Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Prescient 01-01-05, 03:37 PM	Some of you may have read my thread detailing my dissappointment on the damage type system that D&D have implemented. I love every other aspect of this game, except maybe the way magic works, I just think they could have done a little better in this respect. In my professional opinion, yes I am a professional where this is concerned, all weapons can be improvised to do bludgeoning damage. Even the katana has uses for the dull edge of the blade hitting opponents. The broadside of any blade can be used to bludgeon. It is for this reason that I would give all weapons in any campaign that I run the chance to do bludgeoning damage as an improvised roll, -4 to hit. However, those weapons would not be able to have any magical effects that apply to bludgeoning weapons. Also, all swords, except by aberration, would have both slashing and piercing damage. However, I would not automatically give that to all swords. Certain weapons, such as the sai or the modern rapier, would have only piercing. Where the scimitar would have only slashing. These weapons were made specifically for that purpose. A short sword, though, would have both slashing and piercing. For the purpose of creating the chinese longsword I got my inspiration from the movie Hero. I wanted to make a similar character for D&D but I could find a sword that would apply in that way. So I made this exotic weapon: Exotic One-handed Weapon Weapon Cost Damage Critical Weight Type Chinese Longsword* 25gp 1d8 19-20/X2 3 lb. Slashing or Piercing *The Chinese Longsword is considered a light weapon for the purpose of selecting the Weapon Finesse Feat. As I am probably not as well versed in the rules as most of you, please tell me if this seems like a balanced sword.
TyraaloftheFist 01-01-05, 04:20 PM	It looks greatly balanced to me, but maybe even slightly underpowered...but you also raise a good point about swords. I can think of lots of sword techniques that I've seen/tried with swords that use the point for attacks, and you could also make a modification to the sword that would leave it with one blunt/dull edge that would deal bludgeoning damage...
Kulthos 01-01-05, 04:50 PM	The broadside of any blade can be used to bludgeon. A lot of swords (if not all) would bend or break if you struck anything with the flat of the blade with any force. Pommels, handguards, or a metal sheath can be used to club people with, however. I would give the option of allowing someone to make a 1d4 clubbing attack using the butt of the weapon, or use the scabbard as a normal club. Swords are great if you hit on edge, but they are not very thick.
Prescient 01-01-05, 05:30 PM	A lot of swords (if not all) would bend or break if you struck anything with the flat of the blade with any force. You are absolutely right. Swords run an incredible risk of breaking if struck on the broadside of their blades, hence the usefulness of a sai. However, if you strike sonething else with the weapon, then it can bludgeon. Now if you hit something hard, like a boulder, then yeah, it could break much easier than if you hit a person in armor. This also depends on the blade in question. If you hit with the broadside of a katana then it would break much easier than if you hit with the broadside of a tai chi longsword (or chinese longsword in my former description). The reason is that the tai chi longsword would bend with the force while the katana would simply shatter. I agree with you that all bludgeoning attacks made with weapons not made for that type of damage should be no more than 1d4. But different weapons give different flavors to how that damage is done. It looks greatly balanced to me, but maybe even slightly underpowered... Do you really think that it is underpowered? What would you add or change?
11d7 01-01-05, 05:33 PM	Dont make it exotic, in most cases it would be used in an asian campaign, it would the be martial since there is noting exotic about it.
Prescient 01-01-05, 05:37 PM	Dont make it exotic, in most cases it would be used in an asian campaign, it would the be martial since there is noting exotic about it. Although I named it "Chinese Longsword" it was not my intention to just make it an asian weapon for an asian campaign. I named it such so that readers of my post would understand what I was trying to demonstrate. Really, I think, it could be adapted into any campaign as just a longsword, and it could be adapted to any sword, that can be used with agility and utilize techniques that would allow it to pierce or slash equally.
SoupFork 01-01-05, 06:41 PM	I would actually keep it exotic due to the possibility of applying 2 types of damage as well as being able to take the weapon finesse feat on it.
Razoreface 01-01-05, 07:42 PM	Now if you hit something hard, like a boulder, then yeah, it could break much easier than if you hit a person in armor. I once took a friend's fairly good quality, non-stainless short sword and whacked my forearm with the flat of the blade, hard. And my arm isn't armor plated. The sword still has a little yaw in it. A stainless one would probably have shattered.. I've broken a couple of those things before. Mostly katanas, because I'm anti-fanboy. :) Your weapon though, is different. I wouldn't even call it new, or exotic.. more like putting proper stats onto a decent sword. Most swords.. european swords that I'm familiar with anyway, didn't just have one kind of edge. Pretty much all short swords, non-rapier like broadswords, and longswords have long sharp edges, and pretty good points on them. Slashing and piercing, not one or the other.
Prescient 01-01-05, 08:07 PM	As my experience, actually working with but not scholastically, is limited to asian weapons of all different types, you are probably right about being able to damage a short sword, or any other european sword, just by hitting the broadside of it. I know you are right about breaking katanas, as I have stated previously, I have broken several katanas myself. I disagree with putting piercing and slashing instead of piercing or slashing. The reason is that most swords you either use to cut or to stab, not both simultaneously. Certain weapons, such as a spiked mace or manriki gusari, would do both bludgeoning and piercing at the same time. A sword shaped like the bastard swords used in the Lord of the Ring movies by the orcs that ended with a sort of spike coming out at the top would possibly do piercing ans slashing in the same strike but normal swords would not.
TyraaloftheFist 01-01-05, 09:22 PM	I don't really know what to add...if the threat range was boosted, it wouldn't be finessable...maybe let dexterity be used for damage? I agree with Prescient about damage types, but I don't think that the orcs' swords would do both slashing and piercing unless you mean the freaky, deathmasked orc berserkers with the five-foot-long blades on their 'swords'. Hey, this might sound stupid, but what's a manriki gusari? It sounds cool...and by spiked mace, would you mean morningstar with a metal haft?
Prescient 01-01-05, 09:30 PM	By spiked mace I meant a morningstar. A manriki gusari is a chain weapon used in fuedal japan that had a heavy maetal weight attached to the end. They would be used to strike, disarm and tie up (for lack of a better word) enemies. The chain comes in various lengths, in the U.S. the common length that most martial arts stores sells is 4 ft but they can range up to 10 feet plus the reach of your arm. Although 10 ft are hard to work with and easily avoided.
der_gogo 01-01-05, 09:31 PM	IIRC there is the Elven Thinblade in Complete Warrior that has exactly the same stats like your weapon. Maybe its even crits on 18-20. I think different weapon types are for balancing reasons mainly. Which fighter would ever use a mace or warhammer? (From a game mechanical point of view) A fighter that wades into battle against hordes of skeletons....
Prescient 01-01-05, 09:43 PM	I agree with you about needing those kinds of game mechanics. However, the reality is so overwhelming, at least to me, that the mechanics should have been different in the first place. I didn't know that about the elven thinblade, can someone put it up here so I can see it? I am not near my books this weekend. BTW, do you think that the elven thinblade would be a decent alternative to being a prereq to Bladesinger?
