My English isn't the best out there. And im having a problem picturing how this blade look like.
the split-blade sword
Are the blades parallel or one above the other?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Parallel, like in the first picture. That way it cuts twice with every swing.
How would stacking them do literally anything? The first blase would cut and the second would just trail behind doing nothing, ever.
i was leaning to think so too, also explain the need for high states to wield without penalty.
but wasn't sure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's hard to say which of many possible versions of the Zulfiqar the game designers were trying to emulate with these rules.
I've almost always seen it depicted as the second picture.
However, this wiki article explains it much better than I can.
I'm still leaning to the second picture here is why:
In Qajar Iran, actual swords were produced based on the legendary double-pointed design. Thus, the Higgins Collection holds a ceremonial sabre with a wootz steel blade, dated to the late 19th century, with a cleft tip. The curator comments that "fractures in the tip were not uncommon in early wootz blades from Arabia" suggesting that the legendary double-pointed design is based on a common type of damage incurred by blades in battle. The tip of this specimen is split in the blade plane, i.e. "For about 8" of its length from the point the blade is vertically divided along its axis, producing side-by-side blades, each of which is finished in itself", in the curator's opinion "a virtuoso achievement by a master craftsman".[7] Another 19th-century blade in the same collection features a split blade as well as saw-tooths along the edge, combining two possible interpretations of the name Dhu-l-Faqar. This blade is likely of Indian workmanship, and it was combined with an older (Mughal era) Indian hilt.[8]
This blade is pictured at the bottom of the page and matches the second picture.
That being said weapons often known by different names in different places or times. I don't think it would be a stretch to say that different weapons are known by the same names in certain cases.
Therefore, whichever you think looks the most cool. :)
To be fair, when I first heard about it in PF1, I pictured stacked tips in beautiful sweeping curves of shimmering golden metal. For whatever reason, I imagined it being wielded by an angel.
Then I thought about how that does literally nothing. I guess it adds weight to the end, like an axe, but what's the fun in that?
So I figured that the blade has to split parallel, in order to cut twice in one swing... it's the only way that makes any sense at all...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Two blades in parallel have less cutting power than one. The force of the blade is distributed across 2 planes instead of 1. It's the same type of reason you can safely lay on a bed of nails.
I'm pretty sure that two parallel curved blades swinging in an arc just makes two cuts... sure, the power of your swing is divided between the two blades, but if they are sharp, they both cut.
It's not trying to be twice as deadly as one sword... it's simply trying to be twice as hard to fix the wound. Same principle as a kris blade... the wounds are jagged and nasty, almost impossible to fix in the field.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there's a reason you don't see the "double-bladed sword" sort of thing too often; because it doesn't work very well.
I'd much rather cut twice as deep with one edge and just KILL the guy than make it maybe kind of harder to recover from the wound later on--which I'm not even convinced it would do. Aren't two shallow cuts easier to deal with than one deeper one?
I think the real advantage to such a weapon would be in how it reacts in a bind with another sword. I've heard some historians suggest that the flamberge and the kris have that wavy tongue-of-fire look to them to slow another blade's progress down it's length.
Two blades, one on top of the other doesn't do much. But a heavier sword = a deeper cut, and a fork/prong = maybe an edge when attempting to disarm your opponent?
Well the blades in the second option are sharpened on the outside edges and not in between the two. So the "back" edge can be used for draw cuts and slashing attacks from that side. I guess you could do a push cut too.
I think that going by what the article said about swords breaking like that then maybe the pre-split is to prevent this from happening. The circle at the base of the cut could be there to eliminate stress concentrations. As a normal break like this would eventually propagate right down the blade and/or break off before that and then you can't attack with the back side.
Or they just thought it looked nice. I'm having fun theorizing and could be way off base.
On another note I was always under the impression that wootz steel blades were generally of very high performance. Wootz is the steel used in the original Damascus blades, which is not to be confused with the modern usage of the word when people are actually talking about pattern welding. So I'm kind of surprised to find out that this was a common break. Granted in all the time I've spent looking up on weapons etc. I just realized that I haven't heard much on how different swords actually break. I'll have to look into that.
