TheRPGSite

Hey old guys!

What did Gygax do about indoor fighting.  Were there rules about how much space you need to swing a sword in early editions?  

I ask becuase I have a cardboard tube about tje size of a Nodashi.  And I tried to take an over hand stance like the Cardboard tube Samurai.  No dice hit the ceiling.  

It got me thinking.  I don't know that I have ever been in a game where large weapons and wide swings were penalised.  And if we ever were we told the DM that was no fun, it was probably just too much book keeping.  

Anyone play where narrow corridors are actully an encumbrance to fighting?

I have some experience with reenactment sword fighting. Narrow corridors are a boon to defense, especially if you have a good shield.  Low cielings can be a problem though.

A standard 10x10 dungeon corridor, which is pretty big irl, offers plenty of room for sword fighting.

Yep, old AD&D had space requirements for weapons. The basic unit of measurement in AD&D was the 10' square, in which you could fit 9 people. Naturally you might well fight along a front, so each weapon had space requirements. The "longsword" had a 3' requirement, one of many reasons it was the most popular weapon by far.

Never played in a game where it was a big factor (beyond the "-2 to hit for confined space", and one particular encounter in White Plume Mountain), though occasionally the guy with the 2hander (which took up 6') would cause problems.

I'm currently running a version of AD&D using Dwarven Forge, i.e., a version of AD&D where you move on a grid. Nobody wants to stay in formation (often to their detriment, averaging more than one casualty a night), so the space requirements haven't been an issue.

Yes, though mostly rulings and house rules of varying complexity. More often than not, we've overlooked them except in certain situations. Trying to do it right and in specific detail can get complex quickly.

By default, no, but I've ruled that long swingy weapons couldn't be used in specific confined areas (sewers, etc.).

That's why spears and other stabby weapons are good to have, as well as short swords and other secondary weapons.

Yes, though spears and polearms can also be problematic at corners. Try getting a 5-foot-or-so pole from a hardware store and trying to quickly carry it around corners inside - there can be lots of oopses and oofs. Of course, people trained and experienced doing that would have less problems after some practice, but some corners can really be restrictive especially compared to what you can do with a long pole in the open.

On the weapons table in the PHB there's a list of how much room is needed

In practice it wasn't used that much since it was relatively rare fighting in a corridor. Though I remember  as a kid really annoying my DM by insisting on using an awl pike and being almost 20' away from the front line.

And actually, in my experience in putting up a flag pole, a 20' spear is going to be clumsy in any sort of situation.

1e PHB had space requirements but they are not necessarily realistic. A two handed sword does not need to be swung in great arcs, it is primarily a stabbing weapon and can be used much like a spear.

There were a couple old games that treated this subject in a playable manner:

1) Empire of the Petal Throne: In a 10' corridor, you could fight two abreast with longswords but you could fight three abreast if everyone was using things like spears and short swords. I use this rule as it offers the players a choice. Either two fighters doing 1d8 damage or three doing 1d6. Three d6s is slightly more effective which is a change from regular D&D where everyone just picks the highest damage weapon all the time.

2) TSR's Swords and Spells miniatures game actually sets a figure's base size by weapon type. An easy solution if you are using miniatures and not using a grid.

3) Arneson's Adventures in Fantasy has a small table giving modifiers for various sized weapons in different conditions; outdoors, interior room, corridor, and, finally, fighting in a doorway.

I know that with things like half-swording it's more of a complex topic, especially as it relates to damage. A longer sword doesn't actually stab any harder than a shorter one, whereas a longer sword's cutting strength is improved due to leverage. I remember reading a historical commentary about the late Roman army after switching from the gladius to a longer sword that it was determined that when fighting in close formation, the longer sword offered no advantage over the gladius.

In old D&D modules all the corridors were 10' wide. Space was not an issue. We never worried about folks swinging two-handed weapons.

Quote from: Tetsubo;986767In old D&D modules all the corridors were 10' wide. Space was not an issue. We never worried about folks swinging two-handed weapons.

Yeah, but how high was the ceiling?  10 feet?  Not high enough for a great sword.  Fuck right off with a long spear.

Wouldn't a spear be all about stabbing? So no ceiling issue there.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;986821Wouldn't a spear be all about stabbing? So no ceiling issue there.

Low ceiling can be an issue if you need to change the direction of the spear and the space to the sides isn't clear. The tricky bit about assigning penalties is that the specifics would really matter. I found that bringing a long pole into an apartment and trying to move about with it was a surprising reality check experience. It didn't match my expectations - I kept getting surprised I was bumping and getting stuck in places I wouldn't've expected to be problems. And that was without even trying to fight or coordinate with a group (though I'm sure it would improve with practice).

Quote from: Headless;986780Yeah, but how high was the ceiling?  10 feet?  Not high enough for a great sword.  Fuck right off with a long spear.

er... Dont to an overhead swing indoors? duh. The PC will learn that ASAP. Also. Dont do an overhead swing with a spear. Its not a halberd!

Apropos of nothing, does anything else think the thread title would make a great title for a BESM dungeon-crawling supplement? :)

Quote from: Headless;986679Hey old guys!

What did Gygax do about indoor fighting.  Were there rules about how much space you need to swing a sword in early editions?  

I ask becuase I have a cardboard tube about tje size of a Nodashi.  And I tried to take an over hand stance like the Cardboard tube Samurai.  No dice hit the ceiling.  

It got me thinking.  I don't know that I have ever been in a game where large weapons and wide swings were penalised.  And if we ever were we told the DM that was no fun, it was probably just too much book keeping.  

Anyone play where narrow corridors are actully an encumbrance to fighting?

I don't remember many corridors in early gaming that were narrow enough to be a problem. Even those of us who did not run modules generally followed the tradition of the fairly wide corridor with reasonably high ceilings. I remember being in a corridor that was too low to swing a greatsword confidently, so I thrust with it. How many could fight abreast in a given corridor might vary by weapon type but we rarely met any breasts in dungeons. More's the pity.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;986887Apropos of nothing, does anything else think the thread title would make a great title for a BESM dungeon-crawling supplement? :)

It does sound like the punchline of a 'blue' joke...

The other weapon that has serious issues with low ceilings is bows. To get range you shoot in a parabolic arc.  Crossbows on the other hand have a nice flat shooting trajectory.

Quote from: DavetheLost;987097The other weapon that has serious issues with low ceilings is bows. To get range you shoot in a parabolic arc.  Crossbows on the other hand have a nice flat shooting trajectory.

A bow is just as flat shooting as a cross bow. I don't ever seem to recall pointing my bow at the sky to shoot a deer from my ground blind at 30 yards.:) The only time that would come into effect would be at long range. Which the crossbow bolt would be affected in the same way. All projectiles are subjected to drop at range. The amount of drop being determined by draw strength of bow, weight of projectile, range, and etc.

Quote from: Headless;986780Yeah, but how high was the ceiling?  10 feet?  Not high enough for a great sword.  Fuck right off with a long spear.

I was reading somewhere, and I forget where now. That zweihander/two handed/greatswords were actually used a lot like a spear, but are more versatile. So in a confined hallway, they could be used in more of a two handed spear grip to stab. Still not the best weapon for the situation. But perhaps more useful than thought at first blush.

I think the reality is you wouldn't want to fight in a confined space like that with anything other than a very short hacking/bashing weapon or a short to medium length thrusting weapon. I've never seen a game rule set that really deals with this, but it wouldn't be hard to fold into something like GURPS where you have a detailed tacttical map

Quote from: Ronin;987105A bow is just as flat shooting as a cross bow. I don't ever seem to recall pointing my bow at the sky to shoot a deer from my ground blind at 30 yards.:) The only time that would come into effect would be at long range. Which the crossbow bolt would be affected in the same way. All projectiles are subjected to drop at range. The amount of drop being determined by draw strength of bow, weight of projectile, range, and etc.

He's talking about massed archers shooting a long distance, I suppose, like at the Battle of Agincourt or the Battle of Crecy.

Quote from: Dumarest;987980He's talking about massed archers shooting a long distance, I suppose, like at the Battle of Agincourt or the Battle of Crecy.

