|
6 months ago ::
Nov 26, 2012 - 10:49AM
#381
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
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.
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
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 26, 2012 - 10:51AM
#382
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 26, 2012 - 10:51AM
#383
|
|
|
Really? Are you sure? 'Cuz I'm looking at the list as we speak. And its right there. It covers armor - leather as a base - with some sort of hard pieces (usually metal rivets or spikes, or whathaveyou) affixed to it to provide additional protection. I see it as something akin to light scale*. Basically a poor man's scale, with less dense metal bits to keep it lighter and less costly. Hmm. Are you sure that couldn't be a category? Sounds an awful lot like a category to me...
(*Scale is leather covered with little metal bits. Sound at all familiar?)
Studded leather would be a terrible choice in armor. It would basically be a heavier version of leather, with studs to help catch a help. It was never used historically. Generally, somebody saw a picture of brigandine and thought the rivets were studs. Now, to help fit that niche you speak, you could have leather lamellar or even leather scale. Or for that matter, have gambeson fill the spot that leather armor currently fills and bump leather armor to the studded leather spot and nix the studded aspect, altogether.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 26, 2012 - 10:59AM
#384
|
|
|
How does one accurately balance a "make your own weapon system", though? I could in theory say that a halberd or a glaive with a thrusting tip could have slashing, piercing, and bludgeoning damage types depending on the method of use. Either are extremely versatile weapons and would reduce the golfbag effect, whereas a flanged mace is only bludgeoning no matter how you slice it. Granted, a mace is a better bludgeon than the haft of a glaive, but the glaive is still more versatile and would then have more options.
Go 4e style and get rid of the 'bludgeoning/slashing/piercing' business. Problem solved.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 26, 2012 - 11:03AM
#385
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
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.
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
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 26, 2012 - 11:10AM
#386
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2007
|
Sure I have. I've seen whole racks of short swords displayed in museums. You can tell they are short swords because they are not as long as the longer swords. Oh, I'm sorry, are we still stuck not grasping the concept of weapon categories?
Oh Right, you are just misinformed on the historical categories. You think D&D categories are the historical categories. I can forgive that error, as the D&D books often miscategorize the weapons.
Again, are you asking for a many-page listing of every single weapon ever used by mankind in historical terms, with statistics for each? Even though a great many of them will have duplicating numbers so as to just waste untold needless space?
No.
What makes you say that? I just explained what it is. Its a lighter, cheaper version of scale. The armorsmiths must have cut corners, putting out inferior versions of scale to save time and money. Are you saying no one ever did such a thing?
Perhaps than you can point out to me where I can find your peer reviewed journal article on studded leather? Or the source you found it in?
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />'Cuz I know the hobgoblins, elves and yes, even humans, in my games do it all the time.
So I'm glad there's an armor category to cover that niche for me...
Ah theres the rub. You mistook the term historical category. Fair enough.
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 26, 2012 - 11:12AM
#387
|
|
|
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.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 26, 2012 - 11:14AM
#388
|
|
|
There is a range of bladelengths that causes most of the confusion:
Between 1 and 2 feet.
Most D&D players misidentify this bladelength as a “shortsword”, and this error leads to confusion about the “longsword”.
To eliminate confusion, it seems better to refer to this bladelength between 1 and 2 feet as a “longknife”. It encompasses a range of bladelengths from the modern Scottish dirk, about 1 foot, to the Early Roman gladius, about 2 feet. It is an ambiguous length, sometimes called a “knife”, such as the Norse sax and the modern machete, sometimes called a “dagger” if it is two-edged, such the Renaissance Rondel Dagger, and sometimes called a “sword” or “half-sword”, such as Late Roman gladius. It sometimes slashes, sometimes pierces, sometimes both, depending on the blade design.
This can be a useful weapon type for blades.
• longsword (also called greatsword, warsword, and bastard sword) (blade 3-4 feet)
• sword (false longsword) (true shortsword) (blade 2-3 feet)
• longknife (false shortsword) (blade 1-2 feet)
• knife (blade less than 1 foot)
Alternatively, D&D can simply eliminate this weapon type, split it in two, then combine anything under 1 foot 6 inches with the knife, and combine anything over 1 foot 6 inches with sword. If so, then all gladiuses (gladii) count as normal swords. Most seaxes count as knives.
• longsword (blade 3-4 feet)
• sword (blade between 18 inches and 3 feet)
• shortsword → longknife
• knife (blade less than 18 inches)
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 26, 2012 - 11:15AM
#389
|
|
|
How does one accurately balance a "make your own weapon system", though? I could in theory say that a halberd or a glaive with a thrusting tip could have slashing, piercing, and bludgeoning damage types depending on the method of use. Either are extremely versatile weapons and would reduce the golfbag effect, whereas a flanged mace is only bludgeoning no matter how you slice it. Granted, a mace is a better bludgeon than the haft of a glaive, but the glaive is still more versatile and would then have more options.
Go 4e style and get rid of the 'bludgeoning/slashing/piercing' business. Problem solved.
Sounds good to me. I hate getting the shaft time and again when I keep choosing a piercing weapon.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 26, 2012 - 11:18AM
#390
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
Ooooh, I just realized that all of Haldrik's weapon wankery is meant to be satirical. And suddenly, it all makes sense. 
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
|
|
|