Oakspar77777 01-01-05, 10:41 PM	I think what you are getting at with the broad stroke with the sword is really nothing more than what the books lable as "dealing non-leathal damage" with a weapon. You even mirror the penalty to hit. Why is this? Because even with a flat hit you are not swinging with the wieght or the force of a SOLID built for crushing weapon. Dull a sword however you want, and you still won't drive a spike with it.
TyraaloftheFist 01-01-05, 10:47 PM	Yes, it is a decent alternative. I don't remember how much it costs, but it might be easy to imagine it being a chinese longsword with a bit of backstory modification. The stats, that I can remember, are 1d8, 18-20/x2, weighs as much as a short sword and is finessable.
Prescient 01-01-05, 11:12 PM	what about damage types for the elven thinblade? Is it just piercing?
Vahenir 01-01-05, 11:21 PM	Let's see.. Sai: Don't make them piercing. They're not piercing weapons, as traditional sai are BLUNT. They have no edge and no point. They're like.. nifty crowbars, or tonfas. Swords: Most swords can't do a lot of damage with their flats or non-edges. They just don't have the necessary heft for a weighty bludgeon. However, the guard and pommel (and basket/knuckle-bow if applicable) can be used for bludgeoning attacks. Likewise, most other weapons can do this to some degree. So saying any weapon can be used to deal bludgeoning damage as an improvised weapon is just fine. Although it may remove the necessity to carry bludgeoning weapons. In my games, I've implemented a slightly different attack and damage rule (Dex to attacks, always - Str to damage, always). Lacking that, I'd say go ahead and make ALL weapons finessable. The fact is, it takes manual dexterity, agility and coordination to use a weapon. Period. No matter how big and 'clumsy' you've HEARD it is - it takes dexterity to wield a weapon properly. So making all weapons finessable is not out of the realm of reason. Not only that, it's not unbalancing. After all.. Strength fighters get their best score to both attack and damage.. I can't see how allowing a Dex fighter to use his best score for attack is so bad. Oh.. the piercing/slashing thing. Most swords should be able to deal both (though not at the same time). If you want to get SPECIFIC - there were styles of arming sword in the earlier years which weren't much for thrusting. And of course, later years saw the rapier lose any real edge it had. And the smallsword had almost no edge.
Leonardo_Hilt 01-01-05, 11:29 PM	I think the various weapon damage types are just descriptors to quantify game mechanics like damage reduction. To imagine that a dagger or short sword can only be used to stab (piercing) is roughly the same as a DM saying that a sword (or any weapon) can "only" be used to deal damage --you can't use it to wedge a door open, or stick it in the ground to tie off a rope, or as a paperweight, or to whitle a toy boat. There are times when the game must stray from hard rules. So what to do about damage types? For most swords, I'd allow either type of damage (piercing or slashing). Certainly for the short sword, longsword, greatsword, bastard sword and dagger. Probably even the scimitar. If you are concerned about game balance, how about a -2 to hit when doing damage that isn't the standard type? (Although I'd change Greatsword standard to piercing then, IMHO). This could work with most edged weapons having a standard damage type and a secondary at -2 to hit. Many polearms or hafted weapons could have bludgeoning as a secondary damage type. But I don't think swords could. This is not to say you can't use a sword to bludgeon, because you can. But hitting with the blunt side of katana or the flat of a short sword is not using the weapon to best of its ability. I would use improvised weapon rules, whatever they may be for your campaign; ie, a longsword is roughly equivalent to a club (1d6 bludgeoning damage) and probably a -4 to hit. Will you break your sword doing this? I think no. Is it good for the sword? Nope. It might bend a bit, but swords can bend even when used normally. The rapier as described in the PH, I imagine to be roughly equivalent to a "schlager" bladed weapon (about 3/4 of an inch wide, very little taper). Historically, rapiers had some slashing capabilities, though sometimes only the last several inches were sharpened. That being said, the schlager isn't a historical blade. A well-made one is very rigid edgeways, but not much mass to it for slashing. I'd limit the slashing damage done with a rapier if that's how you envision your rapiers. If you are imagining a more historical rapier with a wider but tapered blade, then allow the slashing. By the by, a well made schlager can be folded well past 90 degrees and still return to true. Anyway, just some thoughts...
Vahenir 01-01-05, 11:44 PM	This could work with most edged weapons having a standard damage type and a secondary at -2 to hit. I'd go with a penalty to damage, instead of to hit. Your less likely to do severe damage using a weapon in a way it's only secondarily designed to be used, that doesn't mean it's actually harder to hit someone in that way. But that's just my preference, and I don't employ a penalty myself, anyway. Will you break your sword doing this? I think no. Is it good for the sword? Nope. It might bend a bit, but swords can bend even when used normally. Swords are notorious bludgeoning weapons. Look at -any- Medieval fighting manuals. Where do you think the term "to pommel someone" came from? That's right - hitting someone with the pommel of a sword. THAT is how you use a sword as a bludgeoning weapon - by smashing someone's face in with the hilt. If you are imagining a more historical rapier with a wider but tapered blade Bwah...? A true, historical, rapier was a very slim piece of steel. It had a BIT of taper, but not much - as it was already very thin. Early rapiers had some slashing capability, but not too much. This abiltiy was lessened over time until the rapier evolved into the smallsword, which had almost no ability to slash. I'd allow rapiers to deal slashing damage, but the damage die would have to come down one step - because rapiers were not slashing weapons. That is the historical rapier. Sideswords had rapier-like hilts but wider blades that were more arming sword-like. That, I would rule, is just a "longsword."
der_gogo 01-02-05, 07:05 AM	Swords are notorious bludgeoning weapons. Look at -any- Medieval fighting manuals. Where do you think the term "to pommel someone" came from? That's right - hitting someone with the pommel of a sword. THAT is how you use a sword as a bludgeoning weapon - by smashing someone's face in with the hilt. Yes, but this smashing is not really more damaging than the steel gauntlet your typical D&D Fighter is using.... So definitely not the normal weapon damage, and maybe also not Str x1.5 for using two-handed.... A true, historical, rapier was a very slim piece of steel. It had a BIT of taper, but not much - as it was already very thin. Early rapiers had some slashing capability, but not too much. This abiltiy was lessened over time until the rapier evolved into the smallsword, which had almost no ability to slash. I'd allow rapiers to deal slashing damage, but the damage die would have to come down one step - because rapiers were not slashing weapons. That is the historical rapier. Sideswords had rapier-like hilts but wider blades that were more arming sword-like. That, I would rule, is just a "longsword." Hm, since there is no saber in D&D (well maybe you could say a scimitar is kind of a saber) and the picture in the PHB looks like one, for my feeling the rapier is a bit like one. So slashing or piercing would be okay. Can you tell me when rapiers - used in the renaissance in europe - evolved to shortswords - used in ancient rome and greece 2000 years ago? :eek:
Mirtek 01-02-05, 07:49 AM	Why Weapon Finesse? Such a fluid, gracfull fighting style like i Tiger&Dragon could easily be the result of just having a high BAB, no need for weapon finesse. People without WF can have beatiful, complicated fighting styles too, they're not limited to crude hacks and swings
JimC 01-02-05, 10:03 AM	A lot of swords (if not all) would bend or break if you struck anything with the flat of the blade with any force. Pommels, handguards, or a metal sheath can be used to club people with, however. The flat of the blade was use to parry when you couldn't find a better option. Hollywood sword play is, well, pathetic and wrong. Taking a sharp blow on edge is far more likely to cause a tempered blade damage than taking them on flat. I seriously doubt anyone is going to break a historically accurate sword by hitting something with the flat of the blade. Can you tell me when rapiers - used in the renaissance in europe - evolved to shortswords - used in ancient rome and greece 2000 years ago? :eek: I'm going to let Vahenir school you on this one, should be fun.
