Post/Author/DateTime	Post
docballen 06-06-06, 12:58 PM	My husband wants to know why 3.5 has eliminated the "broadsword" from the weapons tables. (Has the bastard sword taken its place?)
WayneTheGame 06-06-06, 01:06 PM	I believe that broadsword was combined with the longsword and are now just the 3.5 Longsword. As to why it happened, that is anybody's guess. Probably they wanted to simplify it without having two swords that were almost identical.
striderII 06-06-06, 01:08 PM	My husband wants to know why 3.5 has eliminated the "broadsword" from the weapons tables. (Has the bastard sword taken its place?) The term "broadsword" is a misnomer; in fact, a "broadsword" doesn't actually exist. Most people, when they used the term "broadsword", could be speaking of an arming sword, sidesword, cutlass, or longsword (from my experience of seeing references to a "broadsword", anyway). For D&D purposes, unless your husband is particularly thinking of a different weapon, I'd suggest using the stats for the D&D "longsword" - which, historically speaking, would be an arming sword, IMO. Sorry to cross-reference game and history there - hopefully I don't cross you up with switching references. If I did, let me know and I'll see what I can do to correct it. strider
Thorak 06-06-06, 01:10 PM	My husband wants to know why 3.5 has eliminated the "broadsword" from the weapons tables. (Has the bastard sword taken its place?) Because the term "broadsword" isn't useful. It's an early modern term used to refer to any sword broader at the base than a rapier. It can be used to describe pretty much any medieval-era sword. About the only sword that's actually specifically called a broadsword is the highland broadsword and variations of it, the basket-hilted sword. And even then, a longsword covers you stat-wise.
cwslyclgh 06-06-06, 06:46 PM	they combined it with longsowrd in 3e, which expanded its definition to cover just about any one-handed straight traditional fantasy type sword between short sword and bastard sword in size. basicaly you cn tell him that WotC decided to cut out any weapon that was functionaly identical or very similar to another weapon that they decided to keep because they decided that realism in a fantasy setting was less important then making sure that the dumb people they expect to buy thier products are not confused.
Kresalak 06-06-06, 06:52 PM	Strider, as usual, has it right. Depending on what your husband wants when he says a broadsword, it may be a longsword or bastard sword. Probably a longsword though. By the way, there's a really funny quote about the broadsword by Bulletproof Condom. A broadsword is any sword useable only by women.
Tony Vargas 06-06-06, 07:49 PM	My husband wants to know why 3.5 has eliminated the "broadsword" from the weapons tables. (Has the bastard sword taken its place?)A lot of weapons (mostly polearms) were cut from 3E, including the broadsword. One (good, IMHO) thing 3E tried to do was make each weapon unique and worthwhile on some level. There just wasn't a lot of room between the Longsword (d8, one-handed) and Bastardsword (d10, one-handed with a feat) to squeeze in a 'broadsword.' I think that's the real reason for the demise of the broadsword, not technical objections to the term itself. The A&EG gave the longsword as an equivalency for the broadsword. But, if you're willing to split a hair here or there you could probably squeeze the broadsword back into the game. Here are some possiblities, depending on what you mean by 'broadsword,' that is: ==================================== Broad-Sword A Sword that's notably broader than a longsword. An a-historical, Sword & Sorcery weapon suitable for the unsophisticated chopping up of enemies. Longsword Bastard Sword One-Handed Martial Cost Dmg (S) Dmg (M) Critical Range Weight Type Broad-Sword 13gp d8 2d4* (20/x2) - 5 lb Slashing * medium broadswords are heavy enough to have double the normal hps of a one-handed bladed weapon. OR Broad-Sword 13gp d8 1d10 (20/x2) - 5 lb Slashing ==================================== Broadsword A single-handed, straight sword with a basket hilt, also called a backsword when single-edged. Longsword Scimitar One-Handed Martial Cost Dmg (S) Dmg (M) Critical Range Weight Type Broadsword 15gp d4 d6 (19-20/x2) - 3 lb Slashing * +2 vs Disarm ==================================== Broad Sword An old-fashioned sword, notably broader than the rapiers contemporaneous to the coining of the term longsword One-Handed Martial Cost Dmg (S) Dmg (M) Critical Range Weight Type Broad Sword 15gp d6 d8 (19-20/x2) - 4 lb Slashing * +2 to make (or defend against) Sunder attempts vs Rapiers and other period weapons, but unarmored opponents using Expertise recieve an extra +2 AC vs your attacks. ==================================== Personally, I like the idea of a 2d4 (20/x2) broad-sword, just because the 1E broadsword was 2-8/2-7. ;) BTW, I recently saw the 50's 'Prince Valiant,' and the swords in that flick were freakishly wide, a perfect example of the kind of fantasy broad-sword you might want to differentiate from the longsword (if you don't much care about realism).
FallenArchon 06-06-06, 08:02 PM	"Broadsword" in many historical texts is referring to Viking, Saxon, and Norman style swords. These swords had a slightly shorter (often 31 in. blade) and broader blade and point than the European style "long sword" Broad swords were primarily cutting weapons. Longswords (often 36 in.) were also known as cut & thrust swords because they had a tapered and more functional point. *Both broadsword and longsword are one handed. I don't remember seeing the broad sword in any 3.5 material (it might be in Arms and Equipment) but I do remember seeing it in 2nd edition Skills and Powers as well as Combat and Tactics. If you want the game to be more historically accurate change the damage type for longswords from S to S/P and just use longsword stats for the broadsword. www.museumreplicas.com (http://www.museumreplicas.com) is a good place to look if your interested in various types of medieval weapons armor and its function.
striderII 06-06-06, 08:37 PM	Strider, as usual, has it right. Depending on what your husband wants when he says a broadsword, it may be a longsword or bastard sword. Probably a longsword though. Wow. Thank you. I'm unused to praise. Normally people tell me I'm a jerk. Not without good reason, mind you, but still, the unexpected compliment is noted and appreciated. :) I think that's the real reason for the demise of the broadsword, not technical objections to the term itself. You're probably right, Tony - I'll spare my usual rant about my assumptions on the designers' historical weapon knowledge. "Broadsword" in many historical texts is referring to Viking, Saxon, and Norman style swords. *sigh* Those "historical texts" would be incorrect. See a number of posts in this thread for why. Although, for my own morbid curiousity, care to share the titles of these bastions of...."knowledge"? strider
FallenArchon 06-06-06, 09:36 PM	Those "historical texts" would be incorrect. See a number of posts in this thread for why. Although, for my own morbid curiousity, care to share the titles of these bastions of...."knowledge"? strider Well strider I was pointing out the most type of sword that best fits the description (broad bladed), definition, and connotation I have developed through research. As you have read plenty on the subject arms and armor and as you probably most ancient weapons have been called many things over the years. Just like claymore (which comes from Gaelic "claidheamh-mor" and is applied to the Scottish two handed sword and basket hilt) the term broadsword can apply to several styles of swords including the Scottish basket hilt (the double edged version, not the single edged which is the backsword which you mentioned earlier). I'm sure you and I can dispute weapon terms all day and I'm not saying your interpretation of the term is wrong just that it isn't the only one. If you want to continue this discussion lets take it off the boards, you can send me a private message.
