Yeah, what about my giant insect carapace splint mail?
Splint mail is weird in d&d, because while there were a bunch of armors that sort of fit what they seem to be describing with it, it isn’t a historical term and the written descriptions and illustrations seem wildly inconsistent as to what in the hell it actually is.
Edit: and in regards to the studded picture, that’s fine but physics being what they are if you have any big gaps like that piercing weapons with a lot of force behind them are just going to try to slide between them. That’s why when you have things like lorica segmentata all the plates overlap.
I just like that you sidestepped the giant insect part
But yeah, the D&D armor types is more about wanting variety in the descriptions to map to tiers of protection without leaning on +1/2/3 etc. too much.
And that the nerds that built the system weren’t like, historians.
Part of it in DnD also it's legacy as a wargame, and trying to be terribly simulationst (While also being Very Bad at this). It's weapons (as mentioned in the article) have the same issue.
They'd be way better off embracing abstraction and just going nuts with it, but that's not going to happen for a variety of reasons
Yeah, what about my giant insect carapace splint mail?
Splint mail is weird in d&d, because while there were a bunch of armors that sort of fit what they seem to be describing with it, it isn’t a historical term and the written descriptions and illustrations seem wildly inconsistent as to what in the hell it actually is.
Edit: and in regards to the studded picture, that’s fine but physics being what they are if you have any big gaps like that piercing weapons with a lot of force behind them are just going to try to slide between them. That’s why when you have things like lorica segmentata all the plates overlap.
I just like that you sidestepped the giant insect part
But yeah, the D&D armor types is more about wanting variety in the descriptions to map to tiers of protection without leaning on +1/2/3 etc. too much.
And that the nerds that built the system weren’t like, historians.
Part of it in DnD also it's legacy as a wargame, and trying to be terribly simulationst (While also being Very Bad at this). It's weapons (as mentioned in the article) have the same issue.
They'd be way better off embracing abstraction and just going nuts with it, but that's not going to happen for a variety of reasons
My biggest qualm with D&D weapons was it took until what, 5th edition before you could play a guy with a spear and shield?
Technically I guess you could in 3.5 if you took a special spear that gave up all the advantages of a spear and was a reskinned shortsword.
Same problem with skyrim. Its a viking inspired game with no spears, its like if Fallout 4 came with no rifles, only pistols and shotguns.
Yeah, what about my giant insect carapace splint mail?
Splint mail is weird in d&d, because while there were a bunch of armors that sort of fit what they seem to be describing with it, it isn’t a historical term and the written descriptions and illustrations seem wildly inconsistent as to what in the hell it actually is.
Edit: and in regards to the studded picture, that’s fine but physics being what they are if you have any big gaps like that piercing weapons with a lot of force behind them are just going to try to slide between them. That’s why when you have things like lorica segmentata all the plates overlap.
I just like that you sidestepped the giant insect part
But yeah, the D&D armor types is more about wanting variety in the descriptions to map to tiers of protection without leaning on +1/2/3 etc. too much.
And that the nerds that built the system weren’t like, historians.
Part of it in DnD also it's legacy as a wargame, and trying to be terribly simulationst (While also being Very Bad at this). It's weapons (as mentioned in the article) have the same issue.
They'd be way better off embracing abstraction and just going nuts with it, but that's not going to happen for a variety of reasons
My biggest qualm with D&D weapons was it took until what, 5th edition before you could play a guy with a spear and shield?
Technically I guess you could in 3.5 if you took a special spear that gave up all the advantages of a spear and was a reskinned shortsword.
I just like, added in a d8 spear and didn’t care what the PHB said about it.
Though only one player really used it, so I guess it’s basically just a special one-off thing.
Yeah, what about my giant insect carapace splint mail?
Splint mail is weird in d&d, because while there were a bunch of armors that sort of fit what they seem to be describing with it, it isn’t a historical term and the written descriptions and illustrations seem wildly inconsistent as to what in the hell it actually is.
Edit: and in regards to the studded picture, that’s fine but physics being what they are if you have any big gaps like that piercing weapons with a lot of force behind them are just going to try to slide between them. That’s why when you have things like lorica segmentata all the plates overlap.
I just like that you sidestepped the giant insect part
But yeah, the D&D armor types is more about wanting variety in the descriptions to map to tiers of protection without leaning on +1/2/3 etc. too much.
And that the nerds that built the system weren’t like, historians.
Part of it in DnD also it's legacy as a wargame, and trying to be terribly simulationst (While also being Very Bad at this). It's weapons (as mentioned in the article) have the same issue.
They'd be way better off embracing abstraction and just going nuts with it, but that's not going to happen for a variety of reasons
Well also early D&D was written by history and wargaming nerds who knew that weapons like this existed, and felt each should have their own unique stat line.
I think a good deal of it also was that the first editions were written in a time where newer academic research was a lot harder to come by, and they based a lot of stuff on “popular history” books and materials which were themselves based on victorian era research and understanding of things, and as a general rule of thumb on any given subject the Victorian English had a surplus of well respected authors that didn’t know their collective asses from a hole in the ground.
Edit: and that isn’t the authors fault really, the quality of info available in the 70s to someone not on a university history department staff just wasn’t there.
Yeah, what about my giant insect carapace splint mail?
Splint mail is weird in d&d, because while there were a bunch of armors that sort of fit what they seem to be describing with it, it isn’t a historical term and the written descriptions and illustrations seem wildly inconsistent as to what in the hell it actually is.
Edit: and in regards to the studded picture, that’s fine but physics being what they are if you have any big gaps like that piercing weapons with a lot of force behind them are just going to try to slide between them. That’s why when you have things like lorica segmentata all the plates overlap.
I just like that you sidestepped the giant insect part
But yeah, the D&D armor types is more about wanting variety in the descriptions to map to tiers of protection without leaning on +1/2/3 etc. too much.
And that the nerds that built the system weren’t like, historians.
Part of it in DnD also it's legacy as a wargame, and trying to be terribly simulationst (While also being Very Bad at this). It's weapons (as mentioned in the article) have the same issue.
They'd be way better off embracing abstraction and just going nuts with it, but that's not going to happen for a variety of reasons
My biggest qualm with D&D weapons was it took until what, 5th edition before you could play a guy with a spear and shield?
Technically I guess you could in 3.5 if you took a special spear that gave up all the advantages of a spear and was a reskinned shortsword.
Same problem with skyrim. Its a viking inspired game with no spears, its like if Fallout 4 came with no rifles, only pistols and shotguns.
I'm pretty sure that you could go sword & spear in every D&D edition except 3E and 4E (both of which probably locked it behind a feat)? Granted, in the earlier editions that's somewhat down to there not being explicit rules forbidding it!
3E and 4E did include a one-handed spear (or "shortspear", in 3E's case), but they definitely missed out on the whole legionnaire thing (or just the mounted shield+lance, which had to get an explicit exception in 3E).
It's a weird case of the old "if you have a feat that allows players to swing from chandeliers, that means anyone without the feat can't" problem.
Yeah, what about my giant insect carapace splint mail?
Splint mail is weird in d&d, because while there were a bunch of armors that sort of fit what they seem to be describing with it, it isn’t a historical term and the written descriptions and illustrations seem wildly inconsistent as to what in the hell it actually is.