No way you could do that in a 10x10 hallway. ;)

Quote from: Bren;987988No way you could do that in a 10x10 hallway. ;)

I could have sworn Crecy was fought here:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1483[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]1483[/ATTACH]

No that's Agincourt. The court is on the left through the arched windows.

thinking about my mythras game on this, I think i'd say:

1) 10' wide (lets ignore ceilings for the moment) can half one guy with a Huge or smaller weapon (two handed swords, etc), or two with Medium or smaller weapons side by side. I'd probably allow for shields to count as 2 sizes smaller for this (most are Large or Huge). You can add one more person if everyone is using weapons with the Impale trait.

2) from 5-10', Large and Huge weapons suck a step of difficulty (1/3 off skill) unless they have the Impale trait - this allows halberds and spear types to operate unhindered. Also, Large and Huge lose the Bleed trait if it has it, because it's hard to get a good swing. 2 can fit here with Impale, or one medium size swinging weapon.

3) under 5', one guy, regardless of weapon size. Medium weapons also experience a step of difficulty.

still kind of beta I think. Huge weapons might require more than 10', but I think I'm thinking Impale = 1 or 2 sizes less for room to use. i feel like a dane axe with a 5'+ haft is looking at needing more than 10' of swing area.

The D&D 5E way:  If it's borderline, allow it, no changes.  If it's an obvious disadvantage, apply the disadvantage rule to attacks with the weapon.  Net result is that a character will only use such a weapon in a situation where they really don't have much choice.  Which means, most of the time you get the effects of a more complicated rule with no overhead.

Of course, in some situations, defense in a crowded hallway would be more difficult as well.  As bad as it would be maneuvering two or three spears in a line down a 10 foot wide hall, I'd rather be doing that than be on the receiving end.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;988055The D&D 5E way:  If it's borderline, allow it, no changes.  If it's an obvious disadvantage, apply the disadvantage rule to attacks with the weapon.  Net result is that a character will only use such a weapon in a situation where they really don't have much choice.  Which means, most of the time you get the effects of a more complicated rule with no overhead.

Of course, in some situations, defense in a crowded hallway would be more difficult as well.  As bad as it would be maneuvering two or three spears in a line down a 10 foot wide hall, I'd rather be doing that than be on the receiving end.

I actually used this last week.  I more or less used the same idea, unless the players used short/thrusting weapons.  It actually benefited most of the players as the Orcs were using great axes, and the PC's were mostly archers and short sword wielders, or the PC had the proper gear.  Was kinda cool to see.

I used to do some training with two handed swords (proxy, of course... no stabbing people in the face for realz. Sad.) when I lived in Tennessee years ago. SCA stuff, though I never really got into the organization/tournaments... just fighting practice with muh buds, including the local.. um?.. marshall?


Anyway: It was a real eye opener about how they were/could be used, both offensively and defensively... and no white-box theory-crafting, some dude with many many hours of practice was trying to wail on you at the same time for real bruises.


My take there is that the trained fighter types should have no problems in confined spaces, any more than any other odd environmental issues (like... a friend standing inside your backswing arc), as that's just part of the job of stabbing people in the face for fun and profit.   Unless you really want cinema style combat, but I'm sure if I really wanted to I could find some awesome kung-fu scenes of people using absurdly large weapons in absurdly small spaces.  I mean: If I can find 'punching people in the face underwater with sharks', I'm sure I can find 'two handed sword fights inside a coffin'.

For really large weapons that need to be swung, if in cramped conditions, I impose disad on attack rolls. It can create some tactical choices on positioning or swapping out for back up weapons.

A gentleman would simply ask his opponent to step outside to settle the matter rather than sully the hallway with blood and entrails and bit of loose brain matter.

I think having rules about weapon use in confined spaces might have one impact but I'm not sure that I like it. It turns out that most of the weapons we picture being used by heroic adventurers were mere side-arms. When on foot, even knights used polearms if they weren't using spears and people carried swords and maces, except for big two-handed swords, for backup. People even used polearms in personal combat and occasionally even in duels. They did that because the damn things were that effective. So you can write rules making them less effective than they were or you can mention that they would be nearly impossible to use indoors or in the dungeons, which would be true. Lugging the thing around might be problematical too but people did it.

Quote from: Headless;986679What did Gygax do about indoor fighting.  Were there rules about how much space you need to swing a sword in early editions?

This has been mostly covered, but let me sum up. The first printed rules for this occur in the Greyhawk supplement for OD&D and in 1st edition AD&D. In AD&D, each weapon had a listed size. GH for OD&D had simple 'weapon requires not less than X' of space on each side of wielder,' or 'not usable in dungeons as a general rule due to length. ' To the best of my recollection, the only rules on what that meant, however, was the -2 penalty for confined space that Doom mentions for AD&D, and simply-can't-use for OD&D+GH.

Of course, this was very much the era of 'DM as adjudicator' (what we now call 'rulings, not rules'), so I think the assumption was that 'and the DM will make a judgment call on when a space becomes too confined to use this weapon at all.' 2nd edition kind of backs this up, in that the weapon length listings were dropped, but example characters still had the fighters pick up a dagger weapon proficiency for fighting when crawling through tunnels (even though the rules didn't explicitly say that they couldn't fight with their awl pikes or longspears).

Other editions certainly had references that make clear that the designers realized that weapon length was an important factor, although the application differs between them. Holmes notoriously had you able to attack 4xs as frequently with a dagger than with a polearm (although this is widely acknowledged to be a genuine error). I forget the Holmes initiative system, but B/X and BECMI let an unsurprised individual with a polearm or other long weapon attack first against a charging opponent, even if the opponent had a higher initiative check (something of a proto-reach-based-AoO). 2nd edition AD&D, despite losing the weapon length chart column, got reach effects in Player's Option: Combat and Tactics, closely resembling what WotC would later do with 3e and 4e.

QuoteIt got me thinking.  I don't know that I have ever been in a game where large weapons and wide swings were penalised.  And if we ever were we told the DM that was no fun, it was probably just too much book keeping.

I would say that it is too much bookkeeping to make a wholly consistent and universal rule system for this. However, I think it wholly appropriate for the DM to give a -1--4 penalty (or disadvantage in 5e), all the way up to a flat-out 'no, you cannot use this here,' depending on the specific circumstances.

QuoteAnyone play where narrow corridors are actully an encumbrance to fighting?

Honestly, I don't think I've ever player where it wasn't at least theoretically in effect. Of course, if your players have daggers at the ready, and pull them out instead of their spears when they get into a fight in a narrow alley, in all likelihood you might never have to even figure out what kind of penalty you would invoke.

I use the space required numbers (in original D&D and in 1e AD&D) as a rough guideline (I allow some wiggle room in the numbers). If I deem there isn't sufficient space, I apply the non-proficiency penalty (this means that fighters can adapt to such situations better than other classes, which I like) to "to hit" rolls.

In a 10' wide passage, this typically means that three PCs can fight abreast with no penalties if they're using weapons like spears or short swords. If they're using longswords, perhaps only two could fight abreast. If a fighter is swinging a footman's flail around in such a space, he needs no one on either side of him to fight without the penalty.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;988055The D&D 5E way:  If it's borderline, allow it, no changes.  If it's an obvious disadvantage, apply the disadvantage rule to attacks with the weapon.  Net result is that a character will only use such a weapon in a situation where they really don't have much choice.  Which means, most of the time you get the effects of a more complicated rule with no overhead.

This! I've added the advantage mechanic to my game liberally, and in actual play it is perfectly smooth and appears to achieve very similar results to a more complex rule, without any of the fuss.

Inspirational side note on the thread topic: The movie The Take (a.k.a. Bastille Day) has an absolutely sick fight scene involving 5 people in the back of a van.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;988213In a 10' wide passage, this typically means that three PCs can fight abreast with no penalties if they're using weapons like spears or short swords. If they're using longswords, perhaps only two could fight abreast. If a fighter is swinging a footman's flail around in such a space, he needs no one on either side of him to fight without the penalty.

This was my understanding of the old rules.  They only really applied when trying to fight in tight order in confined spaces.  With smaller parties in modern D&D it is unlikely to come up.

