I’ve been doing some reflecting of late on historical weapon design (borne out of an expression of contempt for the exotic weapons in the PHB). There are a lot of factors that go into “the best weapon”; let’s see if we can take a look at these factors and make a good choice that way.
What do you want to kill? Early in the middle ages, the classic long sword was king. A solid, reliable combination of utility and killing power, it could shear through early chain mail without difficulty. As the science of armor progressed, though, different weapons were needed. A long sword can’t penetrate late medieval plate mail; tools like the war hammer, pike or poleax are needed to take apart those defenses.
Likewise, monsters in D&D have a variety of defenses. A rapier, with its high critical hit bonus, is great against most normal creatures. Against a skeleton, however, it's nearly useless; not only are the undead immune to critical hits, but they take almost no damage from piercing weapons.
In terms of raw utility, I’d recommend a variant of the urgosh that has some historical precedent. The Pole-axe was used often for one-on-one combat in the late Middle ages; it looked just like the urgosh, save for a longer haft, smaller heads, and the addition of a small war hammer head on the back of the axe blade. This weapon can deal slashing, piercing, and bludgeoning damage, all in one neat package. If your DM is generous and lets you make the spearhead out of a different material than the axe head – a silver spear point and a cold iron axe, for example – you’ve got a good chance of beating most of the weapon immunities out there. It’s not the perfect weapon for every situation, mind you, but it provides the most options in one package you can ask for.
That’s the best tool for defeating armor – or weapon immunities. What’s the best tool for monster hunting?
There were some seriously nasty monsters in Western culture. Most notably, wild boars were nasty buggers. These things had sharp tusks, were easily larger than a lion or bear, and simply refused to die when shot with an arrow. The weapon of choice for these things were boar-spears – long spears with blades the size of a short sword and crossbars designed to keep the boar from charging up the weapon.
The best weapon for monster hunting, IMHOP, would be the one that keeps the monster from hurting you. Reach weapons are great for this. The long spear gets underused, I think; in conjunction with some other fighters or harassing tactics, it can really shine. (Give a hasted barbarian a long spear and stand back.) I think a boar spear variant of the long spear – one that dealt more damage, and kept opponent it wounded from advancing – would be a great tool for dealing with your average owl bear, outyugh, ooze, ogre, or just about anything else. Failing that, get some serious distance between yourself and the beast. Use the tool that was used to kill Smaugh – the longbow. Above all, don’t close to use your long sword. You don’t fight a pig by getting down on your hands and knees and biting it.
And the weapon you should always carry? That’s easy. Carry the weapon that every man and woman in a medieval society carries. You can take it to court or to the tavern; you can fight with it, eat with it, and use it as a tool. It weighs almost nothing, so it never encumbers you, and is almost as useful as a tool as a blade. The humble dagger has too many uses to ignore.
You’ll note that the long sword isn’t on this list, nor is the spiked chain. The long sword is a good second choice in nearly any circumstance, but there is usually a better option. If you don’t have a golf bag’s worth of weapons with you, this choice is best. As for the spiked chain… explain to me how you carry this thing and we’ll talk. Better yet, explain to me why nobody ever used this weapon seriously in the real world. I find it telling that men and women who depended on hand weapons to stay alive never attempted to use something like a spiked chain on the battlefield.
What do you think the perfect weapon is for monster hunting? For dealing with multiple situations? For carrying in all situations?
It is accepted into most social situations as a non-weapon because of it's purpose as a walking stick, which is handy if negotiations go the wrong way.
As a weapon, it is two-handed and double ended, meaning that you get 1.5x STR bonus as damage (a rather small but useful rule which is often overlooked in most groups) and that it's a good default weapon for a ambidexterity/two weapon fighting based combatant (the same way a dagger is default for someone whose combat centers on DEX).
Most of my characters (who are usually wizards or rogues) have quarterstaves because 1) they're useful and 2) they're easy to use. Even a wizard knows how to wield one.
I also find it surprising that you didn't mention the lance. A lance has reach, can be held in one hand when mounted, and, best of all, does double damage when charging on horseback.
(I find it very hard to believe you when you claim that medieval boars were larger than bears!)
While boar spears were used for hunting boars, it should also be noted that they were used for the *sport* of boar hunting. People who needed to eat boars to survive would use various pits, snares and missile weapons to ensure their safety while hunting boars. It was the people who could hunt boars for leisure that started using boar spears - they didn't need to go hunt for their food, rather they enjoyed the contest of strength and the match of wits in finding and killing a wild boar with practically their bare hands (a spear). Using the spear was far more dangerous than the accepted form of hunting boars by those who needed to eat; pits, snares and missile weapons kept a greater safety distance between hunter and animal. The boar spear was created because boars were driven made when impaled and would charge up the spear and gouge the spear holder; the cross guard was added as a safety feature for the sporting hunter.