Edit: and in regards to the studded picture, that’s fine but physics being what they are if you have any big gaps like that piercing weapons with a lot of force behind them are just going to try to slide between them. That’s why when you have things like lorica segmentata all the plates overlap.
I just like that you sidestepped the giant insect part
But yeah, the D&D armor types is more about wanting variety in the descriptions to map to tiers of protection without leaning on +1/2/3 etc. too much.
And that the nerds that built the system weren’t like, historians.
Part of it in DnD also it's legacy as a wargame, and trying to be terribly simulationst (While also being Very Bad at this). It's weapons (as mentioned in the article) have the same issue.
They'd be way better off embracing abstraction and just going nuts with it, but that's not going to happen for a variety of reasons
Well also early D&D was written by history and wargaming nerds who knew that weapons like this existed, and felt each should have their own unique stat line.
As said, simulationist vs abstraction. Early DnD has a bunch of simulationist stuff, which is why you get all the memes about 10/11ft poles.(gotta set of traps somehow!). And a lot of the weird and often racist crap with racial stat scores/penalties (or even gender based ones!)
Or the unintended consequences like the Knight-Ball or Peasant Railgun from 3rd ed. Which thankfully mostly just fall on the very funny side of things, with a side order of "the world building implications are fascinating'
I can’t remember any one handed spear like weapons in 2e? I might be forgetting something, it has been a while.
3.5 e you have a shortspear but it can’t be set against a charge and has the damage of a shortsword and seems to be referring to some kind of smaller 2 to 3 foot spear that didn’t actually get used much in real life (edit - actually it looks like this category was based on an iklwa, which was a short spear about 4 ft in total length with a broad point used by the Zulu in a similar manner to how a piercing sword would be used and was supposedly very effective ). Wheras IIRC the real “spear” is 1d8 but 2 handed and can be set against a charge but does not have reach (meaning its effective reach is around 5 ft, which would seem to put it in the category of what we would normally consider a spear, 6-9 ft. Then there’s a longspear that has 10 ft reach but can’t be used against adjacent enemies (which would seem to imply a 10-15 ft length) and seems to be more on the short pike end of things.
Which means that your “normal” length spear needs 2 hands, which is really weird and ahistorical. There were a lot of shorter polarms with blades around that length that were intended as individual weapons rather than formation weapons that were typically used 2 handed, like Naginatas, but I can’t think of any instance of a thrusting point spear used like that.
Though given how many feats simply amounted to a minor bonus around +2 to a roll, or removal/reduction of a similar penalty, it wasn’t much of a leap to assume that cut both ways and to allow folks to do things without the feat at a minor detriment.
I mean, sure it wasn’t explicitly in the rules, but as long as someone wasn’t trying to perform surgery with an apple corer on a ship during a heaving storm or something too egregious, it didn’t take a rocket surgeon to find a reasonable middle ground either.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
I can’t remember any one handed spear like weapons in 2e? I might be forgetting something, it has been a while.
3.5 e you have a shortspear but it can’t be set against a charge and has the damage of a shortsword and seems to be referring to some kind of smaller 2 to 3 foot spear that didn’t actually get used much in real life (edit - actually it looks like this category was based on an iklwa, which was a short spear about 4 ft in total length with a broad point used by the Zulu in a similar manner to how a piercing sword would be used and was supposedly very effective ). Wheras IIRC the real “spear” is 1d8 but 2 handed and can be set against a charge but does not have reach (meaning its effective reach is around 5 ft, which would seem to put it in the category of what we would normally consider a spear, 6-9 ft. Then there’s a longspear that has 10 ft reach but can’t be used against adjacent enemies (which would seem to imply a 10-15 ft length) and seems to be more on the short pike end of things.
Which means that your “normal” length spear needs 2 hands, which is really weird and ahistorical. There were a lot of shorter polarms with blades around that length that were intended as individual weapons rather than formation weapons that were typically used 2 handed, like Naginatas, but I can’t think of any instance of a thrusting point spear used like that.
Well this made me have to double-check.
0E: The game doesn't really have combat rules as such, but in Supplement I: Greyhawk the spear does 1d6 damage. The Pole Arms and Pike do 1d8, but "are not usable in dungeons as a general rule due to length". There are no rules for handedness beyond the implication of the name "2-Handed Sword". (It's just assumed that you're a wargaming grognard and know what's what.)
1E: The spear does 1d6 damage with "5'-13'" in the "space required" column. The random tables for men-at-arms/followers in the Dungeon Master's Guide includes cavalry with lance and shield, light infantry with shield and spear, a leader-type fighter with +1 shield and +1 spear, etc.
2E: The 1d6 damage "spear" is presumably five feet long (the upper bound for "medium" weapons), but all the weapons in the "polearms" category are explicitly two-handed - including the partisan, which... I think has historically been used with shields? Maybe? (Note that this is after some of the big weapons nerds left the company, though.)
3E: There's a 1d6 damage one-handed shortspear (described as "small enough to wield one-handed") and a 1d10 damage two-handed spear. All other polearms are two-handed, and some are so long that they have extra reach. Lances have a klunky rule where they can be used one-handed while mounted.
4E: There's the 1d8 damage one-handed "spear" with versatile (it can be used two-handed for +1 damage), and a 1d10 damage two-handed "longspear" with reach. (The glaive and halberd are also in a two-handed "polearm" category. Lances are gone?)
5E: There's a 1d6 damage one-handed spear, again versatile, and the rest of the polearms are two-handed. The lance returns with its weird "you can use this one-handed when mounted" kludge.
So, in summary, I guess in 0E and 1E you can be a guy with a shield+(longer) spear, while in all later editions you have to be alright with a dinkier one? Huh. I kind of just assumed that 2E followed 1E in this regard, sorry.
...To bring this back to [History] (and the armor discussion), one weird note is that Chainmail and OD&D are perfectly fine(-ish) with their simplistic "Leather, Chain Mail, or Plate Armor" system and the problem really comes in when Gygax makes AD&D and fills in the gaps between those with this Patient Zero abomination of a table:
(Those extra types were only defined in the Dungeon Master's Guide, released some years later, and they're kind of just misunderstandings based on outdated-at-the-time literature.)
I can’t remember any one handed spear like weapons in 2e? I might be forgetting something, it has been a while.
3.5 e you have a shortspear but it can’t be set against a charge and has the damage of a shortsword and seems to be referring to some kind of smaller 2 to 3 foot spear that didn’t actually get used much in real life (edit - actually it looks like this category was based on an iklwa, which was a short spear about 4 ft in total length with a broad point used by the Zulu in a similar manner to how a piercing sword would be used and was supposedly very effective ). Wheras IIRC the real “spear” is 1d8 but 2 handed and can be set against a charge but does not have reach (meaning its effective reach is around 5 ft, which would seem to put it in the category of what we would normally consider a spear, 6-9 ft. Then there’s a longspear that has 10 ft reach but can’t be used against adjacent enemies (which would seem to imply a 10-15 ft length) and seems to be more on the short pike end of things.
Which means that your “normal” length spear needs 2 hands, which is really weird and ahistorical. There were a lot of shorter polarms with blades around that length that were intended as individual weapons rather than formation weapons that were typically used 2 handed, like Naginatas, but I can’t think of any instance of a thrusting point spear used like that.
Well this made me have to double-check.
