| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Arion Elenim |
Posted - 07 Oct 2002 : 17:41:24
Can someone please explain why a scimitar in the Realms used to be wide, flat, curved and broad with a sharp edge on one side and a sharp point sticking out horizontally on the other...and now is just a curved, thin blade with only one striking edge? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Bayne |
Posted - 10 Nov 2003 : 22:11:20
quote:
Originally posted by Darwin Tenderfoot
I never thought about using Drow poison to tell you the truth. But I should look into that. Oh, and about the sword I was just joking so dont take offense to it or anything The Great Drizzt. I have been thinking about weapons what about those Drow Hand crossbows. Those are pretty nifty with anyone. (especially with Drow poison.
Darwin 
Those crossbows are highly concealable, so I recommend you getting one. |
| Draith_Assassin_Pro |
Posted - 08 Nov 2003 : 02:57:45
Basically.. The long sword is good and reliable |
| sabre |
Posted - 07 Nov 2003 : 12:05:24
About the chains;they are not specially racial weapon of the orcs.Ưn the campaign which we are playing there is a barbarian rogue fighter whom uses the spiked chain.and it is especially a good weapon cause you can make trip attacks,it has reach and if you be able to hit with both heads you can make rake attack immediatly.also you can use it in close melee without penalty. |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 12 May 2003 : 22:10:25
quote:
Originally posted by branmakmuffin
Sorry to reply to this so late, mournblade.
Regarding the honor system for taking hits in the SCA, I imagine if you take major whacks and say to your opponent "Are you here to fight, or polish my aromr?", you get a reputation, and then people start really teeing off on you.
Oh man no doubt!!!
My friend Sir Corwyn, dented someones breastplate because they said one of his shots was too light. (it wasn't, he was being numb). Corwyn is a roofer, and 55 years old now. He is a pretty cool figure in his Saxon armour.
I am never numb and I have plenty of bruises just from being hit NORMALLY!!!
|
| branmakmuffin |
Posted - 12 May 2003 : 18:24:49
Sorry to reply to this so late, mournblade.
Regarding the honor system for taking hits in the SCA, I imagine if you take major whacks and say to your opponent "Are you here to fight, or polish my aromor?", you get a reputation, and then people start really teeing off on you. |
| eilinel |
Posted - 12 May 2003 : 15:59:57
the claymore is just a scottish version of the French espadon but smaller. The espadon was the hugest of all swords, taller than the warrior fighting with it. It was actually only used in parads, shows, tournaments and sometimes by prison guards to intimidate people.
|
| Cult_Leader |
Posted - 06 May 2003 : 15:05:21
Hmm. I have been thinking about this. Lets say someone has been using a double bladed sword. They are doing good and then all the sudden they roll a crit miss. They roll their d20 again. And then find out that it didnt break ... but they roll it again (this is our system btw)and roll a 20, Which is they hit themselves. And then they roll another 20.... which was their heart ... And then rolled 19 and hit themselves.... What would that 1) Look like. 2) Happen. And 3) When should my char start laughing at the other Char. This was soemthing that came up last night ... soemone actually managed to kill themselves with a double bladed. (as in swords at both ends). |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 05 May 2003 : 20:41:22
quote:
Originally posted by branmakmuffin
mournblade, I was looking at a bunch of sites that make reproductions of weapons and aromr. The scottishquality.com site is by far the most detailed. As you saw, they even have steel composition, for pete's sake!
Regarding axes, that's very interesting about hooking an opponent's shield then spiking him in the face. It'd be nice to put stuff like that in a game, but it might make combat too unwieldy.
I remember seeing a show about fighting with two-handed swords (pretty late in history, I think). The guys demo-ing the technique used the entire sword as a weapon, alomost kind of like a quarterstaff. It was pretty interesting.
I have utilized this in the game, by giving a spiked axe a +1 on its critical roll when fighting someone with a shield. Does not double the range but will give a +1 on the SECOND roll. It seems to work so far. Ulktimately not enough of my PC's Use aspiked axes to REALLY test it.
|
| Cult_Leader |
Posted - 05 May 2003 : 20:36:24
quote:
Originally posted by branmakmuffin
mournblade, I was looking at a bunch of sites that make reproductions of weapons and aromr. The scottishquality.com site is by far the most detailed. As you saw, they even have steel composition, for pete's sake!
Regarding axes, that's very interesting about hooking an opponent's shield then spiking him in the face. It'd be nice to put stuff like that in a game, but it might make combat too unwieldy.