striderII 06-06-06, 09:43 PM	Well strider I was pointing out the most type of sword that best fits the description (broad bladed), definition, and connotation I have developed through research. As you have read plenty on the subject arms and armor and as you probably most ancient weapons have been called many things over the years. Just like claymore (which comes from Gaelic "claidheamh-mor" and is applied to the Scottish two handed sword and basket hilt) the term broadsword can apply to several styles of swords including the Scottish basket hilt (the double edged version, not the single edged which is the backsword which you mentioned earlier). I'm sure you and I can dispute weapon terms all day and I'm not saying your interpretation of the term is wrong just that it isn't the only one. If you want to continue this discussion lets take it off the boards, you can send me a private message. 1. I didn't mention the backsword - Tony Vargas did. (I totally forgot about it) 2. We could dispute weapon terms all day - the problem is, in this case, you'd be wrong all day. The term "broadsword" is a misnomer, plain and simple - used originally during Victorian times by historians who had not completely and truly done good research on the subject. So, sorry, but the term "broadsword" is not a proper term. I'd private message you, but I figured I'd just post this and be done - I see no reason to continue this "argument". strider
FallenArchon 06-06-06, 10:21 PM	2. We could dispute weapon terms all day - the problem is, in this case, you'd be wrong all day. The term "broadsword" is a misnomer, plain and simple - used originally during Victorian times by historians who had not completely and truly done good research on the subject. So, sorry, but the term "broadsword" is not a proper term. strider Weather historians did their research or not is not a factor. What is a factor is how long the term has been in use. In this case the term broad sword has been floating around long enough that it is accepted. From the American Heritage College Dictionary "broadsword: A sword usually two-edged blade for slashing rather than thrusting".
Johannixx 06-06-06, 10:26 PM	As most folks have said, just use the longsword or bastard sword for the traditional Conan-style 'broadsword'. Or, if you're using a later-period campaign, and you want something resembling the basket-hilt 'broadswords' of the Scots, English and northern Italians, just use longsword stats with a basket hilt that adds 1/2 lbs to the weight, grants a +2 bonus to resist being disarmed, and allows the user to punch with the hilt as if it were a gauntlet. If you want to balance things out, have it impose a -2 penalty to attempts to disarm an opponent, due to the lack of projecting quillions.
striderII 06-06-06, 10:27 PM	Weather historians did their research or not is not a factor. What is a factor is how long the term has been in use. In this case the term broad sword has been floating around long enough that it is accepted. From the American Heritage College Dictionary "broadsword: A sword usually two-edged blade for slashing rather than thrusting". There is a difference between a term in wide use amongst laymen, and a term used amongst scholars. Your citation of the Dictionary is a term used for laymen. I'm done with this part of the discussion now. strider
WizO_Cat 06-06-06, 10:33 PM	Ok, the topic of the thread is why broadsword has been eliminated from the weapons table for D&D. Let's bring the thread back to that topic and not the detailed history of the broadsword. (unless you can use the history to show why it was eliminated from the weapons table for D&D) Thank you.
Thorak 06-06-06, 11:31 PM	In D&D terms, a "broadsword" could be any of a longsword, a bastard sword, a greatsword, and possibly even some short swords. In D&D terms, this is based on the length of the blade and the number of hands required. For instance, a basket-hilted highland broadsword would be a longsword. We don't need separate stats for the same reasons we don't need separate stats for zweihanders or claymores.
striderII 06-07-06, 09:29 AM	Ok, the topic of the thread is why broadsword has been eliminated from the weapons table for D&D. Let's bring the thread back to that topic and not the detailed history of the broadsword. (unless you can use the history to show why it was eliminated from the weapons table for D&D) Thank you. Hmm....let's see... Is there a "broadsword", by name, in D&D now? No. Was there a question about such a weapon? Yes. Is there a weapon in history that correlates to the term? Sort of, yes - but it could be many things. Do we then need to turn to history, because these weapons did actually exist (as opposed to mages, spells, dragons, etc)? Yes. Is then history being used to show why it was eliminated from the weapons table for D&D? YES!!!!! Please explain yourself, Cat - because, quite frankly, I don't see the reason for the heavy-handedness in this thread. *Especially* when there's another thread on this very board that's gone on a historical argument for 4 freakin' pages. Is it because I was involved? I know you can't stand me, but c'mon, that's cheap, even for you. Or is this just more of the trend that will continue to go until the posters are selecting WotC-approved responses from a list, and will lose their ability to post what they'd like to write? *disgusted at the fascism* strider EDIT: ps. Not to pat myself on the back, but I (and others who have the historical knowledge), have been *thanked*, REPEATEDLY, by other posters for giving them information that they otherwise wouldn't have known - or pointed them in the direction for more information on the subject. I would hope that WotC - through its agents, the WizO's - is not in the business of squelching the spread of information and knowledge. If they (or you) are, however, please let me know, so I can no longer waste time here. Thank you.
Arquinsiel 06-07-06, 09:47 AM	Weather historians did their research or not is not a factor. What is a factor is how long the term has been in use. In this case the term broad sword has been floating around long enough that it is accepted. It's also accepted that a katana is just plain better than it. Doesn't mean it's right </flamebait> ;p Still, translation causes so many things to become confused in regards to weapon naming, I've had arguements with german friends of mine for weeks on end about what a particularl type of pole-arm was called only to have it turn out that the german version of the word was a metaphor equivalent to the english name at the time the weapon was commonly in use. Functionally the only way I can see a broader blade beign a huge amount different from a narrower one is in parrying, and that just plain doesn't happen in D&D standard rules. By the way, there's a really funny quote about the broadsword by Bulletproof Condom. If you're interested it's a weapon card in the Munchkin game.
Thorak 06-07-06, 10:05 AM	Please explain yourself, Cat - because, quite frankly, I don't see the reason for the heavy-handedness in this thread. *Especially* when there's another thread on this very board that's gone on a historical argument for 4 freakin' pages. Is it because I was involved? I know you can't stand me, but c'mon, that's cheap, even for you. Or is this just more of the trend that will continue to go until the posters are selecting WotC-approved responses from a list, and will lose their ability to post what they'd like to write? *disgusted at the fascism* That was completely uncalled for. Heck, I'm one of the most contentious people on these boards, and I constantly point out where WotC has made a mistake or could have done something better. MY responses are in no way "WotC-approved". I've also only ever been warned once in my 2.5 years and 8600 posts, and that was for a personal attack that I admit I shouldn't have stooped to. We were getting off topic. The boards aren't here to discuss historicity, they're here to discuss D&D. I agree the warning came a bit early, but it wasn't in any concievable way "fascist". And if you look at my post, you see how I directly tie the historical fact right back into why it was eliminated, which is exactly (as far as I can tell) what WizO Cat wanted.
striderII 06-07-06, 10:15 AM	That was completely uncalled for. Heck, I'm one of the most contentious people on these boards, and I constantly point out where WotC has made a mistake or could have done something better. MY responses are in no way "WotC-approved". I've also only ever been warned once in my 2.5 years and 8600 posts, and that was for a personal attack that I admit I shouldn't have stooped to. We were getting off topic. The boards aren't here to discuss historicity, they're here to discuss D&D. I agree the warning came a bit early, but it wasn't in any concievable way "fascist". And if you look at my post, you see how I directly tie the historical fact right back into why it was eliminated, which is exactly (as far as I can tell) what WizO Cat wanted. And that's your opinion - which you are (by me certainly...by Cat, maybe not) entitled to have. EDIT: I don't think we were off-topic, either. There is no "broadsword" in D&D, so to determine what particular weapon the OP's husband is thinking of - in order to provide equivalent stats, or new stats, as was done in this thread - we need to turn to history. The fact that there was then a discussion of proper terminology only serves to further define *exactly* what we're talking about, in order to be useful. Which I would imagine and hope would be the point - to be useful and/or helpful. Ergo, we were on topic - at least, how I see it. strider
pres_man 06-07-06, 11:55 AM	We are talking about a fantasy game. So if I say I want a "broadsword" such as the one Conan (a fantasy character) might use, I am probably not talking about a historical "broadsword". Tony gave a good list to the options that a player might want to use depending on what exactly they meant by the term "broadsword". I think the Conan game uses 1d10 20/x2, though I think 2d4 20/x2 would be balanced for a D&D game (by the way I give falchions/nodachis 1d10 damage). Alternatively you could just use the battleaxe stats 1d8 20/x3 since it would be used in much the same way. Arguing that this is not really a "broadsword" is a bit ridiculious. If that is the term that is used to describe it in the referenced fantasy setting then it is the correct term. It is like arguing that the term "glaive" is incorrect in the movie Krull because it wasn't a polearm, so what who says their language is identical to our own. So if I said, "How would I make a 'glaive' like in the movie Krull, in a D&D game." Agruing about the fact it is not really a "glaive" is pretty meaningless.
