Medieval weapons.

Remove all ads!

I’ve been playing RPGs since the release of the first BG and after an exhaustive investigation on the matter of the middle age weapons (seem to be THE Age of the most of the RPGs); I have to come to this bitter conclusions:
1) I’ve no idea of the D&D rules (any version of it)
2) The research area of development does not make enough research
3) I have too much curiosity, too much respect for the truth, and too many free time to even think about this, but what the heck….

Let me explain myself:
The usual mistake taken on the type of damage that sword-like (small, large and two handed) weapons do.

The small ones (knives, daggers, etc) posses razor edge on BOTH SIDES and have a tip point, for the porpoise of backstab. The edge is for the balance of the weapon and can do some damage BUT usually this type of swords are used for piercing an armour.

The long sword also has a tip but is not for piercing purpoises, well, it can be used like this but only in the case that the length of the weapon does not exceed 1,20 meters.
They can have one or both edges BUT ONLY ONE OF THEM is used for the slashing damage; the other one is lonely for balance and defence effects (called blind edge)
The most extreme example for this blind edge are the katanas, scimitars, shamshirs and the like.
These swords are curved because the curved edge favoured the slashing movement.
Conclusion: The long swords can ONLY do slashing damage.
Oh, and the one-edged straight type of swords (ancient than the curved) falls into this category too.

At last, the two-handed, hand and a half and zweidhander type of swords:
They can have 1, 70 meters of length or more, 7 cms of blade width, and it is physically impossible for a normal human (or even ogre) for the stabbing porpoise.
They have BOTH sides edged, but unlike the long ones both can be used for damage.
BUT (the difference lies here) this type of heavy swords were designed for harming TROUGH the armour of the adversary (like a long axe of some sort) without the necessity of break it.
For all the above, the damage delivered by these beauties is double:
SLASHING (on her edge), but no match for the blunt (on her heavy weight)
Also, it takes a very high rank of training and skill to handle these swords, not to mention the minimal strength necessary to even carry it.

There are some questions without an answer for me:
Who is wrong? Thousands of weapon collectors and historians? Or the research team of the game?
Please, let me know what you think, I really need to know.

PS: Well, not me, but a friend of mine who is interested in all these matters.
Sorry if this is in the wrong forum.

 

It's all rubbish in D&D because from the pocket knife to the zweihander, you have an edge or two and a pointy tip. A sword has one or two cutting edges and a typical European longsword had two, no matter what ahistorical fantasy nerds try to tell you (doesn't mean only double-edged swords were around, though). In the ancient era, single-edged was the norm, although double-edged was also there. Curved stuff tends to have one edge for cutting and not really much pointing. A friggin' piercing rapier or even epee can have sort of an adge surogate near the point, so you could chop someone's fingers off with it or something. Anyway, a flexible epee would need just minimal sharpening for slashing because of the whipping effect of the "blade". Oh, and would take a total idiot to make a two-handed single-edged sword unless we're talking about a gigantic sabre or something like that (great scimitar in D&D comes to mind). There's no reason why you wouldn't thrust with a 2H sword. In fact, animations in cRPG show characters thrusting with rules-wise slash-only weapons. And no, it's not like you can only thrust with a short sword. You may cut or even chop with it too. Seen Gladiator?

IMHO a wise DM shouldn't insist in being an unrealistic stuck-up living in an ideal D&D rules world where physics or reality doesn't apply, and piercing uses of longswords or slashing of short should be allowed.

Not be picky, but the blunt side of the axe was also frequently employed, if only for the fact you can't crush a skull with the chopping side (it will slide and you need to get the cheese out).

 

From what I recall... yes, weapons in D&D aren't too accurately described (weight, for example).

Although if you have to sacrifice game enjoyment for historical purity, then I don't think it's worth it. But to generalize, D&D is a poor resource on medieval weapons, because the (a) weapon rules describe an abstract system for damaging people/things and (b) it's an RPG -- historical accuracy is not a top priority for some game designs.

I agree with you on this one, but to an extent. Characters shouldn't be able to consistently dealing piercing damage, for example, with a longsword without a penalty.

 

Agreed. Short swords and daggers are much more handy for that and poking stuff with a longsword could become quite tedious after a while. Also, a short sword wielder would probably tire much faster while jumping around and trying to chop or slash with that kind of blade.

Hmmm... you're right when it concerns history and historical accuracy, but I only really have a problem with that stuff when nerds make false claims about history. The pointing with LS/ slashing with SS is something more on the physical side of things and that one is bad to ignore.