In Earthdawn 4E I would apply the Harried modifier (used for a lot of things, 4+ opponents, entangling attacks, etc): -2 to Actions, -2 to Physical and Mystic Defense. If the space was really tight, I would apply movement penalties during the round the weapon was used (-5yds/round for light, or for heavy impairment -10yd/round plus succeed at a Dexterity Test vs an appropriate difficulty or lose all movement that round).

So you could do it, but you would get wailed on. Depending on length of weapon and opponents (hallway full of zombies?) I'd rather have something with a little reach, even if it means retreating slower than usual.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;988211Honestly, I don't think I've ever player where it wasn't at least theoretically in effect. Of course, if your players have daggers at the ready, and pull them out instead of their spears when they get into a fight in a narrow alley, in all likelihood you might never have to even figure out what kind of penalty you would invoke.

The tricky bit is that it really would depend a lot on the specifics. If it's a 3-4 foot wide alley, one good fighter who's has a spear pointed the right way is going to have a huge advantage over people coming at him there with daggers, unless they also have shields or armor or some way to avoid getting gutted by the spear before they can get near the spearman. But if the ceiling is also low, it might be hard to turn around a spear there, or there could be tight corners where a spear is tricky or impossible to get through. Which is mainly to say, that broad rules don't really cover such situations very accurately - sometimes if you can get a long weapon into the right tight space, it could actually be really effective, and while a dagger wouldn't be obstructed, the path needed to get the dagger to a foe might be obstructed, and the only ways covered by big long weapons that work very well in a particular tight space.

Sure, and that's where 'DM as adjudicator' comes into play, since making an exhaustive rule-structure to cover said wide array of potential situations is somewhere between exhausting and foolhardy. :D

Yep. This is the sort of thing I really like having a map for, and personally I really want my hexmap and counters, and find they go a long way but even so, I end up using rulings even when I've tried to make detailed house rules for long weapons in close spaces. But at least many of the rules are already there and work well - that is, the system covers the knife guys trying to charge up an alley at a spear perfectly, but say nothing about turning around with the spear, and it has rules for getting a halberd stuck in a foe, but not for what happens when other people then try to move through the hexes between them, where the pole is... though there are rules for where you'd need to be to hack at that haft, but not for the bonus you get for it being stuck... etc.

A dozen men with pikes can hold a dungeon corridor forever. Which is a good thing, because they will probably be there forever.   With an 18-24' pike in a 10' wide dungeon corridor you are going to have great difficulty turning any corners...

Shield and stabby sword is possibly the best corridor fighting combination. It gives you offense and defense and doesn't require a lot of either overhead or side clearance.

Grid based combat systes are probably the best simulators of close quarters fighting, if the map scale is right it is prety clear if the wall or a weapon shaft is in the way. I remember playing Melee and with the right maps it was possible to retreat into small spaces that large creatures couldn't enter, or spears turn the corner to get you.

Yep, exactly.

Narrow single-file corridor turning sharply into a wide open space also means attackers enter one at a time and get attacked by many, especially if they have long weapons and are arranged to strike at the doorway.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;988150When on foot, even knights used polearms if they weren't using spears and people carried swords and maces, except for big two-handed swords, for backup.

I think that depends on which period of knights. I don't think William the Conqueror's men or the knights with Godfrey of Bouillon on the First Crusade used polearms much. Nor (as depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry) did the knights at Hastings all couch their lances. Knightly weapons varied from time to time and place to place.
   

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;988213If a fighter is swinging a footman's flail around in such a space, he needs no one on either side of him to fight without the penalty.

No no one. Just no one he minds hitting. ;)

Quote from: DavetheLost;988251A dozen men with pikes can hold a dungeon corridor forever. Which is a good thing, because they will probably be there forever.   With an 18-24' pike in a 10' wide dungeon corridor you are going to have great difficulty turning any corners...

Shield and stabby sword is possibly the best corridor fighting combination. It gives you offense and defense and doesn't require a lot of either overhead or side clearance.

Grid based combat systes are probably the best simulators of close quarters fighting, if the map scale is right it is prety clear if the wall or a weapon shaft is in the way. I remember playing Melee and with the right maps it was possible to retreat into small spaces that large creatures couldn't enter, or spears turn the corner to get you.

In this way, tight spaces resemble shield walls. Stabbing swords, short spears, very long knives.

Quote from: Bren;988292I think that depends on which period of knights. I don't think William the Conqueror's men or the knights with Godfrey of Bouillon on the First Crusade used polearms much. Nor (as depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry) did the knights at Hastings all couch their lances. Knightly weapons varied from time to time and place to place.

All true. But they switched, over the next few centuries, to using polearms (and to couching their lances) because they considered them more effective. Armor getting heavier was a factor, of course.

Quote from: Bren;988292I think that depends on which period of knights. I don't think William the Conqueror's men or the knights with Godfrey of Bouillon on the First Crusade used polearms much. Nor (as depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry) did the knights at Hastings all couch their lances. Knightly weapons varied from time to time and place to place.

Certainly knightly weapons varied, but even during those periods spears, lances, and two-handed axes were common primary weapons of war among more well-to-do warriors (e.g., the Bayeux Tapestry shows those weapons being used at Hastings). They might not be very "fancy" or developed pole arms, but I'd still consider them pole arms in a general sense.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;988622Certainly knightly weapons varied, but even during those periods spears, lances, and two-handed axes were common primary weapons of war among more well-to-do warriors (e.g., the Bayeux Tapestry shows those weapons being used at Hastings). They might not be very "fancy" or developed pole arms, but I'd still consider them pole arms in a general sense.

The axes were used by Harold's huscarls who weren't knights. And the spears used by the knights at Hastings (which were not couched and were often wielded with an overhand grip) don't fit the implied definition of a pole arm as a heavier and better armor piercing weapon to a sword.

But rather than quibble about definitions and terminology I will once again point out that weapons used by knights (and other elite warriors) depend on time and place and the notion that knights (or elite warriors in genearl) always and everywhere used pole arms in preference to swords is just wrong.

Along these lines a lot of winding stairs in castles were designed to give right handed people more room to swing a sword  by having the wall on the left wide as you faced down the stairs. This favored the defenders too.

Quote from: Schwartzwald;988673Along these lines a lot of winding stairs in castles were designed to give right handed people more room to swing a sword  by having the wall on the left wide as you faced down the stairs. This favored the defenders too.

And low-height doorways to give the defender the advantage when the attacker had to stoop or duck to enter.

Quote from: Bren;988678And low-height doorways to give the defender the advantage when the attacker had to stoop or duck to enter.

Yep, those medieval designers knew their stuff.

Quote from: Bren;988672The axes were used by Harold's huscarls who weren't knights. And the spears used by the knights at Hastings (which were not couched and were often wielded with an overhand grip) don't fit the implied definition of a pole arm as a heavier and better armor piercing weapon to a sword.

But rather than quibble about definitions and terminology I will once again point out that weapons used by knights (and other elite warriors) depend on time and place and the notion that knights (or elite warriors in genearl) always and everywhere used pole arms in preference to swords is just wrong.

I don't think there's anything to quibble about, actually. I was talking about "well-to-do" warriors, not exclusively knights, so there's no disagreement there (e.g., over huscarls). I also agree the lances used at Hastings were not the (later developed/heavier) couched lances, but they were still lances. I'm probably using a broader definition of "pole arm" than you are (which is why I said "not fancy/developed , but pole arms in a general sense"), but we seem to be in general agreement, in any case. I also agree with you that knights and well-equipped warriors didn't always and everywhere use pole arms in preference to swords. However, I do think that longer weapons (e.g., long spears, large axes, some form of mounted lance, etc) were common primary weapons for such warriors, especially in battle. Swords were certainly used by such warriors, as well. I'm not claiming they weren't, or that they were exclusively side arms.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;988688...but we seem to be in general agreement

Seems like. :)

Quote from: Schwartzwald;988684Yep, those medieval designers knew their stuff.

Well, the ones that didn't had short careers.

Quote from: Schwartzwald;988673Along these lines a lot of winding stairs in castles were designed to give right handed people more room to swing a sword  by having the wall on the left wide as you faced down the stairs. This favored the defenders too.

