>>44791839 As a DM in general I'm largely cool with whatever (though for personal characters I'd stop at about 7 at max). In "my setting" though I might have to stop you at about 2 because bronze age metallurgy and shit.
>>44791839 That's a female, so we could say she's about 5'4. The largest zweihander I am aware of is about 2m long - 6'5. That corresponds to 6, but would have had a much smaller blade, and was only for ceremony. I'd assume that maybe a very large, muscular soldier could use such a weapon in battle, so I'd say 6 is the limit if it were built like 3 or 4. If magic is involved, that could all change.
4 seems a good stop for anything that's not basically one-of-a-kind (moreso than any well-made sword is). You see that kind of size in historical use. 5 & 6 you might see in as artisan masterpieces, displaying control of the form, and in fantasy I suppose someone (especially a notably large and strong someone) could wield one, particularly a 5. 7 and above get increasingly "downright silly" for a human-sized bearer. Even with super-strength they're downright awkward. So call it 5, maybe 6 under most conditions.
I love big dumb swords and other giant weapons (Not too long ago I had a player who wanted to wield a ship's anchor), so I tend to be rather permissive if a player wants one.
Even so, I do have a ceiling for weapon size. No matter what, no matter how high your strength score might be, your weapon can't weigh more than you do. It's because at that point, you're not really swinging it, it is swinging you.
>>44791839 In my current game, 3 unless the sword is enchanted to be easier to use or the PC has enhanced strength. In a game I'm planning, 4 and for the same reasons but that's because it's inspired by Final Fantasy and Phantasy Star. The others are just too damn big.
>>44792374 You're right in that those aren't real weapons in that image, but everything else you said is complete bullshit. Large, five to six foot long two handed swords existed and were used in combat both in pike formations and in out of formation. Also, the ones meant for combat weren't actually all that heavy.
The two large ones in that pic, and the largest two handed swords that exist, were Bearing Swords, meant to be held on Parade or in dress uniform. The mythical Grutte Pier's sword, which comes from a date much later than his death, is probably a bearing sword that has his name attached for whatever reason.
>>44791839 2 for one hand, 4 for two hands, 6 if you can sell me on it. If we're doing an anime campaign, supers campaign, or other campaign where we're no longer pretending physics, then it goes up to 11.
>>44791839 In my game PCs can achieve strenght beyond the limit for their size (rules-wise, physical parameters are minimum and maximum values depending on size), and achieve a physical strenght superior to a troll or minotaur's. Such characters may, through specific feats, use fucking huge swords, something around 7 in this chart and weighing more than 20 kg. As for others, a character with moderately high (but still mundane) strength may use zweihander-sized swords, which are perhaps longer than 4 (depending on how tall is the size-reference girl in the chart) but thinner and weighing around 10 kg. Of course we're talking about very strong characters, for human standards.
>>44793120 >So historical actual people whose deeds were massively exaggerated? Well, no, not even that. Jesus and Gilgamesh were recorded well enough to prove that they existed and had strong influence on their communities, but Arthurian times had shit-tier records and there's not even any hard proof any king named Arthur or similar existed, much less any of his knights. Just a bunch of legends that are probably based on something.
>>44793143 >Didn't someone do the math and figure out that Cloud couldn't actually swing the Buster Sword because his boots wouldn't have enough friction with the ground to resist the force of the swing?
>>44793183 The entire Arthurian Cycle is literally fiction, most of it french, and it was never passed off as real and has no known basis in reality. It's just a large collection of ridiculous stories from several different authors about knights who are too stupid and human to live up to their own reputations.
>>44792329 >>44792374 >Those were not for real fighting. They were one use weapons. One swing, then you dropped them and took out normal sword.
Where do you people come up with this BULLSHIT?
No, they did not exist.
There are large swords in Europe - 6 foot or more. they are PARADE swords. Ceremonial swords, carried during the parades of the feast days of saints, through city streets at the front of the crowd. The practice fell out of favour in northern Europe with the rise of protestantism. There are also large swords in japan, votive offering Odachi, which were made for deposition in shrines, which were often very long.
neither were used on the battlefield
They were not used for "one swing and dropped". How fucking idiotic do you have to be to come up with this shit?
