| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| spamfiltre09-30-04, 06:33 PM | Does anyone have actual dimensions for the weapons listed in the various books? I'm thinking of having my character wield a Large greatsword. I'd guess this would be about 71/2 feet long, but that might be too long considering a large weapon only doubles it's weight. If anyone has dimensions for various weapons, I'd appreciate it if you could post a link or the text. Thanks. |
| masterofmayhem09-30-04, 06:56 PM | I would think it would be about the same as whatever damage it did. I can't remember if a large longsgword does 1d10 or 2d6, but if it is 1d10, it should be about the size of a bastard sword, and 2d6 should be about the size of a greatsword. EDIT: Oops, misread the question. I think (i'm not sure about this, though) that longswords have a blade of about three feet, while bastard swords have a length of 4 to five feet, and greatswords have a length of five to six feet. |
| Watchman10-01-04, 03:18 AM | The distinctions tend to be a bit blurred, but as a rule of thumb "longswords" would be about two to three feet, "bastard swords" up to a foot or so longer, and purealy two-handed swords anything up to about the wielder's own height (about five to six feet with humans and the like). More than that probably becomes excessively difficult to handle and starts creeping onto the bracket named "fullblade" in D&D. Mind you, I've read of some truly excessively long swords, but those were individual and custom-made pieces for specialist experts and not battlefield weapons. Anyways, I figure the size-changing really concerns more the mass and weight of the weapon, which are a pretty important component in what you might call the "damage factor" of weapons primarily meant to be used in "swinging" fashion. So a Large greatsword isn't necessarily notably longer than a regular one, but it's most likely a bit wider and thicker - not that the difference really mattered to most foes, they don't want to get hit by it anyway. ;) |