I remember seeing a show about fighting with two-handed swords (pretty late in history, I think). The guys demo-ing the technique used the entire sword as a weapon, alomost kind of like a quarterstaff. It was pretty interesting.
I seen that. It was rather ... Lets just put it this way. Is was cool. I tried to lean how to do some thing like he did with my own hand and a half but that didnt work out so well ... So I stick to my Batajitsu or ... two short swords lol. |
| branmakmuffin |
Posted - 05 May 2003 : 19:40:57
mournblade, I was looking at a bunch of sites that make reproductions of weapons and aromr. The scottishquality.com site is by far the most detailed. As you saw, they even have steel composition, for pete's sake!
Regarding axes, that's very interesting about hooking an opponent's shield then spiking him in the face. It'd be nice to put stuff like that in a game, but it might make combat too unwieldy.
I remember seeing a show about fighting with two-handed swords (pretty late in history, I think). The guys demo-ing the technique used the entire sword as a weapon, alomost kind of like a quarterstaff. It was pretty interesting. |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 05 May 2003 : 19:08:05
quote:
Originally posted by Cult_Leader
And Bran I am thinking that Mourn will agree with me. An axe out of the items that you have listed is actually made to disarm as well as kill. It was also used to block on comming attcks. However I wouldnt bother with that. There was an axe (I cannot remember the name of it) that was 6 foot tall to 7 or 8. It was swong around and around until the time of the blow... Upon with it cut through armour, man, and horse.... My theory is ... Destroy the man ... Destroy the threat. After all ... if the person is not alive he damn well cant use the weapon he has. Same thing with fingers... if s/he has no fingers then they cant use a weapon. Axes ... the smaller ones and even some of the big ones, actually stend to be a faster weapon. I would have to agree with you and state this however: for them to parry anythign they would have to be using a battle axe or a hand axe. There are to many axes that are far to big beyond those two that could be duel weilded... They are unlike a claymore  oddly weighted.
They tame quite a bit of time to learn how to use. Same with a sword. However I would have to give any master of an axe a lot more credit then a master of a sword. Why? Because most people who used axes were more barbaric... because they didn't use a "noble" weapon.
If you want some good info about axes and their uses in fighting watch the history channel ... they might show a show called the history of the axe. It showed me a few axes that I myself have never seen before. Which is not many. But still. A good deal I didn't even know about.
Sorry Bookwyrm have to do this
The axe had this amazing ability to hook shields and pull them down, thus opening your opponent up for attack. The vikings used axes which were jsut as effective as swords. Their axes did not look like the BARBARIAN axe we see in fantasy art (though I wish they did they are not practical). They were one head, with what was called a bearded blade (flat on top, curving down below). They often had a thrusting spike on the top. So imagine this, you are a viking, you hook the shield and pull it down. Now your opponent is defenseless against that REALLY NASTY spike that is going to impale his face! Beautiful weapon.
The Huskarls of King Harold of England in 1066 nearly won the Battle of Hastings against Duke William, because of their HUGE battle axes. They were effective becasue they would fight in a line, and cleave the cavalry as it would charge (remember these were dark age knights, not the heavily armoured knights on the 14th century). The problem with this type of axe as an individual was inorder to get a good cut in, you had to hold the axe back and expose your body to attack. The huskarls had a kite shield which helped, but the viking warriors at the time did not tend to use shields with axes. It was also not double bladed, it tended to have a single broad head.
But I have to disagree with Cult about it being a barbaric weapon. The POLE AXE was used often in Chivalry tournaments, where the two knights would fight over the barrier. The knights of Scandanavia (no longer vikings) used axes far into the later middle ages.
Incidentally that history channel special is awesome. I have been trying to get it on DVD for awhile. Becareful of the Conquest show however, they get some things mixed up. But of course since history is often interpretation they may have it right...
Sorry I keep taking up so much space with this stuff, but this forum is the only place I get to talk about this stuff with people who MIGHT care. This is not exactly good dinner conversation on a date. Unless you are bringing that date to the metropolitan Museum of art!
|
| Mournblade |
Posted - 05 May 2003 : 19:02:52
quote:
Originally posted by branmakmuffin
Cult_Leader:
quote:
I hate it when I hit the enter button.
You can go back and edit you posts, eh.
mournblade, This is what I often see illustrated in RPG books as a Claymore.
These definitely look like what Liam Neeson used in "Rob Roy". You can also see a small picture of Mel Gibson from "Braveheart" holding his gargantuan two-handed sword.
Boy, replica weapons are sure cheap. 