Schmidit 01-02-05, 10:51 AM	The flat of a sword isn't going to do any real damage. From years in martial arts all the flat of a sword is going to do is **** someone off. The sword just dosen't carry the weight a mace that does the same damage as a longsword weighs twice as much. A short sword dosen't have the blade length or weight needed for a decent slash against someone. To actually penatrate with the cutting edge would be very hard when the opponet is wearing any type of metal armor. You may be able to cut into an appendage but probably not anything vital. It says in the PHB that some weapons deal both types of damage at the same time and for other weapons you have to choose. So with the Orc's weapon they would choose whether to use either piercing or slashing. there is a feat in living arcanis called tip of the blade that allows you to make slashing attacks with a rapier. There is also a feat that allows you to strike with the haft of a polearm The chinese longsword itsslf is a bit overpowered because it is a d8 damage weapon that can be finessed. If you made it wxotic it would be fine though.
der_gogo 01-02-05, 11:03 AM	I'm going to let Vahenir school you on this one, should be fun. Yes, I love to learn something new, but plz add some URLs or something to prove it to me. (And no LARP-pages plz). ty :D
Leonardo_Hilt 01-02-05, 01:27 PM	Yes, I love to learn something new, but plz add some URLs or something to prove it to me. (And no LARP-pages plz). ty :D If you don't mind I'll field this one.... Re-read the post. Rapiers did not evolve into short swords, they evolved into smallswords. A smallsword is a bit shorter than a rapier, with a blade usually a triangular cross-section, like a modern fencing epee. It has a needle sharp point and minimal slashing capabilities. Here is a good example of one. (http://www.liongate-armsandarmour.com/cbs5.htm) (It is a for-sale site, so the page may disappear if it gets updated.) You can see smallswords in action in the final duel in Dangerous Liasons, or the opening duel in the Duellists (Keith Carradine/ Harvey Keitel, 1977). They are sometimes called courtswords or scarf swords. Some versions had an enormously wide forte (the base of the blade closest to the hilt) that suddenly tapered to the more standard smallsword blade width. This gave the weapon a solid parry, without changing the weapon's use (almost exclusively thrusting) too much.
Vahenir 01-02-05, 02:44 PM	Leonardo already took the smallsword/rapier thing, so I'll cover some other stuff: A short sword dosen't have the blade length or weight needed for a decent slash against someone. To actually penatrate with the cutting edge would be very hard when the opponet is wearing any type of metal armor. You may be able to cut into an appendage but probably not anything vital. WHAT?! A short sword is PERFECTLY capable of cutting someone open. No, you can't cut into armour, but neither can most other swords. Scimitars, even arming swords - can't cut through metal armour. That's a given. So what? That doesn't mean a weapon is ineffectual. Sword sword cuts are still very dangerous. The gladius has been proven capable of hacking off a limb - and that was nothing more than a Roman version of a shortsword. Furthermore, the shortsword was a staple weapon for HUNDREDS, nay THOUSANDS of years. If it was an ineffectual cutting weapon, we wouldn't find so many historical examples that were not suited to THRUSTING. For example - the ancient Greeks had swords (shortswords) that were leaf-bladed. Sure you can thrust with these, but the entire point of the leaf-blade was for a powerful SLASHING attack. So your information is simply wrong here - shortswords have a powerful cut. I will agree that most swords aren't really going to do any damage if you hit with the flat, and that's why you don't pommel someone with the flat of the blade, you pommel them with the POMMEL of the sword. Yes, but this smashing is not really more damaging than the steel gauntlet your typical D&D Fighter is using.... So definitely not the normal weapon damage, and maybe also not Str x1.5 for using two-handed.... I'll agree that your average pommel really isn't probably going to do as much damage as a mace. But you know what - it still works as a ruling, for simplicity's sake. If you want to really houserule it - you could make all swords capable of dealing damage as a gauntlet. Hm, since there is no saber in D&D (well maybe you could say a scimitar is kind of a saber) and the picture in the PHB looks like one, for my feeling the rapier is a bit like one. So slashing or piercing would be okay. A rapier is not a saber. A rapier is a rapier. Don't go by the pictures - whoever drew them didn't know what the hell he was doing. The rapier does minimal damage and has a high threat range - it's not a saber, it's a rapier. A saber is listed in the A&EG as having scimitar stats. So there goes that argument. A rapier is a rapier, is a rapier. It would only be able to deal very minimal slashing damage, even in its early stages. I'd still say if you deal slashing damage with a rapier - take the damage die down one step. It's not a slashing weapon, primarily, and isn't really made for cutting attacks. Can you tell me when rapiers - used in the renaissance in europe - evolved to shortswords - used in ancient rome and greece 2000 years ago? Leonardo already explained to you that I said -SMALLSWORD- not -shortsword-. And judging from the picture he showed you, you can probably see very easily how the rapier quickly turned into a smallsword.
TyraaloftheFist 01-03-05, 08:25 AM	Rapiers don't evolve into shortswords, they evolved, circuitously, from shortswords and sabers...I think. I know that shortswords are one of the oldest types of sword. But Vahenir DID say smallsword, not shortsword.
Neo_Leviathan 01-03-05, 08:59 AM	Just thought I'd ad in my 2 cents worth :D A typical rapier has plenty of slashing ability (yes, I have trained with a proper rapier), they aren't just pointy, they are quite literally razor sharp, perfect for a quick cut to slice an artery, or for slicing the tip accross your opponent's chest or neck. That said, most rapier techniques involve literally skewering your opponent. As for things such as long-swords or two-handers, they had very little tip on them, if you tried to run someone through with it, unless they were unarmoured all you would do would be push them back and bruise or break their ribs. Nor did they even have much of an edge, since an edge would dull very quickly when struck against armour, they would be quickly rendered useless if sharpness was their primary damaging attribute. Most swords of this type were designed to crunch through armour with the weight of the blade, rather than simply cutting the flesh. It's a simple fact of where they were usually used, rapiers were primarily a gentleman's weapon, used against unarmoured opponents, try using a rapier against a breastplate and you'll lose your rapier very quick ;). If anyone is interested, go to www.sca.org and check out the information sections, plenty of info there. How about we just go with the deadliest non-projectile weapon ever made? A proper Iron-Shod Oak Quarterstaff!!
