Two handed swords

[Dayen]

In all fantasy/medieval type RPGs, the player usually has a choice between using a sword and shield combination, a one handed sword by itself (usually the least effective style), and a two handed sword for his sword oriented melee characters. In AD&D, the most popular type of one handed sword is called the longsword, and in most systems, the two handed sword is called something like greatsword or flamberge, and is typically a huge thing, close in length to a man's height, and is worn hanging from his back.

In D&D the most popular type of sword, period, is the bastard sword. The bastard sword is, like the longsword, actually an arming sword, notably discernable by the relative proportion of the blade's length to the hilt's length, the complete edge on both sides to the crossguard, and, well, the crossguard. They came in a wide variety of lengths and were generally intended to be used one-handed by a mounted knight.

 

The longsword, categorically, is actually a weapon developed in the late Middle Ages that is commonly conflated with the claymore because, unsurprisingly, claymores are a type of longsword. They are unwieldy on horseback (hence the rise of the backsword for cavalry use in about the same time frame, featuring a single sharpened edge and a thrusting tip) and clearly intended to serve as an infantry weapon, often requiring two hands to wield properly due to their length (between 3 1/3 and 4 feet from crossguard to tip of the blade). They could be and often were worn in a harness across the back that in itself constitutes a pretty clever piece of engineering involving really fancy stuff like ties and snaps to keep the sword in place when it was not being used to cave in heads and still be relatively easy to pull free over the shoulder.

 

This is of course assisted by the fact that by medieval warfare standards 98% of people are weak. Longbowmen, heavy infantrymen (men-at-arms), and especially knights were men (and occasionally women) who were physically at a level of capability we like to pretend is really comparable to Olympic athletes.

 

I guess my point is this: you may think you're an expert on swordplay. Inevitably, there is going to be someone who knows more than you do. I'd much prefer a playable game than one is verisimilitudinistic and thus completely inaccessible to a person of average knowledge when it comes to the intricacies of medieval warfare.

 

If you're simply interested in learning more, Wikipedia cites several very reliable sources in their articles on swords.

[rjshae]

Okay, a couple of points here.

 

First, this is not medieval Europe. The chronology will be different, as will the introduction of technology. All the authors need to do is create a timeline where the two-handed appears at or before the events in this story.

 

Second, in many instances the characters will not be fighting a pitched battle against a well-armed and armored force. A two-handed weapon employed against a wild creature need only make contact with sufficient force to inflict damage. It doesn't have to fence with a rapier wielded by a bear. But in the situations where parrying does matter, it's up to the game designers to take that into account. Perhaps some weapons will provide a defense bonus against frontal attacks, in which case two-handed swords probably wouldn't receive that. Or they could just fudge things over and assume things will balance themselves out.

 

If they want to simulate the unwieldiness of two-handed swords, the designers can do so with Strength minimums; just give the great sword a high strength requirement. Anybody below that strength will get a penalty and most likely won't use it,

 

Thanks.

Edited October 25, 2012 by rjshae

[Sylvius the Mad]

Did any1 ever meet a player who had flail or mace as a favorite weapon?

The mace is my favourite weapon.

[ArcaneBoozery]

Although I am not very knowledgeable about medieval swords, are the swords in the movie not bastard swords instead of longswords? They look somewhat large - especially their grip. As far as I know, many longswords also have a grip that is only suitable for one hand, isn't that so? That means a longsword sized for both one-handed wielding and two-handed wielding should be a bastard sword (hand-and-a-half-sword)..

 

I think the exact terminology differs between different times and countries and even groups, but in the most common terminology, longsword and bastard sword are probably the same thing, because bastard sword means its a hybrid between a 2-hander and a 1-hander, which is exactly what a longsword was in late medieval times. It's only in AD&D that there is a difference between the two, since they consider longsword a 1-hander. The historical longswords probably had a hilt that was long enough for a hand and a half (hence the name). The 2nd hand was placed on the end of the hilt and the pommel, allowing the sword to serve in both 1 handed and 2 handed circumstances. In the video above, the hilts seem longer since these guys just duel without shields, so that works for them, but such a hilt would make it hard to wield the sword 1 handed.

 

 

Also, concerning two-handed swords, I read that the true two-handed sword, the "zweihänder" or "bidenhänder", was indeed used to deal with pikemen. However, many other two-handed swords, such as the Scottish claymore, were much shorter (in the range of the longsword as seen above) but still only meant for two-handed wielding. Claymores, due to their smaller size compared to the bidenhänder, were actually worn on the back. So although the OP has some good points, many a sword was used for sole two-handed wielding - not only the bidenhänder.