Thorak 06-07-06, 12:58 PM	And that's your opinion - which you are (by me certainly...by Cat, maybe not) entitled to have. You said he was heavy-handed, cheap, a fascist, and claimed the mods as a whole enforce WotC policy rather than allowing discussion. Because Cat asked us to stay on the topic of broadswords as they relate to D&D. Yes, it was completely uncalled for. He made a general post, and you started insulting him and acting like he'd somehow directly attacked you.
Tony Vargas 06-07-06, 01:06 PM	EDIT: I don't think we were off-topic, either. There is no "broadsword" in D&D, so to determine what particular weapon the OP's husband is thinking of - in order to provide equivalent stats, or new stats, as was done in this thread - we need to turn to history. Actually, it's perfectly clear what the OP is refering to - the Broadsword that /was/ in AD&D. It was in the weapons table, and did 2-8 vs small/man-sized creatures and 2-7 vs larger. I forget the other stats - weight, space required, armor adjustments - but I could dig out a 1E PH if you're interested. The only 'history' that we need to turn to, here, is the history of the game. In those days, the game didn't give you questionable descriptions of the weapons in the table. If you wanted to know what the heck a fauchard or volgue or bohemian ear-spoon was, you'd have to get out a dictionary or encyclopedia (no internet in those days, y'know) and look it up (or wait for the Nomenclature of Pole-arms to come out, since EGG practically made some of those up). If you looked up 'broadsword' you might find a definition like this: "n. A sword with a wide, usually two-edged blade that is designed for slashing rather than thrusting." That's english. I've listened to some of the enthusiasts on the boards debate the historical meaning (or lack thereof) or precise meaning as used by antiquarians, and, it was interesting stuff. In deference to those past debates, I posted multiple possible stats, above, with explanations. But, the english definition is probably just fine, particularly for this thread, since that's all we had to go on in the 1E days. The broadsword was dropped from D&D along with a lot of other weapons, probably just to streamline the list of weapons, pairing it down to reasonable number, each of which could be mechanically distinct and reasonably worthwhile (balanced compared to the others). I think it's very unlikely that it was dropped due to historical inaccuracy or symantic ambiguity - considering the inclusion of things like the 'flachion,' spiked chain, dire flail, and so forth. And, if the OP wants the AD&D broadsword back, just put it back, at 2d4 (20/x2), one-handed, martial, slashing weapons. Say 4 lb, and 15 gp (or lift the cost and weight/10 from the 1E PH). That'll give you basically exactly what the 1E broadsword was: a weapon that was distinct from, but, really, not quite as good as the more commonly found (majority of magical swords) and used longsword (at 1-8/1-12), or more powerful two-handed sword (1-10/3-18), or somewhat confusing bastard sword (2-8/2-16 or 1-8/1-12 used one-handed).
striderII 06-07-06, 01:28 PM	Well excuse the hell out of me, people, for wanting proper terminology on both ends - in game, and historical. I'd respond to the rest of it, but why bother? I'm done with these boards. Hey Cat, what do I have to do to get banned - insult your lineage or something, you smarmy pain in my ass? strider
Thorak 06-07-06, 06:37 PM	Well excuse the hell out of me, people, for wanting proper terminology on both ends - in game, and historical. Nobody had a problem with this. Cat had a problem with the path of the thread, not you specifically, tending to move away from D&D applicability into the minutiae of historical detail. The problem I have is that you then got personally insulting for absolutely no reason.
WizO_Cat 06-07-06, 10:36 PM	Ok, less discussion about board moderation and moe about the topic of the thread. If you really have a question or concern with the moderation, please bring it up with the WizO in question via e-mail or their supervisor if you don't feel confortable dealing with them directly. Ok, as for the topic, my opinion is much like Tony Vargas. The only reason I remember ever using a broadsword in 1st edition is if either (a) they were given to smugglers in some of the modules or (b) my character found a magical broadsword (magic was a little more rare then). I never once started with a character concept saying, "Wow, this character just has to use a broadsword." Basically, the short, long, bastard, and two-handed swords were the predominant weapons of usage. Thus, with the new edition, they just retired the weapon with a handful of others.
striderII 06-08-06, 09:41 AM	Nobody had a problem with this. Cat had a problem with the path of the thread, not you specifically, tending to move away from D&D applicability into the minutiae of historical detail. The problem I have is that you then got personally insulting for absolutely no reason. Sorry...I had a really, really, *really* crappy day yesterday, and took it out here. My apologies to all. That said...I still have *serious* issue with the ability of the moderators to edit posts for whatever reason they feel like. Editting posts because something said was offensive - sure, that's fine. But because the moderator in question has an opinion that something is X (where X in this case was "off topic") - seems more than a little frivolous, and somewhat abusive of power, to me. Again, in all seriousness - my apologies, I was out of line and I allowed past issues to color my response. strider
babysamurai 06-08-06, 10:14 AM	That said...I still have *serious* issue with the ability of the moderators to edit posts for whatever reason they feel like. Editting posts because something said was offensive - sure, that's fine. But because the moderator in question has an opinion that something is X (where X in this case was "off topic") - seems more than a little frivolous, and somewhat abusive of power, to me. Actually, the WizO's aren't too bad, as far as mods go. They actually let quite a few things slide. You should check out some of the mods at dicefreaks...wow, talk about a chip on the shoulder. They have no reservations about being insulting, condescending and outright aggressive to regular posters, but if you so much as whisper something they don't agree with, they "slap your wrist". And they all stick up for each other like a Jr. High couple. ...Lame.
