|
7 months ago ::
Nov 26, 2012 - 11:21AM
#391
|
|
|
Only D&D players are confused.
Given that the naming is pretty commonplace across the medium, I disagree.
Also, I'd make the claim that the only people who are meaningfully "confused" are those who would try to apply "things-I-read-in-a-(Fantasy-)RPG-book" as if they were 100% accurate historical facts.
I would most certainly second that claim. If you want history, read a history book. If you want a game, read an RPG book.
If someone wants to sound like they have no clue what they are talking about, then play D&D?
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 26, 2012 - 11:32AM
#392
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
If someone wants to sound like they have no clue what they are talking about, then play D&D?
No, the problem is one of application.
If one reads D&D books, and then tries to apply that as if it's real historical fact, yes, they will "sound like they have no clue what they are talking about."
But honestly, it works the other way too. If someone brings a load of academic weapons knowledge to D&D, and tries to apply it as if it's how the game works, yes, they will "sound like they have no clue what they are talking about."
Feedback Disclaimer
Show
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us.
No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC).
(And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft)A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)My 4e Projects
Show
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 26, 2012 - 11:38AM
#393
|
Date Joined:
May 11, 2006
|
Oh Right, you are just misinformed on the historical categories.
Oh, there are quantified and specified historical categories? Enumerated, cataloged and immutable? Excellent! And you're the expert on such things? Brilliant! Its is a good thing we've got you here to help us learn how wrong we are...
Please provide a comprehensive - and historically accurate - list of these categories, so we can begin to classify all the weapons "properly". Please. [rolleyes]
You think D&D categories are the historical categories.
Notsomuch, no. I do however, feel the RPG categories patently trump your narrow (and biased) vision of "historical" ones. Does that help?
I can forgive that error, as the D&D books often miscategorize the weapons.
I find it humorous that you keep dismissing the game setting/RPG reality of weapon types over your misconstrued historical "accuracies"... in a gaming forum.
Lemme axe you something... How can there not be "short swords"? Are you contending that there are no bladed weapons spanning a length range longer than daggers, yet shorter than long swords? Absurdity at its most caricaturisational extreme. Clearly, throughout history, there have been bladed weapons that fit within that range. But please, make a foolish argument to the contrary.
Perhaps than you can point out to me where I can find your peer reviewed journal article on studded leather?
Or yours on any related weapon or armor categorizational subject, Mr. Expert? Otherwise your opinions thus far hold as much weight as mine. Would that not be the case?
Ah theres the rub. You mistook the term historical category. Fair enough.
I've continued to be clear that I am talking historically and fantastically. You are free to go back and check. You'll see as much. Not my fault your myopically fervent championing of this non-issue prevents you from seeing that.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 26, 2012 - 11:41AM
#394
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Every Historian has a different idea of what is "correct" and it is always "What I think".
Only D&D players are confused.
Reallife military historians and reallife archeologists know what a longsword is: it is an extra-long sword.
Who really wants there sword to be called short any way ???? 
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 26, 2012 - 11:41AM
#395
|
Date Joined:
Jul 29, 2012
|
Go 4e style and get rid of the 'bludgeoning/slashing/piercing' business. Problem solved.
I don't think 5th Ed wants to go 4th Ed style, for obvious reasons.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 26, 2012 - 11:43AM
#396
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2008
|
Additionally, the terms in the books, while possibly not historically accurate, are perfectly accurate for the medium in which the appear: namely, RPGs. To RPG players everywhere, the term "short sword" is instantly recognisable as a small sword, often used by rogue types or as an off-hand weapon. Different fields use different words, and for RPGs, the term "short sword" is correct.
That was a much better way of saying what I was trying to convey.
Thanks.
Only D&D players are confused.
Given that the naming is pretty commonplace across the medium, I disagree.
As do I.
Also, repeatedly insisting that people are "confused" is insulting. It reminds me of the South Park episode where Butters gets sent to a Christian Camp in order to "get fixed".
None of us are confused (at least, no one that I have seen). I have never encountered anyone who, in a History class, or at a museum, or upon reading a historical text, or after watching a historical documentary, etc says, "But wait, isn't a short sword a finesse weapon? Why didn't the Romans just recruit all the really high Dex rogues?" I have met people who, upon playing D&D or other games, find that they are interested in learning more about medieval weapons and armor. And these people are never "confused" upon learning that historical names are different from D&D names.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 26, 2012 - 11:45AM
#397
|
|
|
Every Historian has a different idea of what is "correct" and it is always "What I think".
Only D&D players are confused.
Reallife military historians and reallife archeologists know what a longsword is: it is an extra-long sword.
Who really wants there sword to be called short any way ????
Heh. Too true!
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 26, 2012 - 11:55AM
#398
|
|
|
Why didn't the Romans just recruit all the really high Dex rogues?"
Actually, the Romans kinda did. The heavy infantry quickly adopted the sword (spatha) as standard equipment, but the light infantry continued to use the gladius.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 26, 2012 - 12:17PM
#399
|
|
|
I think the mistake Haldrik is making is assuming that just because it's important to him, somehow that means it's actually important.
It isn't.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 26, 2012 - 12:20PM
#400
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2007
|
Oh, there are quantified and specified historical categories? Enumerated, cataloged and immutable? Excellent! And you're the expert on such things? Brilliant! Its is a good thing we've got you here to help us learn how wrong we are...
Please provide a comprehensive - and historically accurate - list of these categories, so we can begin to classify all the weapons "properly". Please. [rolleyes]
Why would I go through the labor when you have patently said many times you do not care?
Notsomuch, no. I do however, feel the RPG categories patently trump your narrow (and biased) vision of "historical" ones. Does that help?
Why yes it does sir! Thank you. The vision however is not mine. If by biased you mean researched and academic than you would be correct.
I can forgive that error, as the D&D books often miscategorize the weapons. I find it humorous that you keep dismissing the game setting/RPG reality of weapon types over your misconstrued historical "accuracies"... in a gaming forum.
I find it humorous that when one responds with a similar tone to that with which you illustrate your arguments you get ruffled.
Lemme axe you something... How can there not be "short swords"? Are you contending that there are no bladed weapons spanning a length range longer than daggers, yet shorter than long swords? Absurdity at its most caricaturisational extreme. Clearly, throughout history, there have been bladed weapons that fit within that range. But please, make a foolish argument to the contrary.
Because it is not recognized by scholars in the field. Clear?
I know there are blades with a length as described by D&D Short Swords. That description is simply wrong from what has been developed archeologically. Foolish indeed
Or yours on any related weapon or armor categorizational subject, Mr. Expert? Otherwise your opinions thus far hold as much weight as mine. Would that not be the case?
You gave an incorrect accounting on studded leather. Then you told me in the next post, it was a clear description. I dispute that. I see I was correct in doing so.
Meanwhile I can point you to the archaeologist Dr. Halpin. I forget his first name, but he is with the university of Dublin. He gives an excellent accounting of swords for a start. I think he is also employed by the Royal Armory.
I've continued to be clear that I am talking historically and fantastically. You are free to go back and check. You'll see as much. Not my fault your myopically fervent championing of this non-issue prevents you from seeing that.
Its Ok I am not casting fault upon you. I made it clear I was speaking historically, and you were demonstrating you did not think that important several times. A case in point simply by describing short swords as you do above as being smaller than long swords. I am myopic indeed.
CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production.
D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
|
|
|