 

Yeah, but claymores were pretty similar to the longsword (much more so than to the greatswords/flamberges/zweihenders). From WIkipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claymore): "The two-handed claymore seems to be an offshoot of Early Scottish medieval longswords". So my point still stands, that it would be more realistic/historical to have two handed swords be smaller and more finesse oriented than the typical RPG greatsword behemoth. As for being worn on the back, I've seen many people who practice swordplay/medieval recreation societies/etc claim that that is nonsense promoted by Hollywood, and that it's either outright impossible or extremely difficult to draw a weapon from the back, especially a large weapon, but even shorter swords. Here is a sample discussion of this: http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=5792

 

We have so many games now where a warrior can wield massive 2-handed greatswords in Conan-like fashion, that I just think it would be sweet to have one (PE) where two handed swords would be more about technique and finesse for a change, that's all.

[Water Rabbit]

The realism of a weapon depends upon its use. D&D has in various was tried to model this with less and less complexity with each addition. What armor an opponent is wearing, what formation tactics they use, mounted or unmounted, and climate all come into play to some degree or another. Fantasy or not, medieval Europe or not, form fits function throughout history. Looking at how weapons are realistically used across history and cultures gives does not limit a designer into creating an interesting system.

 

However, I would like to lobby for at couple of swords that curve inward, such as a falcata, in addition to the traditional swords that curve away from the edge like the scimitar. The kukri could also be an example, but not limited to the short-bladed version.

 

What I don't care for is a system used in TES games in which the materials and weapons have no logic to them at all.

[Elerond]

I am all for fight animations that don't look like that character hack each other with sticks.

And I have told my preference for relistic/functional looking equipment in http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61306-armour-weapon-designs-a-plea-part-ii/

[Water Rabbit]

 

We have so many games now where a warrior can wield massive 2-handed greatswords in Conan-like fashion, that I just think it would be sweet to have one (PE) where two handed swords would be more about technique and finesse for a change, that's all.

 

The sword fight in Rob Roy has to be my favorite in a movie that illustrates how a claymore compares to a more finesse-based sword.

[UncleBourbon]

The realism of a weapon depends upon its use. D&D has in various was tried to model this with less and less complexity with each addition. What armor an opponent is wearing, what formation tactics they use, mounted or unmounted, and climate all come into play to some degree or another. Fantasy or not, medieval Europe or not, form fits function throughout history. Looking at how weapons are realistically used across history and cultures gives does not limit a designer into creating an interesting system.

 

However, I would like to lobby for at couple of swords that curve inward, such as a falcata, in addition to the traditional swords that curve away from the edge like the scimitar. The kukri could also be an example, but not limited to the short-bladed version.

 

What I don't care for is a system used in TES games in which the materials and weapons have no logic to them at all.

 

What is your take on khopeshes? I'm a big fan of them.

[Dream]

This is what's wrong with wanting everything to be realistic and functional. If BG2's designer's listened to people like this there'd have been no Carsomyr.

 

http://tvtropes.org/...Main/RuleOfCool

 

Yes, but I always find realism kind of satisfying and absurdity kind of annoying when I see it, even in a Fantasy RPG. A touch of realism lends a feeling of authenticity to everything, whereas a hero wielding a JRPG-style sword that is as big as his entire body just provokes amusement or eye-rolling.

 

That doesn't mean realism is always the best option. If it were, I suppose our adventuring career might amount to getting stabbed by the first enemy we encounter, getting taken out of the fight by the wound and dying of an infection a few days later or some such. Still, I'm kind of hoping that outside of the blatant fantasy aspects, the majority of the game will have a realistic feel to it.

 

Well, as evidenced by the fact that the rule of cool exists, you're in the minority.

 

Also, maybe in the P:E universe humanoids have naturally denser muscles and as such are able to wield big ass swords with ease. Or metal is less dense.

[ArcaneBoozery]

I guess my point is this: you may think you're an expert on swordplay. Inevitably, there is going to be someone who knows more than you do. I'd much prefer a playable game than one is verisimilitudinistic and thus completely inaccessible to a person of average knowledge when it comes to the intricacies of medieval warfare.

 

Well thanks for the detailed descriptions, although I never claimed to be an expert on swordplay, and neither should you , since your claims run counter to what people that actually work with these swords think (see 2nd link in my previous post for details). But you are missing my general point, which is not to make the combat super duper complex to make it uber realistic, but to simply adopt a fun historical alternative to the Conan type cliche of 2-handers we have now in every game.