striderII 06-08-06, 12:28 PM	Actually, the WizO's aren't too bad, as far as mods go. They actually let quite a few things slide. You should check out some of the mods at dicefreaks...wow, talk about a chip on the shoulder. They have no reservations about being insulting, condescending and outright aggressive to regular posters, but if you so much as whisper something they don't agree with, they "slap your wrist". And they all stick up for each other like a Jr. High couple. ...Lame. Well, some WizO's are worse than others (I'll refrain from - ahem - further comment), in my opinion, but whatever. It's simply much different than, well, every other board I'm on, really. In those, I'm aware that there *are* moderators, but I'm not entirely certain who they are (except in one case where they get specially made graphics for their avatars; but nothing like a name change or anything like that), and they rarely - if ever - have to make an appearance. In fact, on the boards for another game company - I've seen moderator activity that comes to mind...once. Now...that lead to a great BanFest, but let's face it - some people were being the hind end of various farmyard animals all put together, like some hideous M.C. Escher painting. (Not that M.C. Escher paintings are horrendous, you understand - but that the gestalt of numerous farmyard animals attached in such a manner *would* be horrendous). But whatever. I'll continue to add historical precendent to my posts, as that is my wont, and if they end up banning me for it, I won't cry. strider
Tony Vargas 06-08-06, 02:24 PM	The only reason I remember ever using a broadsword in 1st edition is if either (a) they were given to smugglers in some of the modules or (b) my character found a magical broadsword (magic was a little more rare then). I never once started with a character concept saying, "Wow, this character just has to use a broadsword." Certainly, in the pre-UA 1E days, you took to whatever weapon you found a good magical version of. Tough I did place a magical glaive in a 1E campaign once just to see someone use one, and it didn't work - they sold it. I can remember a few characters (and NPCs) that chose the broad over the long sword simply for the flavor of it. The broadsword did have a bit of a rep among fantasy fans, from Conan, of course, and from the Cormac mac Art pastiche of Andy Offut, for instance. More so than the fouchard, for instance. ;) Basically, the short, long, bastard, and two-handed swords were the predominant weapons of usage. Thus, with the new edition, they just retired the weapon with a handful of others. Well, the predominantly chosen swords. (And, I really don't think the bastard sword saw much use, either - I mean, if you were going to use it one-handed, you might as well use the much-more-often-magical longsword; if you were going to use it two-handed, you might as well use the bigger-damage greatsword and there wasn't much call in AD&D for switching often between a one- and two- handed weapon.) Other weapons that did make the cut - such as the pick, ransuer, glaive and guisarm - probably saw even less use than the broadsword. In all the years I played AD&D, I never saw anyone else use a Glaive, Guisarm, or Ransuer, let alone all the other whacky pole-arms in the PH. And, myself, of the three, I only ever used the ransuer, and only with one character. (And, really, the 1E ransuer was pretty cool - double damage vs a charge, dismounting & disarm special abilities, it was, like /the/ polearm that did it all). Of course, I did find reducing the pole-arms down to three distinctive examples, and making 'reach' meaningful was a great thing, and I'm now delighted to use the 3E versions with a variety of characters :) ... even if the spiked chain does take some of the shine off 'em. :(
WizO_Cat 06-08-06, 06:32 PM	Well, the predominantly chosen swords. (And, I really don't think the bastard sword saw much use, either - I mean, if you were going to use it one-handed, you might as well use the much-more-often-magical longsword; if you were going to use it two-handed, you might as well use the bigger-damage greatsword and there wasn't much call in AD&D for switching often between a one- and two- handed weapon.) Well, it might have been a house rule, but our groups played the bastard sword so that you could use it eighter one-handed or two-handed - and the usage would impact the damage dealt. Other weapons that did make the cut - such as the pick, ransuer, glaive and guisarm - probably saw even less use than the broadsword. In all the years I played AD&D, I never saw anyone else use a Glaive, Guisarm, or Ransuer, let alone all the other whacky pole-arms in the PH. And, myself, of the three, I only ever used the ransuer, and only with one character. (And, really, the 1E ransuer was pretty cool - double damage vs a charge, dismounting & disarm special abilities, it was, like /the/ polearm that did it all). Of course, I did find reducing the pole-arms down to three distinctive examples, and making 'reach' meaningful was a great thing, and I'm now delighted to use the 3E versions with a variety of characters :) ... even if the spiked chain does take some of the shine off 'em. :( True, there were other less-used weapons, but I think one difference is whether there was any overlap in existing weapons. Also, back in 1st edition, there was the weapon versus AC adjustment table, so the weapon you used could impact you besides the damage dealt. (Now, our groups never used the chart in question, but I imagine some did ...) I'm thinking that the biggest problem with pole-arms in earlier editions is that the bonus from the shield plays a much bigger impact in that edition than the current edition. Then, you really had to seriously think twice before selecting a two-handed weapon.
Tony Vargas 06-08-06, 06:45 PM	Well, it might have been a house rule, but our groups played the bastard sword so that you could use it eighter one-handed or two-handed - and the usage would impact the damage dealt. Oh, yes, that was the standard rule - it counted as a longsword when used one-handed. What I meant was, 3E gives you a number of options in combat that might make you want to switch between one-handed and two-handed grips, 1E didn't so much (and barely defined which weapons needed two hands to wield). True, there were other less-used weapons, but I think one difference is whether there was any overlap in existing weapons. Nod. It did seem very much like a consolidation. I think that was mostly to the good, as it insured that each weapon was more-or-less unique and balanced. (still think the broadsword could be slid in there, though) ;) Also, back in 1st edition, there was the weapon versus AC adjustment table, so the weapon you used could impact you besides the damage dealt. (Now, our groups never used the chart in question, but I imagine some did ...)Yep. I was one of them, I actually thought it was a good idea. Even I softened it though, and threw it out once magical weapons and armor became involved - largely because the players hated it. I'm thinking that the biggest problem with pole-arms in earlier editions is that the bonus from the shield plays a much bigger impact in that edition than the current edition. Don't you mean that the other way-round? 1E shields were +1 AC and counted against a limitted number of attacks/round, from 'in front.' 3E shields can have +2 or even +4 AC, and there's few circumstances where they don't aply. I suppose shields might see less use in 3E because there are other sources of shield bonuses, and because there are substantial advantages to two-handed weapons. (And, then, of course, in 2E, the power of TWFing impacted the use of shields substantially.)
pres_man 06-08-06, 07:07 PM	Would the following be too powerful? Simple One-handed Melee Weapon Broadsword 13 gp 1d8 20/x2 5 lbs slashing Currently I have the following in my game: Simple Light Melee Weapon Machete 6 gp 1d6 20/x2 2 lbs slashing Just used the sickel stats minus the trip ability for the machete. This currently the "sword" for all of my NPCs that are limited to simple weapons. Would the broadsword stats above be unbalanced for a simple weapon (slashing is more "valuable" than piercing or bludgeoning?).
Tony Vargas 06-08-06, 07:20 PM	By the numbers, that'd be fine, but I don't think a sword of anykind is apropriate as a simple weapon (JMHO), and the dearth of slashing simple weapons also strikes me as intentional, so I'd be hesitant to add a slashing weapon superior to the dagger or sickle to the simple weapon list.
Forged_Fury 06-08-06, 10:03 PM	I was always a fan of the wonderfully named "Holy Water Sprinler" which I do not believe my Cleric could use. (If this was a "historical" term, I really don't care and will happily remain a philistine if I can avoid another page discussion about terminology). Wasn't it another name for a morningstar or something (which of course, Clerics couldn't use back then... darn pointy things)? Sorry, well off-base from the broadsword. I thought the 1E broadsword was pretty weak, but I do recall that just about every thug NPC in a module owned one. -Forged_Fury
WizO_Cat 06-08-06, 11:39 PM	Oh, yes, that was the standard rule - it counted as a longsword when used one-handed. What I meant was, 3E gives you a number of options in combat that might make you want to switch between one-handed and two-handed grips, 1E didn't so much (and barely defined which weapons needed two hands to wield). Well, that's what I was meaning to say about 1st edition. The bastard sword had versatility, and thus there were more characters willing to have their character armed with one in 1st edition solely for that. It's like having your whipped topping and floor wax all wrapped up in one product. Yep. I was one of them, I actually thought it was a good idea. Even I softened it though, and threw it out once magical weapons and armor became involved - largely because the players hated it. Well, then the chart would have given additional flexibility to the weapon choices. Thus, there was a difference with arming with a miliatary pick or some other weapon. All the same, I was of the same mindset as your players. ;) Don't you mean that the other way-round? 1E shields were +1 AC and counted against a limitted number of attacks/round, from 'in front.' 3E shields can have +2 or even +4 AC, and there's few circumstances where they don't aply. I suppose shields might see less use in 3E because there are other sources of shield bonuses, and because there are substantial advantages to two-handed weapons. (And, then, of course, in 2E, the power of TWFing impacted the use of shields substantially.) Nope, you heard me right. Yeah, it was only +1, bu that meant a big deal with an armor class that went from -10 to 10. Throw is magical shield bonuses, and it makes it an even bigger deal. With 3rd edition armor class, that shield bonus does not have as much impact as the earlier editions since the armor class is unlimited with several types of bonuses that can go into it. If you were a 1st level character in first edition wearing chain armor, therewas a big difference between having an AC 5 and an AC 4 with shield. Thus, in my experience, people were less apt to have two-handed weapons because of it.
Thorak 06-08-06, 11:51 PM	I was always a fan of the wonderfully named "Holy Water Sprinler" which I do not believe my Cleric could use. (If this was a "historical" term, I really don't care and will happily remain a philistine if I can avoid another page discussion about terminology). Wasn't it another name for a morningstar or something (which of course, Clerics couldn't use back then... darn pointy things)? It was a morningstar, basically. A longish club with big spikes on the end. So-called because it bunched so many holes in the other guy it sprinkled "holy water" (blood) everywhere.
talon318 06-15-06, 11:52 PM	well I have read all your post and first Strider u are WRONG. the broad sword was a real weapon used by real common people, and if the fools at Thiefs of the Coast dont want to put it in there book then that is there lost. i say up with the broad sword and let the dice roll. it is a GAME folks and ment to have fun I say let the kid have his Viking long sword. because I did because i am the GM for the group that posted the question in the first place. shove that in your hilt. yours GM broad sword friendly slayor.
striderII 06-16-06, 09:27 AM	well I have read all your post and first Strider u are WRONG. the broad sword was a real weapon used by real common people, and if the fools at Thiefs of the Coast dont want to put it in there book then that is there lost. i say up with the broad sword and let the dice roll. it is a GAME folks and ment to have fun I say let the kid have his Viking long sword. because I did because i am the GM for the group that posted the question in the first place. shove that in your hilt. yours GM broad sword friendly slayor. By all means, then, provide documentation to prove your claim. And no, telling me to do it first doesn't count, because you can't prove a negative. Go on. Provide historical documentation. I'll wait. strider
Tony Vargas 06-16-06, 12:50 PM	Nope, you heard me right. Yeah, it was only +1, bu that meant a big deal with an armor class that went from -10 to 10. Throw is magical shield bonuses, and it makes it an even bigger deal. With 3rd edition armor class, that shield bonus does not have as much impact as the earlier editions since the armor class is unlimited with several types of bonuses that can go into it.Interesting. I suppose it might not have as large a proportional impact, but with no upper limit, every possible AC bonus is desireable. Conversely, when you couldn't do better than -10, once you got there, you didn't need any more bonuses. If you could get to -10 without a shield, there'd be no further need for one. And, since there were ways to lose shield bonuses (attacks from behind, for instance), if you were at -10 due to a nice +5 shield, then you were really at -4 much of the time. If you were a 1st level character in first edition wearing chain armor, therewas a big difference between having an AC 5 and an AC 4 with shield. It may have seemed like a big difference in proportion to the total AC range, but it still meant the other guy needed to roll 1 better to hit you. Which is exactly what a +1 AC means now. But now, shields can give you a +2, or even +4 for a tower shield - and, since there's no cap to bump up against the only reason not to have a shield is if you already have a shield bonus from another source, or you just don't have the hand free, because you're using a juicy two-handed weapon. Actually, at the better ACs that wasn't even true. Just as 3E allows natural 20's to always hit, 1E had a string of 20's in the hit table. The first one was a modified 20, but after that, regardless of bonusses, it was natural 20-only. After, I think, 5 of those, it started going up again, meaning you needed a natural 20 /plus/ bonuses... Thus, in my experience, people were less apt to have two-handed weapons because of it.My feeling is that the two-handed weapons just weren't that attractive back then. Sure, a greatsword did a little more damage than a longsword (1-10/3-18 instead of 1-8/1-12), but damage bonuses were pretty substantial, even then, and you were just more likely to find one-handed magical weapons, particularly the longsword, than anything else. Now, two-handers do more damage, and even more damage from STR, and yet more damage from Power Attack.
talon318 06-16-06, 11:04 PM	ok u have a point in the fact that common peasent did not us sword. I will give u that one I thought that was a no brainer any way come on. Yet if u took your nose out of a game book and went out to a Ren fair and went up to a black smith shop i bet u can find a broadswoard for sale. ooo ya you can find a katana also are we going to say they did not exist as well. u ask for prof prof in the pudding. If you dont want to go to a Ren fair go to your local vidio store and rent a movie like the Thirteenth Warrior or excalobor and the list goes on. I know u are going to say that that is hollywood right. The real issue is can a gamer at a table pull out a book that has a broad sword in it and then bring it in to a game. I say YES adds life to the game and flare to the PC :cool:
striderII 06-17-06, 09:46 AM	ok u have a point in the fact that common peasent did not us sword. I will give u that one I thought that was a no brainer any way come on. You know...you'd think that was a "no brainer", but you said: the broad sword was a real weapon used by real common people, So...how much of a "no brainer" is it, exactly? Yet if u took your nose out of a game book and went out to a Ren fair and went up to a black smith shop i bet u can find a broadswoard for sale. Here are some interesting facts for you: 1. I live in Pennsylvania, about 30-40 minutes away from Mount Hope, site of the Pennsylvania Renaissance Faire - one of the top 100 attractions in North America. I've had friends from other states come to visit, to go to the Faire, and they have, without question, stated that the PA Ren Faire was much better than any other faire they'd been to. 2. The PA Ren Faire has several "weapon shops" - the weapons are somewhat seperated between fantasy pieces and historically accurate ones (more or less, depending on the shop in question, people handling weapons, etc.). Guess which pile the "fantasy broadsword" is in? 3. I'm not speaking from the perspective of the game book (clearly, I can't, unless I'm using an older edition, due to the fact that - as stated in this very thread multiple times - there is no "broadsword" in the 3.X rules). I'm speaking from the perspective of an amateur historian/weapon enthusiast/WMA. Your supposition amuses me, however. ooo ya you can find a katana also are we going to say they did not exist as well. I can find a lot of weapons at my local Ren Faire - or online, through reputable weapon manufacturers (C.A.S. Iberia, Darkwood Armory, etc). Many (read: almost all) of the weapons presented have some sort of historical counterpart, even if some replica pieces have decorations, etc, that make them unsuitable for combat - although there were ceremonial weapons made historically, too, so that's nothing new. Add to the fact that there are surviving katana from the periods in which they were in use...and viola, your point is moot. u ask for prof prof in the pudding. No, I asked for "proof", not "prof". On the other hand...mmmm...pudding.... *drool* If you dont want to go to a Ren fair go to your local vidio store and rent a movie like the Thirteenth Warrior or excalobor and the list goes on. I know u are going to say that that is hollywood right. Wow - it's like you're psychic. Hollywood has a long tradition of not portraying weapons with any degree of historical accuracy. To be sure, they are putting much more emphasis into theatrics and such, to get the viewers' attention. And let's face it - historically accurate combat isn't always all that fun to watch, unless you're a WMA or something like that. Also, there are a number of films that are absolutely junk, and not worth the reel they're filmed on - that horrible King Arthur movie comes to mind (I think I got through about 10 minutes of it before I turned it off in disgust). And sure - D&D, to a large extent, is about theatrics and doing neat tricks in combat and so forth. If you want to put a "broadsword" in your game, fine - use some of the stats as presented in this thread, or make up your own. Personally, I don't think the game needs it, as there is no such thing (historically) as a "broadsword", but that's me. The real issue is can a gamer at a table pull out a book that has a broad sword in it and then bring it in to a game. I say YES adds life to the game and flare to the PC I'm not sure why you require a particular weapon to do that - flair can come to the PC through characterization, an interesting race/class combination, interesting backstory, or a button that says "This is my piece of flair". (An extra 10 points if you catch that reference - your hint is that it's a good movie that has nothing to do with history/fantasy.) strider EDIT: Fixed a few grammatical errors. It seems a few of those rogue brain cells actually had a purpose, after all. How vexing.
GreatWyrm 06-17-06, 01:19 PM	And sure - D&D, to a large extent, is about theatrics and doing neat tricks in combat and so forth. If you want to put a "broadsword" in your game, fine - use some of the stats as presented in this thread, or make up your own. Personally, I don't think the game needs it, as there is no such thing (historically) as a "broadsword", but that's me. Personally I beleive you should be able to have whatever weapon you like in D&D, regardless of it's historical accuracy, as long as it's balanced and makes some ammount of sense. You yourself have already mentioned there are no wizards and magic historically, so, I don't even need to go there. If I'm playing a d20 modern game, and I want to fight with a red swingline stapler and have a horde of squirrels for my animal companion, I should, as long as it's not unbalancing. (Mm.. fear the wrath of Milton..)
Kresalak 06-17-06, 07:19 PM	The term "broadsword", as has been stated, meant any sword larger at the base than a rapier. The fantasy one probably comes from the Conan books; I'm not entirely sure.
WuJen3 06-18-06, 11:18 AM	Does it really matter if the broadsword existed?My question is when does reality end and fantasy begin? Yes I understand there has to be some reality to keep a game in check.But isn't the purpose of D&D to Act like you are someone else? So that being said.I have access to both 2nd Ed and 3.5 and I would rather take exotic weapon feat bastardsword and have the option to use it one handed or two handed than use a broadsword.Since it does the same amount of damage in the newer books being published.And in 2nd I would rather have a longsword than a broadsword due to it doing the same damage(2d4=1d8 one the lowest is 2 other lowest 1). Kris isn't in 3.5 either I'm assuming they put it with a dagger.
Sir Elton 06-18-06, 11:58 AM	My husband wants to know why 3.5 has eliminated the "broadsword" from the weapons tables. (Has the bastard sword taken its place?) The Longsword, broadsword, and arming sword all refer to the same weapon and are used interchangeably. Just like the Bastard Sword and the Late Medieval Longsword are used interchangeably. :D
WuJen3 06-18-06, 02:57 PM	There is another name for a broadsword in history arming sword.You can find it on goggle.
Vahenir 06-18-06, 10:06 PM	No one is claiming the -type- of sword often called 'broadsword' didn't exist, but rather that the TERM did not exist and is, itself, faulty. No one is saying that 'Viking swords' didn't exist. They're saying that they weren't 'broadswords.'
Wonton2006 06-18-06, 11:30 PM	Out of curiousity, why does anyone miss the Broadsword in particular? Unless it was a simple weapon, there are already too many martial swords to worry about it.
Johannixx 06-19-06, 01:44 AM	Out of curiousity, why does anyone miss the Broadsword in particular? Unless it was a simple weapon, there are already too many martial swords to worry about it. Flavor, I'm guessing. Fortunately, you can apply a single set of statistics to multiple weapons, as long as they're similar enough. Use longsword or bastard sword stats for the Conan-esque broadsword, and longsword stats with an increase in weight and a bonus to resist disarms, and you have a Scottish or English basket-hilt.
VonRichthofen 06-19-06, 02:37 AM	As to my knowledge: At university, I was taught that "longsword" is actually a pretty loose term for most swords from the Dark Ages to early Rennaissance weapons. Whereas "broadsword" clearly depicts a blade that has parallel cutting edges, i.e. does not taper to just before the point. A broadsword therefore tends to have a more slender blade than the longsword, at least at the base. A common missconception here of the broadsword having a wide/heavy blade. As was pointed out correctly, the broadsword was a slashing weapon first and a piercing one second. The "classical" longsword, if ever there was one, of let's say the crusader era was mostly used to thrust, for since the rivetted chainmail/shield of the contemporal knights gave few spots that could actually be cut to notable effect. At lowly common soldiers with their less elaborate and less expensive armour, you would slash away, tough. ;) Most decisive wounds in that period are reported to have been stabbing wounds to the face, as it was not so very well protected back then. Keep in mind, however, that these terms are shifting terrain. There does not seem to exist one totally unified terminology concerning bladed weapons, especially swords. So, the longsword's stats are about right I guess. It is roughly a comparable weapon - unless you want a "claymore", sometimes dubbed "highlander broadsword" - then go for bastard... Just my five cents VR
Vahenir 06-19-06, 04:09 AM	As to my knowledge: At university, I was taught that "longsword" is actually a pretty loose term for most swords from the Dark Ages to early Rennaissance weapons. If you've garnered all of your posted comments from University, I seriously question the capabilties of your professor. It's worth noting that some very intelligent professors are not versed in this field and cannot speak intelligently about it. For instance, a very intelligent woman, whose name I cannot seem to recall right now, right a wonderful book about the Knights Templar for Osprey, but consistently uses ridiculous and useless terms like broadsword and chainmail. The simple fact is that military matters are not part of her expertise and so she cannot speak intelligently about them. I only say all that to point out that saying your professor is wrong is not a slight against him/her, or a claim that they don't know anything. Just that military history (specifically, accoutrements of war) is not their area of expertise. Whereas "broadsword" clearly depicts a blade that has parallel cutting edges, i.e. does not taper to just before the point. This would be incorrect. The meaning of 'broadsword' is undisputed -- it refers to any sword with a blade 'broader' than that of the civilian swords of the era. That would mean that virtually all military swords are broadswords, regardless of profile taper (or lackthereof). A broadsword therefore tends to have a more slender blade than the longsword, at least at the base. A common missconception here of the broadsword having a wide/heavy blade. This makes very little sense. Longswords, in the correct usage, are generally either as wide as, or thinner than, single-hand swords (your "broadswords"). If by 'longsword' you are referring to later-era single-hand swords, you would still be incorrect, because many such swords are roughly equal in broadness to earlier style single-handers with parallel edges. As was pointed out correctly, the broadsword was a slashing weapon first and a piercing one second. There is no such thing as 'the' broadsword. The term is unspecific to any particular kind of sword and refers to practically every military sword. . .ever. If by 'broadsword' you mean early-style single-hand medieval swords, then you are, at least, correct about their function. The "classical" longsword, if ever there was one, of let's say the crusader era was mostly used to thrust, for since the rivetted chainmail/shield of the contemporal knights gave few spots that could actually be cut to notable effect. Incorrect on a few levels. The first is that you aren't bothering to define what you consider a 'classical longsword.' Saying the 'Crusader Era' does not help, as the Crusades lasted a very long time and saw quite a few changes in military equipment. If by 'longsword' you refer to a single-hand sword with a more tapered blade, you would be incorrect. Single-hand swords are quite ineffective at piercing mail. The single-hand thrust just is not powerful enough to do so. As a matter of fact, it's quite easy to see that during the height of mail as the pre-eminent form of body protection the cutting sword was favoured. Swords such as the Type X developed specifically to combat mail, and were not thrusting swords. You see, a strong cut will bend the links of mail, possibly breaking them. And even if it doesn't, the force and trauma of the blow transfers directly through the mail, even if the sword's edge fails to cut. Most decisive wounds in that period are reported to have been stabbing wounds to the face, as it was not so very well protected back then. Says whom? Reading the historical texts, it seems the most grievous wounds were -cuts- to the face, head, and body which damaged even when mail wasn't cut. Stabs to the face wouldn't become common until the 1200s, when the sword gained more capability as a thrusting weapon, and even then would remain a sub-optimal choice for many years. There does not seem to exist one totally unified terminology concerning bladed weapons, especially swords. No, but there are accepted usages of words among scholars and enthusiasts. Longsword, for instance, refers to a hand-and-a-half sword (this is actually a point I hugely disagree with, but it doesn't matter if I agree). Single-hand swords are arming swords. Or just swords. Typology seems to be the best way to describe particular kinds of swords. That isn't to say that we can't use more. . . expressive. . terminology in fantasy gaming. But to claim it has historical basis, or is valid terminology outside of gaming, is obviously silly. It is roughly a comparable weapon - unless you want a "claymore", sometimes dubbed "highlander broadsword" - then go for bastard... Why would you want to make an expressly single-hand sword by using stats that require it to be used two-handed without special 'training?' That makes little sense. The claymore would, more appropriately, have longsword stats in D&D, the same as any other straight-bladed single-hand sword.