psionichamster 01-03-05, 09:33 AM	ever seen a pair of competent martial artists sparring with weapons? sword=reach 3' plus arm reach...not bad, plus all the stabby and slashy goodness of having 3' of sharp metal to hit with... staff=reach of 6' (give or take, depending on style) plus arm reach...that makes about 9-10' for most people, with a full extension sweep or thrust... cross sectionally, the wood tip of the staff can deliver as much, if not more, energy than the sword...especially if you are slashing instead of thrusting... so you can reach farther than the other guy, hit harder, and have a 2 handed weapon to block and parry and possibly trip with enough off-topic stuff though... shortsword=deadly. nuff said. the romans said "the cut wounds and the thrust kills" and used their gladii to great effect but also consider...NEVER has the predominant military weapon been swords...they've been elevated in status because of the rarity and cost involved in their use, creation, and maintenance... spears are cheaper and more effective bows allow you to kill the other guy long before he can get you maces/hammers can penetrate armor much better than swords not sure what all that has to do with the chinese longsword, but my coppers regardless oh yeah, and the weapon in the OP looks good to me the hamster
Kyuketsukiouji 01-03-05, 09:42 AM	It's a simple fact of where they were usually used, rapiers were primarily a gentleman's weapon, used against unarmoured opponents, try using a rapier against a breastplate and you'll lose your rapier very quick ;). That's what your pistol was for.
der_gogo 01-03-05, 01:40 PM	Rapiers don't evolve into shortswords, they evolved, circuitously, from shortswords and sabers...I think. I know that shortswords are one of the oldest types of sword. But Vahenir DID say smallsword, not shortsword. Yeah, tell me another 3 times.... :D Sry, I got to blame my lack of English skill. (Not my mother tongue). I just thought short sword = smallsword..... But now i know what a smallsword is. But stupid name for this weapon I think since it isnt really small.... :D
Vahenir 01-03-05, 01:40 PM	A typical rapier has plenty of slashing ability (yes, I have trained with a proper rapier), they aren't just pointy, they are quite literally razor sharp, perfect for a quick cut to slice an artery, or for slicing the tip accross your opponent's chest or neck. No. Rapiers are not razor sharp. No weapon is razor sharp. If it's razor sharp, it wasn't sharpened correctly, first of all. Secondly, no one ever said the rapier was an edgeless weapon, however the style of the weapon was not suited to cutting attacks. Cutting attacks were used moreso to harry an enemy than to actually harm them. You are VERY unlikely to strike a debilitating blow with the edge of a rapier - it just can't get deep enough to do any damage, in most instances. As for things such as long-swords or two-handers, they had very little tip on them, if you tried to run someone through with it, unless they were unarmoured all you would do would be push them back and bruise or break their ribs. Nor did they even have much of an edge, since an edge would dull very quickly when struck against armour, they would be quickly rendered useless if sharpness was their primary damaging attribute. Most swords of this type were designed to crunch through armour with the weight of the blade, rather than simply cutting the flesh. What in the world are you talking about? That's a pretty ridiculous statement. Larger (bastard and two-hand) swords usually had a VERY well-shaped point. They also had QUITE an edge, but only along the second half of the blade (as the first half was left unsharpened for use as a secondary grip). And you don't strike weapons against armour, so the idea that that would dull a weapon is irrelevant. There is no medieval fighting style any historian has ever discovered that taught you it was a good idea to run over and smack your sword against the guy's armour repeatedly. No sword was designed to crush armour. That's simply a falacy. If anyone is interested, go to www.sca.org and No wonder you have a ton of false information. Listen, and I mean no disrespect... but the SCA is well-known as not being knowledgable on actual history. I mean - they dress (poorly) in pseudo-historical harness and hit each other with shaped pieces of cardboard and PVC. If you want information about swords, check out www.thehaca.com (they are now called the ARMA, but have not changed their address). You'll find a lot of what you've learned from the SCA is just plain wrong. It's sad, really. They're supposed to be educating people about the past, but instead they just tend to further enforce a lot of mumbo-jumbo and historically inaccurate nonesense. It's very disappointing. Not everyone in the SCA does this.. but a lot of them do, and the rest tend to just follow along. Have fun at the SCA... just don't trust them for any actual historical information.
Vahenir 01-03-05, 01:42 PM	But stupid name for this weapon I think since it isnt really small.... Haha.. well, it was smaller than a rapier. So... smallsword. Heh.
Neo_Leviathan 01-03-05, 09:46 PM	No. Rapiers are not razor sharp. No weapon is razor sharp. If it's razor sharp, it wasn't sharpened correctly, first of all. Secondly, no one ever said the rapier was an edgeless weapon, however the style of the weapon was not suited to cutting attacks. Cutting attacks were used moreso to harry an enemy than to actually harm them. You are VERY unlikely to strike a debilitating blow with the edge of a rapier - it just can't get deep enough to do any damage, in most instances. Have you ever *used* a proper one dude? It takes 2lbs of preassure to go through skin and muscle with the tip, and scarcely more with the edge, a quick tip-cut accross the throat will end a fight *very* quickly (what with your opponent bleeding to death and all). Just because the primary fighting method with a rapier is skewering doesn't mean that is all you can do with it, though proper tip/edge cut is more difficult than skewer. What in the world are you talking about? That's a pretty ridiculous statement. Larger (bastard and two-hand) swords usually had a VERY well-shaped point. They also had QUITE an edge, but only along the second half of the blade (as the first half was left unsharpened for use as a secondary grip). And you don't strike weapons against armour, so the idea that that would dull a weapon is irrelevant. There is no medieval fighting style any historian has ever discovered that taught you it was a good idea to run over and smack your sword against the guy's armour repeatedly. No sword was designed to crush armour. That's simply a falacy. No, they weren't *designed* to crush armour, but against a heavily or reasonably armoured foe, thats what often ended up with, a sword did most of it's damage from it's weight and swing, not it's edge. True some/many later swords had a 'chisel' point on the end, and short-swords are primarily stabbing, but that is totally dependant on the area, it's not a blanket thing. My apologies if I made it seem like no swords ever had points. No wonder you have a ton of false information. Listen, and I mean no disrespect... but the SCA is well-known as not being knowledgable on actual history. I mean - they dress (poorly) in pseudo-historical harness and hit each other with shaped pieces of cardboard and PVC. If you want information about swords, check out www.thehaca.com (they are now called the ARMA, but have not changed their address). You'll find a lot of what you've learned from the SCA is just plain wrong. It's sad, really. They're supposed to be educating people about the past, but instead they just tend to further enforce a lot of mumbo-jumbo and historically inaccurate nonesense. It's very disappointing. Not everyone in the SCA does this.. but a lot of them do, and the rest tend to just follow along. Have fun at the SCA... just don't trust them for any actual historical information. Have you spoken to any of the SCA historians? You know, the ones who've spent half their life researching this stuff? And "cardboard and PVC", yeesh, what piece of crap SCA wannabe have you been speaking too? Heavy-fighting swords are PVC tubes for safety, but thats it, and *cardboard*, bah. Plus, rapier (aka 'light') fighting uses steel swords thank you, just with a rubber stop on the end so that you dont punch your opponents ribs through with your blunted sword.