I tried to imagine going up those stairs, fighting with sword and shield, while visiting the old tower in Zwerin. My immediate reaction was, to quote myself, "fuck no";)!
Then I turned to look at where I'd come from, and decided I want to be the guy defending from the top stairs:D!

Quote from: Tetsubo;988783Well, the ones that didn't had short careers.

Which brings up an interesting question:  A lot of the time, it appears that the humble sword is rather useless compared to the various armour technologies of the time.  And given how awkward it can be to carry the things on a battlefield, which limits it's use as solely as a 'status symbol', why is it so prevalent then?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;988787Which brings up an interesting question:  A lot of the time, it appears that the humble sword is rather useless compared to the various armour technologies of the time.  And given how awkward it can be to carry the things on a battlefield, which limits it's use as solely as a 'status symbol', why is it so prevalent then?

Well, the one-handed sword that appears to be useless is handier to lug around than any alternative side-arm and the big two-hander isn't useless.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;988787Which brings up an interesting question:  A lot of the time, it appears that the humble sword is rather useless compared to the various armour technologies of the time.  And given how awkward it can be to carry the things on a battlefield, which limits it's use as solely as a 'status symbol', why is it so prevalent then?

I am by no means an expert, and I might be mistaking minor reasons for major ones, but I'm pretty sure all of these are real reasons:

• you can use a sword in formation easier (and in tighter formation) than warhammer, axe, mace, pretty much anything except spears.
• swords switch from swinging to stabbing better than most other weapons.
• Their reach-to-weight ratio is very high.
• Using the Greeks and Romans as an example, if your are going to have shields and spears/javelins as a first-clash weapon, it is easier/more comfortable (remember 99% of time in full kit is spent not-fighting) to have a sword on your side as your second weapon than most of the shafted, swingy weapons.
• And predominantly (to my knowledge), you had the 1H swords for use against the 50-99% of the troops on field who were not wearing the heaviest armor of the era (the pikemen, the archers, the skirmishers, maybe the horses). If you were up against one of the heavily armored rich guys, you might try and sword+shield push them over and try to put a dagger/sword-point through their face, or you might run and bring back the mace/Warhammer/bec-de-corbin/lance squad up to take care of them. But often, yes, it was relatively safe to be the guy on the battlefield in heavy armor, and you losing often looked like your soft allies all dead and you surrounded and saying, "whelp. I can't win this on my own. Okay guys, I'm clearly rich. Take me prisoner and ransom me back to my side. Boy will dad be pissed."

A good sword is nicely balanced and quick. Before some point fairly late in the chainmail period, most armor was not proof against swords, and/or not available in head-to-toe, and so swords were effective. Spears still have advantage of length, making groups of spears more formidable than groups of swords because it means more people can reach the enemy at once.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;988787Which brings up an interesting question:  A lot of the time, it appears that the humble sword is rather useless compared to the various armour technologies of the time.  And given how awkward it can be to carry the things on a battlefield, which limits it's use as solely as a 'status symbol', why is it so prevalent then?

A few thoughts:

• Not everyone on the battlefield would be as well-armored as the best-equipped warriors. Hands, arms, and legs were often more vulnerable.
• A sword is a very nimble weapon because of its point of balance (often less fatiguing, as well)
• Swords can still be used against heavy armor, just not in the same manner. Half-swording and murder strikes are a couple examples.
• Swords are relatively easy to carry (when not in the hand), compared to many other weapons of similar size

Quote from: Christopher Brady;988787why is it so prevalent then?

Because...

• Status symbols are very important.
• Humans aren't especially logical or rational.
• Really heavy armor is historically rare or unavailable.
• And lots of people who may need killing to maintain one's status aren't wearing heavy armor.

For the record, my question was sincere.  There's a bit of a disconnect with the ubiquity of the sword in medieval times and the supposed utility of it.  A lot of sources claim it was less than effective.

Quote from: Bren;988877Because...

• Status symbols are very important.
• Humans aren't especially logical or rational.
• Really heavy armor is historically rare or unavailable.
• And lots of people who may need killing to maintain one's status aren't wearing heavy armor.

1. Status symbols tend not to be used in war.  At least not successfully, which usually ends in a decline in their use.  And the Sword's decline didn't happen until several hundred years after it's creation, and was replaced by the firearm.

2. You're very right.

3. This, I need a clarification:  What do you mean by 'really heavy armour'?  Are we talking chain harness?

4. Yes, but that usually happens outside of a war situation, and frankly a dagger is better and easier to hide.  Most imagery and historical accounts show them being carried in actual combat.

Again, I wonder if the sword not as useful as an axe or a pole arm, why was it so ubiquitous.  Honest question.

It's why I use D6 base for all weapons in OD&D. Fighters carry different weapons for different situations. Sometimes, it makes sense to use a short sword or a spear.

As for the tight area and the long sword? Take a -2 to hit.

Quote from: Spinachcat;988942It's why I use D6 base for all weapons in OD&D. Fighters carry different weapons for different situations. Sometimes, it makes sense to use a short sword or a spear.

As for the tight area and the long sword? Take a -2 to hit.

Huhn?  I don't understand?  Are you saying all weapons do ONLY a SINGLE d6 or do you have a scaling system which deals multiple, depending on the weapon?  Otherwise, what's the point of carrying anything other than dagger.  Ever.  It all does the same damage and can pretty much be used anywhere.

Quote from: Spinachcat;988942It's why I use D6 base for all weapons in OD&D. Fighters carry different weapons for different situations. Sometimes, it makes sense to use a short sword or a spear.

And it works for OD&D:).

QuoteAs for the tight area and the long sword? Take a -2 to hit.

To the enemy's chances to hit, you mean? Works for me, I can easily hold them at bay with my blade, and I have swordgrappling tricks for those that get closer;)!

One of the charms of 0D&D was that every weapon did 1d6 damage. Yes, this meant that mechanically there was no reason to carry anything other than a dagger, but back in the day we didn't think that way.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;988945Huhn?  I don't understand?  Are you saying all weapons do ONLY a SINGLE d6 or do you have a scaling system which deals multiple, depending on the weapon?  Otherwise, what's the point of carrying anything other than dagger.  Ever.  It all does the same damage and can pretty much be used anywhere.

Mainly reach. I have always, even when running D&D, had different weapons doing different damage but the main problem with a knife is reach. In a game where your life is at risk every time you are hit, it is possible that you will never get to use your knife.

Quote from: DavetheLost;989005One of the charms of 0D&D was that every weapon did 1d6 damage. Yes, this meant that mechanically there was no reason to carry anything other than a dagger, but back in the day we didn't think that way.

We thought that way. If you had a much shorter weapon and were squared-up on an opponent, the other guy always got the first attack on the first round. It wasn't in the rules but no one ever objected and every DM in our circle did that. Between low-level characters, where one hit could put you at a disadvantage or even kill you, that discouraged dagger only combatants. With the increase in HP, a higher-level character might not mind that so much but by then the character was used to using other weapons. Later on, when they went to varying damage by weapon, I think D&D short-changed knives.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;988945Otherwise, what's the point of carrying anything other than dagger.  Ever.  It all does the same damage and can pretty much be used anywhere.

Well, apparently this was a problem (I think iron spikes were the item that became the item to use as weapons, as they were even cheaper than daggers), and variable damage was in part to combat this. However, there is reach, and there is also the Weapon vs. Armor chart. You are right, no one would ever use a more heavy/expensive weapon (especially a two-handed one) if you do not apply any other, non-damage rules.

Seems pretty clear to me that all of this depends on the level of abstraction you want to game at. At a high enough level of not wanting to play out details, you can just have some indicator of how good a character is at fighting (e.g. their fighter level) and say that means they do whatever fits their best judgment about what equipment to use in what way.

As one adds detail, at some point it should be clear that at least it is a very different approach to bring only a knife to a sword fight, even if it's possible it may work out in some situations. Armor is clearly one major factor in how well that's likely to work, though again, it depends on the other circumstances.

For other weapons and situations too - do you want a game about the details of a combat, or do you just want a way to get results quickly, or something in between?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;9889191. Status symbols tend not to be used in war.  At least not successfully, which usually ends in a decline in their use.

For continued use in war see points 2. and 3.

Quote3. This, I need a clarification:  What do you mean by 'really heavy armour'?