Weight of items is strange sometimes. I don't really believe in aping, but I believe in weight being in touch with how much material is being used in the process of forging the weapon.

 

D&D is abstract. 'Nuff said.

@Sydax: Your conclusions are inaccurate:

Two-Handed Swords were used for stabbing.
That's what the blunt part above the crossguard is for. The fighter would grip the blade there and wield the weapon like a spear.
In fact, it probably was the main style for fighting with a 'Zweihander', because there usually was just not enought room for cutting with such a long weapon.
By the way, chev, Two-Handed-Swords with only one sharp edge existed. There even were Zweihanders which had dull blades. Big clubs made out of steel.

Knives and Dagger: You got to be more precise. There was the Dagger, a weapon with a round or cubic "blade" and no edge, just with a point. It was used for stabbing through plate armor.

Knives had one edge and were weapon and tool, just like today. There is the evidence on a weapon called Tescak in Eastern Europe, and Dussak or Long Knife in Middle Europe. It essentially was a short sword with a curved blade. It was a very cheap weapon and usually found in every free household for use against criminals. There were even fencing schools that taught the use of this blade.

Then there were 'dagger-knives'. These are what usually is called a dagger today. It is just a mixture between dagger an knive: Straight blade, two sharp edges, sharp point.

Longswords: You got it mainly right, but an experienced fighter could use both edges. With technics called 'Master Strokes', the wielder would make a cut, immideatly reverse the stroke and attack with the backhand. As the name suggests, this kind of attack needed a certain level of skill. Usually, long swords were only used for hacking, if they were used at all.

 

Deyamn. And what would the purpose be of having just one cutting edge? If someone were new to it, he would confuse the edges all the more than with a longsword... And I'd rather order a two-handed mace for a blunt weapon but to each his own. Was it the weapon of some warrior turned priest or something?

 

I really don't understand much of these kind of weapons skills and specifications, I'm more 'hack & slash' guy who changes weapons (from sword to mace, etc) whenever the situation requires. This whole thing is something a friend of mine is 'worried' about; he also played Fallout games and in those games there are more weapons specifications and more 'penalties' for using the wrong weapon; but as I said, those games aren't D&D rules based...
What I can't seem to understand yet is why priests can't use some kind of weapons? Or why a mage can't be strong enough to use a sword? I may be getting off topic here; but I have to wait for my friend to answer what you posted (he lives where I used to live but he has internet only at work, where he can't browse sites but just his email)

 

I don't know if there was a special purpose for a one-sided 'cutter'. I just saw a photo.

Maces are not that easy to balance out. And remember: The blade is still there, it is just not sharp. The power of a blow is more concentrated than with a mace. I think these weapons were especially made for duelling. I can imagine that there is no weapon better suited for denting someones full plate than a blunt two-handed swords. Well, except a warhammer, of course.


@Sydax: Christian priests were constricted of the use of sharp weapons because they were not allowed to 'draw blood'. That's why the clerics in AD&D could not use them. Some Speciality Priest could, though.

Now, in D&D, clerics can use all weapons. They just don't learn wielding them. The so-called 'Simple Weapons' include maces, morningstars, spears, daggers, crossbows, slings, etc.
Which is quite ridiculous, because maces and spears are more difficult to use than swords. With swords, you have a whole blade you can hit with. A mace or a spears has not.

 

Right. I own a blunt one myself, but it's a longsword, not a two-handed one. Hmmm... the Scots used to duel with two-handed swords, but what about Germans or Germanic lands? Maybe mountainers or Swiss folks or something, but I suppose it would have been far from weapon of choice of German feudal nobility...

Hmm... you're right about balance, but the sword is still blade-oriented, so it's designed around being sharp (as for real battle use).

 

Hitting a moving target properly with the edge (and not the flat) of a long blade is quite difficult. Getting the angle right to make a good, clean cut is not easy at all, especially if you are using a one-handed sword. Hitting with the flat of a sword causes less (if any) damage. If you hit an armor with the flat of a blade, chances are that your blade could break. Also, if you parry another blade not using the flat of the blade, you'll ruin the edge.

A mace is nothing else than a club with more weight on the head. The only things to consider when you use it are balance and reach. As long as any part of the head makes contact wiht the target, you're grand.

 

Exactly.