0E: The game doesn't really have combat rules as such, but in Supplement I: Greyhawk the spear does 1d6 damage. The Pole Arms and Pike do 1d8, but "are not usable in dungeons as a general rule due to length". There are no rules for handedness beyond the implication of the name "2-Handed Sword". (It's just assumed that you're a wargaming grognard and know what's what.)
1E: The spear does 1d6 damage with "5'-13'" in the "space required" column. The random tables for men-at-arms/followers in the Dungeon Master's Guide includes cavalry with lance and shield, light infantry with shield and spear, a leader-type fighter with +1 shield and +1 spear, etc.
2E: The 1d6 damage "spear" is presumably five feet long (the upper bound for "medium" weapons), but all the weapons in the "polearms" category are explicitly two-handed - including the partisan, which... I think has historically been used with shields? Maybe? (Note that this is after some of the big weapons nerds left the company, though.)
3E: There's a 1d6 damage one-handed shortspear (described as "small enough to wield one-handed") and a 1d10 damage two-handed spear. All other polearms are two-handed, and some are so long that they have extra reach. Lances have a klunky rule where they can be used one-handed while mounted.
4E: There's the 1d8 damage one-handed "spear" with versatile (it can be used two-handed for +1 damage), and a 1d10 damage two-handed "longspear" with reach. (The glaive and halberd are also in a two-handed "polearm" category. Lances are gone?)
5E: There's a 1d6 damage one-handed spear, again versatile, and the rest of the polearms are two-handed. The lance returns with its weird "you can use this one-handed when mounted" kludge.
So, in summary, I guess in 0E and 1E you can be a guy with a shield+(longer) spear, while in all later editions you have to be alright with a dinkier one? Huh. I kind of just assumed that 2E followed 1E in this regard, sorry.
...To bring this back to [History] (and the armor discussion), one weird note is that Chainmail and OD&D are perfectly fine(-ish) with their simplistic "Leather, Chain Mail, or Plate Armor" system and the problem really comes in when Gygax makes AD&D and fills in the gaps between those with this Patient Zero abomination of a table:
(Those extra types were only defined in the Dungeon Master's Guide, released some years later, and they're kind of just misunderstandings based on outdated-at-the-time literature.)
I remember that table! I also remember thinking “why is the shield called out on each line when it’s just -1 AC? Is there supposed to be an armor type that precludes shield use?”
I can’t remember any one handed spear like weapons in 2e? I might be forgetting something, it has been a while.
3.5 e you have a shortspear but it can’t be set against a charge and has the damage of a shortsword and seems to be referring to some kind of smaller 2 to 3 foot spear that didn’t actually get used much in real life (edit - actually it looks like this category was based on an iklwa, which was a short spear about 4 ft in total length with a broad point used by the Zulu in a similar manner to how a piercing sword would be used and was supposedly very effective ). Wheras IIRC the real “spear” is 1d8 but 2 handed and can be set against a charge but does not have reach (meaning its effective reach is around 5 ft, which would seem to put it in the category of what we would normally consider a spear, 6-9 ft. Then there’s a longspear that has 10 ft reach but can’t be used against adjacent enemies (which would seem to imply a 10-15 ft length) and seems to be more on the short pike end of things.
Which means that your “normal” length spear needs 2 hands, which is really weird and ahistorical. There were a lot of shorter polarms with blades around that length that were intended as individual weapons rather than formation weapons that were typically used 2 handed, like Naginatas, but I can’t think of any instance of a thrusting point spear used like that.
Well this made me have to double-check.
0E: The game doesn't really have combat rules as such, but in Supplement I: Greyhawk the spear does 1d6 damage. The Pole Arms and Pike do 1d8, but "are not usable in dungeons as a general rule due to length". There are no rules for handedness beyond the implication of the name "2-Handed Sword". (It's just assumed that you're a wargaming grognard and know what's what.)
1E: The spear does 1d6 damage with "5'-13'" in the "space required" column. The random tables for men-at-arms/followers in the Dungeon Master's Guide includes cavalry with lance and shield, light infantry with shield and spear, a leader-type fighter with +1 shield and +1 spear, etc.
2E: The 1d6 damage "spear" is presumably five feet long (the upper bound for "medium" weapons), but all the weapons in the "polearms" category are explicitly two-handed - including the partisan, which... I think has historically been used with shields? Maybe? (Note that this is after some of the big weapons nerds left the company, though.)
3E: There's a 1d6 damage one-handed shortspear (described as "small enough to wield one-handed") and a 1d10 damage two-handed spear. All other polearms are two-handed, and some are so long that they have extra reach. Lances have a klunky rule where they can be used one-handed while mounted.
4E: There's the 1d8 damage one-handed "spear" with versatile (it can be used two-handed for +1 damage), and a 1d10 damage two-handed "longspear" with reach. (The glaive and halberd are also in a two-handed "polearm" category. Lances are gone?)
5E: There's a 1d6 damage one-handed spear, again versatile, and the rest of the polearms are two-handed. The lance returns with its weird "you can use this one-handed when mounted" kludge.
So, in summary, I guess in 0E and 1E you can be a guy with a shield+(longer) spear, while in all later editions you have to be alright with a dinkier one? Huh. I kind of just assumed that 2E followed 1E in this regard, sorry.
...To bring this back to [History] (and the armor discussion), one weird note is that Chainmail and OD&D are perfectly fine(-ish) with their simplistic "Leather, Chain Mail, or Plate Armor" system and the problem really comes in when Gygax makes AD&D and fills in the gaps between those with this Patient Zero abomination of a table:
(Those extra types were only defined in the Dungeon Master's Guide, released some years later, and they're kind of just misunderstandings based on outdated-at-the-time literature.)
Heh that table is great.
Leather/padded - ok reasonable
Studded leather / ring mail - neither of those are things. Studded we’ve talked about, but ring mail deserves a special mention. Rings are somewhat involved to make, relatively. That is most of why chainmail is expensive. Plates of metal are much easier to make and work with. So why would anyone sew a bunch of rings to a cloth or leather backing instead of making a brigandine? Both of these seem like they were just things brigandine was mistaken for.
Scale mail - scale armor is a thing, “Scale Mail” is a misnomer. I’ll give a pass though because I can at least tell what it is intended to refer to.
Chain mail - fine
Splint and banded mail - what the hell are these? I guess banded is supposed to be something laminated like lorica segmentata, and splint is supposed to be armor where metal plates were splinted directly onto mail for reinforcement, which was done in Western Europe in arm and leg armor and in some Persian and Eastern European full body armors. But some descriptions of splint mail seem to be outright describing brigandine or lamellar armor (which wouldn’t really fit with the world ‘splint’ but eh) so who knows. If these were intended to be laminar armor and Eastern European/Persian style plates splinted to chain this would be a decent place to put those, I guess.
Plate Mail - again a bit of a misnomer, though most plate did have mail elements, so whatever.
Though given how many feats simply amounted to a minor bonus around +2 to a roll, or removal/reduction of a similar penalty, it wasn’t much of a leap to assume that cut both ways and to allow folks to do things without the feat at a minor detriment.
I mean, sure it wasn’t explicitly in the rules, but as long as someone wasn’t trying to perform surgery with an apple corer on a ship during a heaving storm or something too egregious, it didn’t take a rocket surgeon to find a reasonable middle ground either.
I had to cross reference 7 different books and 14 different tables, but I figured out this is a DC19 check with a -2 modifier to the dice roll because the captain ordered all open flames extinguished so it's in the dark.