>>44791839 4. 4 is about as big as could actually be used. If you took 3 and made it the same length as 6 maybe that would be okay. You can't just go by length for a weapon, but total mass, and how it is used. 5 and 6 would be fine as a stabbing weapon or like zweihanders actually were used as, for sweeping away polearms. Their shape however makes them more like giant knives, and trying to go all choppy with something that big is dumb. 7 and above is just retarded. you would tip over trying to hold them forward, regardless of strength.
There were swords out there that pushed 6-7 feet for various applications, the longest in the East being fuckhuge anti-cavalry swords meant to hit guys on horseback or just slice the horses something fierce.
Their more practical Western cousins were the zweihanders and similar super-sized longswords which were used as a sort of part-sword, part-polearm weapon and I think they were one of the signature weapons of the doppelsoldners.
Personally that's as long as I could let a sword I expect the PCs to use be. Want something longer? That's a polearm full stop, not a sword.
>>44793328 The earliest Arthur stories appear in historical works, many lacking mythological elements beyond there once being a cool guy who killed a lot of Saxons. One of our most complete stories, from Geoffrey of Monmouth, was written as part of a history. He claimed his source was a prior history, but since no record of that existed and his supposedly translated ancient British book talks a hell of a lot about knights, Norman and French Nobility, and the Roman Empire, he probably made it up with an eye to Norman sensibilities.
Even if the actual stories are fictional, people once took them as legitimate history.
My setting has weapons that gods and heroes once used as orbital re-entry weapons. Sooner or later, someone's gonna figure out how to use one. Maybe it'll only be for a single swing, but that definitely falls into the realm of "wielding."
What's the armor doing, reinforcing your ability to hold up the sword the way tilting armor had a thing to help knights in tournaments couch lances?
If so, wow, that's fortuitous armor design built for a really weird overspecialization and if not, yeah, no, armor does not help. If anything it'd just mean more weight your arms or body are trying to hold up plus the weight of the sword, making the weapon even more unwieldy.
I suppose you could try counterbalancing the weight of the blade with a long hammer and a really heavy pommel, but why would you bother? It'd still be awkward as fuck.
>>44794140 I suppose if you had some lead boots or something. Remember though, the higher your center of gravity the more prone to tipping you are. So you would have to have like super heavily armoured legs, and maybe a jerking for your torso.
>>44791839 No limits. You merely need enough strength to wield the blade effectively, and heroic mortals certainly have the capacity to acquire enough of that. And at the same time ignore such pesky things as mass, inertia and conservation of momentum.
Unless you are running a low-fantasy setting instead. That's when you start imposing hard limits on characters, but you're probably already counting how much the gold coins they carry weight.
>>44793366 In super human strength levels I would say that the one using it would need to be heavy to be able to balance it up and use it effectively so I would make them need to use very heavy armor to balance it out. So in the end you get a super strong character using an extra thick armor and swinging an extra big sword.
>>44794267 Looks at the guy, he is dislocating his center of mass to balance with the kid he is swinging. If your weight is higher you can balance a bigger sword. Just think about a plastic cup with a long spoon on it. The plastic cup just tips as the center of mass of the cup-spoon is outside of the plastic cup base but if you fill the plastic cup with sand the cup doesn't tip even if the individual center of mass of the spoon and the cup stays the same the center of mass of the system is dislocated in favor of the cup.
>>44791839 >imaginary game >whatever the character "has" is imaginary >game functions according to objective rules >player can imagine whatever he wants, so long as he's adhering to the rules
Here's another example: >"Are we anime?" >game is imaginary >I'm not imagining what you're imagining >pretend you're anime if you want >pretend your player character is pretending to be anime, whatever that means >adhere to objective rules >a good time is had by all
>>44791839 >What's the maximum size of sword you would allow a player to wield in your setting? the limit is it can be bigger than a real sword of similar type, and the caveot is it HAS to be an actual combat-sword, one forged with the intended purpose of being carried into battle and used, so that "god-awful monster of a sword that was only made to show-off what the blacksmith's skill" does not count.
>>44794391 Assumedly for when you need more control. Zweihanders had much the same thing, a grip slightly up the blade. Precisely controlling a sword that large is almost impossible if you hold from the hilt only.