WOW that is an incredible site! Yeah those HAVE to be authentic becaus that 16th century claymore is about $800! WOW! That is alot. The 18th century is even more. OOOOO! I am oogling with want right now. I will have to wait until NEXT september. The Sword William Wallace used (Which is displayed in the William Wallace memorial in Sterling Scotland (ELROND GO THERE!!!)) was a precursor to the Claymore in the site. At the time of William Wallace (c. 1297), the scots did not have the quality of equiptment that the English had so they needed a sword that could smash the hell out of armour
Thanks for the link BRAN! I will look at it and DROOL!
|
| Mournblade |
Posted - 05 May 2003 : 18:53:08
quote:
Originally posted by Cult_Leader
And this is one thing you forgot about then mourn. The fact that duel weilding a weapon was not made when armour lost its value. Did you foeget in your acting that acting is acting ... not real fighting. Anyway. through your acting you should remember that a lot of fencing (is spelled right) had duel weilding styles. That is what the fencing dagger is for after all.
No remembering needed, I mentioned Florentine fighting which is the maingauche/rapier, remember? Florentine is a term used in fencing to describe fighting with a sword and dagger. Fencing did not come into significant popularity until the late 1500's. Fencing became an effective form when ARMOUR lost its use due to the firearm.
If you wnat to get a feel for real medieval fighting, check out www.sca.org The fighting is NOT acting, but the weapons are not metal though they are weighted similar. The weapons are made of heavy rattan and there are strict Armour requirements. SCA teaches you what really CAN and CAN'T be done with weapons becasue pain is a very good teacher. IT is not acting, it is a medieval re-creation. THe only aspect that we do not recreate is Cavalry in battle. Too many insurance issues there. SO the melee battles are infantry recreation only, but you still have to have a good idea of tactics. The SCA is run on an honour system, if you are hit hard enough you take it, if you think the shot was too light you do not take it. People hit HARD in the sca, so one must be careful as to which they take and do not take. I have many bruises and dents that show that. Unfortunatley my friend who is currently fighting in the CROWN tournament has suffered two concussions already. You really have to be careful.
With Historical Re-enactment there is not much full contact because of the metal. IN SCA everything is full contact. I just stopped the SCA about a month ago because practicing 3 nights a week got to be too much. I was getting worn down. You are besically learning to defend yourself against balanced baseball bats.
IN the SCA you will learn how to wear armour, use shields effectively, and learn other fighting styles. ACtually SCA DOES have a dual wield fighting style that many people use, but the purists in the SCA are highly against it. I am not as it is very effective for the SCA recreation, but it is not period, which is issue woth the purists. BUT if the other opponent was wearing good armour, you would have to ask yourself just how much of an advantage does a second weapon give you over a shield? Not very much. THe defense of a shield is immense. The shield should give WAY more of an armour bonus than it does in D&D, but for game balance sake I think they did a good job of assigning bonuses.
Incidentally if you are interested and I got the link wrong feel free to email me. SCA is prevalent all over the United states and canada which is broken up into various kingdoms (each with its own website). Australia is part of the West kingdom, and Europe is there OWN kingdom of Drachenwald.
The website for the EAST KINGDOM, which includes the east coast from QUEBEC to Maryland is www.eastkingdom.org. I know for sure AUSTRALIA is part of the kingdom of the west www.west.sca.org, and the Kingdom of Drachenvald is all of Europe, I have fought with Drachenvald many times, and they are fun. So for all you European guys here is the link www.drachenwald.org
Overall SCA is VERY fun. But if you want to get anywhere in it, you really have to have dedication. Unfortunatly there are many things I like to do which interfere with SCA prgression, so I had to give it a rest. But I hope the links were helpful.
|
| branmakmuffin |
Posted - 05 May 2003 : 17:12:42
Cult_Leader:
quote:
I hate it when I hit the enter button.
You can go back and edit you posts, eh.
mournblade, This is what I often see illustrated in RPG books as a Claymore.
These definitely look like what Liam Neeson used in "Rob Roy". You can also see a small picture of Mel Gibson from "Braveheart" holding his gargantuan two-handed sword.
Boy, replica weapons are sure cheap.