Vahenir 01-03-05, 11:00 PM	Have you ever *used* a proper one dude? I imagine more than you have. One of my main considerations for the past 10 years has been historical combat, so I'm greatly studied in the use and design of most European weapons (and many non-Euro weapons). Not only have I studied 17-19th century sword-fighting manuals extensively, and not only have I trained physically in the combat styles that utilize rapiers, with proper historical replicas, but I have also had the rare treat of being allowed to heft some REAL rapiers found at Museums (a good friend of mine gets to do this for recreation purposes, he's a swordsmith, and so he brought me along a few times). So yeah, I know what I'm talking about. It takes 2lbs of preassure to go through skin and muscle with the tip, and scarcely more with the edge, a quick tip-cut accross the throat will end a fight *very* quickly Hitting something major enough with enough force to actually do combat-ending damage is a rarity with a rapier. The thrust is far more lethal, that is why the rapier utilizes the thrust - it is not a decent cutting weapon. If both combatants are naked, you have little chance (well, let's say they have underwear on) of striking anything with a cutting stroke that's going to incapacitate them. A rapier does not have the necessary heft or power to do any real damage in that regard. That's that. I've been cut with a rapier... it hurts a bit.. but even though it had little trouble breaking skin, it really didn't do anything but. Sort of like a papercut - how many times have you heard of someone bleeding to death from a papercut? It hurts, but it's not going to stop a combatant. Plain and simple truth of the weapon. You can cut with a rapier just fine. But it's a harassing technique... it will not stop someone unless you get in a REALLY good cut, which is exceptionally unlikely. No, they weren't *designed* to crush armour, but against a heavily or reasonably armoured foe, thats what often ended up with, a sword did most of it's damage from it's weight and swing, not it's edge. Actually, a sword is lethal because it has an edge. It's not just a big crowbar, you know. And no, you never battered an armoured foe.. that's a historical joke that no self-respecting historian still clings to. It's quite obvious (from written accounts of the time and from fighting manuals) that a medieval warrior with a sword would not strike armour if he could avoid it - he would aim blows at the face, and at the joins in the armour. This would have been almost consistently a thrusting attack. During the time when you had to worry about an opponent being heavily armoured, swords were almost universally designed (swords of war, that is) with a good tip - so that these attacks could be made when necessary. You never smack your sword against someone's armour if there is any way to avoid doing so - as you risk damaging your sword. True some/many later swords had a 'chisel' point on the end, and short-swords are primarily stabbing, but that is totally dependant on the area, it's not a blanket thing. My apologies if I made it seem like no swords ever had points. It doesn't take a chisel point to stab someone in an unprotected area - it just takes a servicable point, which almost all swords of all time periods had. And shortswords are not primarily thrusting weapons... they are primarily whatever they're designed to do, depending on era and region, like most swords. Have you spoken to any of the SCA historians? Yes. I've spoken to many and for a brief time I was involved with the SCA. The SCA, as a whole, has made many, many errors and will not renounce them. You know, the ones who've spent half their life researching this stuff? That's part of their problems. Some of these gentlemen were studying "facts" of history quite a few years ago, that have more recently been proven inaccurate. And those same gentlemen still cling to what is not accurate, because that is what they were taught. There was once a distinguished SCA historian who swore up and down that a single-hand arming sword could weigh up to 15 pounds in the Medieval era. Obviously that's not accurate... but it was taught to many in the early 1900's. Just because they researched this stuff 30 years ago doesn't mean what they "know" is still factually correct. It's not a slight against anyone in particular... except for the fact that men, especially older men, tend to cling to knowledge, even if it is no longer -true- knowledge. Hey.. that guy that was on the History channel once who said two-handers weighed over 40 pounds... he was an SCA guy.. did you know that? Did you also know two-handers don't weigh ANYWHERE NEAR 40 pounds. No offense to the SCA... but they have a LOT of inaccurate information floating around that no one is calling them on publicly, and it's causing a lot of confusion among actual enthusiasts. And "cardboard and PVC", yeesh, what piece of crap SCA wannabe have you been speaking too? Heavy-fighting swords are PVC tubes for safety, but thats it, and *cardboard*, bah. Plus, rapier (aka 'light') fighting uses steel swords thank you, just with a rubber stop on the end so that you dont punch your opponents ribs through with your blunted sword. Heavy-fighting swords are PVC tubes huh? I think I said "PVC," didn't I? You do realize PVC is not metal... it's not weighted the same... besides general size.. there are almost no similarities between PVC pipe and a real sword. Wow.. you're learning a lot about real combat by hitting each other with plastic pipes. And yeah, I know some SCA enthusiasts use "steel" weapons. But they're stage steel. Blunted on all ends, weighted poorly, and generally not even the right size. They don't even FEEL like real swords. And the SCA does not allow the use of real swords. You can't buy a Cold Steel Basket Hilt sword and bring it to the SCA, even if it's unsharpened and wrapped in rubber padding. They don't allow real swords. So yeah.. cardboard and PVC does not a swordsman make. Like I said.. go read up in places that have real information. Oakeshott, the ARMA - things like that.
Neo_Leviathan 01-03-05, 11:26 PM	I imagine more than you have. One of my main considerations for the past 10 years has been historical combat, so I'm greatly studied in the use and design of most European weapons (and many non-Euro weapons). Not only have I studied 17-19th century sword-fighting manuals extensively, and not only have I trained physically in the combat styles that utilize rapiers, with proper historical replicas, but I have also had the rare treat of being allowed to heft some REAL rapiers found at Museums (a good friend of mine gets to do this for recreation purposes, he's a swordsmith, and so he brought me along a few times). So yeah, I know what I'm talking about. Neat! Hitting something major enough with enough force to actually do combat-ending damage is a rarity with a rapier. The thrust is far more lethal, that is why the rapier utilizes the thrust - it is not a decent cutting weapon. If both combatants are naked, you have little chance (well, let's say they have underwear on) of striking anything with a cutting stroke that's going to incapacitate them. A rapier does not have the necessary heft or power to do any real damage in that regard. That's that. I've been cut with a rapier... it hurts a bit.. but even though it had little trouble breaking skin, it really didn't do anything but. Sort of like a papercut - how many times have you heard of someone bleeding to death from a papercut? It hurts, but it's not going to stop a combatant. Plain and simple truth of the weapon. You can cut with a rapier just fine. But it's a harassing technique... it will not stop someone unless you get in a REALLY good cut, which is exceptionally unlikely. Later rapiers true were all but edgeless, but not all of them, I think we're talking cross-eras here. As to papercut, you can still tip-cut someone to half an inch without problems, do that accross a throat and bye bye opponent. Agreed that it's not the primary use of the weapon, but nor is it a totally ignored one. Actually, a sword is lethal because it has an edge. It's not just a big crowbar, you know. And no, you never battered an armoured foe.. that's a historical joke that no self-respecting historian still clings to. It's quite obvious (from written accounts of the time and from fighting manuals) that a medieval warrior with a sword would not strike armour if he could avoid it - he would aim blows at the face, and at the joins in the armour. This would have been almost consistently a thrusting attack. During the time when you had to worry about an opponent being heavily armoured, swords were almost universally designed (swords of war, that is) with a good tip - so that these attacks could be made when necessary. You never smack your sword against someone's armour if there is any way to avoid doing so - as you risk damaging your sword. I never said anything simply battering, and of course you want to get them in unarmoured areas, but especially if they have a shield, you can't guarentee that you always avoid contact with armour etc. I'll admit that the edge is the primary kiling use, but the weight is also very important. It doesn't take a chisel point to stab someone in an unprotected area - it just takes a servicable point, which almost all swords of all time periods had. And shortswords are not primarily thrusting