Embarrassing Case of Weapon Table Rage

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longsword

For the 'Long' or 'Bastard' sword - 1350. Reaching into the 13th century. Bigger versions came later and not earlier.

Great Sword: I can't find a two handed source for this period, so I feel cancelling it is justified.

Armor types and values should be reworked, too.
Swords were common in the 13th century.
Rich people should have quality armaments.
Add sabres, falchions and reflex bows to the weapon list.

Now I'm confused - didn't you write that you'd made the long sword 2 handed?

Swords are just:

Sjortsword: small sword.
Longword: large sword
Greatsword: freakin' HUGE sword

If you would say, a "normal" sword is a shortsword. That would be the classical knight sword that you carry on your side. An arming sword.
A ñlongsword is a hand and a half sword. A sword that could be used one handed but that is designed for 2 hande duse.
Great swords would not exist, but reallty large bashing swords could be in this category.

Looking at them in any more detail is just a source of heavy frustration. Been there, done that, rewrote Ars Magica as a consequence and now we play with changed combat systems, using D6, changing the library rules and having only 2 realms in the game. So be careful :laughing:

Cheers,
Xavi

Tellus:

For my game, I did take out the great sword and upgraded the longsword. I guess I was just posting for the research value. I'm not really disputing that people wielded swords with two hands, just that they didn't have the monstrous swords of later periods.

Xavi: Your system is interesting. Could I ask.. is there any reason to not take the highest damage weapons?

The fact that they were not used and belong to fantasy worlds IMO, basically. I might be wrong but I doubt it somewhat. If you mean the War hammer, basically :slight_smile: The +9 damage corresponds to "large weapons wielded 2 handed" easy enough :slight_smile: A +9 is a fairly OK damage there. Take in mind that armor +12 is the maximum you can achieve under normal circumstances (full knightly armor + shield), so +9 is not a small damage total. Usual warriors have an armor value in the +6 to +9 range.

Xavi

From my perspective the tables have been roughly consistent across the three editions I've played, and I think the rule set sits "in the middle" of complexity vs story. It feels ok to me overall, especially as a baseline for the core rules which are meant to be accessible to a wide audience. I can respect that some weapons are inherently better than others on that table, and agree with that as a premise.

i.e. A hand axe is not as useful/flexible in usage as a small double edged sword. The mechanical differences between the sword damage types, the initiative modifiers and such can be modded by the troupes, and I think teh YSMV rule applies so much that it will be very difficult to codify. It is great to see additional options here, especially Xavi's suggestion - I might try that.

If the weapons mechanics are downplayed then the role and options to combative non-magus characters are also reduced, and that is bad for some sessions. I think there is a place for highly detailed combat rules which give expert combatants options rather than just swing and roll damage. What place and what system? Not sure yet.

A change in weapon's terminology would be fine if the Eds think its justified, and to be honest it wouldn't change the way of of my players think about an arming sword. It would also possibly be slightly harder for players coming in from other systems which use the long, short, great sword naming. I'd say if you are doing that then the regionalisation is a factor that makes it very complex, and not something that I'd want in the core book before including all the base mechanics properly (crossbows).

Overall I'd be in favour of a change to the naming, as I think adding more correct names would add flavour. But it is no showstopper at all. In active play some of the characters in my group already use different names for their weapons subject to their backgrounds, and it feels good when they do.

I will be banned for that :laughing: , but:

That's a game that try to relate a mitical medieval europe, history primes over all. If you and your troupe agree , and want a more accurated combat stats you only need a folio and an stapler. Highlight as House Rules and here you have it.

There was writen repeatly about Long butcher knife or Messers. want a stat for it? sword quality -1,-2, -3 whould be a sollution?. becuse i want to see what you say about iberian falcata, pretty much out of use but still fabricated and sporadically used.

Its very very dificult to unificate all the blades, shapes and propierties of swords, more over wth all the weapons.

Regarding to the longswords and about it age i have an appointment.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tizona

It was the little one. See for Colada

notice that the blade was longer than a katana (bastard/two handed) and far more better steel.

Given the response that the snippet of the combat system has generated, I might drag myself and write the full combat system for SR.

Damn you all :laughing:

Xavi

1 Like

as far as I an tell, people comming in from other systems, using the same words is where we get the problem.
That Other Game has 6 foot great swords - but in ArM, any sword that should be wielded in 2 hands is a great sword!

I'd personally go for something like
Side sword - probably not a primary weapon since the roman legions changed to the spartha.
Arming sword - the classical knight's sword
2 handed sword - any sword designed for 2 handed use, blade length easily down to 3 feet.

The spatha was originally a cavalry weapon, that was longer precisely to reach foot opponents. The change in roman weaponry also reflects really significant changes in tactics. A short sword is MUCH more useful in cramped close range fighting, while a longer slashing weapon is better is less constrained environments.

But your definition works fine. I would go with Seax or Falcion for the "short sword". Hand an a half might be a better name for the greatsword. hand an a half îs^used 2 handed after all. The name comes from the handle length, not how you use the weapon.

Xavi

IMS history is regarded as a set of odd story seeds to used or disregard as needed, and I encourage the stories to alter and change it, we play very high mythic.

In "That Other Game" the 6ft long 2H Sword is part of the setting and lore. I don't think anyone would ever try to defend dnd as being historic! And if you want to expand the player base you need to provide an explanation of the terminology, or re-use the dnd words - Ed's choice.

that was rather my point - and that I believe the mixing of terminology is an unwise choice, because it gives us this thread every 2 years or so.

Commonly around in 1350, KNOWN to exist in 13th century. But you read it as if it was discrete appearances and inventions. No, development over time led to those, the progress that resulted in the bastard sword probably starts out at a minimum two centuries earlier. Point being that as long as there is a historical real weapon within a few hundred years, you can bring it into a game without being ahistorical, because what you might call "prototypes" of what came later probably was used much earlier, just not by many.

Every year. :mrgreen:

Hardly, but the "6ft long 2H Sword" is pretty much a historical weapon, not just a normal, common such at the same time as their other reasonably historical weapons.
As i mentioned before, the Tachi is a decent example, normally it was just a slightly large and slightly changed katana. But under the same name you could also find monstrosities that were probably closer to 8ft than 6.

Or for that matter, you can take a look at the Guan Dao, it was actually weighted down specifically to be used as a test for officer promotion, and if even the most reliable statements about it are anywhere near correct, it was weighed down with dozens of kg in those models. If we were to find a 40-60kg polearm today, without any foreknowledge, would we believe it to be a real weapon? I very much doubt it, i can almost guarantee it would be called "ceremonial", and yet some are stated to have used those weighted models in combat, as the weight gives them a hell of a knock-over power.

My fault, where History please read Story. :frowning: