|
7 months ago ::
Nov 26, 2012 - 12:26PM
#401
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2007
|
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />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.
This is more likely to happen with new people that join the various re-enactment societies.
Many of them are introduced thanks to RPGs of some sort. The nature of newcomers that are excited about seeing the weapons in action are often of shock when they realized they had a misconception from some source, be it Two handed weapons not being overly large like Warhammer Fantasy weapons, or the typical SCA retan sword being about the size of a D&D Short sword.
It just leads to ribbing, which everyone takes in stride.
CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production.
D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 26, 2012 - 12:47PM
#402
|
Date Joined:
May 11, 2006
|
Why would I go through the labor when you have patently said many times you do not care?
Read: Can't do it. No such thing. So I will obfuscate with a strawman.
After all, if I didn't care, why would I ask?
I find it humorous that when one responds with a similar tone to that with which you illustrate your arguments you get ruffled.
You would be well advise not to mistake my efforts to speak slowly and use emphatic words, as being flustered. I'm just trying to dumb it down so you'll understand.
Because it is not recognized by scholars in the field. Clear?
Not really, no. I doubt your expertise on what is or isn't a category of historical weaponry. See: my first comment in this post.
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
So we agree there are swords with blades *longer than a dagger, shorter than a longsword*. But for whatever reason we shouldn't call them "short swords"? Should we call them "overly long fighting daggers"? Yeah, that rolls off the tongue...
Still not seeing how "short sword" is not a perfect term for such a thing as we both agree exists.
You gave an incorrect accounting on studded leather.
Wrong. I gave a description of something that clearly exists: Lighter, cheaper scale. The rules even justify it because scale is the next step up from studded leather. So they are obviously related. The fact that you don't like the term "studded leather" is as supercilious and misdirected as your disdain for the use of "short sword".
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'll be here waiting for you to post his explanation of how there is no such thing as a "short sword"...
Go ahead. I'll be here waiting with bated breath.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 26, 2012 - 1:15PM
#403
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2007
|
Why would I go through the labor when you have patently said many times you do not care? Read: Can't do it. No such thing. So I will obfuscate with a strawman.
After all, if I didn't care, why would I ask?
I get paid to teach people. You better be prepared to give me a good sum of money to provide you with a comprehensive list.
You would be well advise not to mistake my efforts to speak slowly and use emphatic words, as being flustered. I'm just trying to dumb it down so you'll understand.
Indeed. You have proven you are not flustered with that remark.
Because it is not recognized by scholars in the field. Clear? Not really, no. I doubt your expertise on what is or isn't a category of historical weaponry. See: my first comment in this post.
Doubt all you like it matters not to me. The information is there for YOU if YOU choose to discover it. It is simply a matter of research to discover, but you would have to be willing to put in the time.
So we agree there are swords with blades *longer than a dagger, shorter than a longsword*. But for whatever reason we shouldn't call them "short swords"? Should we call them "overly long fighting daggers"? Yeah, that rolls off the tongue...
They do not fit the criteria of a dagger so no I would not call them that.
Still not seeing how "short sword" is not a perfect term for such a thing as we both agree exists.
It is a term used in the game. It is incorrect historically. That is what makes it imperfect. If it was the perfect term it would be correct historically as well.
You gave an incorrect accounting on studded leather.
Wrong. I gave a description of something that clearly exists: Lighter, cheaper scale. The rules even justify it because scale is the next step up from studded leather. So they are obviously related. The fact that you don't like the term "studded leather" is as supercilious and misdirected as your disdain for the use of "short sword".
If only wishing could make it so.
Again, you will be hard pressed to find studded leather that ever existed. Boy this is fun Too bad I can't show you diagrams of something NOT existing. It may help to illustrate the point.
D&D actually has things in it that are described wrong with an eye to simplicity, and never existed.
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'll be here waiting for you to post his explanation of how there is no such thing as a "short sword"...
Go ahead. I'll be here waiting with bated breath.
Ah here is part of your misconception. He wouldn't be discussing them because he uses the proper terms. So the reason I can't tell you that there is no such thing as a 'SHORT SWORD" is because as a historical term it is meaningless. Like Studded leather. As a historical term it is meaningless.
OK OK. How about we leave it at this: You don't think the historical terms are important and I think they are.
CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production.
D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 26, 2012 - 1:20PM
#404
|
Date Joined:
May 11, 2006
|
So, there's not no such thing as a "short sword". Got it.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 26, 2012 - 1:22PM
#405
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2007
|
So, there's not no such thing as a "short sword". Got it.
If you like it, go with it!
CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production.
D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 26, 2012 - 1:55PM
#406
|
|
|
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.
Heh, and just because flavorless renamable mechanics is important to you - so you yourself dont care what the flavor or names actually are - doesnt mean your preference is actually important.
Many players want “medieval-esque” flavor. Many players want accurate equipment.
The truth is, what each of us wants is important. The point of D&D Next is to optimize among what players want, including me, including you.
My main concern is when the equipment list is plain wrong.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 26, 2012 - 2:10PM
#407
|
Date Joined:
May 11, 2006
|
My main concern is when the equipment list is plain wrong.
And our concern, a painfully long and boring weapon list that requires at least a Masters Degree in Medieval Weapon Studies.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 26, 2012 - 2:13PM
#408
|
Date Joined:
Aug 28, 2007
|
The thing is there is plenty of shortswords of different names, the question is do we need everyone of them listed as different weapons or can you as the DM just desribe it as such when someone finds one or purchases one in a specific land or location.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 26, 2012 - 2:13PM
#409
|
Date Joined:
Jul 29, 2012
|
My main concern is when the equipment list is plain wrong.
And our concern, a painfully long and boring weapon list that requires at least a Masters Degree in Medieval Weapon Studies.
Can't we have a middle-ground?
I do not want the re-flavour everything spouted about on these boards, I am all for re-skinning a bit, but it can go too far.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 26, 2012 - 2:16PM
#410
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2008
|
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.
Example of incorrect nomenclature: Short Sword.
Misconceptions it breeds: Romans fought with Short Swords (gladius). Gladius is a finesse weapon. Any sword smaller than 3 feet blade length is a finesse weapon.
Why haven't you two argued at all? It is because two Historians can never be in the same post?
But seriously, take a look. One Historian continues to say that the Short Sword is perfect for the gladius (even using my completely tongue in cheek question seriously). The other Historian says that this is a misconception. Am I totally misunderstanding something here, or is there about to be some heavy backtracking?
|
|
|