weapons... they are primarily whatever they're designed to do, depending on era and region, like most swords. I'll admit defeat on the point thing, however not every sword had a servicable point, or even one at all. Yes. I've spoken to many and for a brief time I was involved with the SCA. The SCA, as a whole, has made many, many errors and will not renounce them. That's part of their problems. Some of these gentlemen were studying "facts" of history quite a few years ago, that have more recently been proven inaccurate. And those same gentlemen still cling to what is not accurate, because that is what they were taught. There was once a distinguished SCA historian who swore up and down that a single-hand arming sword could weigh up to 15 pounds in the Medieval era. Obviously that's not accurate... but it was taught to many in the early 1900's. Just because they researched this stuff 30 years ago doesn't mean what they "know" is still factually correct. It's not a slight against anyone in particular... except for the fact that men, especially older men, tend to cling to knowledge, even if it is no longer -true- knowledge. Hey.. that guy that was on the History channel once who said two-handers weighed over 40 pounds... he was an SCA guy.. did you know that? Did you also know two-handers don't weigh ANYWHERE NEAR 40 pounds. No offense to the SCA... but they have a LOT of inaccurate information floating around that no one is calling them on publicly, and it's causing a lot of confusion among actual enthusiasts. True there are many innacuracies with histories etc, but some of the 'proofs' are no more reliable than the original premise. The SCA may suffer from these problems, but so does every society that deals with the medieval. Heavy-fighting swords are PVC tubes huh? I think I said "PVC," didn't I? You do realize PVC is not metal... it's not weighted the same... besides general size.. there are almost no similarities between PVC pipe and a real sword. Wow.. you're learning a lot about real combat by hitting each other with plastic pipes. And yeah, I know some SCA enthusiasts use "steel" weapons. But they're stage steel. Blunted on all ends, weighted poorly, and generally not even the right size. They don't even FEEL like real swords. And the SCA does not allow the use of real swords. You can't buy a Cold Steel Basket Hilt sword and bring it to the SCA, even if it's unsharpened and wrapped in rubber padding. They don't allow real swords. So yeah.. cardboard and PVC does not a swordsman make. Like I said.. go read up in places that have real information. Oakeshott, the ARMA - things like that. Well duh PVC isn't metal, I *have* done chemistry you know. And you are totally incorrect about the badly weaighted crap excuses for steel, all the medieval rapiers I've used have been proper weight, balance and size for the period they are designed from, obviously the ones you've dealt with weren't doing things right. Yes, you *can* bring metal weapons to SCA events, you just can't use them in combat for safety reasons. And there is no cardboard dude. As to 'places that have real info', even ARMA have stated on their website that not all swords have points. And the mere fact that ARMA uses the word "Viking" when talking about swords means they aren't totally reliable either (and yes, I know the SCA does the same thing).
Tried 01-03-05, 11:34 PM	That was a great lesson. I suffered from many of those issues many years ago, and came upon these realizations through continued study on my own. Indeed, Your criticisms seem similar to those found in TROS. That said, do you use rules for half-swording in your campaign? (I guess first I should ask if you use rules for press and reach?) Also - i'm uncertain as to whether a pommel does not hit harder than a standard (un-adorned) gauntlet. It tends to focus energy better than a gauntlet, and might be more likely to cave in a cheekbone or put out an eye than a gauntlet, thus potentially deserving perhaps d4 rather than the standard d2 or d3.
Vahenir 01-04-05, 12:18 AM	Later rapiers true were all but edgeless, but not all of them, I think we're talking cross-eras here. As to papercut, you can still tip-cut someone to half an inch without problems, do that accross a throat and bye bye opponent. Agreed that it's not the primary use of the weapon, but nor is it a totally ignored one. The ONLY way you're going to do significant damage with a cut from a rapier is if you can get it across the inside of the wrists or across the jugular. These two spots are EXCEPTIONALLY hard to nail on a moving, defending opponent. And since those are basically the only two areas vulnerable to a cutting attack from a rapier, the cut is considered a useless gesture with a rapier - even one with a fair edge. If you want to talk about the edgeless rapiers that were nearly smallswords, then you're talking about basically hitting someone with a stick if you try a cutting action. I never said anything simply battering, and of course you want to get them in unarmoured areas, but especially if they have a shield, you can't guarentee that you always avoid contact with armour etc. I'll admit that the edge is the primary kiling use, but the weight is also very important. Of course you can't avoid contact with armour all the time. But it's not something you should be trying to do, and hitting someone's armour with a sword really isn't going to do much. The weight is important to help make the edge "dig in" to the flesh. Then the weight of the weapon and strength of the wielder combine to get the weapon INTO the other guy's body. So against armour, a sword is pretty useless.. sadly. I love swords.. it does depress me how utterly useless they can be against someone with substantial armour. I'll admit defeat on the point thing, however not every sword had a servicable point, or even one at all. Agreed. But it's "the exception, not the rule" as the saying goes. There are unpointed swords, most often they're German/Nordic in origin. And surprisingly few of them are two-hand swords. Most of them are Dark Ages cutting swords. True there are many innacuracies with histories etc, but some of the 'proofs' are no more reliable than the original premise. Not quite. If a new fact replaces an old fact, then the new fact is more reliable because it was used to disprove (and displace) the old fact. They may not be foolproof, definites. But they are "more likely than previously held facts." The SCA may suffer from these problems, but so does every society that deals with the medieval. Quite, quite. But remember that for all the problems different societies may have... there are "levels of trust." The ARMA, generally speaking, will more often have current and factual (as is currently known) information than the SCA. When it comes down to it, the SCA is one of the most followed but least respected organizations in the historical genre - simply due to their near constant flow of incorrect information. Other organizations don't have such a strong problem in that area. And you are totally incorrect about the badly weaighted crap excuses for steel, all the medieval rapiers I've used have been proper weight, balance and size for the period they are designed from, obviously the ones you've dealt with weren't doing things right. All of the SCA-Approved rapiers I've held, in quite a few states, were poor excuses for a real sword. And the fighting style they were employed in by the SCA was.. laughable at best.. continuous parrying and sweeping cuts. It looked like a bad Musketeers movie.. but that is neither here nor there. Sadly, I've held precious few replica rapiers that REALLY felt like a true rapier (i.e. a historical rapier that you'd find in a museum). And there is no cardboard dude. Sorry, I didn't know you were "out of the loop." 'Cardboard and PVC' is an old joke statement that made fun of the SCA's origins. Because the first SCA tournaments was realized by some people actually bringing Christmas wrapping paper rolls to fight with. Hence the term - Cardboard and PVC. As to 'places that have real info', even ARMA have stated on their website that not all swords have points. And the mere fact that ARMA uses the word "Viking" when talking about swords means they aren't totally reliable either (and yes, I know the SCA does the same thing). I already agreed that not every sword had a servicable point. Now, an interesting debate between scholars is actually going on right now about the term "Viking sword." Many scholars are saying it's NOT inaccurate to say that (where the other side is people saying it should be "Nordic sword"). Their rationale is that the Vikings were the Norse that actually went out and conquered and made battle. The rest of their people, who were not Vikings but were Norse - would be left at home. Since the Vikings would have been the important warriors - they would have been granted "first dibbs" on the best weapons - i.e. the swords. Thus, the non-combatants, or non-Vikings, would be left at home with the leftover weapons, and it's quite likely (considering the expense and utility of swords) that no swords would have been left over for those who stayed at home. So.. only the VIKINGS would actually have used swords... hence the term "Viking sword." I won't, at this point, say whether I agree with this assertion... just that it's currently up for debate as to whether or not saying "Viking sword" is actually a misnomer or not.