[ArcaneBoozery]

 

The sword fight in Rob Roy has to be my favorite in a movie that illustrates how a claymore compares to a more finesse-based sword.

 

Love that fight! I still think Rob Roy had the best sword fighting of any movie I ever saw. However, the sword Rob Roy used in that final fight was not the claymore we are talking about here. It was a one hander, it just happened to be bigger than the rapier Tim Roth was using, and while Rob Roy was a big strong guy, he used quite a bit of finesse and technique in blocking/parrying the Englishman's attacks. He did end up using his 2nd hand at the end (no spoilers ), but I don't think they ll be modeling that type of 2 handed swordplay in PE.

[Rostere]

I'd like weapons to have different, really distinct uses - in D&D it's most often only a difference in speed and how you roll for damage.

 

Some weapons (war hammers, maces et.c.) was primarily used to penetrate armor and that should be reflected in their in-game properties. Other weapons, such as the khopesh and the falx, were used to counter shields.

 

Keep in mind that this is not our reality. The naming, specifications, purpose, design, materials and fighting styles can be different from ours for swords and for other weapons.

 

Still, if they have the about the same raw materials available (iron, copper, tin et.c.), and the anatomy of the different races are about the same, we will see similar fighting styles emerge.

[Pshaw]

While I'm generally for realism I can't get on board with realistic weapon fighting. It's a bit unrealistic for an crossbowman to be standing 15 feet away from a brawl sending quarrel after quarrel into the fray without hitting your party members (which are usually in the way of the intended targets) or provoking the enemy into running over to you to kill you while you're reloading/cranking your crossbow. At some point realism needs to be enhanced or flat out suspended for entertainments sake.

 

I admit that sometimes it urkes me that what happens in movies is so far apart from reality it strains my disbelief. However if I view it objectively I can see where the visual appeal of a huge explosion is more entertaining than a minor one or no explosion at all. The same thing carries over to the 'fighting styles' involved in movies and games. Realism is a nice guideline but when it comes to entertainment we do need to deviate a bit to keep things visually interesting. Especially when I'm going to be watching attack animations on a loop for hours on end I'd rather go for the action movie interpretation than the realistic one.

Edited October 26, 2012 by Pshaw

[AGX-17]

I want to use a "one-handed" longsword in two hands. I also want to dual wield sabers or rapiers and daggers (without being penalized for it the whole time, there were medieval/renaissance dueling styles focused entirely on the use of a rapier and dagger.) Giant swords are just inefficient battleaxes.

Edited October 25, 2012 by AGX-17

[nikolokolus]

As a companion piece to weapons with different uses and properties, I would really like to have armor with plusses and minuses against certain weapons. It could add a lot of depth and thought to combat and character building.

[Kai]

I wouldn't mind seeing a more realistic approach to weapons in P:E, if armors are going to be more realistic, why not the weapons as well?

 

One thing that will be different in P:E compared to RL however, is that the people who will wield all the weapons will be of different sizes. Orlans will probably be smaller than most humans that fight, and aumauas will be larger. While we don't know the sizes of the yet, I'd guess the orlans will be like gnomes/halflings, and I hope the aumaua will be significantly larger than humans (3 meters tall?).

 

If so, the old school DnD 2-handed swords would make sense to have in game as the auamaua could wield them in the same way that humans wield bastard swords. But humans would not be able to wield the 2-hander without severe speed penalties. Also, the variety that weapons would be used in would depend on the size of the character, like in NWN2. It would feel a bit more realistic within the setting, even if I really enjoyed wielding halberds with my gnome warrior in BG...

[UncleBourbon]

I'd like weapons to have different, really distinct uses - in D&D it's most often only a difference in speed and how you roll for damage.

 

Some weapons (war hammers, maces et.c.) was primarily used to penetrate armor and that should be reflected in their in-game properties. Other weapons, such as the khopesh and the falx, were used to counter shields.

 

Keep in mind that this is not our reality. The naming, specifications, purpose, design, materials and fighting styles can be different from ours for swords and for other weapons.

 

Still, if they have the about the same raw materials available (iron, copper, tin et.c.), and the anatomy of the different races are about the same, we will see similar fighting styles emerge.