Lastly, side by side blades on a sword make little sense as well as edge alignment is difficult enough with one blade. I think you would cause more damage with a single blade for slashing/chopping at least.
But I do see where you were coming from. :)
Not that it really matters as many of these swords are ceremonial and/or of questionable design. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have never heard that about the wavy blade, but it makes sense. I am not a sword historian, so I don't know much about this topic either way.
Honestly, it's just another sword in a fantasy game to me. You can have any sword look however you want it to at my table. The concept of hit points isn't going to adequately reflect the evolution and design that went into the weapon anyways.
I think there's a reason you don't see the "double-bladed sword" sort of thing too often; because it doesn't work very well.
I'd much rather cut twice as deep with one edge and just KILL the guy than make it maybe kind of harder to recover from the wound later on--which I'm not even convinced it would do. Aren't two shallow cuts easier to deal with than one deeper one?
I think the real advantage to such a weapon would be in how it reacts in a bind with another sword. I've heard some historians suggest that the flamberge and the kris have that wavy tongue-of-fire look to them to slow another blade's progress down it's length.
Two blades, one on top of the other doesn't do much. But a heavier sword = a deeper cut, and a fork/prong = maybe an edge when attempting to disarm your opponent?
I agree 100% with your first and second paragraphs. Yes one deep cut is better than two shallow ones. Edge alignment would be near impossible with two blades parallel to each other. I've seen people not cut through milk cartons when their edge alignment is off. So two blades would not work very well. Also consider getting them actually perfectly parallel would be very hard. So they would be very shallow cuts.
As for your last paragraph, first the disarming part with the forked end. I doubt that as it seems unlikely you would be able to wedge your opponents blade between the fork. Not sure if that is what you meant?
For the second part about slowing a blade down. That sounds plausible. Source? I heard that it is that way is to decrease the point of contact thus increasing the force per area on a strike. I think this is why it's on many two handed swords and they were sometimes called pike breakers. Also it makes push cuts and draw cuts do more damage. I would also imagine when stabbing it undulates back and forth causing more damage. It's way harder to make though. :)
Granted I'm not an expert so take from it what you will. :)
My English isn't the best out there. And im having a problem picturing how this blade look like.
The description says it "resembles a large scimitar whose blade splits into two about two-thirds of the way toward the tip"
It cleary talks about a singular blade with basically a cut in it (in the top 1/3 of the blade).
That matches the second picture, albeit without the bread knife edge.
Doh...
On another note I was always under the impression that wootz steel blades were generally of very high performance...So I'm kind of surprised to find out that this was a common break.
One thing I've learned recently from the forums on The Sword Buyer's Guide is that swords of all sorts break. Use them enough, and it's basically inevitable. There's one video of a guy doing some test cuts on what's apparently an incredibly high-performance sword made by one of the more well-renowned smiths online and... it can't quite stand up to a perpendicular cut to a cow femur. Hurts my heart a little to watch.
I actually spoke with a blacksmith who can make actual Damascus blades. Granted, the main benefit of such, aside from the varying levels of carbon in the metal, like in any good sword steel, were...carbon crystals? That got left behind in the wound and made it harder for the injury to heal? Something like that.
...first the disarming part with the forked end. I doubt that as it seems unlikely you would be able to wedge your opponents blade between the fork. Not sure if that is what you meant?
Yeah, it seems like a stretch. It's not like a trident or a sai
...the second part about slowing a blade down. That sounds plausible. Source? I heard that it is that way is to decrease the point of contact thus increasing the force per area on a strike.
Somewhere on the SBG or one of the sites they suggested. Decreasing the point of contact also makes sense. I wonder if it does anything wonky to the point of percussion? The only thing I'm fairly confident in is that the wavy blade was NOT to decrease suction of the flesh around the blade to make it easier to pull out, which is something I heard a long ways back, in the same breath that described "blood grooves", before all of that was thoroughly debunked.
I remember when I used to think that fullers were "blood grooves". Lol.
Speaking of blood grooves, I did hear somewhere that the little notch in the blade of a kukri was to keep blood from running down the blade and making your grip slippery... which is so freaking baller I don't even care about how much truth is in it. Lol.