By really heavy armor I simply mean armor that makes a sword useless or nearly useless compared to some other weapon of similar size and weight. People used swords in combat because they would (with rare exceptions) do a decent job of damaging most adversaries in combat and a sword is a lot handier to carry as a back up weapon than a second 2-handed poleaxe.

And let's not ignore the obvious, while a knight would start out a battle using a lance or spear or maybe a big sword or axe that wasn't a weapon that was convenient to carry outside of an actual battlefield. And even on an actual battlefield carrying a second lance or greatsword would be awkward. Knights often had squires to carry around that extra lance or axe.

Quote4. Yes, but that usually happens outside of a war situation, and frankly a dagger is better and easier to hide.

If you have the right status, you don't need to hide your swordy status symbol. You get to walk around wearing your sword and using it's very presence to intimidate the hoi polloi.

Quote from: DavetheLost;989005One of the charms of 0D&D was that every weapon did 1d6 damage. Yes, this meant that mechanically there was no reason to carry anything other than a dagger, but back in the day we didn't think that way.

What, you mean the GM wouldn't just give you a -2 to attack rolls against someone with a bastard sword?

Quote from: Willie the Duck;989019Well, apparently this was a problem (I think iron spikes were the item that became the item to use as weapons, as they were even cheaper than daggers), and variable damage was in part to combat this. However, there is reach, and there is also the Weapon vs. Armor chart. You are right, no one would ever use a more heavy/expensive weapon (especially a two-handed one) if you do not apply any other, non-damage rules.

Funny enough, iron spikes are almost rondelle daggers:D.
And I'm a big fan of making weapons different through stuff that's not directly affecting their damage abilities.

All weapons do d6.

Best change I've made to my use of rules in 40 years.  Especially hilarious considering I urged Gary to use different damage for weapons in the first place.

Not fucking worth it.  I'd rather adjudicate edge cases as needed rather than have 150 pages of fucking combat rules.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;989083All weapons do d6.

Best change I've made to my use of rules in 40 years.  Especially hilarious considering I urged Gary to use different damage for weapons in the first place.

Not fucking worth it.  I'd rather adjudicate edge cases as needed rather than have 150 pages of fucking combat rules.

So, and I'm honestly trying to understand here, how is this different than to having to codify/write down the '150 pages' of 'rules'?  Lemme give some examples.

So street fight, open street and wide alley.  Reach wouldn't matter much, unless you decided that the thugs lose out on initiative or get an attack penalty because the PC's have swords.  You just made a ruling, that's a rule to add to your notes 'mental' or written.

In a Dungeon, players have Pole arms but the bad guys have shortswords and after a couple of loss charges, the goblins switch to using corners and blockades.  Whatever you do here, you've just made MORE rulings to remember.

Then there's two handed weapons, like great whopping Danish axes, or Germanic Zweihanders to the slight shorter (about 5ft) Scottish Claymore, if they do the same damage, what makes them superiour to weapons like the English Arming Sword and Shield?  Or at least worth using?  Do they do more damage?  Or will give more reach, but require more open space to swing?  Yet again, you have to make MORE rulings.  What's the advantage of keeping those rulings in your head, compared to writing them down to remember?

I can go on, but my point is (and I wanna stress that I'm legitimately trying to understand, I WANT TO.  Cuz I like this sorta stuff) what about d6 damage and random (but consistent and constant) adjudication makes it so good?

I honestly don't see it.

(of course, I am not Gronan, so I am speaking for myself.)

The D6 is only related to the rulings over rules in that it contributes to the 150 pages of combat rules. D6 damage is a trivial issue in the grand scheme of things.

Quote from: Christopher Bradyhow is this different than to having to codify/write down the '150 pages' of 'rules'?
...
and random (but consistent and constant) adjudication makes it so good?

First and foremost, yes, rules that you keep in your head are the same as rules put down on pages. No difference. However-- (and avoiding any tangential BS about whether RPGs are games or storytelling devices or reality emulators or whatnot)-- on some level you are trying to emulate a real(-ish)-world(-ish) scenario and map it to game rules, and the real world is complex.

To cover each and every possible variable of even simple scenarios, you would need pages on pages of rules for elevations; weather, footing, and lighting conditions; weapon vs. armor; weapon vs. weapon; how does a shield interact; mounted combat subsection; for that add relative speed, and so forth. This list becomes either 1) exhaustive, so much so that oftentimes the end result is determined more on the DM deciding (possibly with PC advocacy) which modifiers to apply to a situation more than the intensity of the modifier, or 2) not exhaustive, but instead does not cover the situations you will run into, in which case you are back to DM arbitration.

After that, even once you do arrive at a total modifier for the situation, have you achieved any goal? Is the situation 'more realistic' (or more genre-emulative, in a case where realism isn't the goal)? Have you rewarded the player's good decisions? Oftentimes not.

At times when you've doubled or more the time it takes to run a combat, to no real benefit, you often wonder wouldn't it have been better for the DM to have just looked over the scenario and said 'this setup clearly favors A over B, A gets a +2 to hit.'

That violates the idea that these DM rulings have to be "consistent and constant," and I'm not clear that that is a goal. Because, again, house rules in your head that are consistent and constant are the same as rules in books. It is the fact that they are not consistent and constant that are both their strength and their (occasional) weakness.

And I think that that is the main point (GM giving themselves the freedom to make judgment calls, rather than rely on pages of rules which likely will not better emulate the situation anyways), and not whether things are written down (which I think is a bunny trail at best).

Although I'm not sure we're using those terms in the same way, since I don't quite understand "and random (but consistent and constant) adjudication" in this context. Can you elaborate?

I think the inherent tension between rules and rulings is the disparity in knowledge, experience, insight, and common sense of the possible GMs.  Common sense is probably the most important quality, not least because it is the first decider on when to go with your knowledge, experience, and insight, and when to recognize that those may be deficient for the current ruling opportunity.  

In real life, take something like cooking.  Some people follow recipes, and that's all they ever do.  Some barely even do that, or even panic at the thought of it.  Others, after some practice begin to understand what they are doing at a deeper level, adjusting the recipes for local conditions.  Others through education and experience learn the underlying principles, and thus don't really need the recipes anymore.  And of course, people vary depending upon the particular dishes and their comfort level.

If the GM is going to run a combat scene with some level of detail, then the GM needs a "recipe" to follow that will satisfy the participants that it is close enough to what they imagine it would be, or the GM needs enough informed qualities to rule according to that same vision.  But detailed rules are often better as a teaching tool than the final method at a particular table.  If my teen daughter wants to run a game, she needs enough rules or guidelines to understand why weapon length could matter.  Once she understand why and when it matters, she won't need the rules much anymore.

Edit:  And 150 pages of detailed rules are not a good teaching tool. So there has to be some discernment by the writer to focus on the most important distinctions.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;989193...
After that, even once you do arrive at a total modifier for the situation, have you achieved any goal? Is the situation 'more realistic' (or more genre-emulative, in a case where realism isn't the goal)? Have you rewarded the player's good decisions? Oftentimes not. ...

It's a wide spectrum of goals between "mainly just want a fast outcome" and "want satisfying gameplay about the tactical situation".

The Fantasy Trip Advanced Melee (https://www.boardgamegeek.com/rpgitem/46141/advanced-melee) does a pretty good job of the latter, covering most of your points and others, and is only 32 pages.

Man To Man (http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/man-to-man/) is the GURPS low-tech combat system (only, not much changed through the editions excepted it's shuffled into the full RPG, which does make it harder to learn). It does an even more thorough job (though you'd need GURPS Basic Set for weather, mounted combat rules, and other things), and is 95 pages.

Quote from: Skarg;989248It's a wide spectrum of goals between "mainly just want a fast outcome" and "want satisfying gameplay about the tactical situation".

The Fantasy Trip Advanced Melee (https://www.boardgamegeek.com/rpgitem/46141/advanced-melee) does a pretty good job of the latter, covering most of your points and others, and is only 32 pages.

Man To Man (http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/man-to-man/) is the GURPS low-tech combat system (only, not much changed through the editions excepted it's shuffled into the full RPG, which does make it harder to learn). It does an even more thorough job (though you'd need GURPS Basic Set for weather, mounted combat rules, and other things), and is 95 pages.