VonRichthofen 06-19-06, 05:18 AM	See, that's what I feared. Somebody comes up with his/her own "truth". That's why I said it is not universally defined. I could now begin citing scientific literature to back my point, as you could do for yours' (maybe - though citing Osprey doesn't show much of a deeper insight;) ) But please forgive me for having more pressig matters to do than to break loose a scientific debate concerning swords with a person I do not even know. Just bear inmind that your "accepted terms" are not as generally accepted as you would make them. Maybe the military history guys from Great Britain and Germany who wrote my stuff are just oafs, but I don't think so, honestly. So I will let it stand - have fun VR
Subedei 06-20-06, 09:27 AM	Unfortunately I am no longer allowed to carelessly insult people on these forums :( I'm not saying you're wrong Vahenir, or that I really disagree with you because, after all, you use the same terms I do for the most part. However, will say that the use of broadsword you call incorrect is pretty widely used, and by some pretty official sources. "Just because a lot of semi-official people use it doesn't make it right!" I suppose you'll respond. Well, it really kind of does, to a certain extent. broad·sword ( P ) Pronunciation Key (brôdsôrd, -srd) n. A sword with a wide, usually two-edged blade that is designed for slashing rather than thrusting. If the dictionary says a word means something I'm not going to call someone wrong for using it that way, regardless of how many informed scholarly circles use it a different way. When I'm talking to those circles I'll use it how they use it. There's a certain point at which the use of certain words to refer to certain things (Rapier used to refer to cut and thrust swords, for instance) becomes far too confusing and an established usage of the word should be more enforced but I don't think that applies to 'Broadsword'. I'm not saying you should necessarily stop telling people to use broadsword in the 17th-19th century fashion but calling practice otherwise erroneous is unecessary and not completely grounded.
WuJen3 06-20-06, 01:30 PM	Out of curiousity, why does anyone miss the Broadsword in particular? Unless it was a simple weapon, there are already too many martial swords to worry about it. The question wasn't who missed the broadsword.The question was why was the broadsword not placed the 3.5 PHB. Personally I never did like it and I don't miss it. My personal preference is a longsword for straight one handed, bastardsword for either one handed or two handed, and finally greatsword for straight two handed. Everyone has their personal preferences. ;)
docballen 06-20-06, 02:19 PM	Because the term "broadsword" isn't useful. It's an early modern term used to refer to any sword broader at the base than a rapier. It can be used to describe pretty much any medieval-era sword. About the only sword that's actually specifically called a broadsword is the highland broadsword and variations of it, the basket-hilted sword. And even then, a longsword covers you stat-wise. I agree with this post-- it's from waaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy back in the thread. You have to understand, I'm short and what might be a "shortsword" to most of the people on the discussion here is probably a "longsword" to me. I prefer terms like "epee", "foil", "rapier", "claymore", "kris", "katana", or anything that I can specifically back up with inches or centimetres. I got a mess of differing defenitions when I Googled the term "broadsword"-- and looking it up in the Dictionary does absolutely no good-- I know what people commonly think a broadsword is, I want to know what it actually is (historically and technically.) I put "broadsword" in with the "fiddle"-- it's a term that "ignorant" people use when they really don't know what they're talking about. If you go into a store or a market where there are people with at least a small degree of knowledge, they will try to educate you on correct terminology ("it's called a violin, not a fiddle,") and hopefully not try to sell you some absolute junk and call it a "broadsword" just to make a sale.
Vahenir 06-20-06, 07:37 PM	However, will say that the use of broadsword you call incorrect is pretty widely used, and by some pretty official sources. Wide use does not make something correct, as you assumed I'd say. Consider the incredibly widespread use of the utterly retarded "plate mail." The term is absurd - but used widely by people who know no better. "Just because a lot of semi-official people use it doesn't make it right!" I suppose you'll respond. Well, it really kind of does, to a certain extent. But it doesn't. All the recognition of such a term in an 'official' source does is prove that the term is widely used. It does not mean it's correct in any way. The dictionary is a good example - not only is the dictionary not always correct (I'll get to that in a moment), but all it exists to do is provide a reference for words. If a word is widely used, it has to show up in the dictionary - that's the dictionary's purpose. So all one can prove by citing a dictionary is that a word is widely used in an incorrect fashion. If the dictionary says a word means something I'm not going to call someone wrong for using it that way, regardless of how many informed scholarly circles use it a different way. Why not? It's still wrong. And saying something that is wrong, is wrong, is perfectly acceptable. How can people learn and come to understand simple facts if no one is willing to 'contradict' an 'official' source that is giving faulty information? To cite an excellent example, here is the dictionary definition of 'falchion.' "A short, broad sword with a convex cutting edge and a sharp point, used in medieval times." It's wrong. First of all, a falchion is rarely 'short.' And if the dictionary does not refer to the 'broadsword' as short, it cannot refer to the falchion as short, either - they're roughly the same size (where the term 'broadsword's wide application refers to single-handers as well as other swords). Furthermore, many falchions do not have sharp points at all (with many being practically square at the end). So the definition here is erroneous. Should I not point that out to people who follow the definition, for fear of contradicting such an 'official' source? Not to be argumentative, but a word being used incorrectly by a lot of people does not make that usage any less incorrect. I'm not saying you should necessarily stop telling people to use broadsword in the 17th-19th century fashion but calling practice otherwise erroneous is unecessary and not completely grounded. I want to be clear. I'm not saying the word 'broadsword' needs to be abolished altogether. As I stated earlier - I think it's perfectly fine as a colourful fantasy term. My problem is largely with people who refer to "medieval broadswords" (how very redundant, even by the 'official' definition) and especially with people who refer to wanting stats for 'the broadsword.' The issue is that there is no "the" broadsword. The term is incredibly inspecific and cannot be used to refer to one particular kind of sword. Even by the definition you provided, there is no mention of handedness or style. Therefore, the term is extremely faulty when one tries to apply it to a PARTICULAR kind of sword. "That is a broadsword." - -- I hate statements like this, but I can't fully call it wrong, you are correct. "The broadsword is a Viking sword (or whatever the person happens to be claiming).." --- This statement is fully wrong, because it implies that the term 'broadsword' is specific in its application, and it isn't. See what I'm saying?