The shape might be for stabbing. It can still go deep enough to kill, but the second point keeps it from going deep enough to get stuck.
Watching a few demos with ballistics gel, tatami mats and pig/cow carcasses, I really don't think a sword is likely to get stuck all that easily. Maybe if you're fighting a clay golem or something.
Also, as the weapon is described as a scimitar, I doubt you're stabbing anything with it.
Oh, I'm sure this game meant for the tips to stack at the end... not unlike an italic "y", with the handle at the bottom of said "y".
The purpose of changing literally anything as far as statistics go from a regular scimitar...? I don't know. I don't know why a blacksmith would waste their time, and possibly precious materials, attempting to form and heat treat two tips when they serve absolutely no other function than adding weight to the tip. You can just make one fat tip way easier... like MANY such scimitar/cutlass blades have.
The ONLY way to justify making it an exotic weapon (requiring a feat) is to increase the damage. What does the damage of two scimitars? TWO SCIMITARS!!! At once, even. Clearly side-by-side. Literally nobody cares if you swing two swords at the same time one following the other, if the front one already cut the target in half.
But almost EVERYONE cares if they get to cut their target into ribbons with one swing... how cool are Wolverine's claws?
It's a fantasy game, not a blacksmith reality TV show. Rule of cool, people, we play this game because reality sucks. F!ck what history has to say about Split-Blade Swords.
Think about how a boring @$$ Longsword could be used to block/parry, grapple, disarm, trip, and further to leverage past armor like a freaking crowbar to coup de grace your opponent after you blocked their attack, bind their arms, disarm them, and trip them (all with your Longsword). Yeah, this fantasy game doesn't care about historical accuracy very much...
Two parallel tips, the tips! All the leverage is in their favor. Even if they aren't perfectly on the same plane... who cares? As long as they are sharp, even an amatuer can mess $#!+ up. That's AT LEAST two steak knives with the power of a baseball bat. The Split-Blade Sword splits the blade along its vertical/spine axis, forming two parallel tips at the end... or at least it should.
It's a fantasy game, not a blacksmith reality TV show. Rule of cool, people, we play this game because reality sucks. F!ck what history has to say about Split-Blade Swords...
Think about how a boring @$$ Longsword could be used to block/parry, grapple, disarm, trip, and further to leverage past armor like a freaking crowbar to coup de grace your opponent after you blocked their attack, bind their arms, disarm them, and trip them (all with your Longsword). Yeah, this fantasy game doesn't care about historical accuracy very much...
Well, I'd say the latter example is more about simplifying and streamlining play than about not caring about accuracy. Maybe reality sucks, but rolling to hit versus their roll to dodge, rolling on the hit location chart, factoring in that location's armor, weapon damage, that specific type of weapon versus that type of armor, calculating the wound level, rolling to soak the damage and rolling on the injury/critical table doesn't sound like a good way to escape reality, for me. At least, it's not my go-to method.
And absolutely Rule of Cool. The only place I struggle is where my or my player's understanding in certain fields turns seemingly "cool" things into silly or obnoxious ones. Like how no one in any medical show ever seems to know how to actually perform CPR.
Back in the day, just as my friends and I were starting to look around at other gaming groups and feel superior in ways only teenage literary/theater/gamer-types can, we had a joke about the Triple Quantz Blade. It seemed like everyone outside of our circle we talked to about ttrpg's had this "totally sick, OP, broken character build" around some kind of goofy weapon they must have drawn on a middle school notebook, convinced it was the best weapon ever. You know the type; "so it's like a katana, right? But you hold it like this...and the hand guards is also an axe and the pommel is a flail, and there is a vial of poison in the handle and you can coat the katana-axe-flail when you push this button and it's a 1d12 ×4 piercing and slashing brace/disarm/tripping triple martial weapon that weighs 65lbs and costs 5gp and can't be sundered..." -- don't know what it was about where we were or what era we were gaming in, but...yeah. The whole experience left any kind of goofy weapon shenanigans highly prone to eye-rolls and smug, elitist grins from the lot of us.
And even after that, I've tended to focus on more subtle, muted elements of the fantasy genre. I usually prefer things to feel more or less real. Just with dragons.