Vahenir 01-04-05, 12:21 AM	That said, do you use rules for half-swording in your campaign? (I guess first I should ask if you use rules for press and reach?) Not at this time. I've been (and this you can tell by going to the Axe Feats thread in Skills and Feats) totally reworking MANY of the rules of D&D to style my own game, and I'm still in the process of doing that. On paper, I've considered the concepts of reach, press, and all the stylistic mechanics that would accompany that, many times. But there are simply so many problems inherent in such a system that I haven't been able to hammer out definitive rules for using them yet. Maybe someday I'll figure something out that I'm satisfied with.
Neo_Leviathan 01-04-05, 11:11 AM	The ONLY way you're going to do significant damage with a cut from a rapier is if you can get it across the inside of the wrists or across the jugular. These two spots are EXCEPTIONALLY hard to nail on a moving, defending opponent. And since those are basically the only two areas vulnerable to a cutting attack from a rapier, the cut is considered a useless gesture with a rapier - even one with a fair edge. If you want to talk about the edgeless rapiers that were nearly smallswords, then you're talking about basically hitting someone with a stick if you try a cutting action. Hey, hitting someone with a stick can hurt ;). Although I'm more talking about tip-cutting than edge cutting, though you only really need a point for that. Of course you can't avoid contact with armour all the time. But it's not something you should be trying to do, and hitting someone's armour with a sword really isn't going to do much. The weight is important to help make the edge "dig in" to the flesh. Then the weight of the weapon and strength of the wielder combine to get the weapon INTO the other guy's body. So against armour, a sword is pretty useless.. sadly. I love swords.. it does depress me how utterly useless they can be against someone with substantial armour. Of course, even if they are wearing armour, heavy swords can still break bones ;) Agreed. But it's "the exception, not the rule" as the saying goes. There are unpointed swords, most often they're German/Nordic in origin. And surprisingly few of them are two-hand swords. Most of them are Dark Ages cutting swords. Hehe, lets just go with the quaterstaff, far more deadly than a sword. Not quite. If a new fact replaces an old fact, then the new fact is more reliable because it was used to disprove (and displace) the old fact. They may not be foolproof, definites. But they are "more likely than previously held facts." Not necessarily, a lot of the time when a new 'fact' appears, it is in fact a theory or idea brought about that displaces the old, it's not always more reliable despite being newer. Quite, quite. But remember that for all the problems different societies may have... there are "levels of trust." The ARMA, generally speaking, will more often have current and factual (as is currently known) information than the SCA. When it comes down to it, the SCA is one of the most followed but least respected organizations in the historical genre - simply due to their near constant flow of incorrect information. Other organizations don't have such a strong problem in that area. All of the SCA-Approved rapiers I've held, in quite a few states, were poor excuses for a real sword. And the fighting style they were employed in by the SCA was.. laughable at best.. continuous parrying and sweeping cuts. It looked like a bad Musketeers movie.. but that is neither here nor there. Sadly, I've held precious few replica rapiers that REALLY felt like a true rapier (i.e. a historical rapier that you'd find in a museum). Maybe the locational difference is in play here, I'm from Australia, and most of the stuff I've learned from them is at least largely reliable, there sure as hell is no 'sweeping cuts' in our rapier styling, and the rapiers are properly balanced. Perhaps us Aussies managed to filter out the bad when the SCA reached here :D Sorry, I didn't know you were "out of the loop." 'Cardboard and PVC' is an old joke statement that made fun of the SCA's origins. Because the first SCA tournaments was realized by some people actually bringing Christmas wrapping paper rolls to fight with. Hence the term - Cardboard and PVC. Sound like some LARPers I've seen ;) I already agreed that not every sword had a servicable point. Now, an interesting debate between scholars is actually going on right now about the term "Viking sword." Many scholars are saying it's NOT inaccurate to say that (where the other side is people saying it should be "Nordic sword"). Their rationale is that the Vikings were the Norse that actually went out and conquered and made battle. The rest of their people, who were not Vikings but were Norse - would be left at home. Since the Vikings would have been the important warriors - they would have been granted "first dibbs" on the best weapons - i.e. the swords. Thus, the non-combatants, or non-Vikings, would be left at home with the leftover weapons, and it's quite likely (considering the expense and utility of swords) that no swords would have been left over for those who stayed at home. So.. only the VIKINGS would actually have used swords... hence the term "Viking sword." I won't, at this point, say whether I agree with this assertion... just that it's currently up for debate as to whether or not saying "Viking sword" is actually a misnomer or not. Actually, the 'vikings' were not the important warriors or anything even similar, Viking is simply a job description, an Anglo-Saxon corruption of the Old Norse word "Wikingr", 'to raid from the sea'. Once they were at the stage of having settlements on the lands they were raiding (or conquoring them in the case of England), they were simply raiders, not Wikings. Heck, there are even Norse writings mentioning "damned English Wikings". Also, Wiking is only attached to those that attacked to the south and west, going for England, France, Italy etc, the ones that went east were known by different names. Simply being a non-Wiking doesn't mean you were a non-combatant or non-raider ;). One of the names given to the Norse raiders by one of the smaller groups they raided literally translates to "Incestuous fire-breathing devil-worshippers", I love that one :D
Vahenir 01-04-05, 06:59 PM	Although I'm more talking about tip-cutting than edge cutting, though you only really need a point for that. Which is still attempting a cutting motion with a rapier. Doesn't usually work out. Of course, even if they are wearing armour, heavy swords can still break bones Indeed. It's just not the smartest thing to be doing with your sword. Not necessarily, a lot of the time when a new 'fact' appears, it is in fact a theory or idea brought about that displaces the old, it's not always more reliable despite being newer. Sometimes, but generally speaking there's usually -some- reason to start believing a new fact over an old one. Perhaps us Aussies managed to filter out the bad when the SCA reached here Always new Australians were smarter than everyone thinks.... Sound like some LARPers I've seen Haha! My friend's college roommate LARPs... he has a giant 6-1/2 foot cardboard sword. It's the funniest thing you ever did see. Actually, the 'vikings' were not the important warriors or anything even similar, And there's the other side of the argument. But I'm not going to take sides on it... I'm waiting to see how it plays out.