>>44791839 If the length of the blade is more than shoulder-height, it counts as a polearm for the purpose of game mechanics that check weapon groups, and you need to purchase a special ability to treat it as a sword, but you CAN wield it. Depending on weight, I might refer to the improvised weapon rules for penalties. It's up to you to judge where you get diminishing returns. No, I don't doubt your character is strong enough to wield a sharpened helicopter rotor. But logically at least some of the normal techniques for sword fighting require a range of motion that you do not have when the ground is in the way. When you get more XP, we can talk about oversized weapon training. >implying I play D&D >implying I'm not even stricter on spellcasters
>>44795219 A helicopter rotor would actually make an okay defensive weapon presuming you had the strength and mass to wield it. I would allow it if the player could give even a rudimentary description of the fighting style using it.
Ideally that shouldn't be much of an issue because most swords, even the really long ones, don't get much heavier than like 15 or so pounds overall, most of that weight distributed so the center of mass makes the sword pleasant to handle, so a fantasy-big sword might push, I'm not sure, 20 or so pounds distributed in such a way that excessive outward force isn't generated with each swing, so if you have to exaggerate your movements, you're not going to be exaggerating them by all that much.
More than that, look at that same picture. The human body has a quite high center of mass standing up, so whatever mass extra armor might have, you get the same net effect from just moving your body to. balance what movements you make.
...or, perhaps, lay into them some more. Sword design is funny like that-some were purposely designed to have more weight further out so the sword could sometimes just smack aside a parrying attempt or rattle a guy in armor something fierce.
>>44795608 And you are being quite the pedant. When presented with a humanoid image against items intended for human use, one might assume the sizes are relative to the wielder. Sword 4, which reaches the top of the head, is therefore "a sword that reaches the top of the head". a 4' sword for a 4' person, or a 6' sword for a 6' person.
MORE probably, the figure in question is liable to be close to the in setting norm. Bigger and smaller people could encounter the same items, but the relative sizes would tend towards the similar because that's how bell curves work.
"lol no units" does not invalidate an entire thread worth of posts -- maybe some people are talking a little cross-purpose, but folks with a normally functioning ability to intuit are going to make similar even if not identical assumptions, providing grounds for discussion.
There's no text saying the human figure isn't a Liliputian, but that would be a pretty strange corner case in context.
>>44795608 Oh please. Take two seconds to work it out YOU smarmy fuck. It's clearly a silhouette of a dark skinned, light haired, female in bondage armor. She's most likely a drow, which puts her at like 5'6"
Do the work from there for blade and full length sizes.
Well, Guts was a big fella with a lot of muscles and a lot of upper body strength, so he would have a lot of mass to counterbalance his swords with from leaning back and forth with his swings for different effects, like putting more weight behind a swing or balancing so swings couldcome faster.
As heavy as sets of armor are, bear in mind that that weight is distributed over an entire body, and that the lever you're talking about is balanced by the weight that's at the direct end of the lever. Lower body stuff in this case isn't part of that lever, it's part of the fulcrum around which that lever is pivoting.
So I guess what I'm saying in the end is that if a guy is big, strong and massive enough, armor isn't a factor, the real factor is their own mass, training and strength making a weapon wieldable.
>>44795405 Wouldn't a sword, at least those commissioned rather than made en masse for an army or whatever, be designed with scale to the intended wielder in mind rather than objective size per se? This is genuinely a question, I don't into weaponsmithing or whatever.
>>44796794 3. And 2 of those should be legs. Or at the very least they need some damn good replacements or prosthetics.
You need a solid base to swing a sword effectively and lacking such would generally cause you to throw yourself off-balance.
Now, there are 2 exceptions to this. 1) If you fight exclusively mounted. Then all you need to do is be able to maintain your mount. The mount provides your stability. 2) Exceptionally skilled individuals could maybe make 1 leg and 1 arm work with a hell of a lot of practice. Itd be tough and less effective but it could work.
>>44796652 >>44796717 Oh absolutely. No smith worthy of wielding a hammer would make any item specifically commissioned for an individual without taking measurements of that individual. Which is my entire point, we are lacking even the most base of measurements to answer the question posed by the original poster.
This isn't something you would have to be 'particularly skilled' to do, its how you make something fit someone, it is literally step fucking one in making something for someone.
Changed would be made in consideration for the items intended use, especially in the case of weapons.
I never claimed a sense of superiority, fool. You don't claim something you know you naturally possess, it is displayed naturally by your bearing and actions. Such as your consistent dependence on inaccuracy and assumption. I would love to witness one of your gaming sessions, it would be a masters class on how to remain mediocre and pathetic.