There are also a number of polearm like weapons with reach already in the game. The problem with saying how wonderful these are historically is that the game mechanics work a little differently. A reach weapon will not keep someone at bay, regardless if they have haste or not. The only way to reasonably do this is to prepare an action to attack someone when they enter the 10' (or reach) area into which the character can make their attack and then move away; if they wait until they can use their AoO, then the charging character will get an AoO when the reach weapon player moves away. However, a smart character isn't going to charge someone with a reach weapon and the battle could seemingly be a stalemate where the longsword wielding character does not charge in and the reach weapon character keeps an action prepared for when someone finally enters an area they are threatening.
While reach weapons and spears or polearms with crossguards would be good for fighting less intelligent monsters, one also has to remember that there are a lot of monsters with reach as well. So preparing an action to attack and move away when a large monster enters a threatened are will not work, because the monster will also threaten the space the character is standing in; that is, when the character moves away it will provoke an AoO from the monster that is moving in to make the attack.
Now, if this thread is really meant to spark a conversation about what weapon could be made that works great for a fantasy game based of a historical weapon, that could then be given statistics for d20, then this is the wrong place for doing that; there are plenty of boards where other people would probably love to discuss making a new weapon or even converting various historical weapons to d20 (like the boar spear).
I strongly agree with you on that point.
When it comes to temper, however, the boar has lion and bear licked. Boars are mean. They would charge right up a spear or blade to get at the wielder – hence the need for a cross-guard. And when people did choose to hunt bears or lions (assuming they weren’t sensible enough to use bows), they would use something similar to a boar-spear. I’m going to stand by my example of the boar spear as a weapon from history ideally suited to D&D monster hunting.
As for the lance… it is decidedly the weapon with the biggest damage potential in D&D. I’m not at all certain that the lance ever was used two-handed, at least by the medieval knight, but that subject is currently being debated by wiser heads than I elsewhere. It is a weapon that requires a lot of special circumstances to use correctly, though. As Agincourt demonstrated, the lance is only as good as the charge. Given the historical evidence, I’d prefer a bow to a lance in most circumstances where both are usable.
I’m going to stand by my example of the boar spear as a weapon from history ideally suited to D&D monster hunting.
I'm not going to argue that a boar spear wouldn't be nice to see in D&D, about as nice as it would be to see an atlatl's statistics. The problem is that the boar spear is for the leisure of hunting. The people that needed to hunt did not use the boar spear, ever. Most people who hunted out of necessity did not use a spear; those that did usually threw the spear or used the atlatl. Otherwise, nets and missile weapons (bows) were a lot safer. Even more thrifty and safe than using a bow was to use a snare pit to capture wild game. Walking up to a boar and jabbing it with a spear was a sport. Usually it was the other way around for the sport of boar hunting, the boar was usually flushed out and sent down a game trail where the spear holding noble would wait for it.
Aside from the fact that the boar spear was a leisurely weapon for a sport, there is also no statistics to support its use in a D&D game. There is no attack in the game mechanics that allows one to leave their weapon in the body of their victim; rather it is assumed one blow hits and the weapon does not stick in the flesh. The boar does have an ability to represent the fact that it was the animal that lead to the invention of putting crossbars on spears. It has the extraordinary ability called Ferocity, this allows it to fight normally when disabled or dying. There might be other monsters with this ability, but I'm not aware of them. If the boar spear countered the boars ability, it would have extremely limited use in D&D.
If we seriously want to consider the best weapons for monster hunting, that would probably be ranged weapons, nets and pits. Nets and pits being preferable, as they keep the hunter safest. Ranged weapons would be better, just like primitive man used spears, when he hunted, to bring down mega fauna like the woolly mammoth. As for leisure hunting of monsters, that all depends on the nobles doing it; however weapons that maximize safety of the sportmen but still offer some risk and face to face confrontation with the monster would all be appropriate. Again, crosss guards have no statistical relevance in the current game mechanics, so while the boar spear is cool it has no relevance in monster hunting. Rather I could see the sport of monster hunting being a team effort. The noble huntsmen using a reach weapon, one of the polearms, while assistants would have ranged weapons. The assistants would do as much damage as possible to the monster while still allowing the sportsmen to move in with the polearm for the killing blow. Without the sportsmen being able to step in for the killing blow, there would be no sport to it. There would be nothing to tale at the feast and if it hunting is to be boring, might as well stick to nets and pits.
To complete a halberd, all you need to do is replace the back of the axe portion (that spike thing that serves no purpose) with a blunt head. Again, my DM was kind enough to let me elaborate on the rules of the game in such a manner. After roughly 6 months game time (it didn't all go by at once, those were 6 very busy, 6 level gaining months), and after about 7 attempts, I was successful in adding this hammer portion to my halberd. Slap on Monkey Grip (Halberd) and you're ready to go.
Funny thing about my special halberd, most of the ERRORS happened during combat (which happened to be the times when I found out my halberd was not yet of sound construction). My DM did not make it without risks, and I contemplated giving up several times. After I made it, I was given a production facility by the king, and an order for 10,000 for his men and armory. Each cost me 6 GP to make, and I could sell them to the king for 50 GP Each. So there you have it--my idea of a perfect weapon. With Monkey Grip, it's 1-handed, does a D10 damage, and you can make it Bludgeoning, Piercing, or Slashing.
