-11th c? 89.5 cm. 1.42 Kg. 1.06 Wagner
11th-13th c. 92 cm. 1 Kg. Prague? .73 Wagner
Before 1432 41" 1/11 Italian? .49 Tower
about 1480 43.2" 2/12 German? .76 Tower (Hand and a half?)
about 1500 35.4" 1/15 Swiss .66 Tower
or Swabian
Table Five: Two-Handed Swords
Date (aprox) Length Weight Origin Wt/Lgth
Blade Grip Over all (lb/oz) (lb/ft)
Mid 16th c 50 1/4" 23 3/4" 74" 8/6 German 1.36
1580 58 3/4" 19 5/8" 78 3/8" 14/3 German 2.
1580 50 1/8" 13 1/2" 63 5/8" 7/4 German 1.37
1500-10 44 5/8" 14 3/4" 59 3/8" 5/6.5 Italian 1.09
1530 48" 16 1/2" 64 1/2" 6/10 Italian 1.23
16th c. 53 1/4" 16" 69 1/4" 5/14 Spanish or German 1.02
early 16th c. 46 1/8" 17 5/8" 63 3/4" 6/6 German 1.2
But I understand that Pathfinder is not going to be 100% accurate and they may be ading encumberance
|
This is what I have collected on weapon weights and lenghts
Table One Swords
Date(aprox) Length Weight Origin Wt/Lgth Source
(lb/oz) (lb/ft)9th-10th c. 30 1/8" 2/8 Scand? 1.0 Wallace
1150-1200 32 3/8" 2/10 German .97 Wallace
13th c. 33 3/8" 1/8 .53 Wallace
1340 33 3/4" 2/9 French? .98 Wallace
1375-1400 30" 3/0 French 1.2 Wallace
14th c. 29 3/8" 2/1 .84 Wallace
1350-1400 29 3/16" 3/3 French 1.31 Wallace
1375-1400 23 5/8" * 2/8 1.27 Wallace
1380 31 1/8" 2/1 .8 Wallace
1400 34 3/8" 2/12 .96 Wallace
1460 34 3/4" 2/15 Italian? 1.01 Wallace
early 16th c. 36 1/8" 3/2 German 1.04 Wallace
9th-10th c. 75.5 cm. .5 Kg. Nordic .44 Wagner
9th-11th c? 89.5 cm. 1.42 Kg. 1.06 Wagner
11th-13th c. 92 cm. 1 Kg. Prague? .73 Wagner
Before 1432 41" 1/11 Italian? .49 Tower
about 1480 43.2" 2/12 German? .76 Tower (Hand and a half?)
about 1500 35.4" 1/15 Swiss .66 Tower
or SwabianTable Five: Two-Handed Swords
Date (aprox) Length Weight Origin Wt/Lgth
Blade Grip Over all (lb/oz) (lb/ft)Mid 16th c 50 1/4" 23 3/4" 74" 8/6 German 1.36
1580 58 3/4" 19 5/8" 78 3/8" 14/3 German 2.
1580 50 1/8" 13 1/2" 63 5/8" 7/4 German 1.37
1500-10 44 5/8" 14 3/4" 59 3/8" 5/6.5 Italian 1.09
1530 48" 16 1/2" 64 1/2" 6/10 Italian 1.23
16th c. 53 1/4" 16" 69 1/4" 5/14 Spanish or German 1.02
early 16th c. 46 1/8" 17 5/8" 63 3/4" 6/6 German 1.2But I understand that Pathfinder is not going to be 100% accurate and they may be ading encumberance
Probably the best way to solve the whole issue is to just list the current weights as 'encumbrance scores' and use them as is with carrying capacity converted to 'encumbrance rating' or something to keep the formula the same and remove the logic arguments about why a 2.5 lb longsword is rated at 4 lbs in D&D. Now a longsword would have an encumbrance score of 4 that combines weight with ease of portability to determine that number.