>>44796903 They're not swordsmen, though. Firstly, they fight in very closed-quarters where an offhand is basically useless (you can't even pivot for an offhand dagger most of the time), secondly, the ground they fight on is always completely straight, with even rotations throughout the plane as the ship rocks back and forth. Thirdly, they weaken the enemy by canonfire and explicitly don't target well-defended cargo.
The point still stands, though, when you've got a weapon that heavy, would you really want to encumber a swordsman any further with weight from armor meant as a counterbalance?
Anyway, this is a topic about length and not overall mass, and to keep it on that topic, grinding out fullers and massive enough pommels and generally balancing a weapon means length comparable to character would be a handling issue, not a "can you lift this thing" issue. Usually.
>>44797163 Seriously, stop replying to the troll. What is wrong with you? Do you honestly think he cares about anything except for the (you)'s?
Or, are you just another troll? If that's a case, you guys are genuinely just the worst kind of posters, and I can't imagine how low you have to be to spend your friday evening posting just to get reactions out of each other.
Either way, its pretty much because I dont really care enough to throw on a trip. I only chime in rarely and I haven't much by way of resources like hungarian has that assload of arms and armour stuff.
Ah, well, okay, then balance could...be achieved with the same tricks. Actually, even looking at the Dragonslayer, logically due to its shape the center of mass of the blade would be closer to the handle than the tip because there's more metal in the bottom half than the top half, so given a sufficiently strong swordsman a weapon shaped like that is not as unpleasant to handle as it looks because the center of mass isn't as far out as it looks.
Of course, that does nothing for its goofy mass, but at that point you have to reason that fantasy's fantasy and sometimes, the answer to "do you want a gigantic sword or not?" is just "yes" and you want to hold a fantasy RP session, not a prolonged physics experiment.
Though the bounds of realism within reason are demonstrably more forgiving than they look at first glance.
>>44794860 Several people have held up entire armies at bridges by themselves. The viking at stanford bridge was one and there was some Japanese guy who supposedly died standing up after getting shot full of arrows.
>>44797626 Your average Grand Daiklave is probably a 7. A 9's a corner case, but given that those things are meant to be used by absurd superhumans who, at their highest levels of power, can heft demon overgods the size of mountains, it's hardly out of reason.
>>44799116 It's a dot system like WoD. Above essence 5, you can increase your stats to beyond 5 as well. Goes up to 10, so 10 dots.
However, solar exalts have so many charms and abilities that let them ignore things (plus they had like a 31 dice pool while a dragonblooded could at most maybe get 25 at essence 10) that silly things like "can I lift this temple" do in fact eventually stop being an issue.
So yeah. By like Essence 4, Solars, strength is just "yes"
>>44791839 I base my worlds physical limits off of my own. But then again I'm also a freak of nature who can efficiently dual wield 80lb sledge hammers for my demolition job and uses doors bolted to doors as shields in paintball
>>44798622 We're playing Anima. Weapon size is kind of a non-issue when you need only minimum investment into any of the three/four main supernatural forces to make the weight of your weapon irrelevant, upper limits of strength let you create earthquakes by punching the ground and max strength is rated as having no actual limit (meaning if you can find a surface that won't break under your feet, you can lift literally anything).
>>44799400 You're asking for too much. As I recall the examples in Exalted were: STR 1: You can barely lift an 80 pound dog STR 3: You can lift a 200 pound man STR 5: You can lift a 450lb donkey
But that doesn't count the Athletics skill, which also can add to this, and Charms, which can literally bypass shit ("I spend 2 motes and throw the car I normally could not budge") or multiply it or whatnot.
>>44799400 Not what you're asking, but yes, there is one.
Successes Example Feat Strength 3+ feats 1 Lift a full-grown man or an anvil. Break a pine board with a kick. 2 Tote a bale of cotton on one shoulder. Kick an oak door open. 3 Lift a mule. Break a sword over your knee. 4 Lift a full-grown warhorse or Bend an iron bar with both hands. Strength 5+ feats 5Lift an ox. Pull a fully laden wagon. Bend a horseshoe into a pretzel. 6Throw a mule. Snap an axe haft over your knee. Kick an oak door to splinters. 7Lift a boulder. Throw a full-grown warhorse. 8Lift a rhinocerous. Snap iron manacles. Slowly bash through a brick wall. 9Throw an ox. Twist a steel lock off a door with your bare hands. Kick down an iron-shod door. Strength 7+ feats 10Lift an elephant. Raise a drawbridge by hand. Punch through a brick wall. 11Raise a locked portcullis by hand. Punch through the wooden gate of a fortress. 12Pull a fully laden wagon from a sand trap. Rip iron bars out of their stone settings with one hand. Rip loose the stone supports of a city gate. 13Lift a boulder with one hand. Tear down the pillars holding up a mighty temple. 14Lift a tyrant lizard. Carry an enormous statue on one shoulder. Tip over a Guild wagon. Push open a locked and reinforced fortress gate.
