So, when it comes to the bastard sword, was it the intention that this should just use the stats for a long sword when used in one hand and a great sword when used in two hands? What about the really big great swords that can never be used in one hand. You know, the one in Braveheart. Even though it was very rare historically, they did have the technology to make it, and I'm sure a couple of rich knights would want the bigger swords just to be intimidating. Or maybe they were big and strong and a large sword felt more natural to them.
Also, what is the sword used by the main characters in Kingdom of Heaven? A scene from the extended version shows a duel between the Balian and Guy de Lusignan. Might not be historically correct, but it's and interesting duel. What are the weapons used here? youtube.com/watch?v=2Xw-myeCHOU
As I said: no idea. from me, you'll need to wait for Andrew. 8) I have some vauge feeling that there's just some sort of bonus for going two handed, but don't know what it is. This isn't me skirting the NDA by feigning amenesia: it's just that in my games melee combat is done by cinematic description rather than using the proper rules, and so I'm a little ropy on those parts of the supplement.
Again, this is not so much me as an author as me as a participant in a more general conversation, but the Wallace Claymore is likely a processional sword, rather than an actual battle weapon, and as such its enormous size is part of its ceremonial function. Wallace himself did not use what we'd now call a claymore, although he might have called his sword a "claymore", sinced that just means "big sword" in Gaelic. Claymores are mentioned textually in the Ars period, but I don't think we know what these actually were like, physically. The claymore as I think you mean it is post-Ars.
True two-handed swords are not, as far as my poor memory serves, a feature of medieval armies at all. They come to the fore in the Reniassance as counters to pikemen.
Now, as a player, you have every right to say "Damn it Ferguson! Stop spoiling my fun with your "There are no longbows outside of Wales and no claymores yet either!" rubbish. I want to play a blue-painted savage with a sword the size of a bus!" and that's entirely fair. I'd just like to make the point that even historical claymores, when they did appear, were a lot smaller than people expect. Sure they were two handed swords, but they were little two handed swords, compared ot the ones that came out of Germany in the Reniassance.
I'm on a slow connection at the monent, so I can't watch it, sorry.
Shortsword: can be used only one handed. The normal swords.
Longsword: hand and a half. Can be used one or 2 handed. If used 2 handed, it gains a bonus to damage. People assumes you are a noble when you carry one. And that you mean trouble.
Bastard sword: can only be used 2 handed. They are not common at all in our game world, though.
Been like that for the past few years. But then, our combat system is far away from the published material, beiung WAY less detailed when it comes to weapon differentiation (only 4 damage categories, and no bonus/malus in attack/defence at all).
Later I will read the 2 PDFs and say something about them
Yes. Though I seem to have forgotten to actually write that in black and white. Well, it looks like we have a candidate for a new FAQ entry.
EDIT: I think what happened was that the rules changed during the process, the Bastard Sword entries got dropped from the table, and I forgot to update the "Notes on Weapons" text. I'll check my manuscript & notes and post errata if appropriate.
Those are great swords, by definition.
I agree, and I would add that you should only let history affect your game as much as you want it to. If you think it is just cool to have high medieval characters wielding great swords, then go for it! You will notice that I list great swords as late-medieval weapons, yet they are in the core book (likewise with longbows). As far as I know that was intentional -- adding a bit of flair and variety to the core setting while taking some liberties with historical accuracy.
In my opinion, long swords. Though my opinion is not authoritative -- if you want to call them bastard swords then by all means go ahead.
Yes, as always Timothy remembers pretty well and has a good command of current sources.
I would point out that back in the 1970's, D&D was based largely on 19th century writings about medieval arms and armor, and most of those were written by gentlemen enthusiasts (read, amateurs). They got a lot of things right, but they also got a few things wrong. Those mistakes carried over into D&D and there trickled into the whole fantasy RPG genre, including computer games -- and Ars Magica.
It is a lot easier for players IMO if Ars Magica goes with the flow and uses the D&D-derived nomenclature even if doesn't map perfectly to what you'll find in a (recent) history book. Though I draw the line at calling brigandine "studded leather" or pretending that "banded mail" ever existed!
Well, read both the TOC and the arms and armor rules.
The armor and weapon rules add nothing to my saga, so we will be routinely ignoring them as usual. I feel they do not address any of the funadamental issues we have with the Ars combat system, and the last part of the TOC seems to have the same design, so that part is unlikely to be used. Still, stuff like panicked horses is bound to be milked for high drama descriptions for sure
OTOH the first sections of the TOC have me on a hype!!! THAT IS BLOODY AMAZING!!! That just is... perfect. The "why does the order does not take over ME?" section is bound to have some funny stuff, since it addresses a fundamental unsolveable problem of the game world (if you are too skeptic) but in general it looks like a great supplement. If it is riddled with story hooks, you could easily build a whole saga out of this book.
If the book is half as good as the TOC hints, I have to already say well done people
I really like the arms and armor pdf, and the book looks great when looking at the TOC. I'm hoping to play a noble Companion in our current campaign, and a good system on how this works in Ars Magica is something I've been waiting for. And a good noble won't be abstract with his armor. Details all around! Nice
As for the player's in my group wanting to have characters using two weapons, and official rules on how to calculate this, I'm afraid they'll be disappointed. Doesn't seem like there's anyting about it in the book. Anyway, from the Mamluk Emir in RoP: Divine, who's statted using two longswords, it seems that using a second longsword gives you -1 to Initiative and +1 to both Attack, Defense and Damage when compared to using one longsword. Hmm...
Really? When I compared the stats for his combined weapons to a regular longsword I got +1 to Initiative, Attack, Defense, Damage, Strength Requirement and Load. I never factored in the -2 Encumbrance penalty for his kit though, but its hard to see how that would have any effect unless he keeps the additional sword somewhere off his person while fighting (while still keeping his Lance and Shortbw on his person) and I think it might be an instance of errata...
Well, anyway, I'm interested in finding clear rules for this. I've been trying all sorts of variations, and I was really hoping for some official word.
I have a dubt, there are a text talking about the Bastard sword in the PDF, but there aren't any mention in the weapon table. Must i supose that a bastard sword is no more that a long sword when is used how a Single Weapon and a great Sword when is used with Great Weapon?
Looking back at my notes, what seems to have happened is that very early on in development, I had separate statistics for a bastard sword one-handed and two-handed. I worked through several iterations of changes to the bastard sword statistics but apparently forgot to update the text. So, the text is wrong.
I'm going to recommend errata for this. What it should read is,
Broadsword is a 16th century term, used initially by people with thin Reniassance swords to refer to the wider swords found in earlier times. The term became popular in the C19th in Engliish. No medieval person ever refered to their sword as a "broadsword" as they did not think the average sword narrow.
Fighting with a shield and a one-handed weapon dominates in this period. Shields are simply too useful, and armor not yet strong enough to obsolete smaller weapons.
Of course, magi face supernatural opponents and might feel a need to introduce these larger weapons early.
Come to think of it, if your knights fight dragons, you can justify the introduction of full plate armor centuries before its time, and the giant swords to penetrate those thick scales....
Well, it looks like we have a candidate for a new FAQ entry.
So, the text is wrong.
