here's a picture http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~tmm/tmmpix/flamberge2.jpg
Category: Superior Melee weapon, Two-handed.
Prof: +3 Damage: 2D6 price: 50 gp weight 8lbs Properties: High Crit
The primary purpose it seems was to cut the heads off pikes, but the wavy blade also gave it a greater cutting surface while reducing weight, so it was also a formidable sword in its own right.
Prof: +3, Damage: D12, 30 gp, 10 lbs, High Crit.
Going to 2D6 I'd say is too much of a hop. Superior weapons typically increase a single damage step. By going 2, you create a weapon that offers about the same damage as superior 2H axes, with the same high crit trait, and an additional +1 to hit. I'd say drop the damage to D12 and the cost to 40 GP. This is mostly a cosmetic choice, but would allow you to pay 10 additional gold to return the sword to the same weight of the regular 2h sword.
Martial-> Superior is one step.
1H-> 2H is two steps.
The weapon you have there is 3 steps aghaed of a Falchion.
Which means it is fairly OP if based on a falchion.
Now... How many steps is it ahead of other weapons?
It is 3 steps ahead of a Bastard Sword. (One more step than it should be...)
It is 3 steps ahead of a greatsword...
Balancewise? 1d12 High Crit would balance it with the Bastard Sword.
However having 2d6 isn't unduly imbalancing in itself so I'd say it passes the straight-face test.
perhaps keep the damage the same, but reduce the +3 to a +2?
Well...
Martial-> Superior is one step.
1H-> 2H is two steps.
The weapon you have there is 3 steps aghaed of a Falchion.
Which means it is fairly OP if based on a falchion.
Now... How many steps is it ahead of other weapons?
It is 3 steps ahead of a Bastard Sword. (One more step than it should be...)
It is 3 steps ahead of a greatsword...
Balancewise? 1d12 High Crit would balance it with the Bastard Sword.
However having 2d6 isn't unduly imbalancing in itself so I'd say it passes the straight-face test.
its not based on a falchion,, its based on what it is. I don't get what you mean.. Its a Flamberge,, which is a huge two handed sword. or flambard, depending on who you talk to. I did like how you broke that down though,, pretty cool
When making a new superior weapon you take a similar weapon and modify it.
Or you take an unrelated weappon and modify it. Either way doesn't matter.
Creating something from nothing leads to balance issues.
The point I was making is that it is supeior to any Superior Weapon templating applied to any similar weapon.
At least according to the PhB. (Haven't read the Vault so I don't know how much was changed...)
So what do you suggest? the stats be if done differant,
if you think its not undully balanced, do you think it would fly in most campaigns?
good point,, I don't suppose the price makes a differance ?
Nope, not really. It matters at level 1, sure, but once you've got the tiniest bit of adventuring under your belt, it ceases to matter. Making it more accessible at level 1 is partly why I suggested lowering the price to 40 gold.
perhaps keep the damage the same, but reduce the +3 to a +2?
You could do that, but I'd be hesitant to do so. They've got a decent thing going with swords being more accurate, but dealing less damage. If you start adding swords that are essentially axes/hammers, then, well, you might as well start adding axes and hammers that are essentially swords and toss that bit of uniqueness out the window.
Besides, +3 and D12 with high crit seems to fit better. The wave of the blade allows the sword to be lighter, so easier to maneuver, hence the +3 proficiency. And that same lighter blade would mean less momentum when you did hit, so D12 instead of D12+brutal or 2D6 that the AV's superior 2h axes/hammers have.
The weapon does seem just a little bit unbalanced. Using the d12 damage die is probably the best fix. I wonder why no one suggests dropping the high crit quality though.
I didn't because it matches the Full Blade from the AV that way, other than cost and weight. Although I guess I did just suggest dropping it and +1 of the proficiency if he wants to keep it 2D6 damage
The weapon does seem just a little bit unbalanced. Using the d12 damage die is probably the best fix. I wonder why no one suggests dropping the high crit quality though.
That's a possible fix. +3 2d6 seems balanced to me.
Could also drop the proficiency and make it +2 2d6 high crit.
Or +2 d12 brutal 2 high crit, then it's a heavy blade version of the Execution Axe.