Strength 5 is mundane human maximum, as is ten dice/five expected successes (unless you're heavily talented and specialized). Also, the list goes up to 20 successes, but that didn't fit in the 2000 character limit.
>>44799711 Strength 10+ feats 15Uproot a mighty tree and Slowly bash through the stone wall of a fortress. 16Lift a mammoth. Hurl an elephant. Tear apart the welded steel bars of a portcullis. 17Pull an entire caravan, chained cart-to-cart. Snap a mighty tree in half. 18Lift a mighty tree with one hand. Crack a boulder in two. Rip a portcullis from its setting. 19Throw a mammoth. Slowly push over a stone tower. Tow a boat away from a waterfall while on the shore. 20Tear open the earth to create a crevasse. Smash through ten feet of solid stone. Lift a yeddim or outpull a team of them. Tow a boat away from a waterfall while swimming.
It's a pretty excessive game, but built into it is the assumption that all the characters are ordinary humans unless they're using their power. Which implies that "ordinary" spectacular athletes can throw horses, but it's a wuxia-ish setting. You should see the rules for jumping distance. Or see the ludicrous stuff that actual people lift.
All this is ignoring the fact that because the sword in question is almost always an artifact weapon, it's also attuned to the wielder's Essence, which makes the sword much lighter. It doesn't matter if the thing's a thousand pounds, it's not going to feel any heavier than an ordinary two-hander to whoever attunes it.
>>44793396 >There are also large swords in japan, votive offering Odachi, which were made for deposition in shrines, which were often very long. Thought they were made to show off the blacksmith's skill
>>44793069 eat poop. http://www.thetallestman.com/piergerlofsdonia.htm >>44791839 Depends on their strength, the weight of the sword, and their own weight. You can wield anything but it gets cumbersome, slow and easily dodged if you constantly have to hold it to avoid tipping over.
If you are going historic, probably a 6 or 7, but more narrow than those metal paddles you show.
>>44792972 #6 really isn't that unreasonable in length assuming the comparison shadow is under 6 foot tall. While they were not a common sight, 6 foot and bigger swords were a thing in combat. Much bigger than 6 foot is getting a bit silly unless you're a giant, and #6 is about four times too thick, but the length is perfectly reasonable. 1-arming/short sword 2-Bastard/hand-and-a-half sword 3-longsword 4-greatsword 5-greatsword 6-really big greatsword 7-okay that's unreasonable 8-what the fuck 9-No you can't use a sword twice as big as you get the fuck out
It depends how they justify it. I mean, in DnD level 20 characters are ridiculously powerful. So yeah, if a character is high enough of a level and has enough strength I'd let them wield a 9 even. Just as long as as it was gained in the right circumstance. Like, stolen from a giant, and make it a +3 sword. Also have people react accordingly. If you walk through a small town with that on your back you'll be turning heads, disadvantages on some movement skill checks and such (unless they have really high dexterity too). It'd be fun to balance. increased range at the expense of dexterity or something.
>>44801918 what the hell is wrong with 5, and 6, and 7 scaled down to a 1 handed 1 meter or even less than 1 meter length, 6, and 7 are very similiar to broad sword/gladius design with a large flat blade, and 5 is somewhat scimitar like, granted there is some liberty taken but not enough to go NO NOT EVER..
>>44803089 I'm not playing your pleby d20, so i don't care >>44803087 they don't look useable. they don't even look as it was possible to make something like that from actual metal instead of cheap plastic. even if someone would be strong enough to actually swing that shit, he would do even better with sword of simmilar size but bettet weighted and balances. They also look blunt, and things that are supposed to cut, should be like... sharp. Finally, at purely aesthetical ground, realism and being practical aside, they're just fucking ugly and cartoonish.
Tl'dr, i like my weapons to look like actual weapons, something meant to wound and kill, no 7yo's cheap plastic toy.
>>44803243 No doubt a proper weapon would suit better, true, but Im gonna hone in on one comment that I dont quite understand, if I may.