An opponent struck for damage by a cross guard weapon may not approach the wielder of the weapon. Moving out of the reach of the weapon ends the effect, or the opponent may make an opposed grapple check as a move-equivalent action, with a penalty equal to the damage dealt, to end it.
The effect also ends when the wielder next takes an action, or makes an attack. (Of course, if the new attack dealt damage, the effect would become active again.)
Boar Spear - As a Longspear, but with a cross guard, and critical multiplier only x2.
Grinning you hold up your clenched fists, "Just these, bay-bee!"
Chuckling, the bouncer lets you into the bar. If they only knew.... if they only knew...
With this point made, I would like to point out that dogs are some of the best weapons that you can “carry.” Cheaper then a sword, and more versatile then a bow. But you really need more then one. A creature such as a bear will kill and eat a single dog easily. Two or more dogs will give a bear fits. Allowing the hunter to move in on a quarry that moves faster then a man and has natural weapons that cause great damage. (Sounds like most D&D monsters.);)
Yep, dogs would be the weapons I would prefer to bring to D&D from the real world. Lets see, summoned celestial Russian wolf hound. Or how about fiendish boarhound?
By the by there are some beautiful boar spears in museums and books. Boars were considered so dangerous that later spears sometimes had pistols built in. Now for the truly adventurous there were such things as Boar Swords!
Say, +2 if you're using it one handed, +4 if two handed. Come on people, nothing is outright, it's all in a bonus to do something. I'm sure that in medieval times, the boar broke the spear, or was simply too strong for the man with the boar spear to hold back at least some of the time.
And yes, boars are huge, mean, stubborn SOBs.
Personally, I say that if a person wants to take an exotic weapon proficiency to get a slightly better damage die, +1 or 2 to do something unorthodox, or a better threat range, then let them. After all, it's about being unique, and fun is the name of the game, not "but it's not been canonized by WotC."
When WotC took over with 3.0, their own battlecry was "have fun, make up and change rules as you see fit." I think it all works out fine if your fellow gamers can think at least a little, and are the least bit helpful in helping make their game more fun.
Originally posted by Brknlf
Aside from the fact that the boar spear was a leisurely weapon for a sport, there is also no statistics to support its use in a D&D game. There is no attack in the game mechanics that allows one to leave their weapon in the body of their victim; rather it is assumed one blow hits and the weapon does not stick in the flesh.
Check out the harpoon in the Arms & Equipment Guide, it stays in the flesh.
Fractal, sounds very nice, I would love to use that on a charging knight :D
Originally posted by The Sinner
Check out the harpoon in the Arms & Equipment Guide, it stays in the flesh.
Fractal, sounds very nice, I would love to use that on a charging knight :D
The downside, there, is that if the knight is armed with something like a lance, he could have as much reach as you do. While you're trying to use your boar spear to hold him off, he's skewering you with his lance. There's no need for him to approach further.
10 ft reach, not against adjacent foe.
+2 to disarming checks
2d4 damage and 3x Crit Modifier.
Piercing, Large, 15 lb
Originally posted by Baysword
With this point made, I would like to point out that dogs are some of the best weapons that you can “carry.” Cheaper then a sword, and more versatile then a bow. But you really need more then one. A creature such as a bear will kill and eat a single dog easily. Two or more dogs will give a bear fits. Allowing the hunter to move in on a quarry that moves faster then a man and has natural weapons that cause great damage. (Sounds like most D&D monsters.);)
But they need to eat...I suggest a couple of zombie dogs - they don't eat and they scare the beejeezus out of most people (but you'll need a couple of enchanted noseplugs).
As for carrying it around...
A spiked chain is made up of 3 rings, one for the head and two for the hands. This can all remain under your clothing while you have the spiked ends coiled up when not in combat.
Dan
WHAT ABOUT THE GREATSWORD?
The greatsword is probably the greatest weapon in the game. It deals 2d6 damage with a nice 19-20 threat range. It is as accurate as some lesser arms, like the longsword or mace. It isn't that heavy (as compared to a Warhammer) and is quite balanced (as in, the tip is heavy so it chops good).
It COULD be used to skewer something, though you take a -4 penalty because its not designed for piercing. As a DM, I let characters set Greatswords against charges due to their size and piercing tip. Also, you could use the wide blade flat side to deal bludgeoning damage, albeit at a -4 penalty for using the weapon in a strange manner. A few proficiencies and the feat Weapon Focus could make the Greatsword the deadliest weapon in all of D&D.
Originally posted by DnD Master1586
I love spiked chains and don't think they are used enough. In the real world
In the real world, there is no equivalent to the DnD spiked chain. The closest real world analogs are all fairly useless on a battlefield and of dubious use one on one against an unarmored opponent. In DnD, and in kung fu movies, they do rock, though.
There is no perfect weapon. There are some good candidates in certain situations, maybe even most situations. But no one universal answer.
The dagger has the most utility and versatility, but lacks killing power. The greatsword does wonderful damage, but has limits (try using one underwater.)