The combat rules in Glory Road Roleplay run from page 26 through page 41. But then there are thirty-four pages of lists of weapons and armor for reference on the website. It is an extremely crunchy combat system but no ne has to look anything up during play and fights don't take up huge amounts of time.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;989193Although I'm not sure we're using those terms in the same way, since I don't quite understand "and random (but consistent and constant) adjudication" in this context. Can you elaborate?

Whenever a situation comes up you have to make a ruling, and there's no guarantee that the situation will ever come up again, but you have a ruling (that you hopefully can remember, or you've added to a written list) for if it does.  Random, but consistent.  Hopefully.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;989101So, and I'm honestly trying to understand here, how is this different than to having to codify/write down the '150 pages' of 'rules'?  Lemme give some examples.

So street fight, open street and wide alley.  Reach wouldn't matter much, unless you decided that the thugs lose out on initiative or get an attack penalty because the PC's have swords.  You just made a ruling, that's a rule to add to your notes 'mental' or written.

In a Dungeon, players have Pole arms but the bad guys have shortswords and after a couple of loss charges, the goblins switch to using corners and blockades.  Whatever you do here, you've just made MORE rulings to remember.

Then there's two handed weapons, like great whopping Danish axes, or Germanic Zweihanders to the slight shorter (about 5ft) Scottish Claymore, if they do the same damage, what makes them superiour to weapons like the English Arming Sword and Shield?  Or at least worth using?  Do they do more damage?  Or will give more reach, but require more open space to swing?  Yet again, you have to make MORE rulings.  What's the advantage of keeping those rulings in your head, compared to writing them down to remember?

I can go on, but my point is (and I wanna stress that I'm legitimately trying to understand, I WANT TO.  Cuz I like this sorta stuff) what about d6 damage and random (but consistent and constant) adjudication makes it so good?

I honestly don't see it.

Welp, firstly, it's not for those who want a really detailed combat simulation second by second.  Its primary virtue is fast combat to reduce the percentage of time spent in combat.

Also it works for me because MOST of the time, "roll d6 for reaction time and strike in that order" works ** well enough **.  Think of it like Microsoft software -- "Microsoft Software, it's not just good, it's JUST GOOD ENOUGH."

And a one minute combat round hides a number of sins.  You're not rolling for a single stroke, it's "At the end of a minute, have you done anything useful to the other bugger?"

And I don't worry about writing down my rulings.  If my common sense and knowledge of medieval warfare means that I decide that when the Orcs with shortswords charge the pikemen the pikemen get to strike first -- then the next time the situation arises, my common sense and knowledge of medieval warfare will lead me to the same conclusion.  Similar inputs should give similar outputs, and with a system this broad "similar inputs" covers a lot of territory.  I don't have to write it down or remember it, I should reach the same conclusion again.

And if I don't remember the ruling from last time and one of my players does, I'll use that.  I trust my players.

And if none of us remember the ruling from last time, it absolutely does not matter in the slightest.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;989324Whenever a situation comes up you have to make a ruling, and there's no guarantee that the situation will ever come up again, but you have a ruling (that you hopefully can remember, or you've added to a written list) for if it does.  Random, but consistent.  Hopefully.

Seriously... why?  If nobody at the table remembers the last time, then it totally doesn't matter.  I decide on rulings in seconds, not hours.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;989335Seriously... why?  If nobody at the table remembers the last time, then it totally doesn't matter.  I decide on rulings in seconds, not hours.

It's not that it matters. It's that he minds.


Cartesian humor. Get it?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;989334Welp, firstly, it's not for those who want a really detailed combat simulation second by second.  Its primary virtue is fast combat to reduce the percentage of time spent in combat.

Also it works for me because MOST of the time, "roll d6 for reaction time and strike in that order" works ** well enough **.  Think of it like Microsoft software -- "Microsoft Software, it's not just good, it's JUST GOOD ENOUGH."

And a one minute combat round hides a number of sins.  You're not rolling for a single stroke, it's "At the end of a minute, have you done anything useful to the other bugger?"

And I don't worry about writing down my rulings.  If my common sense and knowledge of medieval warfare means that I decide that when the Orcs with shortswords charge the pikemen the pikemen get to strike first -- then the next time the situation arises, my common sense and knowledge of medieval warfare will lead me to the same conclusion.  Similar inputs should give similar outputs, and with a system this broad "similar inputs" covers a lot of territory.  I don't have to write it down or remember it, I should reach the same conclusion again.

And if I don't remember the ruling from last time and one of my players does, I'll use that.  I trust my players.

And if none of us remember the ruling from last time, it absolutely does not matter in the slightest.

So you DO have the 150 pages (which I'm assuming hyperbolic, because no RP game system -that I know of that's still in print- has that many rules for just combat) of rules, just not written down?  I'm sorry, but that's what I reading.  You have your rules, you just don't want anyone else's.  You've made your decisions and are happy with them.  Which is totally fair.

Thank you, I think I understand where you're coming from now.  At least a little better.

Mmmm, where does the line go between "I have my rules" and "I know my universe?"  To me at least it's more the latter.  Mileage, vary, et al.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;988787Which brings up an interesting question:  A lot of the time, it appears that the humble sword is rather useless compared to the various armour technologies of the time.  And given how awkward it can be to carry the things on a battlefield, which limits it's use as solely as a 'status symbol', why is it so prevalent then?

One-handed swords aren't awkward to carry, they are sidearms, go in a scabbard, very easy to carry. They were popular for the same reason pistols, the modern sidearm, are popular. Like pistols, they were rarely the primary weapon and rarely ubiquitous.

Edit: A medieval one-handed sword (arming sword) has a sharp point on the end of a metal bar. It is a good piercing weapon against mail and gambeson, at least as good as a spear in penetration (ie it has some chance to penetrate with sufficient force - armour was generally very effective). The disadvantage is shorter reach, but shields can help offset that. Swords & Spears don't penetrate plate armour, there were specialised weapons like the poll axe for fighting plate armoured opponents.

Quote from: S'mon;989427One-handed swords aren't awkward to carry, they are sidearms, go in a scabbard, very easy to carry. They were popular for the same reason pistols, the modern sidearm, are popular. Like pistols, they were rarely the primary weapon and rarely ubiquitous.

Edit: A medieval one-handed sword (arming sword) has a sharp point on the end of a metal bar. It is a good piercing weapon against mail and gambeson, at least as good as a spear in penetration (ie it has some chance to penetrate with sufficient force - armour was generally very effective). The disadvantage is shorter reach, but shields can help offset that. Swords & Spears don't penetrate plate armour, there were specialised weapons like the poll axe for fighting plate armoured opponents.

By the time plate (as in plated chain was in vogue, about 1350-ish) harness came around two handed weapons, like the long sword and battle axe had displaced the shield and one handed weapon as the major tools of war.  But if plate was really that effective (and I have no proof that it wasn't) what was the point of a two handed version of the arming sword?  If you want to kill a man out of his armour a good three foot length of one handed steel was all that was needed.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;989446But if plate was really that effective (and I have no proof that it wasn't) what was the point of a two handed version of the arming sword?  

A real 6' two-handed sword functions like a polearm, not like an arming sword, so is more comparable to a 7' halberd. Neither will cut through plate armour, just as a pike won't punch through plate armour, but they seem to have been mostly been used in conjunction with pike formations because they could be used in more close quarters than pikes - in the press of pike pikes could become completely unuseable.

Zweihanders and halberds are useful flexible weapons. That said, it was rare for zweihanders to be a standard battlefield weapon where the bulk of a force would use them. Late medieval battlefield melee weapons tended to be pikes for massed infantry, while men in full plate armour more commonly used specialised armour-piercing percussive weapons like poll axes for piercing plate.

Quote from: S'mon;989453A real 6' two-handed sword functions like a polearm, not like an arming sword, so is more comparable to a 7' halberd. Neither will cut through plate armour, just as a pike won't punch through plate armour, but they seem to have been mostly been used in conjunction with pike formations because they could be used in more close quarters than pikes - in the press of pike pikes could become completely unuseable.