Here's some much, much more appealing Scottish claymores. |
| Cult_Leader |
Posted - 05 May 2003 : 13:24:07
And Bran I am thinking that Mourn will agree with me. An axe out of the items that you have listed is actually made to disarm as well as kill. It was also used to block on comming attcks. However I wouldnt bother with that. There was an axe (I cannot remember the name of it) that was 6 foot tall to 7 or 8. It was swong around and around until the time of the blow... Upon with it cut through armour, man, and horse.... My theory is ... Destroy the man ... Destroy the threat. After all ... if the person is not alive he damn well cant use the weapon he has. Same thing with fingers... if s/he has no fingers then they cant use a weapon. Axes ... the smaller ones and even some of the big ones, actually stend to be a faster weapon. I would have to agree with you and state this however: for them to parry anythign they would have to be using a battle axe or a hand axe. There are to many axes that are far to big beyond those two that could be duel weilded... They are unlike a claymore oddly weighted.
All in all. There should be a feat to use axes that way I would have to lean to that. Axes are odd weapons. They tame quite a bit of time to learn how to use. Same with a sword. However I would have to give any master of an axe a lot more credit then a master of a sword. Why? Because most people who used axes were more barbaric... because they didn't use a "noble" weapon.
If you want some good info about axes and their uses in fighting watch the history channel ... they might show a show called the history of the axe. It showed me a few axes that I myself have never seen before. Which is not many. But still. A good deal I didn't even know about.
|
| Cult_Leader |
Posted - 05 May 2003 : 13:15:44
I hate it when I hit the enter button.
But yes I do agree with you. And the english had a verson of a clymore, I never said it WAS a claymore. In any case I dont own a replica ... My family was scottish and the only thing I got from my grandpa for my 16th birthday was a family sword... which made me rathr happy .
Guns didnt really make duel weilding ...
And yes.... As we have both said the claymore is a nice big sword that is best with two hands. That way the blows ACTUALLY do what they should do. I never once said it would be very effective heh ... the only thing that I said is that it CAN be done. Which was just me replying to someone's post asking if it could be done. Which i was just letting them know that it could be done. I didn't need a history lecture. Nore did I need so many people jumping down at me for telling him that it could be done... When infact yes it could.... and like I have said before. I never ONCE said it would be as effective as just using it the right way.
|
| Cult_Leader |
Posted - 05 May 2003 : 13:06:09
And this is one thing you forgot about then mourn. The fact that duel weilding a weapon was not made when armour lost its value. Did you foeget in your acting that acting is acting ... not real fighting. Anyway. through your acting you should remember that a lot of fencing (is spelled right) had duel weilding styles. That is what the fencing dagger is for after all. |
| branmakmuffin |
Posted - 05 May 2003 : 05:36:19
mournblade, you're probably a veritable treasure trove of info about Mediaeval and Renaissance weapons.
This does not really have anything to do with D20 mechanics, but I use ReunQuest mechanics, so here goes. Standard RQ rules let anyone parry with anything, which is a fine abstraction for simplicity.
I, on the other hand, won't allow people to parry with a one-handed unbalanced weapon (an axe, mace, etc.) I say "That's what shields are for". I don't know what a real battle axe weighs, but it seems unlikely to me that a person could whip around a stick with a big piece of metal on the end with as much ease as a rapier. Heck, maybe people didn't really parry with broadswords either. I imagine in mediaeval combat not having a shield was pretty dumb.
I do let people parry with two-handed axes, maces, etc. That may also be unrealistic, but it seems more in the realm of plausibility. |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 05 May 2003 : 05:24:37
quote:
Originally posted by branmakmuffin
And the Claymores used in Viet Nam, what about them?
The sword Liam Neeson used in "Rob Roy" was a Claymore of its day, right? I remember someone in the film talking about the superiority of the Claymore over something else, probably that wimpy sword Tim Roth's character used. I really can't recall what Mel Gibson's looked like.
You are absolutely correct Bran. That was the Claymore that I mistakenly referred to as the 19th century claymore. I was wrong because it was definitely used in the 1700's. Dual weapons certainly came into being when armour lost its practically thanks to firearms. |
| branmakmuffin |
Posted - 05 May 2003 : 04:26:09
And the Claymores used in Viet Nam, what about them?
The sword Liam Neeson used in "Rob Roy" was a Claymore of its day, right? I remember someone in the film talking about the superiority of the Claymore over something else, probably that wimpy sword Tim Roth's character used. I really can't recall what Mel Gibson's looked like.
I'm going to cede the practical knowledge to you, mournblade, but I'm going to propose something. If I'm right, OK. If I'm wrong, OK, too.
I would think dual-weapon style coincided roughly with the invention of firearms, which led to not so much armor, which led to not so much need to penetrate armor, which led to lighter weapons, which led to having weapons light and balanced enough to dual wield. In addition to the Florentine style, wasn't there later a Spanish style of dual weapon fighting?