Though given how many feats simply amounted to a minor bonus around +2 to a roll, or removal/reduction of a similar penalty, it wasn’t much of a leap to assume that cut both ways and to allow folks to do things without the feat at a minor detriment.
I mean, sure it wasn’t explicitly in the rules, but as long as someone wasn’t trying to perform surgery with an apple corer on a ship during a heaving storm or something too egregious, it didn’t take a rocket surgeon to find a reasonable middle ground either.
I had to cross reference 7 different books and 14 different tables, but I figured out this is a DC19 check with a -2 modifier to the dice roll because the captain ordered all open flames extinguished so it's in the dark.
It’s really best to like… not get into DnD weapons or armor because none of them make much sense at all.
Weapons exist across time periods and purposes. Armors which don’t exist. Weapons are included multiple times in multiple ways. Weapons double up. Weapons which make zero sense are included…
Though the existence of monsters actually make this slightly better because it would make sense to have things like boar spears be more common… but boar spears aren’t in DnD. And rapiers get slightly more useful when unarmored humanoid monsters exist.
But like. Otherwise the set of weapons is entirely absurd. Shields are pointless in the era of plate armor* and Calvary. Short weapons are side arms for armored infantry and serve no general purpose in a world of heavy armor and monsters. Excessively large two handed weapons require formation fighting to make use of and so are almost pointless for adventurers. Rapiers and daggers are only valuable if you cannot carry a proper killing weapon like a longsword….
The only things in the game that actually make a lot of sense are longswords, hammers, and axes. (Because hammers and axes can also sub as tools.
Daggers are better against armor than longswords. Aim for the gap easier as long as you can get in close, vs a longsword which is probably just going to bounce. Though you still want a mace or hammer, or polearm.
Also a shield isn't pointless with plate. Less useful, sure.
Daggers are better against armor than longswords. Aim for the gap easier as long as you can get in close, vs a longsword which is probably just going to bounce. Though you still want a mace or hammer, or polearm.
Also a shield isn't pointless with plate. Less useful, sure.
Daggers... aren't better than longswords against plate. Daggers (stilettos only, not "daggers") are backup weapons which you might use after you were too close to use a longsword. But you're still better off halfswording or hitting with the hilt with a longsword than you would be with a dagger. This didn't mean you wouldn't have a stiletto if you were in plate for battle. But it wouldn't use it first. That would be suicide.
Shields are pretty useless with plate. They quickly fell out of favor once plate got strong enough to be considered "full plate". This is like... why longswords were developed. You needed two hands on your weapon because a shield and one hand just meant you got tired earlier while your opponent could actually damage you.
And you don't want a Polearm either. Polearms were for massed combat (particularly against cavalry). A knight needed something they could use in close and because they had mailed hands the blade on the longsword was not a downside in this setting. Polearms were cheap. But not "better". They were replacement for spears*, functionally. Polearms don't even get to be a common weapon until the pike and shot era which is long past the era of knights, minus "heavy Calvary".
Maces and Hammers were OK but also not as good if you weren't against someone in plate.
*which were also primarily used because they were cheap.
Not a polearm as in "spear" or "pike" but this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poleaxe and the like. Knights were also part of massed combat and even in a duel the longer reach of a polearm means your opponent has a gap to cross before they can fight you. Then you have the sword or dagger for close-in fighting, daggers especially for when things degrade to wrestling.
Smacking someone with the pommel just turns the sword into a really bad mace, half-swording into a bad spear.
What we see throughout the medieval period, at least in northern and western Europe is the development of longer, stiffer and pointier blades. To be used to by-pass armor and find the gaps, not to punch through it.
The trope in movies that anything can "cut through" plate armor is silly. It looks cool, but is not supported by historical record or empirical testing. In the 15th Century at the battle of Azincourt, the French Duke Charles d'Orlean was in the vanguard of an absolutely destroyed French force, but he was discovered unwounded after the battle and taken prisoner.
Armor works. The limiting factor has always been that the most effective armor is also far too expensive to equip every soldier with.
Swords defeat armor by going around it, not through it.
Other weapons on the other hand, CAN punch through armor as that is what they were designed to do. Pole-axes, Halberds, certain types of spears. Warhammers and daggers as well.
Phoenix-D on
+2
Options
Kane Red RobeMaster of MagicArcanusRegistered Userregular
And crossbows, given that D&D always seems to offer crossbows as a "simple weapon"; any civilization with the tech to have a bunch of available crossbows should be handing them out like candy.
Daggers are better against armor than longswords. Aim for the gap easier as long as you can get in close, vs a longsword which is probably just going to bounce. Though you still want a mace or hammer, or polearm.
Also a shield isn't pointless with plate. Less useful, sure.
Daggers... aren't better than longswords against plate. Daggers (stilettos only, not "daggers") are backup weapons which you might use after you were too close to use a longsword. But you're still better off halfswording or hitting with the hilt with a longsword than you would be with a dagger. This didn't mean you wouldn't have a stiletto if you were in plate for battle. But it wouldn't use it first. That would be suicide.
Shields are pretty useless with plate. They quickly fell out of favor once plate got strong enough to be considered "full plate". This is like... why longswords were developed. You needed two hands on your weapon because a shield and one hand just meant you got tired earlier while your opponent could actually damage you.
And you don't want a Polearm either. Polearms were for massed combat (particularly against cavalry). A knight needed something they could use in close and because they had mailed hands the blade on the longsword was not a downside in this setting. Polearms were cheap. But not "better". They were replacement for spears*, functionally. Polearms don't even get to be a common weapon until the pike and shot era which is long past the era of knights, minus "heavy Calvary".
Maces and Hammers were OK but also not as good if you weren't against someone in plate.
*which were also primarily used because they were cheap.
Daggers can definitely be better against plate than a longsword, and this is the job of a lot of daggers like Rondel daggers and the indian Katar (punchdagger), which almost invariably feature a reinforced tip for punching through armor. They're not a primary weapon, but once things get close up they're much more effective. Mainly because the short blade means that they're nimble, controllable and very hard to grab or deflect. There is a big reason why knights armed with pollaxes almost always combine them with a dagger in their belt (one of the types designed to work against armor).
Shields are not useless with plate. You see use of shields well past the introduction of plate (note that scholagladiatoria had a followup video on why boss-gripped shields made a return). One use you see in for example the spanish Tercio is that soldiers using sword&shield were used to break pike-squares.
It's the increased use (and capability) of firearms that becomes the deathknell for shields (with some exceptions like the highland targe). Because if you're not using a musket you better be using a pike.
However, plate changes the dynamic in favor of polarms. Either a pollax or spear for the knight, or towards the polearm for the massed infantry. The pollax had better armor-piercing capabilities, but in formation the spear had the advantage that it didn't require as much swinging room and was a much more agile weapon. However, the knightly spear had a distinct armor-piercing tip.
As for polarms, the development of the modern polarm begins during the merovingian period (6th century). While some polarms had been in use before that (in particular in china where various polearms had been in use since the Han period, but also to some extent in europe with weapons like the Thracian Rhomphaia) this is where we start to see them in the medieval lineage. Bills and Hewing spears in the west, menavlions in eastern rome. By the high medieval era the bill is still there, as is the bardiche, fauchard, goedendag etc etc. And they're very common weapons. For example during the 100-year-war (well before "Pike and shot") the majority of english infantry consists of archers and billmen, reinforced by dismounted english knights.