With that in mind, the "perfect weapon" may well be a variety of weapons, at different times and in different circumstances. Consider that theory in light of the common design for fighters: One weapon chased to mastery, to the exclusion of all other options. A fighter who has managed to be a walking ginsu knife with a longsword may not be as good, in the long run, as a fighter who has a modicum of skill at archery, mounted combat, and hand-to-hand.
Historical warriors had a variety of skills at their disposal. Legionnaires used javelin, short sword, and shield to full effect, and were capable combat engineers as well. Medieval knights used sword, shield, and lance - but they also were capable leaders, politicians, and statesmen (Examples vary in skill, of course). Even samurai, who worshipped the cult of the katana in their twilight, were skilled horse archers, courtiers, and poets. Some of these skills may seem to wander far afield, but in their way and in their time, they were the techniques of war and survival.
When building a fighter, what skills do you consider mandatory? Do you strive for diversity or focus? Do you use that INT stat, or let your inner half-orc guide you?
The perfect weapon - the one that makes for a truly great warrior - is, of course, the weapon that has always been useful. It's the one that Henry V wielded at Agincourt, Wellington used in Waterloo, and the first caveman used when he built the first weapon of all:
Your brain.
I don't know if the longspear is the BEST weapon, but its certainly one of the more fun weapons, and finds historical use beyond bore hunting. In the armies of the late 15th century and throughout the 16th century in Europe, the pike (which was essentially a long spear) found extensive use among foot soldiers. It was so good for the reasons that distinguish it in D&D; in great numbers it could be set quite effectively against charging cavalry. Thus, the balance of power was shifted somewhat; mounted knights lost some of their edge in the battlefield. A poor foot soldier armed with a simple pike, could pose a very real threat to a trained mounted knight, riding an expensive horse, wearing expensive armor.
In D&D, even though the lance gives the knight reach as well, someone wielding a longspear can ready an action against a charging knight. So, the longspear wielder would get to make his attack first. This could be a big advantage at lower levels (which are the best levels for recreating mass combat scenarios anyway). If the longspear wielder hits, he will most likely kill the knight, since he will be doing 2d8+1.5 strength damage. Of course, if he misses, the knight has a good chance of running him through, but what else is new?
Originally posted by Wade8813
Note: Skeletons only take half damage from slashing/piercing, as opposed to no damage.
Note to Note: Skeletons now have Damage Reduction 5/Bludgeoning (in 3.5)
and yet another AD&D-esque rule is cleansed from Third Edition!!!
....pbthhh....half damage?...what is this? A ring of fire resistance?
Originally posted by Shadowchaser84
WHAT ABOUT THE GREATSWORD?
It COULD be used to skewer something, though you take a -4 penalty because its not designed for piercing. As a DM, I let characters set Greatswords against charges due to their size and piercing tip.
Um, what are you saying there? It's not piercing, but it is?
And how would you set a greatsword up for a charge? Doesn't that involve digging in and putting the unused end to the ground so the opponents own momentum carries them into the weapon? if they just hold the swords they'd break their wrists.
I wish I could remember the name of a weapon I saw on Conquest, it had a spearhead, a crow's beak, and a hook for tripping, and was the best weapon for taking down plate mail.
What was that thing called? an Al-something...
For Dungeons and Dragons, however, you all miss the point. There is no perfect weapon! I recently made a satyr ranger character designed for intense, very close melee. I gave him a pair of punching daggers.
In real life, this would make sense. The way I designed him, the way he used them, it resulted in beautiful fight sequences.
In Dungeons and Dragons, if he was fighting an incarnation of himself with a pair of short swords instead, he'd loose (ignoring luck). Simple as that... 1d4 is less than 1d6.
But, as the ranger that he was, I thought it was best for him to have small weapons, so he could fulfill my image of jumping through trees and fighting like a little ball of chaos. Conveniently enough, he's got awesome enough stats that he works, and the other player finds him as awesome as I do, especially given my quasi-LARP reincarnations.
Then there was the centaur-fighter character with a pair of oversized bastard swords. Those win my award for best weapon. You can use them one-handed, which means you can use two of them. That's (no books, I'm afraid, I could be wrong) 2d10 damage per turn, with only a -2.
But if you're not a ranger, you need three feats to do that. Since we're discussing weapons, we should use fighters. They have access to all of the feats to improve their usage of a weapon, and they (if human) can afford using two bastard swords at first level. If anybody can beat that, I'm quite curious.
My evil combos (enemies that make players scream):
Pair of bastard swords.
Scythe with improved critical.
Longspear and shield spikes.
Greatsword and shield spikes, with more feats than a behir.
That said, I am on the Quarterstaff Bandwagon, I think they would be as close as you get to "perfect". In terms of game mechanics it is a simple DOUBLE weapon, which is irreplaceable in terms of general TWF use. As well, bludgeoning damage is arguably the best damage type, as the most common weapon damage resistance is something/bashing. More on to the roleplaying value, the staff doesn't look like a weapon. If you walk down the street with a 10ft spear, with a arm hanging off the end of it, people are going to know you are a killer and give you a negative reaction; if you strut up the street with a stick people won't give you a second though, you are just using a walking stick, you couldn't kill anyone. ; - ) As for the cost, it is one of the cheapest weapons available. EVERYONE has a quarterstaff for sale, and most will give it to you for a few silvers or a gold, try telling that to your 200gp Elven Thinblade.