+2 2d6 Brutal 1 would make it a heavy blade version of the Mordenkrad.
I didn't because it matches the Full Blade from the AV that way, other than cost and weight. Although I guess I did just suggest dropping it and +1 of the proficiency if he wants to keep it 2D6 damage
The reason i even mentioned it was to avoid it looking too much like the fullblade.
maybe +3 1d12 Brutal 1
though, personally, i'm in favor of a two-handed sword with 2d6, so...
+2 2d6 Brutal 1
Never score less than four :D
The reason i even mentioned it was to avoid it looking too much like the fullblade.
maybe +3 1d12 Brutal 1
though, personally, i'm in favor of a two-handed sword with 2d6, so...
+2 2d6 Brutal 1
Never score less than four :D
It should be Brutal 2 for a single die, Brutal 1 for 2 dice.
So... +3 1d12 Brutal 2. Or, as you said, +2 2d6 Brutal 1.
The reason i even mentioned it was to avoid it looking too much like the fullblade.
maybe +3 1d12 Brutal 1
though, personally, i'm in favor of a two-handed sword with 2d6, so...
+2 2d6 Brutal 1
Never score less than four :D
That is a worse way to go than copying the Full Blade, in my opinion, as what you have there is a Mordenkrad (the 2h superior hammer) redecorated as a sword. That takes away from the uniqueness of weapon types. If it is those stats you are after, then, stop, Hammer Time.
Besides, it doesn't fit with the real world description of the sword, which the OP says he's trying to attain. The blade is lighter and that it doesn't offer superior cutting, slicing, or thrusting against a human target. That doesn't say less accurate and higher damage than any other sword to me.
I'm liking the ideas, good points by all, thanks
I don't have a specific idea in mind,, I just think of the Flamberge as a huge 2 handed sword, by taking it into the fantasy realm I was hoping to transcend its common roots into something a bit more brutal, without crossing the line into ludicrous.
Lighter... 9 lb.
Unique blade, good for making horrifying wounds... Brutal 2
Not meant for cutting, neither is a greatsword... 1d12
so...
+3 1d12 Brutal 2 weight 9 lb.
My comment about greatswords not being used for cutting...
In real life, they break bones and cause internal bleeding more often than cut the opponent up. Broadswords and longswords are designed to cut, Greatswords and claymores are designed to maim. That's for trying to bring real life into this...
P.S. Brutal is from the Ad Vault. It means reroll any die whose result is equal to or lower than the designate number. Thus 2d6 Brutal 1 would never have a result less than 4 (a pair of 2).
I'm familiar with great swords not being sharp, as it would seem silly, cause it would only dull, not to mention the point is to get a great deal of weight, onto a small sturdy surface, thus the blunt edge serves the best purpose.
However, the flamberge was meant to cut the heads off pikes (primarily) so it might have been sharp. I don't recall in my studies coming across any information about the sharpness of a Flambard (flamberge) I even held one, but for the life of me I can remember how sharp it was. You also have the two varying grips, the lower one, and the riccasso (or upper grip) protected by a smaller guard, (flukes). That way you had either a very hard full swing, or controlled swing, with a greater amount of torque because of the fulcrum, Not sure how that would play into it. I can't imagine being able to roll two differant types of damage, for differnant tactics.
I can't imagine being able to roll two differant types of damage, for differnant tactics.
I can. Create a new mechanic. Something like...
Dual Grips
This type of weapon can be held two different ways, each style having its own unique characteristic. Switching between the two styles is a move action (or minor action, as you see fit). The qualities for the styles of a particular weapon are listed in its description.
Flamberge
Style 1 +3 1d10 Brutal 2
Style 2 +2 2d6 high crit
Just an idea, but if you're going as far as to make a weapon, making new mechanics isn't completely out of the question. The first style is more finessed, having less max damage, but more likely to hit. While the second, is more forceful, being less accurate, but tearing an opponent to pieces on a crit, and having a higher max damage.