As for the Rapier. It's a duelling weapon. But it's also one of the best sidearm you can use in an unarmored duel against a single opponent, as the reach and the speed of the tip means you can 100% control the line against an opponent.
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
And crossbows, given that D&D always seems to offer crossbows as a "simple weapon"; any civilization with the tech to have a bunch of available crossbows should be handing them out like candy.
Also guns and cannons. Early ones are a pain in the arse for a bunch of reasons and not that good, but they're still incredibly simple to teach people to use, and you can setup a bunch, fire one, drop it, and fire the next one (which was an actual tactic to my understanding, complete with having ties on the guns so they didn't fall to the ground).
Just don't be a dumbarse who stands too close to cannons when firing them off, as early cannons were temperamental. (Light, then run, that's the sensible gunners way!)
Crossbows were popular for similar reasons - they're inferior to longbows and probably other bows (I'm less informed on like compound and recurves & their history) in a bunch of respects - ass to reload without specialist equipment*, not as rangey, less powerful too potentially afaik. Can't keep them strung (you can't really with a bow either, not long term), and it's harder to string them, which means weather is a bigger concern.
But: they're so, so so so much easier to train people on. One longbow man might get some insane amount of arrows in the air on the time your crossbowman can do a pair... but you didn't need to absolutely obliterate Yew trees as a plant (seriously, part of the reason Longbows stopped being a thing is there simply wasn't the material for them any more)and force all your peasants to do mandatory longbow practice every Sunday to field an army of crossbowmen.
Which means you can do shit like the Genovise crossbow mercenaries, who march onto the field with giant pavise shields, use the spikes on the bottom of these to drive the shield into the earth. And then they've got a fancy hook on their belt that lets them use the motion of standing up to rearm the crossbow, putting them at 8 bolts a minute.. and they're only in view in the brief moments they're firing a bolt over the shield
Or you can be the French at Crecy and send them out without their shields, getting them slaughtered by longbowmen because you're a pack of idiots.
And then later on you start getting the improvements in metullargy, gunpowder etc and suddenly guns are getting scary. Ironically at which point swords pop up again including monsters like the Pattern 1796 heavy cavalry sword, which is an ugly brute of a thing that does the job of turning men into meat with horrible effectiveness (and it's handle works as a knuckle duster, a fun continuation of pommel based techniques)
Going back to DnD, that's sort of the issue with it's armour and weapons - they represent a grab bag of stuff (discounting the things that aren't just made up), across a pretty large swathe of history (early vs late medieval are entirely different countries so to speak), were armour and weapons were in a very literal arms race. Which also isn't touching advances in metullargy, tactics and tech in general, all of which change the game
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited September 2023
Crossbows had a lot of power. They were a pain to reload because they were storing a lot of energy. Very quickly in their development they could not be reloaded purely by hand and had to be reloaded with mechanical help. From literally using your whole body and standing on the weapon to contraptions designed to laboriously crank them. That's a lot of power.
Medieval crossbows changed warfare because they were simple to use and could punch through armor.
They were a technologically advanced weapon that came about in response to advancements in armor, to counter it.
Longbows could also, but required a lot more skill, training, and strength to use.
edit: and when I say armor, I mean plate.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
It’s really best to like… not get into DnD weapons or armor because none of them make much sense at all.
Weapons exist across time periods and purposes. Armors which don’t exist. Weapons are included multiple times in multiple ways. Weapons double up. Weapons which make zero sense are included…
Though the existence of monsters actually make this slightly better because it would make sense to have things like boar spears be more common… but boar spears aren’t in DnD. And rapiers get slightly more useful when unarmored humanoid monsters exist.
But like. Otherwise the set of weapons is entirely absurd. Shields are pointless in the era of plate armor* and Calvary. Short weapons are side arms for armored infantry and serve no general purpose in a world of heavy armor and monsters. Excessively large two handed weapons require formation fighting to make use of and so are almost pointless for adventurers. Rapiers and daggers are only valuable if you cannot carry a proper killing weapon like a longsword….
The only things in the game that actually make a lot of sense are longswords, hammers, and axes. (Because hammers and axes can also sub as tools.
*except for shields that you don’t hold
Excuse me, sir, but according to every Hollywood jousting scene I've ever viewed, shields are absolutely used with plate!
Longswords aren't as popular in organized historical warfare, aka formations, because you need room to swing the weapon, which means your formation isn't as tight. It's why phalanxes and spears/pikes worked for such a large swath of history. I agree re being a good adventuring weapon, though. But a lot of D&D weapon choices are about fantasy tropes more than about history, at this point.
D&D makes for some strange asks compared to historical warfare. Generally speaking it's all about in-doors combat in 10-foot-wide stone hallways with two warriors on the front line, and that's a bit different from massed combat on an open field.
And then you've got the other stereotypical example, which is a group of two warriors (plus one sneaky rogue and one wizard staying well away) fighting a single giant monster in a large open space - and at that point it's got more in common with... I dunno, it doesn't really have any good historical analogue. In D&D you might very well be trying to stab an elephant to death in a four-on-one fight, but it won't look like any historical elephant hunt you can think of.
I can definitely agree that boar-hunting spears seem like they're underused as dragon-hunting weapons. Or for anything of notable size and weight, really.
It’s really best to like… not get into DnD weapons or armor because none of them make much sense at all.
Weapons exist across time periods and purposes. Armors which don’t exist. Weapons are included multiple times in multiple ways. Weapons double up. Weapons which make zero sense are included…
Though the existence of monsters actually make this slightly better because it would make sense to have things like boar spears be more common… but boar spears aren’t in DnD. And rapiers get slightly more useful when unarmored humanoid monsters exist.
But like. Otherwise the set of weapons is entirely absurd. Shields are pointless in the era of plate armor* and Calvary. Short weapons are side arms for armored infantry and serve no general purpose in a world of heavy armor and monsters. Excessively large two handed weapons require formation fighting to make use of and so are almost pointless for adventurers. Rapiers and daggers are only valuable if you cannot carry a proper killing weapon like a longsword….
The only things in the game that actually make a lot of sense are longswords, hammers, and axes. (Because hammers and axes can also sub as tools.
*except for shields that you don’t hold
This assumes everyone is going to be running around in full plate all the time though. This has just never been the case outside of battle. IIRC generally even medieval armies would only wear heavy armor “on the march” if they suspected an imminent attack. The Romans seem to be an exception but their kit was a lot lighter than full plate.
Not saying adventurers wouldn’t wear those kinds of things into dungeons or whatever if they can afford it because they are expecting combat, but an adventurer may not necessarily tailor their weapons and fighting style around fighting enemies geared up like that because unless you are storming a duke’s castle or something those kinds of enemies should be somewhat rare.
The modern equivalent would be saying that pistols are largely useless because they can’t penetrate interceptor armor.
Edit: to clarify a bit, if I am a guy in the late middle ages and my mission is “you and 5 other guys deliver this important message to a town 100 miles away cross country through areas that may have a bandit presence” my loadout is probably going to be a lot different than if it is “go join up with this heavy infantry and fight in a pitched battle”.