If you had asked me before if I thought European knights ever used two weapons at the same time, I'd have said, "I'm not an expert, but I wouldn't think so".
Dual weapons were cool in RPGs before Drizzt. Makes you seem more like a swashbuckler. |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 05 May 2003 : 03:51:36
quote:
Originally posted by Cult_Leader
quote:
Originally posted by Bookwyrm
I notice that you still aren't talking about the largest size again -- the Scottish two-handed claymore. That one was a real monster.
Yes bookwyrm but take this into fact. The person who actually statred talking about duel weilding them never said if he was talking about irish or scottish ... There for it was Claymores in gen. So once again .. remember there are more then one form of claymore. Not only to say that but the fact that the scottish claymore didnt cut .. it smashed... and .. it was really a stabbing form of sword... not cut through flesh like on brave heart .. while the irish one was slashing and stabbing .. making it possible to use for duel weilding.
OK Cult Leader. If you were reading carefully you would see that for people that know history I stated VERY CLEARLY what kind of claymore I was talking about. The two handed Claymore of the Scottish Highland Clans (the one William Wallace used in the 1200's). The image that comes to mind when one thinks of a claymore. The english NEVER had a claymore. The claymore you are probably relating to the english is the 19th century claymore (maybe earlier) that the HIGHLAND clans adopted along with the Tartan and the Kilt as we now know it. IT had a red basket hilt, and was more like a broadsword.
Now cult, because you OWN a claymore does not mean you know anything about them. Do you fight in backyards? That is impressive, but I am a medieval re-enactor and I assure you I have used MANY of these weapons, both in its steel form, and in SCA replica. Owning a claymore will tell you nothing. Museum Replicas sells one for about 300 dollars with an inacurate balance, and a shody design for Dueling. A replica tells you NOTHING about the weapon. I have worked with the Lochaber Highland Re-enactors in Fort William Scotland, and I do assure you are correct Claymores are not as heavy as people think. They are also much faster than one would think because of the handle length. The only reason a claymore can be used effectively is because on the length of its handle. The claymore was not a cutting weapon, but its momentum often sundered limbs. THis is the point of balance I was talking about. If you OWN the claymore check to see where the point of balance is. If it is a REAL claymore, you will find in about 1/3 of the way up the blade from the hilt. I have two claymores. One is from Museum Replicas and it is a JOKE. The other was made by Allister at the HIGHLAND CLAN CENTER in Fort Augustus, Scotland. This balance is well perfect. He has studied the art for a long time, and sells many of his weapons to the professional re-enactors, Like the Lochaber re-enactors. Incidentally you can see the Lochaber re-enactors in action because they were the guys that did the ANCIENT WARRIORS series for the history channel.
I'm sorry to respond this way cult leader, but it seems you understood nothing aboiut what I was saying in my post above. I was talking about the center of balance of two handed swords. I was not going into all the technicalities. THe centre of balance for a CLaymore is OBVIOUSLY very different from the center of balance for the FLAMBERGE. I assure you that the Claymore of the 13th century highland scots COULD NOT be used in the Florentine style. For one the handle is too long and would interfere with the snap or wrap, and the center of balance is too awkward. That is why, as you said above, it is not effective as a one handed weapon. YES you could duel wield the IRISH claymore, but please keep in mind there are no REAL recorded historical accounts of warriors fighting with two-weapons. There is ONE account of an Irishmen picking up a sword of a fallen comrade in desperation, but generally the duel wield did not come into play until 17th century florentine fighters developed the Rapier/Main-Gauche. But you are correct. Most two handed weapons are used to SUnder and not cut. Still D&D has them listed as slashing weapons so I use them as such in the game.
|
| Cult_Leader |
Posted - 03 May 2003 : 20:24:16
quote:
Originally posted by Bookwyrm
I notice that you still aren't talking about the largest size again -- the Scottish two-handed claymore. That one was a real monster.
Yes bookwyrm but take this into fact. The person who actually statred talking about duel weilding them never said if he was talking about irish or scottish ... There for it was Claymores in gen. So once again .. remember there are more then one form of claymore. Not only to say that but the fact that the scottish claymore didnt cut .. it smashed... and .. it was really a stabbing form of sword... not cut through flesh like on brave heart .. while the irish one was slashing and stabbing .. making it possible to use for duel weilding. |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 03 May 2003 : 20:19:04
I notice that you still aren't talking about the largest size again -- the Scottish two-handed claymore. That one was a real monster. |
| Cult_Leader |
Posted - 03 May 2003 : 20:08:33
quote:
Originally posted by mournblade94
PEOPLE PLEASE!