But i can hear the complaints about how this practically makes the sword two different weapons (which it does), but realistically, it can be used as such. And there are a plethora of weapons just like it, so a mechanic like this seems reasonable from a realistic sense, though from a purely game sense it might seem a little off balance.
thanks
a long time ago I went to visit a swordsmith shop outside of ******* for study for a class essay. Long story short, this german guy brings out a Huge two handed sword with two handles and a wavy flaming blade. He called it a Flambard, but the research I did later called it a Flamberge. Either way it stood for "flaming sword" I was quite enthralled. anyway I just thought of that trip and thought I'd bring the weapon to DnD 4e, hopefully you can help me flush out the stats so its a good but fair weapon.
here's a picture http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~tmm/tmmpix/flamberge2.jpg
Category: Superior Melee weapon, Two-handed.
Prof: +3 Damage: 2D6 price: 50 gp weight 8lbs Properties: High Crit
The primary purpose it seems was to cut the heads off pikes, but the wavy blade also gave it a greater cutting surface while reducing weight, so it was also a formidable sword in its own right.
Option 1
+2 Damage 2d6 Properties high Crit (copies none, represents basically an improved Scimitar/Falchion)
Option 2
+2 Damage 2d6 Brutal 1 (copies the Modernkrad from AV)
Option 3
+3 Damage 1d12 Brutal 1 (Copies none.)
Those are what I suggest the Flamberege as.
I'm thinking this weapon would be great for a Fighter who wants to deal some sick damage, while still playing a role as defender, not as much damage as a striker, and not as high ac as someone with a shield
From a historical context, the Flammenschwert version of the flame sword saw the most use, it also featured a wavy pommel (we would call it ergonomic now), and was used for close defense of the Landsknechts by what was termed as the double mercenaries.
From a historical context, the Flammenschwert version of the flame sword saw the most use, it also featured a wavy pommel (we would call it ergonomic now), and was used for close defense of the Landsknechts by what was termed as the double mercenaries.
yep cause they were paid double!
I'm quite familiar with its history, and I've even held one that was battle ready (not a display replica) but for obvious reasons I have not used on in combat, and there really isn't a whole lot of material (at least when I researched this) on tactics, moves, styles etc.. The bastard sword however, has quite a bit of info on how it was used, a system of moves as intricate as any of that of the katana, any lover of ancient weapons should study it. Every part of the handle, guard, and pommel were used in various forms, strikes, etc.. It wasn't used in tandem with a shield, so even though its called a hand and a half sword, two hands were needed to wield it properly.
okay, off topic on the bastard, sorry. I'm thinking of using this weapon in the next game,, Dragonborn Paladin with flamberge. just have to decide which rule to use.
yep cause they were paid double!
I'm quite familiar with its history, and I've even held one that was battle ready (not a display replica) but for obvious reasons I have not used on in combat, and there really isn't a whole lot of material (at least when I researched this) on tactics, moves, styles etc.. The bastard sword however, has quite a bit of info on how it was used, a system of moves as intricate as any of that of the katana, any lover of ancient weapons should study it. Every part of the handle, guard, and pommel were used in various forms, strikes, etc.. It wasn't used in tandem with a shield, so even though its called a hand and a half sword, two hands were needed to wield it properly.
okay, off topic on the bastard, sorry. I'm thinking of using this weapon in the next game,, Dragonborn Paladin with flamberge. just have to decide which rule to use.
Really the defensive quality from AV might fit some flamberge's if you go with the supposition that the wavy blade made parrying a better solution as it vibrated the attacker's hands (I'm not positive I would with it), otherwise I would lean towards brutal 1 +2 2d6 superior weapon, or something similar.
Really the defensive quality from AV might fit some flamberge's if you go with the supposition that the wavy blade made parrying a better solution as it vibrated the attacker's hands (I'm not positive I would with it), otherwise I would lean towards brutal 1 +2 2d6 superior weapon, or something similar.
And then it'd be unique as the only two-hander with Defensive. Which is pretty cool, actually.
Essentially, they held the handle in one hand at shoulder height, or so and the blunter area of the blade was held and or braced with a palm so that it was essentially a pivoting parrying device that once your opponent had had their blow countered, you could proceed to capitalize on your weapons weight and size to strike a maiming blow while they were extended.