Jealous Deva on
0
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
It's important to remember that swords are as much a class/status thing as anything else (medieval longswords, anyway, the Roman gladius is off in its own corner.) Longswords were there to fuck up lightly-armored peasant levies after the charge when you were in amongst a formation. Unlike an axe or a spear (or even some polearms - billhooks are *still* used for tree-trimming), they had absolutely no practical use other than combat, and were therefore the mark of a professional soldier.
Adventures are probably most analogous to street level toughs in renaissance cities, especially at low levels. They need weapons that are good in close fights or small ambushes.
It's important to remember that swords are as much a class/status thing as anything else (medieval longswords, anyway, the Roman gladius is off in its own corner.) Longswords were there to fuck up lightly-armored peasant levies after the charge when you were in amongst a formation. Unlike an axe or a spear (or even some polearms - billhooks are *still* used for tree-trimming), they had absolutely no practical use other than combat, and were therefore the mark of a professional soldier.
Definitely were a status symbol, but longer swords weren’t useless against armor or anything.
The kind of sword someone carried would vary though depending on who they were fighting - you can see that in Japan. During Sengoku Jedai and before when mass combat against armored, parity level enemies was a thing Samurai tended to use larger and heavier swords. By the Edo period when the country was at peace and pitched battles against parity level enemies was rare, Samurai became more of a police force that would mainly combat rebels, bandits, etc. During this period swords became much lighter - no longer did the samurai practically need to concern themselves with regularly having to cut through laminate armors and things like that. Against lighter armored or unarmored opponents a lighter weapon is a big advantage, and you start seeing that reflected in what people carried. Armor usage also declined a lot, with samurai’s daily use outfits becoming virtually unarmored, and this also probably had a lot to do with the expected role - Samurai would be much more likely to have to deal with poorly armed bandits or troublemakers armed with stolen or improvised weapons than military grade weaponry.
Japan was a bit of a special case though because its government and Samurai class was unusually effective for the time at keeping a lid on private ownership of military grade arms.
Hmmm, I’m imagining a campaign now during which the PC or party accidentally end up disguised as infantry mooks in a giant pitched battle on an open field
Hmmm, I’m imagining a campaign now during which the PC or party accidentally end up disguised as infantry mooks in a giant pitched battle on an open field
D&d doesn’t really have rules for massed battles and it can be a huge headache if you try. This is why it’s best to assign adventurers to something like “sneak in and open the back entrance” or “sneak in and assassinate the enemy commander” if you have a big battle scene.
Adventures are probably most analogous to street level toughs in renaissance cities, especially at low levels. They need weapons that are good in close fights or small ambushes.
Interestingly the armaments of the bravos and bodyguards of italian renaissance cities were extremely varied. A dissying array of weapons ranging from knives, cudgels, various types of shorter blades (anything from the stab-focused cinquedea to more cut-centric blades quite similar to the german messer), rapiers (from the mid/late 15th century and onwards), sword&bucklers, quarterstaffs or even the spadone (greatswords) used traditionally by italian and spanish bodyguards. Although the use of spadone went on a decline as the popularity of the rapier increased (as the reach of the weapon was no longer sufficient to hold off attackers).
Fiendishrabbit on
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Daggers are better against armor than longswords. Aim for the gap easier as long as you can get in close, vs a longsword which is probably just going to bounce. Though you still want a mace or hammer, or polearm.
Also a shield isn't pointless with plate. Less useful, sure.
Daggers... aren't better than longswords against plate. Daggers (stilettos only, not "daggers") are backup weapons which you might use after you were too close to use a longsword. But you're still better off halfswording or hitting with the hilt with a longsword than you would be with a dagger. This didn't mean you wouldn't have a stiletto if you were in plate for battle. But it wouldn't use it first. That would be suicide.
Shields are pretty useless with plate. They quickly fell out of favor once plate got strong enough to be considered "full plate". This is like... why longswords were developed. You needed two hands on your weapon because a shield and one hand just meant you got tired earlier while your opponent could actually damage you.
And you don't want a Polearm either. Polearms were for massed combat (particularly against cavalry). A knight needed something they could use in close and because they had mailed hands the blade on the longsword was not a downside in this setting. Polearms were cheap. But not "better". They were replacement for spears*, functionally. Polearms don't even get to be a common weapon until the pike and shot era which is long past the era of knights, minus "heavy Calvary".
Maces and Hammers were OK but also not as good if you weren't against someone in plate.
*which were also primarily used because they were cheap.
Try to precision stab through a gap with a 3 foot sword while wrestling in the mud with someone in full plate. Yes a dagger is better in that instance.
Hmmm, I’m imagining a campaign now during which the PC or party accidentally end up disguised as infantry mooks in a giant pitched battle on an open field
D&d doesn’t really have rules for massed battles and it can be a huge headache if you try. This is why it’s best to assign adventurers to something like “sneak in and open the back entrance” or “sneak in and assassinate the enemy commander” if you have a big battle scene.
True, but it sounds like it might be a fun set piece as long as you make it more Hollywood style “pitched battle”. It would definitely require a DM that is willing to adapt the rules and be flexible though.
Posts
Part of it in DnD also it's legacy as a wargame, and trying to be terribly simulationst (While also being Very Bad at this). It's weapons (as mentioned in the article) have the same issue.
They'd be way better off embracing abstraction and just going nuts with it, but that's not going to happen for a variety of reasons
Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/id/TheZombiePenguin
Stream: https://www.twitch.tv/thezombiepenguin/
Switch: 0293 6817 9891
My biggest qualm with D&D weapons was it took until what, 5th edition before you could play a guy with a spear and shield?
Technically I guess you could in 3.5 if you took a special spear that gave up all the advantages of a spear and was a reskinned shortsword.
Same problem with skyrim. Its a viking inspired game with no spears, its like if Fallout 4 came with no rifles, only pistols and shotguns.
I just like, added in a d8 spear and didn’t care what the PHB said about it.
Though only one player really used it, so I guess it’s basically just a special one-off thing.
Well also early D&D was written by history and wargaming nerds who knew that weapons like this existed, and felt each should have their own unique stat line.
Edit: and that isn’t the authors fault really, the quality of info available in the 70s to someone not on a university history department staff just wasn’t there.
I'm pretty sure that you could go sword & spear in every D&D edition except 3E and 4E (both of which probably locked it behind a feat)? Granted, in the earlier editions that's somewhat down to there not being explicit rules forbidding it!
3E and 4E did include a one-handed spear (or "shortspear", in 3E's case), but they definitely missed out on the whole legionnaire thing (or just the mounted shield+lance, which had to get an explicit exception in 3E).
It's a weird case of the old "if you have a feat that allows players to swing from chandeliers, that means anyone without the feat can't" problem.
As said, simulationist vs abstraction. Early DnD has a bunch of simulationist stuff, which is why you get all the memes about 10/11ft poles.(gotta set of traps somehow!). And a lot of the weird and often racist crap with racial stat scores/penalties (or even gender based ones!)
Or the unintended consequences like the Knight-Ball or Peasant Railgun from 3rd ed. Which thankfully mostly just fall on the very funny side of things, with a side order of "the world building implications are fascinating'
Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/id/TheZombiePenguin
Stream: https://www.twitch.tv/thezombiepenguin/
Switch: 0293 6817 9891
3.5 e you have a shortspear but it can’t be set against a charge and has the damage of a shortsword and seems to be referring to some kind of smaller 2 to 3 foot spear that didn’t actually get used much in real life (edit - actually it looks like this category was based on an iklwa, which was a short spear about 4 ft in total length with a broad point used by the Zulu in a similar manner to how a piercing sword would be used and was supposedly very effective ). Wheras IIRC the real “spear” is 1d8 but 2 handed and can be set against a charge but does not have reach (meaning its effective reach is around 5 ft, which would seem to put it in the category of what we would normally consider a spear, 6-9 ft. Then there’s a longspear that has 10 ft reach but can’t be used against adjacent enemies (which would seem to imply a 10-15 ft length) and seems to be more on the short pike end of things.