Zweihanders and halberds are useful flexible weapons. That said, it was rare for zweihanders to be a standard battlefield weapon where the bulk of a force would use them. Late medieval battlefield melee weapons tended to be pikes for massed infantry, while men in full plate armour more commonly used specialised armour-piercing percussive weapons like poll axes for piercing plate.

Uh, the 'long sword' (which I freely grant is a loose term) tended to describe a blade between 40-60 inches in length and could be worn at the hip, and often was.  The hilt was often designed for two handed use.  But like I said, they were not the heavy German  (supposed) horse cutter swords.

Again, I'm not saying it's not true, but I'm wondering why the sword stayed so long as a mainstay of the elite soldier if it's really not as effective as it seems to have been portrayed.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;989464Uh, the 'long sword' (which I freely grant is a loose term) tended to describe a blade between 40-60 inches in length and could be worn at the hip, and often was. The hilt was often designed for two handed use. But like I said, they were not the heavy German (supposed) horse cutter swords.

There was literally no reason for you to put the "Uh, the at the beginning of this. If the two of you are talking apples to oranges, just say, "what I'm talking about is the 40-60 inch..." and you will get better responses.

QuoteAgain, I'm not saying it's not true, but I'm wondering why the sword stayed so long as a mainstay of the elite soldier if it's really not as effective as it seems to have been portrayed.

Portrayed by whom and effective against whom, and when? From 1350 or so+, swords (sub-zweihander, which are definitely a specialty-use item) were low-effective against the most advanced armor of the day. Just like now an assault rifle (or machine gun, even grenades) are not the weapons to use against a tank. That does not make it useless on the field of battle. It just means that you used the sword (a very efficient-to carry sidearm) on the targets it was effective against, and mission-specific weapons against any full armored knights that walked into your path. One of the things that D&D doesn't really do well is emulate a real field of battle in that IRL, you would have dedicated knight-breaker troops, just as you would have the skirmishers, pikemen, cavalry, archers, squires carrying extra lances, guys trucking about ladders such that others can scale walls (if charging a fortification), and all sorts of dedicated, mission-specific labor.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;989464Uh, the 'long sword' (which I freely grant is a loose term) tended to describe a blade between 40-60 inches in length and could be worn at the hip, and often was.

Wearing a sword with a five-foot long blade at the hip sounds impractical. People's legs just aren't that long.

Quote from: Bren;989579Wearing a sword with a five-foot long blade at the hip sounds impractical. People's legs just aren't that long.

Sorry, you're right, I meant the the 40 to 48 inch blade, although a Long Sword classification DID go to 5 feet in length, it was typically used to denote two handed sidearms.  And that's type of sword I'm talking about, the two handed sidearm, why was it used in a battlefield situation?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;989726Sorry, you're right, I meant the the 40 to 48 inch blade, although a Long Sword classification DID go to 5 feet in length, it was typically used to denote two handed sidearms.  And that's type of sword I'm talking about, the two handed sidearm, why was it used in a battlefield situation?

Hey typos happen and I appreciate the correction. Defining the right name for bladed weapons is a bit tricky. I wouldn't call a sword as long as 40-48 inches a long sword. I mean obviously it is a long sword, but I'd probably call a 40-48" blade a hand-and-a-half sword or a bastard sword or something else to distinguish it from the long sword that has a blade that is around 34-36 inches or so. Unless the wielder is big and strong and uses a blade 40-48" long with just one hand I wouldn't really consider that weapon a side arm either. A sword wielded with both hands seems more likely to be the main arm that a guy would use on foot rather than a sidearm.

But let's set all that terminology and definition aside. The reason, as I understand it, to use a two-handed weapon is to get more leverage, control, and power than one would get from a 1 handed weapon. That's all simple physics. And since using both hands means you can't actively use a shield, often (though not always, there are a lot of exceptions) those longer swords show up when armor gets heavy enough that warriors decide they can do without a shield while fighting on foot.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;989464Uh, the 'long sword' (which I freely grant is a loose term) tended to describe a blade between 40-60 inches in length and could be worn at the hip, and often was.  The hilt was often designed for two handed use.  But like I said, they were not the heavy German  (supposed) horse cutter swords.

Again, I'm not saying it's not true, but I'm wondering why the sword stayed so long as a mainstay of the elite soldier if it's really not as effective as it seems to have been portrayed.

I was referring to the Zweihander type 6' sword, which as I said functions as a pole arm. I agree longswords like the medieval claymore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claymore are much shorter, can be used in a hip scabbard, and can be used one-handed though they are too big for that to be ideal (slightly smaller bastard sword versions can be used one or two handed equally).  

I think longswords were in common use because they were most effective sidearm of the era, being the largest cut & thrust blades that could be carried in a scabbard, ideal for officers commanding troops. They can cut down unarmoured or lightly armoured infantry en masse, and can potentially thrust through mail, with the two-handed grip having better armour-piercing penetration than a one-handed arming sword. They can even be used one-handed on horseback. With half-swording techniques they have some ability against plate armour, though they are certainly not the best anti-plate weapon.

But AFAIK there is no evidence the longsword was ever the primary battlefield weapon - medieval infantry armies were usually dominated by pole arms, spears then pikes. Much like armies since pretty much forever until the 18th century. And cavalry used lances, likewise. The two-handed longsword was always primarily the weapon of an officer/leader, not a common soldier's weapon.

So like I said, the correct comparison for a longsword is the holstered pistol.

Edit: The factors that make a longsword a popular medieval officer's weapon also make it a logical choice for a D&D-style adventurer - effective, flexible, easy to carry - so I'm happy enough for RPG stats to reflect that. But on an actual battlefield you would see massed spear or pike, not massed longswords. This can be reflected by giving spears & pikes superior reach and lower space requirements.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;989726Sorry, you're right, I meant the the 40 to 48 inch blade, although a Long Sword classification DID go to 5 feet in length, it was typically used to denote two handed sidearms.  And that's type of sword I'm talking about, the two handed sidearm, why was it used in a battlefield situation?

A tallish man actually can* wear a longsword with 4' blade and 1' hilt scabbarded at the waist, and draw it. NB the waist is the narrowest bit of your body below the ribs, not lower down at your hips where we wear belts these days.

*Seen it on Youtube several times. :D
Matt Easton's Scholagladiatoria channel is extremely good. Skallagrimm Metatron Shadiversity Lindybeige are also useful for perspective; Easton is a real sword expert.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;989477Portrayed by whom and effective against whom, and when? From 1350 or so+, swords (sub-zweihander, which are definitely a specialty-use item) were low-effective against the most advanced armor of the day. Just like now an assault rifle (or machine gun, even grenades) are not the weapons to use against a tank. That does not make it useless on the field of battle. It just means that you used the sword (a very efficient-to carry sidearm) on the targets it was effective against, and mission-specific weapons against any full armored knights that walked into your path. One of the things that D&D doesn't really do well is emulate a real field of battle in that IRL, you would have dedicated knight-breaker troops, just as you would have the skirmishers, pikemen, cavalry, archers, squires carrying extra lances, guys trucking about ladders such that others can scale walls (if charging a fortification), and all sorts of dedicated, mission-specific labor.

Yup, I agree completely with this.

BTW for Christopher & Bren the current* medievalist sword typology for western European crossbar-hilt straight-blade cut & thrust swords goes as follows:

1. Arming Sword - a one handed sword about 3' to 3'6" total length. Until pretty late in the middle ages these were the only swords. They are pretty close to Classical-era straight edge longer blades like the Roman Spatha.
2. Bastard Sword - similar blade to longer arming sword, but hilt long enough for two-handed use. Typically about 3'6" to 4' total length.
3. Longsword - longer blade & hilt, designed for two-handed use but wieldable one-handed at a pinch. Typically about 4' to 5' total length. Eg medieval claymore. These come in around 1350-1400 AD.
4. Two-handed sword (zweihander) - giant late medieval polearm sword, definitely two-handed only. About 6' total length for practical designs, the really giant ones are believed to have been ceremonial. These are mostly 16th century, so barely medieval.

For RPGs I generally have the D&D 'greatsword' be what medievalists currently call the 'Longsword', ie a primarily two-handed sword up to 5' long that can be carried in a scabbard. D&D 'longsword' covers 'arming sword' and (in 5e D&D) the' bastard sword'. The 4e D&D exotic 'Fullblade' would be a Zweihander.

