I'm not a major history buff on these things, but I believe it was used as a more militia tactic in feudal Britain. Spears were a more commonplace weapon, cheaper to make and easily usable. Also with the mandatory longbow training (which I thought was training for 4 hours on a Sunday personally, rather than an hour a day) basically turned it into the main two weapons used. When defending a town, this would be the main tactic; a soft ground rather than tarmac meant that the spear could be stood up and quick to access when the longbow's use had run its course.
I also heard that the longbow was just initially referred to as the bow until the 100-year war between Britain and France, where it became a term from the French as they were using the shortbow at the time which had inferior power and range.
Ok I hadn't heard that but makes could have been. Spears were definitely the predominant weapon through the the entire history of warfare. I know that archers definitely wore swords,axes,etc as sidearms (were the term comes from, literally your side armament) but I would have thought having to carry the spear around aswell as you bow would be more of a hindrance than a help. It would really limit your mobility and ability to reposition. Better to have a bunch of people form a wall with spears and shields and the others use the bows behind them.
Longbow is a modern term. Think it was probably started in the Victorian era, most of the terms we use now are. Back then they were just known as bows or war bows. It's the same with shields and swords. We have all these different names to differentiate between them all, but when they were used they would have literally been called 'shield' and 'sword'. gladius, katana, rapier, kopesh, scimitar etc all literally mean sword in their native language
Based on the above discussion, how's this for a reason to have swords in a modern setting?
Because magic has been around since the world's equivalent of the dark ages, in the modern times, people have been able to use magic to make superior armor and mechanical enhancements to the body. This allows people to move much faster and react much faster and even dodge bullets or block them with advanced riot shields to an extent (I know arrows were not easy to avoid but they were definitely easier to avoid than bullets). Because of this, magically enhanced swords are back in use.
Basically, it's making guns comparable in effectiveness to bows due to enhanced bodies and better armor.
As mentioned, I'm not a history buff. I'm just going off distant memories in my head. I do LARP, and the soldier is based on old military tactics, which include the spear/bow combination (as mentioned, it's more for a guard/militia rather than a marching army, so they wouldn't be as needy of using the longbow except in case of something outside of city walls etc.). It doesn't work as well in our system as we can't bury the spear tip since it's made of foam, so people prefer our harrier class, which is sword/bow (in our system, the elven variant of the soldier).
I like the futuristic scenario ways of doing things. Weaponry becomes energy-based, so personal shielding is developed to absorb lasers/heat rays/etc. However, they don't work on physical weapons, like a sword, so they just cut through as do bullet-used guns, meaning that some people going back to the old fashioned weapons are actually going to get through the shields.
From your post I'm seeing it as bullets and modern armor is the equivalent of the longbow and plate armor.
The bows(guns) are unlikely to kill the target, but still could due to finding gaps. Therefore they are still very useful to supresss to enemy, locking them behind cover and preventing them from moving through the open.
If armor is this effective then blunt and piercing weapons would be the most common. Maces, warhammers, picks, halberds etc were all developed as anti-armor weapons: a large mass focused at the end of a long shaft, focusing the most amount of force of the swing through the contact point. This either produces concussive forces that travel through the armor and cause broken bones, concussions etc (maces) , or caves in the armor crushing the body beneath (warhammers). Also daggers are extremely useful for finding gaps in the armor. Swords won't be that common in mass combat (though modern times so guessing no 'battles') but those that are used will be long and thin to go through gaps; think rapier more than longsword.
Oo poke, thought you meant sticking it in the ground butt end, didn't realise you meant the blade! Noooooo!! :D the last thing you want to do is stick your sharp, combat ready blade into the ground! That will blunt it! It's only ever done in movies
From your post I'm seeing it as bullets and modern armor is the equivalent of the longbow and plate armor.
The bows(guns) are unlikely to kill the target, but still could due to finding gaps. Therefore they are still very useful to supresss to enemy, locking them behind cover and preventing them from moving through the open.