 

When talking about more recent iterations of D&D, or perhaps the earliest, I would agree (though early editions had a LOT more flexability). Depending on who you're playing with (and how much they subtley, or not so subtely, insult your choice of character build for "not carrying his weight in combat") you may well have characters with some interesting choices of utlity weapons - though I think pathfinder really streamlined it. Chains were great because like many large weapons, it had the ability to hit things 10 feet away, only it could also hit something 5 feet away, which most cannot, and if you built a fighter around it, it was stupid. Whips were all about disarming opponents - which if you're trying to take a foe alive was a good way to persuade them, usually. Weapons you can trip with are good for provoking attacks of opportunity, and saps and a few other weapons that primarily dealt subdual/nonlethal damage were good for knocking people out. The great thing about D&D is/was that basically, the limit is however much of your imagination the DM will allow/work to enable. Now cRPGs are significantly different, likely because their nature is so much closer to a choose your adventure novel than an organically evolving trek of characters. That said, I've found some cRPGs that are terrific, and had some terrible PnP campaigns.

[Dayen]

I guess my point is this: you may think you're an expert on swordplay. Inevitably, there is going to be someone who knows more than you do. I'd much prefer a playable game than one is verisimilitudinistic and thus completely inaccessible to a person of average knowledge when it comes to the intricacies of medieval warfare.

 

Well thanks for the detailed descriptions, although I never claimed to be an expert on swordplay, and neither should you , since your claims run counter to what people that actually work with these swords think (see 2nd link in my previous post for details). But you are missing my general point, which is not to make the combat super duper complex to make it uber realistic, but to simply adopt a fun historical alternative to the Conan type cliche of 2-handers we have now in every game.

You missed my point. These "people" who "work with these swords" apparently have no clue what they're talking about. That entire video was a basic overhand chop to rising slash movement, which is more often associated with Kendo than western swordplay (western swords rely on the weight of the blade because the edge isn't terribly fine and thus are often slashed downwards). There are entire manuals that demonstrate the "waves on rocks" methods utilized in conjunction with the claymore. They also explain the presence of the leather foreguard and why the blade wasn't sharpened all the way to the crossguard. These were huge weapons and getting the best leverage for a quick strike often entailed "choking up."

 

So like I said: I'd prefer a game that is playable over one that is "verisimilitudinistic," particularly when that verisimilitude is wrong.

[Merlkir]

You missed my point. These "people" who "work with these swords" apparently have no clue what they're talking about. That entire video was a basic overhand chop to rising slash movement, which is more often associated with Kendo than western swordplay (western swords rely on the weight of the blade because the edge isn't terribly fine and thus are often slashed downwards). There are entire manuals that demonstrate the "waves on rocks" methods utilized in conjunction with the claymore. They also explain the presence of the leather foreguard and why the blade wasn't sharpened all the way to the crossguard. These were huge weapons and getting the best leverage for a quick strike often entailed "choking up."

 

So like I said: I'd prefer a game that is playable over one that is "verisimilitudinistic," particularly when that verisimilitude is wrong.

 

1.) western swords don't rely on the weight of the blade. Longswords on average weigh about the same as Japanese swords. The katana is generally more rigid and has a thicker blade.

2.) kendo is a sport and it doesn't own the "overhand chop".

3.) the claymore is a very specific (and minor) sub section of the longsword/greatsword group, longswords in general didn't have leather foreguards and they were sharpened along the blade.

4.) longswords weren't huge

5.) the guys in the video know a hell of a lot about what they're doing.

6.) you don't seem to know much about western swordplay

[Jumble Murdersense]

Why did nobody call the police? Two guys waving big swords about in a park?

 

There's no law against awesome. Speaking of awesome, nice portfolio Merlkir!

Edited October 26, 2012 by Jumble Murdersense

[Greensleeve]

Honestly, I don't think anyone here is saying or expecting this to be a hard-core, super realistic combat simulator. It's more likely they'd be backing CLANG or something, rather than this if they were. What we are trying to say is just that we'd rather see swords like these: https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQDt3DnmjsVzz1SJX145CEtNzF-IeFqsiMBvXNbmtv9JjHcrUd- rather than swords like these: https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRqQntqJm4m_CkG2aVPv4nPvW6j_Ns85Hjs8DFLUok9lumU-1MeAw. That's all,

[Karranthain]

Honestly, I don't think anyone here is saying or expecting this to be a hard-core, super realistic combat simulator. It's more likely they'd be backing CLANG or something, rather than this if they were. What we are trying to say is just that we'd rather see swords like these: https://encrypted-tb...XNbmtv9JjHcrUd- rather than swords like these: https://encrypted-tb...LUok9lumU-1MeAw. That's all,

 

Absolutely Check this topic too : http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61306-armour-weapon-designs-a-plea-part-ii/, deals with the same matter.