I know this is an RP, but have you seen a two handed sword? The Claymore of William Wallace was ALMOST 6' tall. (Taller than Mel GIbson) Have you ever seen a Flamberge? Over 6 feet tall. Now I don't care if you dual wield two two handed swords. Its your campaign. But keep in mind that is SUCH a high Munchkin factor. Go visit a museum. Look at a two handed sword. Don't MIN MAX and see if that is STILL really what you want to do.
Drizzt certainly would not be dumb enough to dual wield two two handed swords. REMEMBER the CENTER OF BALANCE. Two Handed swords tend to have a center of balance farther from the hilt, because they will get MORE MOMENTUM. This would make it EXTREMELY Awkward for even a GIANT to fight with two swords of this size. A Frost giant, dual wielding two handed swords would make them closer to REALLY BIG long swords to keep the balance correct.
OK I know this is a fantasy rpg, but I still need a semblance of realism or my game will turn into something stupid like the movie FIRST KNIGHT!!!
I almost forgot. When you both began you rants and ravings. Did you keep in mind that there are actually more then one form of a claymore? There are I do belive 4. I know two of them right off the top of my head which are the scottish claymore, which was yes 6 feet long sometimes bigger. There were the Irish claymore which were gernerally between 4 and 5 feet long, and I do belive a third was the english verson of a claymore, which was nothing more then 4 feet in length to about 5, just like the Irish verson. However do not think that they are super heavy. In fact most claymores are very easy to hold and swing one handed... and a broad sword im sorry to say , to the other person who posted about sword, is nothing like a claymore, and they are not that heavy either not when you are used to using them. Which yes ... Im crazy enough to use the swords I own in duels with my friends, Anyway. As I was saying ... you can use a claymore one handed... the length is not the problem .. it is the fact that the real power of the claymore is due to it being a two haned weapin .. your not going to get the same affect from one hand on it that you will if you have two hands upon it. You could ask my friend doug that. He dose duel weild irish claymores. Anywho. The claymore is best used with two hands... it gets its power and use from that. The blade... no .. is not that heavy. Yes length is a matter. Yet look at the claymore's blade length once more... its length makes it floppy... and oh yes ... almost forgot .. its not that thick either. Thats where it gets its bend from. Most people think OMG .. a claymore.... its so heavy and powerful ... it could smash through a table... try it come time ... the only real use it has is keeping them at the end so they cant get near you. Which you have to have VERY good foot work to be able to even pull that off. ANyway the whole point to my little speah is that there is no real point even I know this. However you cannot say that someone cannot duel weild a claymore. When infact someone really actually could. Claymores are not as heavy as people would think, not unless you sit around and use a remote all day long. Then maybe it will be a bit heavy. Yes the length can affect how well you would duel wield such a sword... but if you know how, have good foot work ... you CAN pull it off. If you would like to keep saying that you cannot ... I can give you the e-mail address to five people that can tell you wrong. Doug is just one of them. Two others are infact people who belong to sword making guilds. And keep in mind as I end this little rant of mine ... that if you know what your doing and press to make yourself better at anything .. you can defy simple things... Look at people who used pens in combat. And then tell me about heavy weapons with mass... |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 03 May 2003 : 19:55:11
Actually, there are two sizes. Is it a six-foot blade? Because that's what Mournblade was talking about. |
| Cult_Leader |
Posted - 03 May 2003 : 19:43:52
quote:
Originally posted by mournblade94
PEOPLE PLEASE!
I know this is an RP, but have you seen a two handed sword? The Claymore of William Wallace was ALMOST 6' tall. (Taller than Mel GIbson) Have you ever seen a Flamberge? Over 6 feet tall. Now I don't care if you dual wield two two handed swords. Its your campaign. But keep in mind that is SUCH a high Munchkin factor. Go visit a museum. Look at a two handed sword. Don't MIN MAX and see if that is STILL really what you want to do.
Drizzt certainly would not be dumb enough to dual wield two two handed swords. REMEMBER the CENTER OF BALANCE. Two Handed swords tend to have a center of balance farther from the hilt, because they will get MORE MOMENTUM. This would make it EXTREMELY Awkward for even a GIANT to fight with two swords of this size. A Frost giant, dual wielding two handed swords would make them closer to REALLY BIG long swords to keep the balance correct.