If armor is this effective then blunt and piercing weapons would be the most common. Maces, warhammers, picks, halberds etc were all developed as anti-armor weapons: a large mass focused at the end of a long shaft, focusing the most amount of force of the swing through the contact point. This either produces concussive forces that travel through the armor and cause broken bones, concussions etc (maces) , or caves in the armor crushing the body beneath (warhammers). Also daggers are extremely useful for finding gaps in the armor. Swords won't be that common in mass combat (though modern times so guessing no 'battles') but those that are used will be long and thin to go through gaps; think rapier more than longsword.
Yes, this is exactly what I mean. I know why maces, halberds and war hammers were used but as far as I know, long swords were still a thing even when full plate armor became available. So for mechanics sake, it won't be too far fetched to think that swords would exist.
As for the setting itself, I was thinking that since the classic DnD is basically the middle ages but with magic, it was the same but centuries into the future. So instead of it being something like 700 AD with magic, it's 2010 with magic.
No longswords completely existed then. What I'm saying is that a longsword (especially one in the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries) is a very different beast to what most people think it is.
The normal DnD longsword is what historian's would call an arming sword or maybe hand-and-a-half sword: a medium length blade that is about 3 inches wide and that slightly tapers in the last half of towards a point, with 4-5 inch handle, that can be used in one hand or use your second hand to grip the pommel for extra manoeuvrability. These were used mainly as side arms by archers and polearm inventory, and weren't very good against plate armor.
An actual longsword is a specifically built long bladed sword, about 2 inches at its widest, that is weilded exclusively with two hands. It was designed pretty much as a thrusting weapon (and using the pommel and crossguard as percussive weapons) to dig into gaps between the armor sections (look up half-swording). While very useful on a 1-on-1 and small skirmishes (perfect for DnD) they required too much space to be used in a cramp, tightly packed battle. Real longswords are more like a greatsword in DnD, real greatswords are just REALLY big longswords
(Sorry for the long lecturey posts, quite hard to tell on here exactly what info is needed)
Ah! You're right. I knew about the arming sword but it somehow slipped my mind. Well, that's where magic comes in. Like I said, if the classic DnD setting is like 700 AD with magic, I was thinking of a setting which is 2010 with magic.
As I was saying before, arming swords were used primarily as sidearms: every archer, crossbowman, pikeman, halberdier, cavalryman, man-at-arms, knight and king needed a backup weapon for when their primary weapon either broke, got torn from their grip or just wasn't suited to the situation. This is where swords shine! They are the easiest weapon to carry on you: they're light, easy to draw in stressful situations and confined spaces, their sheath means you don't have to worry about damage to the blade or the blade damaging you. They are also applicable to any enemy that you come across, while not the best in any particular situation they will hold their own against pretty much anything. Some people might use an axe or a mace as their backup, held in their belt or in a metal ring attached to their belt, as they might be cheaper and better against armour but most used swords for the reasons I just stated.
The other place that swords were commonly used was just in non-battle situations. You don't want to have to wander around carrying a huge long-axe or a morningstar! It's so much easier to just have a short arming sword in a sheath attached to your waist; you don't have to think about it and it doesn't get in your way.
And the other thing you have to remember: just because plate armour existed doesn't mean everyone one used it. It was frickin' expensive!! Only the knights and some men-at-arms, essentially the nobility and the rich, could afford plate armour or have fought long enough to loot some from a battle. Even then a full set was rare. Most men-at-arms would have a few pieces of it on top of a mail hauberk (everyone wore mail, plate armour goes over it). Common foot soldiers, archers and crossbowmen would all be wearing mail hauberks or just a gambeson. So while anti-plate weapons were extremely useful in the thick melee of battle, most bladed weapons were just as useful overall.
Then I think I now know how DnD in a modern setting would work. Bows and crossbows are the guns and the melee weapons are just enchanted to match the enchanted armor. Because of power scaling, we could just say that since everything is basically enchanted, it's like having nothing be enchanted. That solves the gun problem at least.
Hey, would you guys mind if I add some extra lore on how the multiverse works in the Public Notes? It deviates a bit from how the standard DnD multiverse works.
EDIT: Also going to include the lore established by hoyer into how aaracokra behave. Storm and Wibbly are also free to add any lore regarding Bahamut and Lathandar respectively.
Yeo I thouhgt it was a little bit exagerated too but it compared population, avaibility.. different things.
