|
Post by AxeMental on Jan 14, 2005 17:44:33 GMT -5
Q: "Well, any dolt can look at the class list of weapons. In both UA and the PHB cleric weapons are expressly listed. No guessing needed!" Call me a pathetic, power player. Come to think of it, I think this was something we just started doing recently (my DMing).
|
|
|
Post by rebecca on Jan 18, 2005 13:16:52 GMT -5
Although hammers are the most common murder weapon in Britain today...
Swords aren't much use against plate armour, that's what you have blunt crushing weapons for. Of course, one might argue that plate mail isn't very good and not very common - therefore blunt weapons serve no purpose that a polearm can't. That's another argument though.
In terms of war, polearms in unit formation can be quite unwieldy - particularly the long shafted weapons. Whilst that might not make much difference to a D&D game it certainly makes more sense when looking at weapons historically.
Also consider that most of the fine hand arms in the medieval period where probably only ever built for tournament use in the first instance and so had nothing to do with the battlefield or ganking the peasantry.
|
|
|
Post by AxeMental on Jan 18, 2005 18:42:28 GMT -5
Well, the Lucern hammer looks like a big stick with a ball pin hammer x3 on the end, so I would allow that portion to be used by a cleric, however, the spear like head is a problem, and if EGG was thinking of that then its a big forget it for clerics (and since he didn't mention it...I might e-mail Gman on this).
|
|
Ant
Novice
Posts: 39
|
Post by Ant on Jan 19, 2005 7:52:43 GMT -5
Swords aren't much use against plate armour, that's what you have blunt crushing weapons for. Of course, one might argue that plate mail isn't very good and not very common - therefore blunt weapons serve no purpose that a polearm can't. That's another argument though. My understanding would be that plate mail was very expensive and mostly worn by nobles. Also, this mail was extremely heavy, and most likely employed by a warrior on horseback. It would be hard to attack a mounted warrior with a hammer as compared to a polearm. I think that is why polearms would be employed vs plate mail/mounted opponents. Ironic really, a peasent armed with a piece of wood with a metal end can threaten a highly trained warrior encased in steel and riding a horse.
|
|
|
Post by PapersAndPaychecks on Jan 19, 2005 9:58:14 GMT -5
Plate isn't that heavy, no. I'm not the fittest person on Earth, but I can run around and fight mock battles in my plate armour, on foot, for three or four hours. And warriors in a medieval society would be considerably tougher and fitter than I am. The overall weight of my plate, mail underneath, padded gambeson, great helm, three-quarter-inch truncated kite shield and usual weapon selection (which is broadsword, mace and 6` spear) checks in at around seventy pounds. That's a fair bit for a civilian, but it's less than the average infantryman carries into a combat situation in the 21st Century. Yes, plate was massively expensive, as was anything made of metal. In 1066AD, a conical helm was more expensive than a house. The reason why I have so much contempt for hammers is that they're totally inferior to axes and maces. After all, in terms of how they're used on the field, there's little difference between a hammer and a blunt axe. But you can sharpen the axe.
|
|
|
Post by northrundicandus on Jan 19, 2005 12:14:16 GMT -5
If you've never chopped wood you can't really comprehend the incredible havok a well swung axe can achieve!
They had to be devastating in hand-to-hand conflicts.
|
|
|
Post by PapersAndPaychecks on Jan 19, 2005 12:21:07 GMT -5
Aye. The Bayeux Tapestry shows a man armed with a Dane axe hacking through a horse's neck, out of the other side, through a mail-armoured man's torso, and out the other side in a single blow.
We think that this is quite an accurate reflection of how a Dane axe was employed.
|
|
|
Post by poppy on Jan 24, 2005 9:13:36 GMT -5
With all due respect, the " Bayeux Tapestry" is about as archaeologically sound as a historical reference as Mein Kampf is a sound theological document. It can teach us something, but it's not accurate.
None-the-less I was under the impression that digs of ancient war graves confirmed that this is indeed a probable result of Dane Axe v's Cavalry.
Sighting the Bayeux Tapestry might make such a claim contraversial...
|
|
|
Post by stonegiant on Apr 10, 2006 12:44:37 GMT -5
Thread Necromancy-
There is also a War Hammer from the late Middle ages and Early Renaisance that is a clawed/pronged ball peen head on one side, a hooked beak on the other and it was very effective against plate armor. The problem is everyone says war hammer and images of the big blonde guy in Conan the Barbarian and his giant war hammer come to mind.
|
|
|
Post by AxeMental on Apr 11, 2006 10:17:07 GMT -5
Is it correct to assume the hooked end would puncture the skin? I wonder if a cleric could just use the other end?
|
|
|
Post by blackprinceomuncie on Apr 11, 2006 11:32:29 GMT -5
Is it correct to assume the hooked end would puncture the skin? I wonder if a cleric could just use the other end? Sean's description of that hammer is a little ambiguous "clawed/pronged" and "ball peen" don't really fit together as a description of a hammer head. (Ball peen = smooth rounded head, used for making curves in metal as opposed to the flat face of a hammer used for driving nails or flattening metal). It's obvious that both the "clawed/pronged" face (if that description means what I think it means) and the hook face would be piercing weapons and would not be allowed to Clerics for that reason (even though the term "warhammer" should probably apply to just such a weapon rather than the modified sledgehammer/smith's hammer depicted in most D&D illustrations of the weapon).
|
|
|
Post by stonegiant on Apr 14, 2006 20:29:44 GMT -5
Is it correct to assume the hooked end would puncture the skin? I wonder if a cleric could just use the other end? Sean's description of that hammer is a little ambiguous "clawed/pronged" and "ball peen" don't really fit together as a description of a hammer head. (Ball peen = smooth rounded head, used for making curves in metal as opposed to the flat face of a hammer used for driving nails or flattening metal). It's obvious that both the "clawed/pronged" face (if that description means what I think it means) and the hook face would be piercing weapons and would not be allowed to Clerics for that reason (even though the term "warhammer" should probably apply to just such a weapon rather than the modified sledgehammer/smith's hammer depicted in most D&D illustrations of the weapon). My aologies for my ambiguity The War Hammer I descrided is definatley a weapon made to crush and puncture. The non-edged weapons of reality are not many and not very effective. Maces and Flails (of the middleages) were all weapons with points or beads designed to puncture. The "Dwarven Warhammer" is a weapon of pure fiction. The club & staff are of course real. This is definatley a case of either go with reality and houserule the weapon choices for the cleric or draw the line and say reality has its place, but in my game these weapons work.
|
|