|
6 months ago ::
Nov 26, 2012 - 8:57PM
#421
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Garthanos: Some texts, like the Ledall transripts include both one handed and two handed techniques for the long sword. Though you are mostly right as to whether they were tricks or not, though they were fully lethal techniques on their own it was much more common to fight two handed and switch to one handed for a single specific attack, what I know as the rabbit and the spryng both are techniqies, one cutting the other thrusting that involves letting go with one hand for the extra reach and then immediatly pulling back into your guard.
Great.. that was exactly my guess, thanks for the confirm.
Speaking of nonconventional.. umm mytho/legendry.
According to some recent reading, it turns out the legendary master known for using two katanas was actually advocating it as an excercise to train for ambidexterity in case of an arm injury and as strength training.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 26, 2012 - 9:04PM
#422
|
Date Joined:
Dec 12, 2009
|
I'm less familiar with eastern history\legend then I am with western but I think that would be miyamoto musashi(or something akin to that)
If I do have my history right on him he preferred the staff anyways. Though I can understand how training with two swords could be good for ambidexterity.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 26, 2012 - 9:08PM
#423
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
I'm less familiar with eastern history\legend then I am with western but I think that would be miyamoto musashi(or something akin to that) If I do have my history right on him he preferred the staff anyways. Though I can understand how training with two swords could be good for ambidexterity.
I cant spell worth beans... so i figuted I would assume you knew.
1 arm with a katana is your control arm your other is your strength arm so if you are using the weapon in one hand particularly the off hand you are training that hand for control... and since you lack proper leverage both strengthen your wrists.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 26, 2012 - 9:46PM
#424
|
|
|
It was much more common to fight two handed and switch to one handed for a single specific attack.
Yeah, it seems the longsword was used mainly two-handed, with specific uses for one-handed. Similarly, the Italian manuscript by Fiore dei Liberi (1410), notes techniques including switching to one hand for sudden extended reach.
That said, Oakeshott includes longswords whose grips are one-handed, meaning there are exceptionally strong individuals who used a longsword exclusively one-handed.
Noting the extra reach of the longsword relates to its use one-handed, and this corresponds to the reach of a one-handed rapier, the mechanics could look something as follows:
Default
Sword (military one-handed 1d8 slash or pierce)
Longsword (military two-handed melee 1d10 slash, or one-handed extended melee 1d8 slash, or two-handed melee 1d10 pierce)
Optional
Rapier (precise one-handed extended melee 1d6 pierce)
Twohander (brute two-handed extended melee 1d12 slash)
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 26, 2012 - 9:56PM
#425
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
It was much more common to fight two handed and switch to one handed for a single specific attack.
Mainly two-handed, with specific one-handed uses. Similarly, the Italian manuscript by Fiore dei Liberi (1410), notes techniques including switching to one hand for sudden extended reach.
That said, Oakeshott includes longswords whose grips are one-handed, meaning there are exceptionally strong individuals who used a longsword exclusively one-handed.
There are also techniques that involve gripping up on the blade with heavily gauntlet hands.. too. The problem I generally have is that the one handed grip is a lot of lost leverage and speed... independent of strength. I am going to guess shield mojo.
Noting the extra reach of the longsword relates to its use one-handed, and this corresponds to the reach of a one-handed rapier, the mechanics could look something as follows:
Default
Sword (military one-handed 1d8 slash or pierce)
Longsword (military two-handed melee 1d10 slash, or one-handed extended reach 1d8 slash, or two-handed 1d10 pierce)
Optional
Rapier (precise one-handed extended melee 1d6 pierce)
Twohander (brute two-handed extended melee 1d12 slash)
So what mechanics are extended melee reach associated with...
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 27, 2012 - 7:01AM
#426
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2007
|
It was much more common to fight two handed and switch to one handed for a single specific attack.
Yeah, it seems the longsword was used mainly two-handed, with specific uses for one-handed. Similarly, the Italian manuscript by Fiore dei Liberi (1410), notes techniques including switching to one hand for sudden extended reach.
That said, Oakeshott includes longswords whose grips are one-handed, meaning there are exceptionally strong individuals who used a longsword exclusively one-handed.