PbP Character: A few ;)
I'm not a major history buff on these things, but I believe it was used as a more militia tactic in feudal Britain. Spears were a more commonplace weapon, cheaper to make and easily usable. Also with the mandatory longbow training (which I thought was training for 4 hours on a Sunday personally, rather than an hour a day) basically turned it into the main two weapons used. When defending a town, this would be the main tactic; a soft ground rather than tarmac meant that the spear could be stood up and quick to access when the longbow's use had run its course.
I also heard that the longbow was just initially referred to as the bow until the 100-year war between Britain and France, where it became a term from the French as they were using the shortbow at the time which had inferior power and range.
Ok I hadn't heard that but makes could have been. Spears were definitely the predominant weapon through the the entire history of warfare. I know that archers definitely wore swords,axes,etc as sidearms (were the term comes from, literally your side armament) but I would have thought having to carry the spear around aswell as you bow would be more of a hindrance than a help. It would really limit your mobility and ability to reposition. Better to have a bunch of people form a wall with spears and shields and the others use the bows behind them.
Longbow is a modern term. Think it was probably started in the Victorian era, most of the terms we use now are. Back then they were just known as bows or war bows. It's the same with shields and swords. We have all these different names to differentiate between them all, but when they were used they would have literally been called 'shield' and 'sword'. gladius, katana, rapier, kopesh, scimitar etc all literally mean sword in their native language
Based on the above discussion, how's this for a reason to have swords in a modern setting?
Because magic has been around since the world's equivalent of the dark ages, in the modern times, people have been able to use magic to make superior armor and mechanical enhancements to the body. This allows people to move much faster and react much faster and even dodge bullets or block them with advanced riot shields to an extent (I know arrows were not easy to avoid but they were definitely easier to avoid than bullets). Because of this, magically enhanced swords are back in use.
Basically, it's making guns comparable in effectiveness to bows due to enhanced bodies and better armor.
(btw sorry for the long, intense posts. You've managed to tap into an obsession half a lifetime long :) )
As mentioned, I'm not a history buff. I'm just going off distant memories in my head. I do LARP, and the soldier is based on old military tactics, which include the spear/bow combination (as mentioned, it's more for a guard/militia rather than a marching army, so they wouldn't be as needy of using the longbow except in case of something outside of city walls etc.). It doesn't work as well in our system as we can't bury the spear tip since it's made of foam, so people prefer our harrier class, which is sword/bow (in our system, the elven variant of the soldier).
I like the futuristic scenario ways of doing things. Weaponry becomes energy-based, so personal shielding is developed to absorb lasers/heat rays/etc. However, they don't work on physical weapons, like a sword, so they just cut through as do bullet-used guns, meaning that some people going back to the old fashioned weapons are actually going to get through the shields.
From your post I'm seeing it as bullets and modern armor is the equivalent of the longbow and plate armor.
The bows(guns) are unlikely to kill the target, but still could due to finding gaps. Therefore they are still very useful to supresss to enemy, locking them behind cover and preventing them from moving through the open.
If armor is this effective then blunt and piercing weapons would be the most common. Maces, warhammers, picks, halberds etc were all developed as anti-armor weapons: a large mass focused at the end of a long shaft, focusing the most amount of force of the swing through the contact point. This either produces concussive forces that travel through the armor and cause broken bones, concussions etc (maces) , or caves in the armor crushing the body beneath (warhammers). Also daggers are extremely useful for finding gaps in the armor. Swords won't be that common in mass combat (though modern times so guessing no 'battles') but those that are used will be long and thin to go through gaps; think rapier more than longsword.
Oo poke, thought you meant sticking it in the ground butt end, didn't realise you meant the blade! Noooooo!! :D the last thing you want to do is stick your sharp, combat ready blade into the ground! That will blunt it! It's only ever done in movies
Yes, this is exactly what I mean. I know why maces, halberds and war hammers were used but as far as I know, long swords were still a thing even when full plate armor became available. So for mechanics sake, it won't be too far fetched to think that swords would exist.
As for the setting itself, I was thinking that since the classic DnD is basically the middle ages but with magic, it was the same but centuries into the future. So instead of it being something like 700 AD with magic, it's 2010 with magic.