Bears can get upwards of 1600lbs. Stick one with a boar spear and you get a peeved ursine tank, a broken spear, and probably death if you don't start running (assuming you got a good solid hit with the spear...a glancing blow and you best hope there is an afterlife).
Any creature powerful enough to decapitate a man with a paw -- note, that's paw, not even using claws, just a smack to the head -- deserves a good reputation.
This includes Jason from Jason Takes Manhattan, but not that silly X film. :D
The word “Perfect” is dependent on intended use. A perfect screwdriver sucks as a hammer, and a perfect hammer sucks as a screwdriver. Similarly, weapons have progressed to the point where they have different intended uses (close vs. far, area vs. target, etc.)
However, the basic concept of "Weapon" is a device designed to kill those the wielder wishes dead, regardless of their defenses. As such a perfect weapon could be defined as follows: Any weapon that when triggered, quickly hunts down the targeted creature, quickly goes through any defenses and kills the target, is perfect.
As two weapons, the quarterstaff is outclassed by a variety of combinations of blades weapons. A rapier/dagger combo may not do as much damage on the face of it (1d6/1d6 vs 1d6/1d4) but the increased critical ranges for both the rapier and the dagger more than make up for it. Twin rapiers own the quarterstaff every time.
As a disguised weapon, the quarterstaff is good, but not as good as a war fan or a rapier hidden in a sword cane. Both of these have great advantages over the quarterstaff. The rapier has its previously mentioned large critical range, while the war fan has a higher crit multiplier, along with a bonus to attack if it isn't recognized as a weapon (Only works with the first attack, but sometimes that’s all you need
). And in high magic settings, some people may fear a staff more than a great sword. Also to the argument that its one of the cheapest weapons, this may be true at lower levels, but at higher levels the quarterstaff is generally MORE expensive. The reason for this being that most magic quarterstaves are enchanted at both ends. Considering that at later levels most of the cost of weapons comes from magical enhancements, this probably makes the quarterstaff more expensive, rather than less, for any character above 5th level.
Quarterstaves are still good weapons, but there are still others I would take before taking them. I'm a personal fan of the war fan (arghhh . . . too many fans). Not just because of the slight bonuses one gets from it, but because it also makes the character seem more unique.
Whatever your character's weapon, it should be a signature of his/hers, and then it will be perfect. Years down the line, someone will mention that character's weapon or weapon suite of choice and you'll instantly remember the character and how awesome it was.
They are costless. (This is almost realistic.)
They are weightless. (This defies physics as we know it.)
You can use rocks as ammunition, never needing to buy any.
So you can arm your entire army for free and each and every man can carry enough backup weapons for the entire army. And while damage and range are rather low (this is probably also a departure from reality), advantages like those are pretty tough to beat. ;)
The Roman Gladius (Shortsword) conquered the known world. No other weapon did it.
Just MHO
1. Range (missile)/ length (melee)
2. Cost/ ease of manufacturing
3. Offensive capability (including weight and balance)
4. Defensive capability
5. How easily they are learned/taught
6. Damage type/ striking surface - i.e. blade geometry for swords (which effects its inter-action with armor & flesh)
7. Cultural/ Legal restrictions
A weapon like a spear was popular because it was A. Cheap to produce B. Easy to teach (point and thrust!) C. Had a really good reach. A sword, though a more versatile weapon, was harder to learn and more costly to produce.
Note that D&D doesn't use ANY of the factors that effect real world weapons. Also note that the factors that effect weapons in D&D AREN'T factors that effect real-world weapons! (*2) Also, because characters/monsters have a lot more HP than real world people/animals, the effectiveness of missile weapons is greatly reduced.
In the end, though the situation does make some weapons better than others, in DnD the specific weapon is largely irrelevant.
-----
(*1) In DnD, cost is only a significant factor at early levels, before characters have had time to collect treasure. Also, the range of melee weapons doesn't really matter since most DnD fights occur at relatively close range. [edit: I meant to say the range of MISSILE weapons doesn't matter.]
(*2) Damage in the real world isn't a real consideration, since real world people really only have like 1 or 2 HP. (You can be just as easily killed with a pencil as you can with a sword!)
Originally posted by Josh_Kablack
the Sling is the ideal weapon All core-rules D&D characters are proficient with them
They are costless. (This is almost realistic.)
They are weightless. (This defies physics as we know it.)
You can use rocks as ammunition, never needing to buy any.
And it take a move-eq action to load one (since it is considered a throwing weapon).
And you can't use all rocks. you can only use rocks with a good shape, meaning that after 5 turns, your whole army is going to be lying on the ground, searching for pebbles
.Originally posted by TheDarkLord
The Perfect Weapon?
The Roman Gladius (Shortsword) conquered the known world. No other weapon did it.
Just MHO
Yeah, because the musket had nothing to do with the conquering of the Americas. No, it was all done at the end of a pointy stick.