Anyway, SCREW REALISM! :P
Really the defensive quality from AV might fit some flamberge's if you go with the supposition that the wavy blade made parrying a better solution as it vibrated the attacker's hands (I'm not positive I would with it), otherwise I would lean towards brutal 1 +2 2d6 superior weapon, or something similar.
Nothing about the blade says +2, 2d6, brutal 1. The lighter blade puts it more toward +3, D12.
+3, D12, defensive might be interesting though.
Nothing about the blade says +2, 2d6, brutal 1. The lighter blade puts it more toward +3, D12.
+3, D12, defensive might be interesting though.
And I am willing to wager, that High crit equates Defensive. the only downside is, 2H fighters tend to worry more about DPR than AC, but as we are not designing this for general use but for someone who wants to be cool with it, +3 D12 defensive might be a good way to go.
I forget which show, but I distinctly recall seeing a show on the history channel where who quirky historians commented on how we all imagine weapons like flamberges and other similar large, two handed weapons used, is wrong actually. You hinted at that already by mentioning the "upper grip". The defensive property would actually accurately reflect how they said it as used. That or the dual grip one as well.
The real problem is unlike the bastard sword, the stilleto, the broadsword and the various mace/hammers/picks that were in common use the Flamberge has no training manuals left of it. We have scant battlefield report from the various enemies who fought the pike men of the swiss and other german states, and that is it.
Essentially, they held the handle in one hand at shoulder height, or so and the blunter area of the blade was held and or braced with a palm so that it was essentially a pivoting parrying device that once your opponent had had their blow countered, you could proceed to capitalize on your weapons weight and size to strike a maiming blow while they were extended.
That might be, except for the halberd the gurisame and other pole-weapons would decimate the flamberge user and we know for a fact that they were common amongst the swiss pikemen, and were in fact considered specialist (based on pay)
And I am willing to wager, that High crit equates Defensive. the only downside is, 2H fighters tend to worry more about DPR than AC, but as we are not designing this for general use but for someone who wants to be cool with it, +3 D12 defensive might be a good way to go.
I think it'd be a plus overall. Think there's a decent chunk of people that'd like to be 2H but are 1H because they feel they need the AC from sword and board. This would offer an option that provides half the AC of the shield.
The real problem is unlike the bastard sword, the stilleto, the broadsword and the various mace/hammers/picks that were in common use the Flamberge has no training manuals left of it. We have scant battlefield report from the various enemies who fought the pike men of the swiss and other german states, and that is it.
That might well be, I don't think they were basing it on training manuals. It was just what they deemed to be the most effective use of the weapon in relatively close quarters, most usually sword to sword. I would presume that in reality it was used like any other large, two handed sword and was merely ornamentation that caused the waves. It would function predominantly the same.
That might be, except for the halberd the gurisame and other pole-weapons would decimate the flamberge user and we know for a fact that they were common amongst the swiss pikemen, and were in fact considered specialist (based on pay)
That's not only literally an unfounded statement based purely on your personal speculation(As it would be highly situational that any sword fared well against any polearm, even if there is a record of them for some reason marching flamberge wielders against pikemen. That's kind of the reason polearms exist, range ultimately rules the battlefield), it's somewhat amusing you directed it at me, when I was supporting your statement of the defensive property being a good choice. C'est la vie.
And for that note, it would also have a very high chance of being accurate to say the average individual was armed with an axe in that situation, as their relative low cost of production, ease of repair(usually only the wooden haft broke) and rather straight forward method of dealing suitable damage made them the favored weapon of nearly every Germanic society, leaving sword, and other "more advanced" weapons for specific skilled groups and as signs of rank, more often than not. That would also explain the increased pay noted for them actually.
You know, we really do agree a lot. Since you don't usually fight pike to pike, I would postulate the Flambergemen were there to defend the pikemen from the non-pike wielding individuals of the opposing force should they manage to get close enough to lower the effectiveness of the pikes. Though... I'd just have my archers fire repeated volleys at the pikemen either way.. But that's neither here nor there.
I've also read that, realistically, the wavy edges of swords like that don't actually help to wound your foe any more than a straight edge.