Well either end of a larp weapon is made of foam regardless :-p
No longswords completely existed then. What I'm saying is that a longsword (especially one in the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries) is a very different beast to what most people think it is.
The normal DnD longsword is what historian's would call an arming sword or maybe hand-and-a-half sword: a medium length blade that is about 3 inches wide and that slightly tapers in the last half of towards a point, with 4-5 inch handle, that can be used in one hand or use your second hand to grip the pommel for extra manoeuvrability. These were used mainly as side arms by archers and polearm inventory, and weren't very good against plate armor.
An actual longsword is a specifically built long bladed sword, about 2 inches at its widest, that is weilded exclusively with two hands. It was designed pretty much as a thrusting weapon (and using the pommel and crossguard as percussive weapons) to dig into gaps between the armor sections (look up half-swording). While very useful on a 1-on-1 and small skirmishes (perfect for DnD) they required too much space to be used in a cramp, tightly packed battle. Real longswords are more like a greatsword in DnD, real greatswords are just REALLY big longswords
(Sorry for the long lecturey posts, quite hard to tell on here exactly what info is needed)
Ah! You're right. I knew about the arming sword but it somehow slipped my mind. Well, that's where magic comes in. Like I said, if the classic DnD setting is like 700 AD with magic, I was thinking of a setting which is 2010 with magic.
Tbf realistic longswords work better with your setting, stronger and lighter metals would mean much thinner, longer blades
And I'd probably say DnD is a mix of 1400s and late 1600s weaponry with 1700s settlements and 500s countryside :D
Were arming swords still used when full plate armor was around?
Yeah absolutely :)
As I was saying before, arming swords were used primarily as sidearms: every archer, crossbowman, pikeman, halberdier, cavalryman, man-at-arms, knight and king needed a backup weapon for when their primary weapon either broke, got torn from their grip or just wasn't suited to the situation. This is where swords shine! They are the easiest weapon to carry on you: they're light, easy to draw in stressful situations and confined spaces, their sheath means you don't have to worry about damage to the blade or the blade damaging you. They are also applicable to any enemy that you come across, while not the best in any particular situation they will hold their own against pretty much anything. Some people might use an axe or a mace as their backup, held in their belt or in a metal ring attached to their belt, as they might be cheaper and better against armour but most used swords for the reasons I just stated.
The other place that swords were commonly used was just in non-battle situations. You don't want to have to wander around carrying a huge long-axe or a morningstar! It's so much easier to just have a short arming sword in a sheath attached to your waist; you don't have to think about it and it doesn't get in your way.
And the other thing you have to remember: just because plate armour existed doesn't mean everyone one used it. It was frickin' expensive!! Only the knights and some men-at-arms, essentially the nobility and the rich, could afford plate armour or have fought long enough to loot some from a battle. Even then a full set was rare. Most men-at-arms would have a few pieces of it on top of a mail hauberk (everyone wore mail, plate armour goes over it). Common foot soldiers, archers and crossbowmen would all be wearing mail hauberks or just a gambeson. So while anti-plate weapons were extremely useful in the thick melee of battle, most bladed weapons were just as useful overall.
Then I think I now know how DnD in a modern setting would work. Bows and crossbows are the guns and the melee weapons are just enchanted to match the enchanted armor. Because of power scaling, we could just say that since everything is basically enchanted, it's like having nothing be enchanted. That solves the gun problem at least.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-Long-Sword-and-a-Broadsword
This article explains the longsword conundrum quite well. And blames Gary Gygax and DnD for it all at the end :)
Again sorry for going off on such a long tangent :D you guys hit an oil well much larger than you thought
Hey, would you guys mind if I add some extra lore on how the multiverse works in the Public Notes? It deviates a bit from how the standard DnD multiverse works.
EDIT: Also going to include the lore established by hoyer into how aaracokra behave. Storm and Wibbly are also free to add any lore regarding Bahamut and Lathandar respectively.
Lore stuff added.
Awesome :) will have to have a read through
Does anyone know if it's possible to use the spell point variant on here? Or is D&D beyond limited to spell slots?