But at the root of it, cosmetic changes for the sake of character concept? Yass. 100% on board and then some.
ty every1 for your answers!
this was mostly for drawing the character's avatar.
we went with parallel :)
I would absolutely allow anyone to say their blade splits at the end, without spending a feat to do so. If you want a 2D6 one-handed weapon, though... spending a feat suddenly seems a little more reasonable.
Visually, the only way I can imagine this increase in damage being justified on the same one-handed handle is if it has two blades that actually connect with the target. Suddenly this isn't just a cosmetic change... it's twice the cutting edge per swing. This is my path of logic, at least.
I would absolutely allow anyone to say their blade splits at the end, without spending a feat to do so. If you want a 2D6 one-handed weapon, though... spending a feat suddenly seems a little more reasonable.
Visually, the only way I can imagine this increase in damage being justified on the same one-handed handle is if it has two blades that actually connect with the target. Suddenly this isn't just a cosmetic change... it's twice the cutting edge per swing. This is my path of logic, at least.
Oh, absolutely. I once got into a rather heated argument with a friend for trying to call my character's bardiche a "great spear". Some people just don't get it.
But yeah, a mechanical advantage requires a mechanical investment. Anyone has a problem with that, they can find another table.As seen above, there are obviously a (very) few examples of parallel blades. I can't imagine what they're for, though. Physics is pretty clearly that a larger point of contact results in more evenly distributed force. I mean, there's the ol' bat-with-a-nail-in-it. Hit a guy with a bat, he's hurting bad. Hit a guy with a bat that's got a nail in it, he may well die. That's why actually war hammers have such small heads.
I can't imagine a sword was made with two parallel blades for no purpose whatsoever; I just don't see how it could possibly be to cause more damage. Maybe it was a defensive addition like parrying hooks, or an ornamental/ceremonial device.
On another note I was always under the impression that wootz steel blades were generally of very high performance...So I'm kind of surprised to find out that this was a common break.One thing I've learned recently from the forums on The Sword Buyer's Guide is that swords of all sorts break. Use them enough, and it's basically inevitable. There's one video of a guy doing some test cuts on what's apparently an incredibly high-performance sword made by one of the more well-renowned smiths online and... it can't quite stand up to a perpendicular cut to a cow femur. Hurts my heart a little to watch.
I actually spoke with a blacksmith who can make actual Damascus blades. Granted, the main benefit of such, aside from the varying levels of carbon in the metal, like in any good sword steel, were...carbon crystals? That got left behind in the wound and made it harder for the injury to heal? Something like that.
...first the disarming part with the forked end. I doubt that as it seems unlikely you would be able to wedge your opponents blade between the fork. Not sure if that is what you meant?Yeah, it seems like a stretch. It's not like a trident or a sai
...the second part about slowing a blade down. That sounds plausible. Source? I heard that it is that way is to decrease the point of contact thus increasing the force per area on a strike.Somewhere on the SBG or one of the sites they suggested. Decreasing the point of contact also makes sense. I wonder if it does anything wonky to the point of percussion? The only thing I'm fairly confident in is that the wavy blade was NOT to decrease suction of the flesh around the blade to make it easier to pull out, which is something I heard a long ways back, in the same breath that described "blood grooves", before all of that was thoroughly debunked.
I'm a little late here but I wanted to respond to this at least partially.
I am aware that swords of all sorts break. However, that specific break sounds odd especially of swords that would more often than not be of higher quality. I generally think a sword is going to break at a stress concentration or at a thinner point. So breaking off the tip, at the guard or tang etc. I would expect it to bend, snap in half or roll an edge before that odd split down the tip.
It seems more like something that would happen with a blade that was not properly heat treated. Almost like a delamination but not really. Maybe something about Damascus blades having issues at the widest but most likely thinnest section of the blade? Again I'm thinking the quench or temper might be the possible cause. Anyways I'm just guessing here but that is why I thought it seemed like an odd break for what would generally be thought of as a higher end blade.
As for the center of percussion on a split blade sword vs an identical blade minus the split? I am uncertain of what it would do. :)