Anyway, SCREW REALISM! :P
Here here! I'm inclined to agree, that for the fun of the came realism can cause major hindrances. CURSE YOU REALITY! ;P
Anyway, my apologies for being somewhat off topic at times, I'll just reiterate my original statement's intent in a more brief way, and not wonder off topic again: I support the +2 1d10 Defensive idea(I think that was the proposed stats anyway).
Just use the stats for a Fullblade as it's a pretty close approximation. D&D weapons aren't really specific weapons, they're general categories.
Fullblade covers all huge two handed cutting swords.
That might well be, I don't think they were basing it on training manuals. It was just what they deemed to be the most effective use of the weapon in relatively close quarters, most usually sword to sword. I would presume that in reality it was used like any other large, two handed sword and was merely ornamentation that caused the waves. It would function predominantly the same.
Well, the issue with this is, the Landsknechts were the ones that primarily used flamberges (flammenschwert to them). It is also generally accepted that the wavy design May have had an impact on cutting the haft of polearms (and axes to a lesser extent) by the nature of the surface cutting area. As dead limbs have less give then human skin, surface area = more cutting.
That's not only literally an unfounded statement based purely on your personal speculation(As it would be highly situational that any sword fared well against any polearm, even if there is a record of them for some reason marching flamberge wielders against pikemen. That's kind of the reason polearms exist, range ultimately rules the battlefield), it's somewhat amusing you directed it at me, when I was supporting your statement of the defensive property being a good choice. C'est la vie.
To put simply its not unfounded. Its how the sword was Known to be used, the Landsneckts paid trained soldiers who used the flamberge Double what they paid regular pike men. They paid more for a reason, it is stated (mostly in letters during the Italian wars) that the Swiss landsneckts would use large wavy blades to defend their captain by snipping the heads off of pikes with it. WE know the wavy blade does nothing more pronouced then other two handed swords against living flesh. It is also know that surface area improves cutting of dead things (like hafts of weapons), it is Possible it was used for that, but as the German mercanies rarely explained reason to people behind it we can only really speculate.
And for that note, it would also have a very high chance of being accurate to say the average individual was armed with an axe in that situation, as their relative low cost of production, ease of repair(usually only the wooden haft broke) and rather straight forward method of dealing suitable damage made them the favored weapon of nearly every Germanic society, leaving sword, and other "more advanced" weapons for specific skilled groups and as signs of rank, more often than not. That would also explain the increased pay noted for them actually.
A couple of flaws. 1. Axes are horrible against cavalry, and even more so against plate armor. Axes (short hafted up to what would be called a great axe/lochbar) were great against unarmored targets. They did see some use in infantry mop ups, but were not the predominate weapon of choice by just about anyone post 1066. By that time infantry was generally using one of a variety of polearms/axes (Such as the halberd) all of which were basically farm implements with hafts on them, by the 1300's polearms were slowly evoling into forms we would recognize today (Gurisame on the contient, Halberd in England, Glaives in France in spots).
By the 1400's the Pike formations were around, as they could handily hold knights at bay on their horses.
2. Germanic people didn't use axes as much as most people think, even the proto germanic goths/vandals/saxons were more likely to use narrow blades as axes have trouble with any kind of metal type armor, and require more room on either side to use effectively, when fighting against romans/greeks who favored phalanxes (that is to say towershields+spears) it would be a severe disadvantage.
You know, we really do agree a lot. Since you don't usually fight pike to pike, I would postulate the Flambergemen were there to defend the pikemen from the non-pike wielding individuals of the opposing force should they manage to get close enough to lower the effectiveness of the pikes. Though... I'd just have my archers fire repeated volleys at the pikemen either way.. But that's neither here nor there.
That's close to how the english dealt with it, Force of halberders with longbowmen in the back, they never fought the landsneckts though so we don't know how it would have faired, the landsnekcts were a very mobile group, and that usually means archers were in as much danger as knights from them.
Here here! I'm inclined to agree, that for the fun of the came realism can cause major hindrances. CURSE YOU REALITY! ;P
Anyway, my apologies for being somewhat off topic at times, I'll just reiterate my original statement's intent in a more brief way, and not wonder off topic again: I support the +2 1d10 Defensive idea(I think that was the proposed stats anyway).
+3 1d10 defensive superior.