[ArcaneBoozery]

You missed my point. These "people" who "work with these swords" apparently have no clue what they're talking about. That entire video was a basic overhand chop to rising slash movement, which is more often associated with Kendo than western swordplay (western swords rely on the weight of the blade because the edge isn't terribly fine and thus are often slashed downwards). There are entire manuals that demonstrate the "waves on rocks" methods utilized in conjunction with the claymore. They also explain the presence of the leather foreguard and why the blade wasn't sharpened all the way to the crossguard. These were huge weapons and getting the best leverage for a quick strike often entailed "choking up."

 

So like I said: I'd prefer a game that is playable over one that is "verisimilitudinistic," particularly when that verisimilitude is wrong.

 

Wow, dude, just wow. I see Merlkir has already pointed out some things to you, I just want to add that if you think that "That entire video was a basic overhand chop to rising slash movement", you must really not know anything about longsword fighting. Sorry to be blunt, but it's the truth. As I mentioned, I am by no means an expert on it myself, but I had the pleasure of reading a few things on it, written by people who study medieval/renaissance era manuals written by the masters of the times, and who actually practice that type of swordplay. What's going on in that video is actually incredibly complex, although of course most of us wouldn't realize that just by looking at it. Western longsword fighting involves many different guards (the positions each fighter starts out with) that each have some specific purpose, attacks that counter those guards, the transitions from a guard, attack, or parry into another favorable position, maintaining the initiative in a fight, body position for maximum balance and cut power based on physics, and that's before we even get to the fancier stuff in the video, such as pommel hits, disarmament, grappling. It is like a high speed game of chess in some ways.

 

But my other point is also that you are making a strawman argument. Aside from your incorrect understanding of swordplay, the main thrust of your argument seems to be that we shouldn't adopt more historical based two handed sword fighting because it will be way too complex and detailed for the average player to understand. But no one has asked for that, and several people already pointed this out to you, including myself. While real longsword fighting was indeed very detailed and technical, I don't think anyone here expects an isometric RPG to implement even a small fraction of those details/technicalities. We simply want two handed sword fighting to look different and have a different surface feel from the typical massive greatsword wielding brute. Instead of slow massive strokes, graceful looking sword movements, smaller longswords worn at the hip, stances and abilities that have names indicating technique and skill rather brute strength. I don't see how any of this would present any issues for the average RPG player. It's just a style thing.

Edited October 26, 2012 by ArcaneBoozery

[Keldorn]

People on the sidelines always seem to know best. We have a (in my opinion, great) saying in the Netherlands for these kind op people: "The best skippers are ashore".

 

I, for one, have started practicing kendo over a month ago. It may seem easy when you see it, but believe you me - when you practice it, it is not. I believe this to be also true for those gentlemen in the video practicing their swordplay.

[HansKrSG]

Though its true that 2-handed swords were not used much before the reneissance, their use was wider than breaking up spearman formations. Remember also that PE is in the Reneissance, although maybe not culturally, technologically we have gunpowder and the Full Plate, which was not in use before, you guessed it, the Reneissance.

 

Some snips from a site about 2-handed swords:

 

"The two-handed sword was a specialized and effective infantry weapon, and was recognized as such in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Although large, measuring 60-70 in/150-175 cm overall, it was not as hefty as it looked, weighing something of the order of 5-8 lbs/2.3-3.6 kg. In the hands of the Swiss and German infantrymen it was lethal, and its use was considered as special skill, often meriting extra pay."

 

“In the infantry unit, the German and Swiss Landsknechts positioned the Doppelsöldner (Soldiers who received double pay for wielding the two-handers) in the front ranks for a long time to strike down the opposing pikes and to hack out breaches into which one's own soldiers could penetrate. However it would become unusable, as soon as the opposing forces collided with one another, and there would be increased pressure from the back ranks onto the front ranks, which created a thick melee.” Thus, “sometime around the middle of the 16th century it (the two-hander) disappeared from war and mutated into a form of guard and ceremonial weapon with a symbolic character.”

 

"European sword making technologies throughout the Middle Ages and Renaissance were quite capable of producing high-quality, lightweight, and flexible steel blades for cutting swords that could hold keen edges. These weapons were not intended to defeat heavy plate armor with powerful cuts but did evolve from those longswords that were developed for use against armors by thrusting rather than cutting. Handling real specimens of some of these enormous but beautiful weapons is enlightening, for their size betrays their exceptional balance. It very quickly becomes clear they were intended for large fighting men to deliver not only powerful slashing blows but great stabbing attacks as well as pole-weapon-like techniques. Large as they were, they were not ridiculously heavy."

 

ref: http://www.thearma.o...ssays/2HGS.html

Edited October 26, 2012 by HansKrSG