Noting the extra reach of the longsword relates to its use one-handed, and this corresponds to the reach of a one-handed rapier, the mechanics could look something as follows:
Default
Sword (military one-handed 1d8 slash or pierce)
Longsword (military two-handed melee 1d10 slash, or one-handed extended melee 1d8 slash, or two-handed melee 1d10 pierce)
Optional
Rapier (precise one-handed extended melee 1d6 pierce)
Twohander (brute two-handed extended melee 1d12 slash)
When I first started exploring medieval weapons I was not ready for just how heavy the Longsword actually was. When I used the Claymore at a demonstration in Fort William Scotland, I was amazed how fast it was compared to the Longsword The oakeshott type specifically.
As for the extended reach, I am not sure I would include that as a built in weapon property. I would rather see that as a feat for the character that uses that weapon. Well maybe I guess proficiency with the weapon should give extended reach, but it should be an exotic weapon proficiency, or its 4e equivalent. I envision it as a reach weapon.
In AD&D I would say a fighter should only be able to get it with weapon specialization.
What would the mechanics be for the rapier being precise?
CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production.
D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 27, 2012 - 7:20AM
#427
|
|
|
It was much more common to fight two handed and switch to one handed for a single specific attack.
Yeah, it seems the longsword was used mainly two-handed, with specific uses for one-handed. Similarly, the Italian manuscript by Fiore dei Liberi (1410), notes techniques including switching to one hand for sudden extended reach.
That said, Oakeshott includes longswords whose grips are one-handed, meaning there are exceptionally strong individuals who used a longsword exclusively one-handed.
Noting the extra reach of the longsword relates to its use one-handed, and this corresponds to the reach of a one-handed rapier, the mechanics could look something as follows:
Default
Sword (military one-handed 1d8 slash or pierce)
Longsword (military two-handed melee 1d10 slash, or one-handed extended melee 1d8 slash, or two-handed melee 1d10 pierce)
Optional
Rapier (precise one-handed extended melee 1d6 pierce)
Twohander (brute two-handed extended melee 1d12 slash)
I am a medieval enthusiast and fight with a longsword (hand and a half sword or bastard sword — whatever you want to call it)
Weight varies greatly with the smith who forged it. I have used hand and half swords that are lighter then one handed swords so weight is arbituary.
Ultimately, it depends on the weilder's comfort level
As for one-handed vs. two-handed — it really depends what sort of guard you are in, what sort of block you are doing and what sort of strike you are doing. The term 'one and a half' handed is really true to its name because you use either or depending on the situation. Personally I tend to often use my free hand to try to block my opponent's strike when I am in close, either by grabing the pummel, hand or arm or presenting the flat of the gauntlet.
Anyways, 1d8 One Handed and 1d10 Two Handed is about right, I don't know why they changed it to purely a two-handed weapon in the latest playtest packet.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 27, 2012 - 7:54AM
#428
|
Date Joined:
May 11, 2006
|
It would seem, to you (evidently, historically), everything not small was a "longsword". But we need to provided statistical sub-categories to account for the different lengths, uses, and purposes for game rule value. To mesh your terminology with D&D weapon math, we need a bit more granularity. That's where, I believe, the core of this disagreement lies.
A "short sword" is a 1-handed bladed weapon. Call it "sword". Call it "short sword". Whatever. Semantics. It doesn't change its characteristics. It has a lighter/shorter blade than anything classifiable as a "longsword". So we'll say it does its base d6 damage.
In previous editions, the longsword was indeed usable 1- or 2-handed (where you got a damage bonus when you switch to 2-hands). Which would seem to jive just fine with your definition. So lets say, for argument sake, this category covers your "average longswords" of historical record. So we up it to d8 damage, a die better than its smaller cousin. (I've been advocating for D&DN to grant a die bump up when switching an applicable weapons to 2-hands. So, lets pretend it would indeed do d10 in that case.)
I see the "bastard sword", as D&D uses it, to still be nothing more than your same "longsword" we just described, but at the upper end of its practical length range. So it becomes more unwieldy one-handed (without extensive training). So it defaults to 2-handed, 1-handed for those properly trained. Since its still technically still just a "longsword" that now *requires* 2-hands, it still does the same d10 damage as the previous "longsword" (when used 2-handed). But lets assume there will be a feat (or something) that lets you use it 1-hand while keeping that same d10 damage. Something to that effect.
Greatsword is still within your definition of "longsword", just that its beyond even the bastard sword's length, and so unusable 1-handed to any measurable value in battle. Now we are in the 2-handed/claymore range. It may still technically be a "longsword" by historical record, but we need to differentiate it from its smaller brothers for the purposes of game statistics. Here's where we up the die size one more time, now a d12 for being that much bigger.
Voila! Game rules for all those different longswords!
|
|
|