1. Range (missile)/ length (melee)
2. Cost/ ease of manufacturing
3. Offensive capability (including weight and balance)
4. Defensive capability
5. How easily they are learned/taught
6. Damage type/ striking surface - i.e. blade geometry for swords (which effects its inter-action with armor & flesh)
7. Cultural/ Legal restrictions
And yet the Quarterstaff (or some variation of it) fits all of these categories perfectly well.
1. 6 foot stick remind you of something? Length, pshaw. Beats the heck out of a rapier here.
2. It is a stick that has been whittled down. Now given that a good wood would need to be used you get the idea. A stick is cheaper and easier to make than a sword, ANY sword.
3. Anyone thwaked with a branch knows how much it stings. And on a much more combat scale the staff has a very low kill rate (only a good temple hit will do it) but an attack on ANY part of the body will break a bone, debilitating any opponent. (You can't fight if I take out your knee cap.)
4. The greatest part of the staff is that it is very easy to defend with. A sword risks being damaged if you defend with it (take a chip right out of it) and weapons such as spears needed to be kept a certain way at your opponent to be able to do anything. Shorter weapons (i.e. Daggers) are just too short to really do anything with. As for the staff, it is long enough to work with and designed so that if your axe-friendly friend chops a foot off the end of it you are still good to go.
5. It's a stick. Any two-year-old child can pick up a stick and smash things. It is the most basic weapon available, but can be trained with extensively. You can learn it the easiest, and still spend 50 years with it and not know it perfectly.
6. This can be argued so many way it isn't even funny. Yeah, I would take a rapier against an unarmoured opponent too, one poke and he is bleeding like a geyser, but against the proverbial knight in shining armour the foe is toast. With the staff you can strike where the effect will still be effective, and you can do nasty things like tripping that would be harder with a blade or spear given there is no exposed flesh.
7. "I am just an old, blind man, please let me keep my stick," is perfect. No one would ever take away your walking stick; it is so inoffensive. There is no law against having a stick, but your 10-foot glaive might cause the locals a little bit on unrest. As for culture, every culture has the "staff", in one version or another, in part of their history. Maybe not as prominent as the Bo or Jo in Asia, but every culture has some form of stick weapon, it was too accessible to look over.
Originally posted by Qube
... meaning that after 5 turns, your whole army is going to be lying on the ground, searching for pebbles
If giants seem to have some strange ready supply of boulders to hurl at players in any given campaign, then an army should have no problems finding stones to use while laying siege to the castle
Originally posted by Josh_Kablack
So you can arm your entire army for free and each and every man can carry enough backup weapons for the entire army.)
:D Josh, Josh, Josh. Never pegged you as a rules lawyer. I pity your DM. The moment you tried to load a thousand slings onto a str10 commoner character and declare him wealthy and unencumbered, I'd prolly leap over the table and give you the
-slap of DOOOOOOOOM!!!On the other hand, the sling IS a great weapon. Anyone who sees a town of Halflings stoop down to pick up rocks better turn and run for his life.
P.S. Let's not turn my previous statement into the same battle being waged over at the Towns vs High-Level PCs thread, hm? :P
Originally posted by TheDarkLord
The Perfect Weapon?
The Roman Gladius (Shortsword) conquered the known world. No other weapon did it.
Just MHO
It’s MHO that the use of discipline and tactics conquered the known world. Also, heavy use of the pilum both as a thrown and a held weapon.
Morale was and is a huge factor in warfare. Imagine you're a Celt, and wandering around wearing furs and swinging a bronze sword. Then, a solid block of shiny steel comes up, and cuts a hole in your army. Are you going to fight as well as you can, or are you going to be scared all to hell, of the giant mass of iron men that moves as one?
They had stronger shields, armor, weapons that didn't break, they were well-fed, and, they were constantly reminded of why they were there. Saying that it was the Gladius that conquered the world would be an insult. If your argument is based on conquering done, then it is the Roman Soldiery that did it. They would have done it without those particular swords.
I agree. The greatest weapon is the brain. And I raise another point; the greatest armor is morale.
Originally posted by Alchahest
I agree. The greatest weapon is the brain. And I raise another point; the greatest armor is morale.
The greatest armor is not being there. If you can prevent combat, you won’t get hit.
Some people are arguing for the best weapon to give an army, some people are discussing what to give PCs...
Within those some people are discussing real-world situations, some people are crunching DnD numbers.
Keep these things in mind:
a) An army of quarterstaves is really, really cool. There's a reason we never saw it happen in real life: too much training is necessary to use it as well as a sword. There's a reason we'll never see it in DnD without making fun of whoever did it: Fireball.
b) Nobody's yet beat my double-bastard sword statement, yet I'm still adding something. With double weapons, you can drop (or sheath, or ignore) one if you're against a high-AC enemy and need to hit more frequently.
So... in the two categories (army, PC) I would recommend (assuming that the PC's a fighter or ranger, the best weapon-users):
Army: If you want to arm a large group of inexperienced people, give them spears and shortswords. If I were putting an army against an epic-level character, this is what I'd do. Just picture it:
Player: I move three squares.
DM: You provoke ten THOUSAND attacks of opportunity.