Maces and Axes (even if axes can encounter the same problem as a sword) are closer to an extension of one's fist. The blow of a "weighted" melee weapon is very similar in principle to hammering something with your fist, not to mention, the weight helps fully extend the arm helping deliver a blow more likely to be straight on. This made bladed and blunt polearms, as well as maces and their ilk increasingly popular in the 14th and 15 century to deal with the adaptation of the full plate to become increasingly talented at deflecting blows.

3e's simple weapon implimentation has plenty of issues, but it has more to do with access to weapons. Spears, clubs, daggers and their ilk are very easy to get access to while a longsword is not. Now, with how common axes are in every day use and how they are such a primitive weapon only makes me wonder why they martial weapons, or why a morningstar, one the most diffult weapons in the D+D settings to wield, is a simple weapon.

 

Or my personal two gripes:

1) Why a quarterstaff, one of the fastest and deadliest weapons in trained hands, which allows the user to hit with either end in quick succession, is not considered a dual-wielded weapon like the 2-bladed sword (and, incidentally, give an extra attack per round)?

2) Two-bladed swords... they can't be slashing weapons. The wielder has no leverage for a proper cut with such a weapon. As piercing weapons they could work very well (a "2-bladed spear"), or using a katana-like cutting style (slice, rather than slash), but never in the way games like NWN show.

 

Colthrun: Actually in D&D 3E you can use a quartherstaff as either twohanded weapon, onehanded weapon, or a dualwielding weapon.

The computer games for corse fails to implement this.

 

Chev:

In late medieval age, disputes would between free men could be settled with 'Divine Judgement'. Duels were a possibility, but instead of fighting themselves, many paid champions instead to do this. Wandering mercenaries, who earned their money this way, when not in war.
Mercs who used two-handed-swords were called "Doppelsöldner" (double mercenaries), because they were better payed. They needed a special allowance to use these weapons.


@Colthrun and IS:
Maces, hammers and axes have smaller "hit zones". If you don't know how to use these things, you may hit your opponent with the shaft instead of the head. Not with a sword.

 

I always thought how strange how maces appear in games. They always make them a little short, and lighter compared to other weapons such as the infantry man's axe. Maces are quite heavy! The war hammers also look super tacky and also too short.

I attend tons of workshops that are held in the local forts in N.Ireland and I am always amazed at how the Normans had weapons for every suitation. I attended one last year and I learned about the various arrows the Norman used. I was also amazed at the variety of arrow heads used in hunting.

I guess some gamers prefer to take a more 'hollywood' approach to weapons?

 

I don't think that the maces and warhammers in games are too small. This kind of weapons existed. The warhammers in BG2, for instance, were meant to be cavalry hammers. There was this thing called 'Rabenschnabel' (raven's beak), which was solely used from horseback.

The footman weapons were much heavier, that's right. I don't know why they weren't supported in the BG-series or NWN. I know I miss the heavy maces in NWN.

 

Just the other day I was watching Conquest, a show where a guy teachs some people to use some weapons and then simulate a battle, etc.; and all the maces used in the Tournament episode were much bigger like the ones shown in games, and many of them were two-handed. There's also an episode for the medieval broadsword, where it looked a bit bigger than in games.

So what's the difference between a hammer (2d4), a mace (1d8), a club (1d8) and a mangual (1d8) if all of them cause blunt damage? Just to add variety?
I imagine that there is a lot of work put in the making of the rules and is a great job, but sometimes we see some things that are not taking into account and (as seen here) many people realize; playing Fallout you see lots of these factor count, like penalty for using the wrong weapon in somebody with some kind of armour, but of course, that's another game.
Anyhow, I've seen that there are new editions in D&D rules, who make them? Do they 'listen' to the people? Do they change things like these?

 

according to my handbook a club only does 1d6 for a medium sized create. However anyway, a light mace, which does 1d6 points of damage is much harder to sunder then a club. Any metal weapon has a better "hardness" factor and more hp then a wooden weapon. Also exceptionally crude weapons like clubs and greatclubs are exceptionally cheap (or free in the club's case). Also certain blunt weapons like flails and heavy flails can be used to make trip attacks.

 

By the way, previously a light mace was (being a light weapon) eligible to the benefits of a "weapon finesse" feat. Now, since that would,imo, mean a technique relying on relatively fluid, graceful motions - or at least fairly unemcumbered ones - do you think even a "light" mace could benefit from it?

 

According to the rules, yes.

In reality, I cannot quite imagine using a light mace relying on dexterity. You need a certain amount of strenght to make your hits count, even if you strike the foe's weak points.