Which means that your “normal” length spear needs 2 hands, which is really weird and ahistorical. There were a lot of shorter polarms with blades around that length that were intended as individual weapons rather than formation weapons that were typically used 2 handed, like Naginatas, but I can’t think of any instance of a thrusting point spear used like that.
I mean, sure it wasn’t explicitly in the rules, but as long as someone wasn’t trying to perform surgery with an apple corer on a ship during a heaving storm or something too egregious, it didn’t take a rocket surgeon to find a reasonable middle ground either.
1E: The spear does 1d6 damage with "5'-13'" in the "space required" column. The random tables for men-at-arms/followers in the Dungeon Master's Guide includes cavalry with lance and shield, light infantry with shield and spear, a leader-type fighter with +1 shield and +1 spear, etc.
2E: The 1d6 damage "spear" is presumably five feet long (the upper bound for "medium" weapons), but all the weapons in the "polearms" category are explicitly two-handed - including the partisan, which... I think has historically been used with shields? Maybe? (Note that this is after some of the big weapons nerds left the company, though.)
3E: There's a 1d6 damage one-handed shortspear (described as "small enough to wield one-handed") and a 1d10 damage two-handed spear. All other polearms are two-handed, and some are so long that they have extra reach. Lances have a klunky rule where they can be used one-handed while mounted.
4E: There's the 1d8 damage one-handed "spear" with versatile (it can be used two-handed for +1 damage), and a 1d10 damage two-handed "longspear" with reach. (The glaive and halberd are also in a two-handed "polearm" category. Lances are gone?)
5E: There's a 1d6 damage one-handed spear, again versatile, and the rest of the polearms are two-handed. The lance returns with its weird "you can use this one-handed when mounted" kludge.
...To bring this back to [History] (and the armor discussion), one weird note is that Chainmail and OD&D are perfectly fine(-ish) with their simplistic "Leather, Chain Mail, or Plate Armor" system and the problem really comes in when Gygax makes AD&D and fills in the gaps between those with this Patient Zero abomination of a table:
(Those extra types were only defined in the Dungeon Master's Guide, released some years later, and they're kind of just misunderstandings based on outdated-at-the-time literature.)
I remember that table! I also remember thinking “why is the shield called out on each line when it’s just -1 AC? Is there supposed to be an armor type that precludes shield use?”
Heh that table is great.
Leather/padded - ok reasonable
Studded leather / ring mail - neither of those are things. Studded we’ve talked about, but ring mail deserves a special mention. Rings are somewhat involved to make, relatively. That is most of why chainmail is expensive. Plates of metal are much easier to make and work with. So why would anyone sew a bunch of rings to a cloth or leather backing instead of making a brigandine? Both of these seem like they were just things brigandine was mistaken for.
Scale mail - scale armor is a thing, “Scale Mail” is a misnomer. I’ll give a pass though because I can at least tell what it is intended to refer to.
Chain mail - fine
Splint and banded mail - what the hell are these? I guess banded is supposed to be something laminated like lorica segmentata, and splint is supposed to be armor where metal plates were splinted directly onto mail for reinforcement, which was done in Western Europe in arm and leg armor and in some Persian and Eastern European full body armors. But some descriptions of splint mail seem to be outright describing brigandine or lamellar armor (which wouldn’t really fit with the world ‘splint’ but eh) so who knows. If these were intended to be laminar armor and Eastern European/Persian style plates splinted to chain this would be a decent place to put those, I guess.
Plate Mail - again a bit of a misnomer, though most plate did have mail elements, so whatever.
I had to cross reference 7 different books and 14 different tables, but I figured out this is a DC19 check with a -2 modifier to the dice roll because the captain ordered all open flames extinguished so it's in the dark.
You forgot my background as an apprentice barber!
Ow
Weapons exist across time periods and purposes. Armors which don’t exist. Weapons are included multiple times in multiple ways. Weapons double up. Weapons which make zero sense are included…
Though the existence of monsters actually make this slightly better because it would make sense to have things like boar spears be more common… but boar spears aren’t in DnD. And rapiers get slightly more useful when unarmored humanoid monsters exist.
But like. Otherwise the set of weapons is entirely absurd. Shields are pointless in the era of plate armor* and Calvary. Short weapons are side arms for armored infantry and serve no general purpose in a world of heavy armor and monsters. Excessively large two handed weapons require formation fighting to make use of and so are almost pointless for adventurers. Rapiers and daggers are only valuable if you cannot carry a proper killing weapon like a longsword….
The only things in the game that actually make a lot of sense are longswords, hammers, and axes. (Because hammers and axes can also sub as tools.
*except for shields that you don’t hold
If you're going to be swinging that kind of weight, might as well put a spike or blade on it.
Also a shield isn't pointless with plate. Less useful, sure.
Daggers... aren't better than longswords against plate. Daggers (stilettos only, not "daggers") are backup weapons which you might use after you were too close to use a longsword. But you're still better off halfswording or hitting with the hilt with a longsword than you would be with a dagger. This didn't mean you wouldn't have a stiletto if you were in plate for battle. But it wouldn't use it first. That would be suicide.
Shields are pretty useless with plate. They quickly fell out of favor once plate got strong enough to be considered "full plate". This is like... why longswords were developed. You needed two hands on your weapon because a shield and one hand just meant you got tired earlier while your opponent could actually damage you.
And you don't want a Polearm either. Polearms were for massed combat (particularly against cavalry). A knight needed something they could use in close and because they had mailed hands the blade on the longsword was not a downside in this setting. Polearms were cheap. But not "better". They were replacement for spears*, functionally. Polearms don't even get to be a common weapon until the pike and shot era which is long past the era of knights, minus "heavy Calvary".
Maces and Hammers were OK but also not as good if you weren't against someone in plate.
*which were also primarily used because they were cheap.
Smacking someone with the pommel just turns the sword into a really bad mace, half-swording into a bad spear.
edit: for example
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/a0tonl/are_swords_even_effective_against_plated_armors/
Daggers can definitely be better against plate than a longsword, and this is the job of a lot of daggers like Rondel daggers and the indian Katar (punchdagger), which almost invariably feature a reinforced tip for punching through armor. They're not a primary weapon, but once things get close up they're much more effective. Mainly because the short blade means that they're nimble, controllable and very hard to grab or deflect. There is a big reason why knights armed with pollaxes almost always combine them with a dagger in their belt (one of the types designed to work against armor).
Shields are not useless with plate. You see use of shields well past the introduction of plate (note that scholagladiatoria had a followup video on why boss-gripped shields made a return). One use you see in for example the spanish Tercio is that soldiers using sword&shield were used to break pike-squares.
It's the increased use (and capability) of firearms that becomes the deathknell for shields (with some exceptions like the highland targe). Because if you're not using a musket you better be using a pike.