Tony Vargas 06-20-06, 08:43 PM	So all one can prove by citing a dictionary is that a word is widely used in an incorrect fashion. Not incorrect, just differently that it may be used in a given jargon. Words mean what people use them to mean, languages change over time, and dictionaries try to keep up with it. 'Broadsword' can have both a precise meaning in the jargon of antiquarians and a different meaning in common usage - and it could acquire yet another, different but precise meaning in the jargon of RPGers. I suppose that last possibility is worth crusading against? To cite an excellent example, here is the dictionary definition of 'falchion.' "A short, broad sword with a convex cutting edge and a sharp point, used in medieval times." It's wrong. First of all, a falchion is rarely 'short.' There aren't exactly a lot of physical examples of falchions sitting around, are there? And how many of them that are were actually called that by the people who forged or fought with them? "The" falchion was used all over europe, but I doubt the word transcended the various languages of the day. Someone, at some later point, decided on the label. Just like some fencers started calling old-fashioned swords 'broad' and, now, some people call said fencers' cut-and-thrust swords rapiers, while others insist that there is no such thing as a cut-and-thrust-sword. :rolleyes: Furthermore, many falchions do not have sharp points at all (with many being practically square at the end). Then they're not (that) dictionary-definition 'falchions.' What's so horrific about that? So the definition here is erroneous. Should I not point that out to people who follow the definition, for fear of contradicting such an 'official' source?It's a lot closer than the D&D falchion, though, you have to admit. Not to be argumentative, but a word being used incorrectly by a lot of people does not make that usage any less incorrect. If it's used that way long enough and often enough, ironically, it does. Take the word 'complexion.' Today, it refers to the color and apearance of your skin. In Shakespear's day, it specifically meant the apearance of your facial features. The meaning changed. Happens all the time - it happens a little slower, now, thanks to things like dictionaries. That's one reason it's so often convenient to use a specialized jargon, or, at least, to define what you mean when you pull out a word that has multiple possible meanings in context... D&D has it's own jargon. 'Round,' for instance, means something completely different in D&D than it does in common parlance, and, though it's presumably derived from boxing, it doesn't have that same meaning, either. 'Falchion' in D&D has a meaning that bears little resemblance to archaic usage, comman parlance, or antiquarian jargon. 'Broadsword' isn't in D&D now, but it has been in the past, so it should come as no surprise that it would come up. When it does, historical perspective and scholarly usage is certainly interesting and worth knowing - but it doesn't need to take precedence over the way the word was used in D&D in the past, and has been used in fantasy fiction and common parlance. Oh, and when it does come up: 2d4 (20/x2). ;)
Vahenir 06-20-06, 11:44 PM	Then they're not (that) dictionary-definition 'falchions.' What's so horrific about that? The fact that they -are- falchions. The point was that the dictionary definition is -wrong-, like it or not. In any event, Tony, I think you're misunderstanding me here, so let me say it (for the third time) once more: I don't have a problem with the word 'broadsword' existing. I really don't. I use the word in my Conan games, because it's not only a weapon in the game, but it was a word Howard used. It fits. If all RPGers want to -create- a specific meaning to 'broadsword' and agree on it - more friggin' power to them. Personally, I think single-hand swords NEED more definitive terminology (and I've got into plenty of arguments about that with other enthusiasts and scholars of the subject). MY problem is when people try to claim -historical basis- for their incorrect terminology usage. They say "oh, so and so was a broadsword -DUH!" as if they have any clue what they're talking about. A Viking sword was not 'a broadsword' - and the existance of such swords is not evidence that the term 'broadsword' is correct. If you want to use the term - use it. Just don't act like it's an accurate term and argue against the actual reason it exists. Accept its historical relevance, and move on. But many people aren't willing to do that. They insist that the way they use it is the 'historically correct' or the 'scholarly' way to use it. It isn't. Take Von's first post here, for instance. He's trying to claim that his definition of broadsword is scholarly. And he's wrong according to every authoritive source I know of (which is quite a few - such as ARMA and Oakeshott himself). If, instead, he just said "well I use broadsword this way because I like to" or somesuch - end of discussion. That's fine. Use what terms you will, but don't pretend it's scholarly. That is what bugs me. And that's how these arguments start. Someone starts a post vaguely stating "I want a broadsword in my game." Someone else points out "the term broadsword is unspecific to any given sword, it's an erroneous term and so you'll need to describe more vividly what you're asking for." Then someone else pops in (or the original poster) and says "yeah huh, a broadsword was historically this kind of sword" -etc. See the issue, now?
Ltlconf 06-21-06, 03:18 AM	Hello Folks, Vahenir, I don't know your history, background, or educational level ect. Or even where you're from and frankly, you don't know this about Tony. Me, I've been around the world a few times, seen some fights, got a couple of degrees and wasted alot of time in hobbies that taught me alot and sucked alot of money. But hey, they made me smile. Tony had a valid point you completely missed: few can really agree on what most of this jargon really means and gave you the reasons why. Let me try in another fashion by asking a question totally out of topic; What is a assault rifle? Well ask a soldier who used it day in and day out for over a decade (like me :D ) and you'll get one answer. Ask a agent with the ATF you'll get yet another. Lawyers for various government agencies at the local, state, and federal level that enforce gun laws will give (multiple) another answer(s). Historians and gun nuts all will give varying answers and reasons for them. Such is the way of things. Sure a falchion is what you say it is, it was ALSO what a dictionary says it is. I also bet the Websters and Oxford will give two slightly different definitions! Frankly a falchion was whatever the man using "it" says it was and was likely a general "style" rather than a hard and fast weapon type anyway (a "single-edged chopping sword sorta thingy") that was both short or long depending on the 'smith who churned 'em out and customer requests. As a vet I assure you that's likely the situation. Example two: Today what a light to heavy machinegun is and was depends on what generation you talk to, what army you're in (or studying), and which historian is writing the book! And that's MODERN weaponry! Let some PHD tell a grunt what his "tool" is and things will get real ugly. He uses it after all, he oughta know what it is, and he's going to write the memoir the historians are going to use 200 years later as first person evidence. See what we (Tony and I) mean? Fact is Vahenir what Tony and I are driving at is the historical community fights like cats in a flooding room with one chair over military, uniform, and weapon terminology and no complete consensus is ever reached. That contemporary documentation doesn't either (again in Tony's point) adds oil to the fire. Historians and fanboys (like me) want nice neat explanations, catagories, and definitions that, in reality, rarely if ever existed (even in the fevered dreams of the supply seargent). So lets drop all this and get on with the point of the thread.
MJuggernaut 06-21-06, 09:36 AM	Originally posted by StriderII "This is my piece of flair". HAHAHAHAhahaa! Office space man! I didn't read the majority of the second page of this thread...I only wanted to exclaim what movie the quote was from. I hope no one already said it.
striderII 06-21-06, 04:09 PM	HAHAHAHAhahaa! Office space man! I didn't read the majority of the second page of this thread...I only wanted to exclaim what movie the quote was from. I hope no one already said it. Not that I saw. You win the big prize!* strider * - No prize, big or otherwise, actually awarded.
WuJen3 06-27-06, 10:40 AM	I have seen all wanted see and this I will proably be the last post I do on this thread. I've said my peace on the broad sword.I think the question was answered on the fisrt page.
GreatWyrm 06-27-06, 04:32 PM	Not that I saw. You win the big prize!* strider * - No prize, big or otherwise, actually awarded. Check my post on page 2... I was more subtle about it, though..