*They seem pretty settled on this, with some fuzziness around the bastard sword vs longsword distinction. It's a bit different from the early 20th century sources Gygax used, and also different from what people of the era used (mostly 'sword' and 'big sword'). :D

I think the longest weapons are the nerdpenises being swung around in this hilarious thread.

Not that dangerous though, unless they're uncircumcised.

Two-handed/reach weapons are used because (theoretically, with the right training) they can "cover an entire line", this line being between/crossing the line drawn between you and your opponent's incoming angle, without using a shield. Longswords (2h/bastard) were probably favored in certain situations because they would bite-into, and secure a "bind", on a wooden-hafted weapon. Great for picking off lone pairs of pikemen (which your pike block should, have broken the opposing block into). When in a "bind", 3 things win over any amount of grunt force:

1. My edge against his flat (swords transfer this "edge/vs flat" better than pole-on-pole binds, this delivering better pressure sense to the sword wielder)

2. My sword on top of his sword (various mechanical things about the human body/center of gravity)

3. My strong in his weak (strong = closer to your hand, weak = further from your hand, the sword _is_ a sharp lever)

https://www.patreon.com/posts/more-on-dealing-4315265

Thus, you can "sweep" the center and control it with big swords without relying on a shield. You can only safely strike at your armed opponent if you first control the center.

Here is another great example from the Academie Duello in Vancouver BC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4LAFFtVudQ

And here is Dimicator explaining leverage with polearms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kP-0wZsLYRI

I seem to recall hearing about pikes that were metal 6 feet back from the blade.  It was to keep Zwihanders from chopping the points off.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;988213I use the space required numbers (in original D&D and in 1e AD&D) as a rough guideline (I allow some wiggle room in the numbers). If I deem there isn't sufficient space, I apply the non-proficiency penalty (this means that fighters can adapt to such situations better than other classes, which I like) to "to hit" rolls.

As usual, there's some kind of guideline for handling things in the original AD&D books.

Quote from: Headless;990097I seem to recall hearing about pikes that were metal 6 feet back from the blade.  It was to keep Zwihanders from chopping the points off.

I'm not sure there's any evidence of zweihanders being used to do that. They are not a great design for chopping - a wood axe would be much better. They are mostly thrusting weapons with a slicing capacity. Apparently merchants' bodyguards liked them as one zweihander could fend off a pack of unarmoured bandits with wide cuts, but I don't think that was their primary use.

I suspect their primary use was to kill enemy soldiers in the front rank once pikes were pressed in too close for the front pikes to be used. Halberds the same.

Quote from: Voros;989910I think the longest weapons are the nerdpenises being swung around in this hilarious thread.

Not that dangerous though, unless they're uncircumcised.

Uh-oh, someone's not being cool enough for Voros again...

As if you can't see the humour in the dead earnest Wikiexpert talk here Kruger.

Quote from: Voros;991155Wikiexpert

i'm using that at work. sometimes folks become subject matter experts because they read an article. i hate it, so now i will refer to it as Wikiexpert

Quote from: Voros;989910I think the longest weapons are the nerdpenises being swung around in this hilarious thread.

Not that dangerous though, unless they're uncircumcised.

Nerds calling a sword zweihander is always good for a laugh. It's not even the right term.

Leaving aside pathetic nerds attempting to mock slightly less pathetic nerds for discussing nerd stuff, Scholagladiatoria has just put up a "who used longswords" video - [video=youtube;ZMHAHOd2QCY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMHAHOd2QCY[/youtube]

Just to avoid potential confusion, it's worth noting that when Easton talks about "longswords" he's not talking about what is called a "longsword" in (A)D&D. When he talks about "longswords" or "bastard swords" the (A)D&D equivalent would be the (A)D&D bastard sword. When he talks about "arming swords" the (A)D&D equivalent would be the (A)D&D longsword.

To avoid confusion my games now use the following "official" definitions of swords:

Short Sword: It's kind of short, but really too long to be a dagger.

Long Sword: It's longer than a short sword.

Broadsword: A sword used by women.

Greatsword: A really, really good sword.

I like those definitions. :D

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;991304Just to avoid potential confusion, it's worth noting that when Easton talks about "longswords" he's not talking about what is called a "longsword" in (A)D&D. When he talks about "longswords" or "bastard swords" the (A)D&D equivalent would be the (A)D&D bastard sword. When he talks about "arming swords" the (A)D&D equivalent would be the (A)D&D longsword.

It's things like this that make you think Basic D&D was on the right track with 'short/normal/two-handed' swords. :)

For the level of abstraction in most D&D games, I think broad categories like that are fine.

If a DM wants some additional detail, it's available for those interested in such things. (And different editions of D&D have various rules that can be used with that kind of detail, if desired.) You just have to be aware that real-world sword nomenclature isn't consistent or precise, and the common terminology that's used, today, doesn't always line up with the terminology used in the game rules. I happen to be interested in stuff like this, so I enjoy looking into the details and figuring out what kind of historical weapons best fit certain D&D weapons, but it certainly isn't necessary or something for everyone.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;991330You just have to be aware that real-world sword nomenclature isn't consistent or precise, and the common terminology that's used, today, doesn't always line up with the terminology used in the game rules.

And the current expert nomenclature doesn't match up with the nomenclature from a different decade or century or expert. Nor does it match all that well with the terminology used by the people from the time periods where those weapons originated or were used in deadly earnest. And that's not even considering that what information we do have of original nomenclature comes from a limited number of literary sources. That number is extremely limited if we look at the period prior to the widespread adoption of printing and moveable type.

Quote from: Bren;991354And the current expert nomenclature doesn't match up with the nomenclature from a different decade or century or expert. Nor does it match all that well with the terminology used by the people from the time periods where those weapons originated or were used in deadly earnest. And that's not even considering that what information we do have of original nomenclature comes from a limited number of literary sources. That number is extremely limited if we look at the period prior to the widespread adoption of printing and moveable type.

Yep. It's all over the place.

Quote from: Voros;991155As if you can't see the humour in the dead earnest Wikiexpert talk here Kruger.

Granted, it's hard to take seriously any definition of medieval swords that doesn't refer to Ewart Oakeshott's Typologies, based on actual form.

Oh man.  Nerd penis and swords.  I almost forgot.  COLD STEEL

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DI0S3cjd-emk&ved=0ahUKEwiTy4nlvpzWAhUE7yYKHe9LCX8QtwIIMzAC&usg=AFQjCNH3TKehxc3gjeqa8xoCr-e2ybWHew

I fucking love this guy.  "No one will mess with you if you open the door with 5 feet of steel in your hand, no matter how small your penis is."   I can't remember which vid that was in they are all awesome.

Quote from: CRKrueger;991374Granted, it's hard to take seriously any definition of medieval swords that doesn't refer to Ewart Oakeshott's Typologies, based on actual form.

Between Oakeshott and the HEMA guys, there seems to be a kind of consensus in some circles, but it isn't really that widespread, from what I can tell.

I'm not a military historian, but from what I researched, the gigantic swords were not really in use in War of the Roses-era England. There were two-handed swords, but not of the obscene lengths that would be found later.  A term apparently used by weapons historians in reference to it were "hand-and-a-half" swords.

Quote from: Headless;991383Oh man.  Nerd penis and swords.  I almost forgot.  COLD STEEL

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DI0S3cjd-emk&ved=0ahUKEwiTy4nlvpzWAhUE7yYKHe9LCX8QtwIIMzAC&usg=AFQjCNH3TKehxc3gjeqa8xoCr-e2ybWHew

I fucking love this guy.  "No one will mess with you if you open the door with 5 feet of steel in your hand, no matter how small your penis is."   I can't remember which vid that was in they are all awesome.

Massive Zweihander hilt on a moderate sized longsword blade? That's a weird sword.

Quote from: Headless;991383I fucking love this guy.  "No one will mess with you if you open the door with 5 feet of steel in your hand, no matter how small your penis is."   I can't remember which vid that was in they are all awesome.

Unless it's a small door in a low ceilinged room...or worse, a narrow hallway.  But it is a great quote.