OK I know this is a fantasy rpg, but I still need a semblance of realism or my game will turn into something stupid like the movie FIRST KNIGHT!!!
Just to let you know I OWN a claymore. ANd to tell the truth they are not as hard as your would think to use one handed. Not at all. Infact they are not even really that heavy. The only thing that makes them so deadly is that they have a long reach. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 03 May 2003 : 09:14:44
Greetings,
mournblade94 said -
quote:
PEOPLE PLEASE!
I know this is an RP, but have you seen a two handed sword? The Claymore of William Wallace was ALMOST 6' tall. (Taller than Mel GIbson) Have you ever seen a Flamberge? Over 6 feet tall. Now I don't care if you dual wield two two handed swords. Its your campaign. But keep in mind that is SUCH a high Munchkin factor. Go visit a museum. Look at a two handed sword. Don't MIN MAX and see if that is STILL really what you want to do.
Drizzt certainly would not be dumb enough to dual wield two two handed swords. REMEMBER the CENTER OF BALANCE. Two Handed swords tend to have a center of balance farther from the hilt, because they will get MORE MOMENTUM. This would make it EXTREMELY Awkward for even a GIANT to fight with two swords of this size. A Frost giant, dual wielding two handed swords would make them closer to REALLY BIG long swords to keep the balance correct.
OK I know this is a fantasy rpg, but I still need a semblance of realism or my game will turn into something stupid like the movie FIRST KNIGHT!!!
Bookwyrm said -
quote:
Hear hear, Mournblade! I prefer as much realism as posible, even in fantasy. Probably my scientific nature . . . .
Now, I also once wrote an essay that compared 'Science Fiction' against 'Fantasy', and I concluded that for a writer, fantasy is easier to write. After all, it's fantasy; it doesn't have to work like the real world. But unless you're deliberately making it weird, it has to follow a logical, linear progression. (Oo, shades of Aristotle. ) And the Forgotten Realms, and therefore Dungeons & Dragons, is definately built on something that is (supposed to be, at least) logical.
So I find certain things more than a bit annoying in some stories. Like these weird fantasy weapons -- not so much in D&D, thank goodness, but you have to remember that form follows funtion. You have to have a good reason for the really strangely-shaped weapons.
And for 'normal' devices and weapons, things that we've had in our own history . . . watch out. Anyone who thinks that you can weild two huge weapons at the same time obviously hasn't held even one. My brother has several replicas, including a hand-and-a-half (I like that name better, since it describes the funtion) and a broadsword. Believe you me -- strength is not the only issue. Carrying is easy. Wielding and fighting is hard. Like Mournblade said -- center of mass
I just read a book in which a character who had trained in quarterstaff fighting picked up a halberd in a battle and faught with it. Now, I like this author -- he's really good on the character interaction and social context. But honestly, he needs work on the battle scenes. A halberd has a very heavy weight on one side -- you can't go from a quarterstaff to something like that (or even a spear) without training. It simply won't move like you want it to. I know -- I've tried it. I own both.
And then there's just plain historical context. Take a recent 'historical' (note the quotations) movie that turned out to be a hit -- Gladiator. Now I've never seen it. I don't know what the plot is, or if it's any good. It might be very good on many points of story and historical accuracy. But someone told me just a few days ago that the Romans had stirrups on their horses.
Stirrups! I couldn't help it -- I broke out laughing. Stirrups are one of those simple, commonsensical inventions that are more recent than most people think. They weren't introduced to Europe until nearly a thousand five hundred years later!
Anyway . . . I'll stop ranting now. Just use some common sense when you do this stuff. There are more rules to this sort of thing than the PHB would otherwise tell you.
Well done, both of you. I agree with all the major points you both made in your rant's. Realism is an important part of the role-playing experience, it's what sets it apart from other activities.
Bookwyrm, you mentioned that your preference for realism was a result of your scientific nature. This is indeed a sound statement. I also tend to think along similar lines with regards to realism - on weapons, or with anything else in a campaign.
However some DM's do have the tendency to take the "realism" aspect to far, and then seem to conform to a weird sense of logic that is all their own, forgotting that in the end - it is just a game.
Good learning...
- The Sage of Perth: For all your Realms lore needs
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 03 May 2003 : 06:24:57
Hear hear, Mournblade! I prefer as much realism as posible, even in fantasy. Probably my scientific nature . . . . 