PC: Double bastard sword. I don't believe it can be beaten in damage per turn for a first-level fighter.
-B.
Besides the monk's unarmed strike, I would say that the Spiked Shield is one the best weapons you can get; It's always considered light and with Imp Shield Bash you still get AC a bonus, it may not be "perfect" but if your looking for a off hand weapon your first choice should be Spiked Shield.
I think it works best combined with the Trident or Bastard Sword.
Ignoring those however and giving credit to the weapon for territory conquered would lead me to the Mongol Composite Bow. Mounted Mongols conquered an area greater than Alexander, Caesar, even Hitler. Their mobility and range dominated the battlefield for centuries. They only stopped at the doorstep of Vienna, and Europe beyond, due to the Kahn's death. If the general Subatai had pressed his attack on Vienna, none would have opposed him. The Mongols were, with good leadership, invincible. They simply could not be defeated with medieval weapons. They were the ultimate in ancient military forces. They were the originators of Blitzkrieg. Until firearms fully evolved, the Mongols were the last word in efficiency.
As for an army of quarterstaves, if I were your player, I would rely on sundering them. Being wooden, long, and relatively thin, they surely have fewer hitpoints than a thick metal mace or even a sword. And if your talking real-life, good luck bypassing metal armor with a wooden stick.
IMO, the armor bonus given by shields does not represent just how well they protected in real-life. It definitely increased the life expectancy of the average infantry man drastically. Look at all the great infantry armies of antiquity (the phalanx, the legion, etc), and they all relied on the standard weapon/shield man, at least until technology allowed range and/or mobility to become more important.
As for twin bastard swords, the only problem with that design (in-game at least) is that you have to waste an extra feat on the exotic weapon proficiency. Of course, that won't matter at later levels, when you have fighter feats galore, but early on it could make quite the difference. Plus, won't the character take penalties to hit because they are using two one-handed weapons, instead of a one-handed weapon and a light weapon? Perhaps bastard sword/short sword would do more damage over all. Of course, I'm not into calculating things like that, so if anyone is, I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
Double bastard sword. I don't believe it can be beaten in damage per turn for a first-level fighter.
Two Monkey Griped Mercurial Great Swords (level 1 human fighter).
For my money, in D&D terms, assuming perfectly smart, capable fighters, without feats being a necessity, I'd say I like the Rapier. It's got what makes a weapon perfect to me. It has style, penetrating power, is light, and can be wielded in one hand by most characters. Also, it is good to note that the rapier, while being light, is not the frail epee or foil you see in modern sport fencing. The martial rapier is every bit the weapon that the longsword or greataxe is.
Double bastard sword. I don't believe it can be beaten in damage per turn for a first-level fighter.
Double Warmace ala Complete Warrior. :D
Sure, you're at -2 AC for it, however you can make those Monkey Gripped Large Warmaces. And throw 6d6 damage. >=D
Originally posted by Kickbutt_nancy
Two Monkey Griped Mercurial Great Swords (2D8 damage).
Wow. Do all your first level characters gain 1200 gp as starting gold?
The best weapon of all is knowledge and information though, send forth thy invisible spies to capture battle plans!
It can slay with a word,
Conjure up tornadoes,
Raise the dead to fight again,
Blind,
Strike with disease,
Turn armies to ash,
Summon up the gods to augment your forces,
Or failing that, the Solar's enchanted bow. Arrows of kill whatever they hit. Pretty nice.
But from a personal perspective, give me a staff or a hand and a half sword any day of the week.
Originally posted by eastgrove
The deadliest weapon was the rapier in the west, and the katana in the east. This was before the advent of guns and whatnot. Of course this was in real life and not D&D, so let the argument continue.
That wasn't real life either. In the east, the katana was 3rd behind longbow and spear. The rapier was never a battlefield weapon. It was mostly used for dueling and alleyway protection against unarmored opponents.
Fact is, throughout different time periods there were different "deadliest weapons". As an example, the rapier couldn't become effective until the advent of guns made wearing armor counterproductive. Before that you had to have something heavy enough to cut mail or at least cause trauma to the flesh under it.
As far as the D&D discussion, remember that the designers tried to balance the weapon list so that no weapon was significantly better than any other (unless it had drawbacks or required feats and such). In our group the humble longsword is often used. It's got decent damage, crit range, you can use a shield in the off hand, and is common enough that you have a good chance of finding a magical version.
If you want a brilliant real-world weapon look no farther than the Filipino escrima fighting sticks. If you've ever seen them used, you know they are very fast, much faster than a sword. Because they are only sticks, they are easy to find or make, or improvise, and they are very good at disarming an opponent. A quarterstaff is great, but in real life very difficult to use, escrima are intuitive. Grab two sticks, find enemy, whack until soft, next victim. if you treat them as a club, you have a range increment of 10'. Apparently a club is a throwing weapon. Good thing ogres never think of that. In comparison to a quarterstaff (I treat escrima as light maces), they have the additionally option of allowing you to use weapon finesse.
