Talk:Arming Sword (5e Equipment)
From D&D Wiki
- It worked! (Unless you were actually trying to make a phonecall or something). Marasmusine (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2014 (MDT)
The image was broken, so I replaced it with a fresh link and image. Vobria
arming sword is a dnd longsword
Arming sword in dnd longsword. Bastard sword is european longsword. Thus arming sword is not needed, it only introduces more confusion.
This Does Not Need Balance
I don't know why the "needs balanced" stub was added. You should probably go back and check your PHB because the last time I checked a short sword does not have the 'versatile' property. This weapon is mechanically different from a shortsword and has a different price point, which makes it a distinct weapon in its entirety. If the halberd and glaive, which are mechanically identical, can exist as distinct weapons, then there's no reason why this can't. Vobria (talk) 00:43, 22 November 2018 (MST)
To be fair, historical arming swords couldn't be gripped with two hands anyway, given they were one handed swords.
- That may be generally true, though a one-handed sword could usually be gripped by the pommel if you were to somehow lose your shield. This would at least give you extra leverage in your swings. However, D&D hardly concerns itself with this level of realism in this context, given that a longsword also has the versatile property. Trying to one-hand a historically accurate longsword would make you virtually combat ineffective, whereas two-handing a one-handed sword would only be redundant at worst. Vobria (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2018 (MST)
- Longswords were occasionally used in one hand when delivering a thrust because you can rotate your torso and thusly increase your range. I would have to disagree on adding leverage because your hands would be much too close together to add anything substantial. The reason a longsword gains additionaly force when you swing it is because your hands are far enough apart to actually work a lever effectively. It's like if you held a staff in the middle with your hands together, if you attempt to spin it out in front of you and suddenly change direction, it's much harder because you can't stop it's inertia because you have no leverage. Assuming you had a longer staff --to make up for the new space between your hands-- and spread your hands apart several inches, you could stop it much easier because you can work a lever far better. Also, I'm well aware realism isn't always a thing in D&D, but redundant (or inaccurate) weapons are abundant on this site and it's probably only going to get worse. PunnyDM12 (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2018 (MST)
- I suppose I'd have to challenge you to show me a longsword manual or treatise from the relevant time periods that encourage one-handed use of the longsword in any way, because I'm familiar with none. From Liechtenauer to Meyer, all schools of fencing emphasize maintaining a firm two-handed grip. One-handing a thrust might seem intuitive, but your stability would be so severely compromised that your position would be unrecoverable should your opponent parry your blade. Compare this to two-handing a one-handed sword, of which we have paintings and illustrations depicting the technique. There are records of one-handed swords being used in this way. The proximity of your hands mean virtually nothing here, and it's easy to prove. Go out tomorrow and grab a baseball bat. Grip the far end of the handle with one hand and swing it. Then, do the same but this time grip the bat with both hands right next to each other. Which grip clearly produces the most power? Watch when baseball players swing their bats; their hands are gripped right next to each other at the end of the handle, not spaced out. Leverage is not created by your hands in relation to each other, it's created by their position either up or down the length of the weapon. A longsword's additional force is not created by the distance between your hands, it's created because it's the hand gripping near or on the pommel that's pulling the sword and producing the leverage. The hand near the cross guard creates stability and allows the sword to be nimble.
- I'm not too concerned with people making what seem to be redundant or "inaccurate" weapons, as it seems that Wizards themselves don't seem to care with their own official content. Like I said before, if a glaive and a halberd can exist as distinct weapons in this game, then pretty much anything can. I see no real reason to create an issue out of it unless a particular item comes into direct conflict with official mechanics somewhere. Unless that happens, I say be creative and make whatever you want. Vobria (talk) 01:51, 22 November 2018 (MST)
- Perhaps if you check Di Grassi's work, you'll see he does indeed have a one handed thrust using a two handed sword. And while it may be a greatsword, I see no reason it would have never been done with a longsword. (To note, I'm not saying it was commonplace either, just something one could potentially do for a cheeky stab. Though to say it was never done because it wasn't in a treatise is also a bit naive in a way.) Also, I'm a tad confused on what you want me to see with the bat analogy given a bat and a longsword aren't necessarily comparable given the p.o.b. and mass distribution, and of course a two-handed grip would be more powerful than a one handed grip; I never said it wasn't. When you swing a bat, much of the mass can carry a swing forward (similar in regards to a mace). Additionally, I would say the space of one's hands do matter as the more space you'd have from the fulcrum (your leading hand) the more energy and control you can exert across a lever. And I'm only concerned with redundancy when it's just another longsword reskin, or a rapier but not, or like a scimitar but for some reason it costs half the price and does 2d6 damage because it just becomes yet another page to read, and it's not adding anything new to the table. It's one thing to have two weapons be the same, but ten weapons is a little excessive. PunnyDM12 (talk) 10:09, 22 November 2018 (MST)