Now, I also once wrote an essay that compared 'Science Fiction' against 'Fantasy', and I concluded that for a writer, fantasy is easier to write. After all, it's fantasy; it doesn't have to work like the real world. But unless you're deliberately making it weird, it has to follow a logical, linear progression. (Oo, shades of Aristotle. ) And the Forgotten Realms, and therefore Dungeons & Dragons, is definately built on something that is (supposed to be, at least) logical.
So I find certain things more than a bit annoying in some stories. Like these weird fantasy weapons -- not so much in D&D, thank goodness, but you have to remember that form follows funtion. You have to have a good reason for the really strangely-shaped weapons.
And for 'normal' devices and weapons, things that we've had in our own history . . . watch out. Anyone who thinks that you can weild two huge weapons at the same time obviously hasn't held even one. My brother has several replicas, including a hand-and-a-half (I like that name better, since it describes the funtion) and a broadsword. Believe you me -- strength is not the only issue. Carrying is easy. Wielding and fighting is hard. Like Mournblade said -- center of mass
I just read a book in which a character who had trained in quarterstaff fighting picked up a halberd in a battle and faught with it. Now, I like this author -- he's really good on the character interaction and social context. But honestly, he needs work on the battle scenes. A halberd has a very heavy weight on one side -- you can't go from a quarterstaff to something like that (or even a spear) without training. It simply won't move like you want it to. I know -- I've tried it. I own both.
And then there's just plain historical context. Take a recent 'historical' (note the quotations) movie that turned out to be a hit -- Gladiator. Now I've never seen it. I don't know what the plot is, or if it's any good. It might be very good on many points of story and historical accuracy. But someone told me just a few days ago that the Romans had stirrups on their horses.
Stirrups! I couldn't help it -- I broke out laughing. Stirrups are one of those simple, commonsensical inventions that are more recent than most people think. They weren't introduced to Europe until nearly a thousand five hundred years later!
Anyway . . . I'll stop ranting now. Just use some common sense when you do this stuff. There are more rules to this sort of thing than the PHB would otherwise tell you. |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 02 May 2003 : 21:50:07
PEOPLE PLEASE!
I know this is an RP, but have you seen a two handed sword? The Claymore of William Wallace was ALMOST 6' tall. (Taller than Mel GIbson) Have you ever seen a Flamberge? Over 6 feet tall. Now I don't care if you dual wield two two handed swords. Its your campaign. But keep in mind that is SUCH a high Munchkin factor. Go visit a museum. Look at a two handed sword. Don't MIN MAX and see if that is STILL really what you want to do.
Drizzt certainly would not be dumb enough to dual wield two two handed swords. REMEMBER the CENTER OF BALANCE. Two Handed swords tend to have a center of balance farther from the hilt, because they will get MORE MOMENTUM. This would make it EXTREMELY Awkward for even a GIANT to fight with two swords of this size. A Frost giant, dual wielding two handed swords would make them closer to REALLY BIG long swords to keep the balance correct.
OK I know this is a fantasy rpg, but I still need a semblance of realism or my game will turn into something stupid like the movie FIRST KNIGHT!!!
|
| Cult_Leader |
Posted - 02 May 2003 : 15:36:42
quote:
Originally posted by Cult_Leader
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Drizzt
I have a question,
How come even if you have the strength, you can't wield 2 two-handed swords, it says in the books that they are to unbalanced, and awkward to wield two, I would think the awkwardness would go away if the person was strong enough, plus imagine how bad-ass you would be fighting with 2 two-handed swords!
Another question if I may, In 2nd ED. it says when you reach grand mastery you gain +3 to hit, +3 to dmg, 3 atks per rd., and dmg goes up one full die, so if the nodatchie(probly spelled wrong) does 1d20/1d20, then when you reached grand mastery the dmg would be 1d100/1d100! is that right? now imagine wielding 2 of those at grand mastery level! now that would be sweet!
The Great Drizzt
I would like to clear this one up a bit. YOU CAN if you have the feat monkey grip which you can easily afford in third ed at 3 levels of fighter... YAY .. Im glad other people over look the fact that Monkey grip allows you to hold a weapon of one size catagory higher then what your size allows. have fun skipper. Just remember ... by making a char dual weild those bad boys.... People are going to start tossing bigger meaner things at you ... which your party will blame on you 
I almost forgot my friend. YOU CANT DUEL WEILD THAT IN 2nd ed. My post got cut in half due to me hitting the enter button .. i do that now and then. Anyway back tot hings at hand. In second ed you would have to be a large creature to dual weild a Nodachi (spelled right). The dice would go up to a d30 since d30's are the next higher dice. Not only that but unless you actually have training with it you get huge minuses. |
|
|