The best weapon in D&D terms would be the bastard sword. Use it with a shield for extra AC, use it two handed for extra damage. It's the most common exotic weapon (random treasure tables love it) and one of the most common weapons period. Should you decide to use twf (and you don't rely on a high dex and weapon finesse) it beats a long sword, scimitar or rapier any day. Yeah it requires an extra feat, but if you take the exotic weapon master PrC you can beef up your prowess enough (a ranged attack!) that the feat will be the best spent one in your players career.
The most useful weapon would be the Lasso. If you have a horse (paladins this means you) you could grapple and then drag your victim along behind you, make the giant trip or pull down crucial parts of structures (pillars come to mind). Grapple a mage from 15' away and let the ranger pump him full of arrows. Dip two in holy water and you can slowly (but surely) burn a vampire to death without getting to close to that nasty level draining slam. Go for a wild ride underneath a giant eagle or, if you have one, let someone else go for that wild ride. 5 feet from the ground. In a forest. With assassin vines. I love the lasso, even though it doesn't do any damage its tactical advantages are second to none.
Originally posted by Coranathan De'Neren
If you want a brilliant real-world weapon look no farther than the Filipino escrima fighting sticks. If you've ever seen them used, you know they are very fast, much faster than a sword. Because they are only sticks, they are easy to find or make, or improvise, and they are very good at disarming an opponent. A quarterstaff is great, but in real life very difficult to use, escrima are intuitive. Grab two sticks, find enemy, whack until soft, next victim. if you treat them as a club, you have a range increment of 10'. Apparently a club is a throwing weapon. Good thing ogres never think of that. In comparison to a quarterstaff (I treat escrima as light maces), they have the additionally option of allowing you to use weapon finesse.
What do you know! I train Kali (eskrima) myself. You are right, they are very versatile. Also, the movements with the stick are designed to translate easily into short blades - machetes, knives, and the like. There's a group of (real life) stick fighters called the Dog Brothers who fight full contact with just fencing masks and gloves to test their skills. In one of their videos they pit the sticks against staves, nunchuka, 3-section chucks, bokken, and even whips. Only the bokken was a challenge for the humble stick. It is good at both defense and delivering damage.
For killing efficiency, though, you must have a blade. If you have a little skill you can take a hit or two from a stick to get inside your opponent's effective range, not so for a machete.
I hadn't thought of the lasso for D&D, I'll check up on that. Thanks for the suggestion!
2. It is never a matter of fairness. One’s weapons should not be limited because they are too powerful. As an example I would like to point out the machine gun, tank, and finally the nuclear bomb, people strive to make better weapons, and they CAN, that’s the whole idea. If someone designs a VALID weapon that has multiple sides made from various materials to counter damage reductions, then they should have it, it wouldn’t be cheap, but an ingenious design deserves notice. If a pc makes too powerful of a weapon, introduce other weapons also, ask among the other players for ideas, or ask online, or just use magic to balance the whole thing
You can arguably fold it and hold it against yourself for an AC bonus (or even cover if your DM is feeling generous), and it's really not too heavy. And while it has a short range increment, it is quite accurate, and can make trip attacks against charging foes.
I'd probably give it 1d4 bludgeoning with a 19-20 threat range, or maybe 1d6 with just a 20 threat range. And definitely the 1.5x strength modifier for using it in two hands!
Best of all it's cheap!
The King of Weapons
http://www.jadedragon.com/archives/martarts/spear1.html
It’s a pity they're cream of the crap in D&D : /
First, a simple comparison: the rapier compared to the scimitar. The rapier costs 5 gp more and weighs 2 lbs. less, as well as switching from slashing to piercing. The question you have to ask yourself is, "Is that 5 gp worth carrying two less pounds?" The answer isn't really clear in this case. It depends on the time and place and your needs. It may also be that the difference between slashing and piercing becomes crucially important, perhaps meaning the difference between life and death, which makes the choice clear.
When picking your weapon you need to look at everything you spend to get it. This means feats (such as exotic weapon proficiency), gp spent, versatility spent, damage spent, and special features spent.
Take the falchion. When I select it (assuming I have already made the choice to purchase a melee weapon with no magic attached, and am a medium creature with no related combat feats), I spend . . .
75 gp (the lowest cost for a weapon is 0 gp)
piercing and bludgeoning damage types
2 damage *
X 4 critical damage
one hand
7 lbs.
20 ft. range increment
disarming bonus
tripping help
easy concealment
setting against a charge
easy subdual damage
The step from there is to assign values to each of those based on how badly you want each of them. Due to my needs, this comes out to be 27. Repeat for every weapon. Find the one with the lowest score and that's the best weapon for you.
This is what we do every step of the way throughout the game and throughout life. Can you really stand to live without reach? Do I want the versatility of a sorcerer or the power of a wizard? Do I value time out of prison more than revenge on a former lover?
The moral is that there can't be a best weapon because we want different things out of them at different times. If a weapon were created that had superior damage to anything out there, most people would use it because that gets weighed most heavily when considering a weapon. Because D&D has some semblance of balance, we can never have a best weapon.
* 7(Highest average damage for a melee weapon (greatsword)) - 5(average falchion damage) = 2
P.S. Swords are shiny!