Tony Vargas 01-04-05, 07:25 PM	It is for this reason that I would give all weapons in any campaign that I run the chance to do bludgeoning damage as an improvised roll, -4 to hit. I think that's a pretty common one. You just aply the 'improvised weapon' rules when you go using a weapon in a way that's not usually intended. For the purpose of creating the chinese longsword I got my inspiration from the movie Hero. I wanted to make a similar character for D&D but I could find a sword that would apply in that way. So I made this exotic weapon: Exotic One-handed Weapon Weapon Cost Damage Critical Weight Type Chinese Longsword* 25gp 1d8 19-20/X2 3 lb. Slashing or Piercing *The Chinese Longsword is considered a light weapon for the purpose of selecting the Weapon Finesse Feat. As I am probably not as well versed in the rules as most of you, please tell me if this seems like a balanced sword. I'd be inclined to simply use the rapier stats for the jian - it's a light, flexible sword used in a fighting style that emphasises 'grace and speed,' so that's close enough. Your stats are very reasonable, maybe (as was mentioned) slightly low-power for an exotic weapon. The elven thinblade is an exotic piercing weapon at d8 18-20/x2, for instance (basicly a one-better damage die rapier). Two damage types probably doesn't /quite/ add up to a lowered threat range, so yours is arguably 'weak' compared to the thinblade. OTOH, "adding piercing and fineseability to the longsword" doesn't seem out of line for an exotic - So it all depends how you look at it. I'd say it's fine. d8 (18-20/x2) /and/ finesseability /and/ Piercing /and/ slashing would be overdoing it (even slashing, alone might be pushing it). Better to build the weapon slightly weak and have it used only by those who particularly like the flavor, than make it overpowered and have it dominate. Counting a jian as a longsword also wouldn't be unreasonable - they weren't all super-flexible 'how the heck do you use that?' weapons like the Green Destiny. IIRC, some of the swords in Hero seemed pretty sturdy, for that matter. Making it an exotic weapon makes sense if you're going for the 'use your chi to stiffen the blade' type mystique with the weapon. If it's just a style of mundane sword prefered in a given region of the campaign world, then rapier or longsword stats would be fine.
Dire Celestial Bonobo 01-04-05, 08:24 PM	As to papercut, you can still tip-cut someone to half an inch without problems, do that accross a throat and bye bye opponent. In terms of D&D damage types, that's insufficient to count as slashing damage. Think of it this way: would such an attack be effective against a zombie's DR 5/slashing?
Neo_Leviathan 01-04-05, 09:33 PM	In terms of D&D damage types, that's insufficient to count as slashing damage. Think of it this way: would such an attack be effective against a zombie's DR 5/slashing? Only if it was *really* deep :D
Neo_Leviathan 01-04-05, 09:37 PM	Which is still attempting a cutting motion with a rapier. Doesn't usually work out. Indeed. It's just not the smartest thing to be doing with your sword. True, though I doubt your opponent will make much of the difference :D Sometimes, but generally speaking there's usually -some- reason to start believing a new fact over an old one. Always new Australians were smarter than everyone thinks.... Of course, We Are The Greatest :D Haha! My friend's college roommate LARPs... he has a giant 6-1/2 foot cardboard sword. It's the funniest thing you ever did see. I can beat that! At the Anime convention my Uni holds every year, a dude went dressed up at Sephiroth from FFVII, he had a cardboard and balsa wood 7 odd foot sword that he SOLD FOR $80 at the Convention Auction. And there's the other side of the argument. But I'm not going to take sides on it... I'm waiting to see how it plays out. Hehe, well, I studied the Nose at Uni a couple of semesters ago. Old Norse isn't fun if you have no gift for languages.
Kulthos 01-04-05, 11:51 PM	Listen, and I mean no disrespect... but the SCA is well-known as not being knowledgable on actual history. I mean - they dress (poorly) in pseudo-historical harness and hit each other with shaped pieces of cardboard and PVC. Then they go to real fencing classes and clubs and act like they already know how to fence. Actualy, they would often come to fencing club and play D&D. It was embarrasing (although they didn't know it) and annoying. In Epee, which is very close to "First Blood" dueling, you only poke. I have seen real rapiers in armories and one very nice one in club. Some were triangular in cross section and like killer versions of epees. Some had very sharp edges that would cut you to the bone if it was drawn against you. You wouldn't want to *chop* with it, but you could cut with it like you cut meat with a kitchen knife. I didn't see anyone fight with the thing, but a "near miss" with the point from a not-so-perfect parry or a bit of pressure on a return could easily leave a horrible wound on the person it brushed up against. This assumes no chainmail, of course :-)
Neo_Leviathan 01-05-05, 01:44 AM	Then they go to real fencing classes and clubs and act like they already know how to fence. Actualy, they would often come to fencing club and play D&D. It was embarrasing (although they didn't know it) and annoying. In Epee, which is very close to "First Blood" dueling, you only poke. I have seen real rapiers in armories and one very nice one in club. Some were triangular in cross section and like killer versions of epees. Some had very sharp edges that would cut you to the bone if it was drawn against you. You wouldn't want to *chop* with it, but you could cut with it like you cut meat with a kitchen knife. I didn't see anyone fight with the thing, but a "near miss" with the point from a not-so-perfect parry or a bit of pressure on a return could easily leave a horrible wound on the person it brushed up against. This assumes no chainmail, of course :-) Define 'real' fencing classes ;). Dont generalise the entire SCA over what you have experienced in one area. Or maybe us Aussies really are the best ;). And yeah, draw-cutting is nasty, though not the easiest thing to learn
Kulthos 01-05-05, 10:47 AM	Define 'real' fencing classes ;). Dont generalise the entire SCA over what you have experienced in one area. Or maybe us Aussies really are the best ;). And yeah, draw-cutting is nasty, though not the easiest thing to learn I consider a "real" fencing club to be one in a major sports university with NCAA athletes (who win) occationally showing up (and kicking our butts), and taking classes with the coaches. My favorite bit of advice- "Strike with the saber as if you were opening a refrigerator door." No joke.
MaddixTheMad 01-05-05, 01:39 PM	http://www.thearma.org/terms4.htm this site my help settle some disputes about swords and what not.. it doesn't include asian swords , mostly focuses on european swords through the ages.
Vahenir 01-05-05, 05:18 PM	I'm iffy on "true fencing." True fence doesn't really exist anymore, to fence is to fight with swords, originally intended to be a deadly combat. Nowadays, fencing is strictly regimented - lots of rules, flimsy unrealistic weapons, etc. It's a sport. Now what I actually don't like about fencing is simple: Fencing instructors of the 19th and 20th centuries made a big deal of pretending they knew more about swordcraft and real battle than people who lived 200 years earlier did. They often were very outspoken about how the styles of Medieval combat were ungraceful, brutish, and poorly mastered with no hint of real skill, and how their weapons were awkward, incredibly heavy, and unwieldy. This common from people whose only weapon experience was a half-pound piece of coat hanger on a wooden handle. On the OTHER side, what I do like about fencing is that the vast majority of fencers realize that what they're doing is a sport, and that's all. They don't believe that their training would really help them in a Medieval combat situation - they realize that sport fencing is to combat swordsmanship what pro wrestling is to street brawling. Not that I have a problem with sport fencing.. I've done it myself and enjoyed it. I just dislike those few nutcases who claim that sport fencing is more realistic, more sophisticated, and more efficient than anything ever done before. And I dislike when those few nutcases talk very poorly about Medieval swordsmanship and its technique, when most of them have never studied it. Anyway.. I apologize for the rant. Continue.
kozoras 01-05-05, 06:35 PM	Here we go: Rapier light 1d4 15-20\3 simple scimitar light 1d6 17-20\2 Trip martial Saber onehanded 1d12 20\2 martial These 3 weapons are great they fit everyone