However, plate changes the dynamic in favor of polarms. Either a pollax or spear for the knight, or towards the polearm for the massed infantry. The pollax had better armor-piercing capabilities, but in formation the spear had the advantage that it didn't require as much swinging room and was a much more agile weapon. However, the knightly spear had a distinct armor-piercing tip.
As for polarms, the development of the modern polarm begins during the merovingian period (6th century). While some polarms had been in use before that (in particular in china where various polearms had been in use since the Han period, but also to some extent in europe with weapons like the Thracian Rhomphaia) this is where we start to see them in the medieval lineage. Bills and Hewing spears in the west, menavlions in eastern rome. By the high medieval era the bill is still there, as is the bardiche, fauchard, goedendag etc etc. And they're very common weapons. For example during the 100-year-war (well before "Pike and shot") the majority of english infantry consists of archers and billmen, reinforced by dismounted english knights.
As for the Rapier. It's a duelling weapon. But it's also one of the best sidearm you can use in an unarmored duel against a single opponent, as the reach and the speed of the tip means you can 100% control the line against an opponent.
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Also guns and cannons. Early ones are a pain in the arse for a bunch of reasons and not that good, but they're still incredibly simple to teach people to use, and you can setup a bunch, fire one, drop it, and fire the next one (which was an actual tactic to my understanding, complete with having ties on the guns so they didn't fall to the ground).
Just don't be a dumbarse who stands too close to cannons when firing them off, as early cannons were temperamental. (Light, then run, that's the sensible gunners way!)
Crossbows were popular for similar reasons - they're inferior to longbows and probably other bows (I'm less informed on like compound and recurves & their history) in a bunch of respects - ass to reload without specialist equipment*, not as rangey, less powerful too potentially afaik. Can't keep them strung (you can't really with a bow either, not long term), and it's harder to string them, which means weather is a bigger concern.
But: they're so, so so so much easier to train people on. One longbow man might get some insane amount of arrows in the air on the time your crossbowman can do a pair... but you didn't need to absolutely obliterate Yew trees as a plant (seriously, part of the reason Longbows stopped being a thing is there simply wasn't the material for them any more)and force all your peasants to do mandatory longbow practice every Sunday to field an army of crossbowmen.
Which means you can do shit like the Genovise crossbow mercenaries, who march onto the field with giant pavise shields, use the spikes on the bottom of these to drive the shield into the earth. And then they've got a fancy hook on their belt that lets them use the motion of standing up to rearm the crossbow, putting them at 8 bolts a minute.. and they're only in view in the brief moments they're firing a bolt over the shield
Or you can be the French at Crecy and send them out without their shields, getting them slaughtered by longbowmen because you're a pack of idiots.
And then later on you start getting the improvements in metullargy, gunpowder etc and suddenly guns are getting scary. Ironically at which point swords pop up again including monsters like the Pattern 1796 heavy cavalry sword, which is an ugly brute of a thing that does the job of turning men into meat with horrible effectiveness (and it's handle works as a knuckle duster, a fun continuation of pommel based techniques)
Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/id/TheZombiePenguin
Stream: https://www.twitch.tv/thezombiepenguin/
Switch: 0293 6817 9891
Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/id/TheZombiePenguin
Stream: https://www.twitch.tv/thezombiepenguin/
Switch: 0293 6817 9891
Medieval crossbows changed warfare because they were simple to use and could punch through armor.
They were a technologically advanced weapon that came about in response to advancements in armor, to counter it.
Longbows could also, but required a lot more skill, training, and strength to use.
edit: and when I say armor, I mean plate.
Excuse me, sir, but according to every Hollywood jousting scene I've ever viewed, shields are absolutely used with plate!
Longswords aren't as popular in organized historical warfare, aka formations, because you need room to swing the weapon, which means your formation isn't as tight. It's why phalanxes and spears/pikes worked for such a large swath of history. I agree re being a good adventuring weapon, though. But a lot of D&D weapon choices are about fantasy tropes more than about history, at this point.
And then you've got the other stereotypical example, which is a group of two warriors (plus one sneaky rogue and one wizard staying well away) fighting a single giant monster in a large open space - and at that point it's got more in common with... I dunno, it doesn't really have any good historical analogue. In D&D you might very well be trying to stab an elephant to death in a four-on-one fight, but it won't look like any historical elephant hunt you can think of.
I can definitely agree that boar-hunting spears seem like they're underused as dragon-hunting weapons. Or for anything of notable size and weight, really.
This assumes everyone is going to be running around in full plate all the time though. This has just never been the case outside of battle. IIRC generally even medieval armies would only wear heavy armor “on the march” if they suspected an imminent attack. The Romans seem to be an exception but their kit was a lot lighter than full plate.
Not saying adventurers wouldn’t wear those kinds of things into dungeons or whatever if they can afford it because they are expecting combat, but an adventurer may not necessarily tailor their weapons and fighting style around fighting enemies geared up like that because unless you are storming a duke’s castle or something those kinds of enemies should be somewhat rare.
The modern equivalent would be saying that pistols are largely useless because they can’t penetrate interceptor armor.
Edit: to clarify a bit, if I am a guy in the late middle ages and my mission is “you and 5 other guys deliver this important message to a town 100 miles away cross country through areas that may have a bandit presence” my loadout is probably going to be a lot different than if it is “go join up with this heavy infantry and fight in a pitched battle”.
Definitely were a status symbol, but longer swords weren’t useless against armor or anything.
The kind of sword someone carried would vary though depending on who they were fighting - you can see that in Japan. During Sengoku Jedai and before when mass combat against armored, parity level enemies was a thing Samurai tended to use larger and heavier swords. By the Edo period when the country was at peace and pitched battles against parity level enemies was rare, Samurai became more of a police force that would mainly combat rebels, bandits, etc. During this period swords became much lighter - no longer did the samurai practically need to concern themselves with regularly having to cut through laminate armors and things like that. Against lighter armored or unarmored opponents a lighter weapon is a big advantage, and you start seeing that reflected in what people carried. Armor usage also declined a lot, with samurai’s daily use outfits becoming virtually unarmored, and this also probably had a lot to do with the expected role - Samurai would be much more likely to have to deal with poorly armed bandits or troublemakers armed with stolen or improvised weapons than military grade weaponry.
Japan was a bit of a special case though because its government and Samurai class was unusually effective for the time at keeping a lid on private ownership of military grade arms.
D&d doesn’t really have rules for massed battles and it can be a huge headache if you try. This is why it’s best to assign adventurers to something like “sneak in and open the back entrance” or “sneak in and assassinate the enemy commander” if you have a big battle scene.
Interestingly the armaments of the bravos and bodyguards of italian renaissance cities were extremely varied. A dissying array of weapons ranging from knives, cudgels, various types of shorter blades (anything from the stab-focused cinquedea to more cut-centric blades quite similar to the german messer), rapiers (from the mid/late 15th century and onwards), sword&bucklers, quarterstaffs or even the spadone (greatswords) used traditionally by italian and spanish bodyguards. Although the use of spadone went on a decline as the popularity of the rapier increased (as the reach of the weapon was no longer sufficient to hold off attackers).
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Try to precision stab through a gap with a 3 foot sword while wrestling in the mud with someone in full plate. Yes a dagger is better in that instance.
True, but it sounds like it might be a fun set piece as long as you make it more Hollywood style “pitched battle”. It would definitely require a DM that is willing to adapt the rules and be flexible though.