> they don't even look as it was possible to make something like that from actual metal instead of cheap plastic
I dont quite understand this, could you elaborate? Like, to me, taking 9 as an example, its an oversized and edgy Bowie knife. Do you mean the metal wouldn't be able to support the weight in that configuration?
>>44792329 ocasionaly giant swords were used. not for sword combat, but for attacking knights on horseback. it was to take down the horse, then you switched to a normal sized sword. But even those were about 5 foot long which would make them a 3 or 4 depending on how tall the person in the pic is
>>44805971 No, since longsword literally means, a sword which is long.
A common sword could be about the length of an arm or leg if you want to eyeball it.
Arming swords are pretty much a common sword in size, a longsword (which wasn't actually a thing, if they saw something like a zweihander they just called it a long sword, or by its name) it would be something that needed to be wielded by two hands, or was large enough to warrant using it with both hands as opposed to one.
Your bait is shit, as I hope it is bait, and you not being comically misinformed.
>>44806800 I could swear I've seen your breed of autism before in /v/ mordhau threads. What are your sources even for this peculiar definition of longsword?
You do understand that, even if you are correct, most people who deal with swords will take longsword as a synonym for bastard sword? Are you just as insistent about other words in the English language that have changed in meaning over the years?
even wikipedia says a longsword is anywhere from 39-51 inches in length (blade 35-43) and that lists a long as list of different swords that could be considered longswords. tell me thats not what common parlance means in discussing "longswords". and then compare how tall that person would have to be for that sword to be that size and tell me 1 isn't in that range.
The guns are explained ingame, they are basically mini mass relays that have blocks of metal in them. Every time you pull the trigger a tiny tiny sliver is shaved off and accelerated to extremely high speeds. This is actually how railguns in Fallout are supposed to work as well.
Probably up to a 7, unless special circumstances permit further.
>b-b-b-but muh historical accuracy!
Who the FUCK cares. I'm playing D&D not autistic I-got-all-of-my-knowledge-of-history-off-4chan historical reenactment simulator. Bring on the buster swords and chainmail bikini-clad amazons. This is fucking fantasy.
>>44791839 9, but have rolls every time they move a certain distance with the weapon to see if they accidentally smack into something/someone with it. Send them into dungeons with lots of puzzles that can only be solved if you DON'T accidentally lodge your sword in things. Have them accidentally murder their village chief/benefactor/childhood friend/personcuringthemofscreaminganalleeches at every opportunity.
>>44791839 Assuming the swords are proportional to the size of the adventurer in question...
1 for one-handed weapon, maYBE 2. 3 for two-handed, though I could be convinced of 4. A Goliath could use 6 one-handed, and two-handed, imagine if 8 or 9 were actually, you know, swords that could reasonably be used for both cutting and thrusting.
Depends on setting. Is it a simulationist game with a focus on realism? Then anything above 3 requires specialist training and anything above 6 doesn't exist. Is it not a simulationist game with a focus on realism? Then I don't care.
>>44791839 >What's the maximum size of sword you would allow a player to wield in your setting?
I'd let a size 9 because I'm not a no-fun-allowed GM Then after all the characters are finalized and done, I make it so that he cannot wield it at all and is essentially dead weight, rendering it completely fucking useless and forcing him to throw away all his backstory with the weapon, either remaking the character entirely, or make a new one. I lied, I am actually a no-fun-allowed GM
>>44791839 Going by your chart, 3. The idea is that top size is shoulder/chin height like historical greatswords, actual size would depend on the wielder size. Because let's be honest, any bigger than that and it gets ridiculous unless you're playing an animu-style setting.
>people say 4 is fine Top kek, 4 wouldn't even be wieldable properly, nevermind making an effective weapon. Just look at that shit, how are you even gonna defend your lower body with a weapon that requires you to hold it 45° to the ground if you want to point it downward while retaining any kind of decent leverage upon it?
>>44813592 It would. Of course he's talking bullshit so it's a non issue. He's talking of pic related, which are 3 sized, they were most certainly not single swing weapons, and while there's some mention of them being used as an alternative to pollaxes and similar weapons as anti-pike weaponry, their most common use was in duels and as area denial/bodyguard weapons.
>>44814068 In that dude's defense, I think he was referring to the horde of retards in this thread insisting that 4-6 sizes are actually historical, but I could be wrong. I'm willing to accept up to Gutts-sized swords in my games (as long as the wielder is exceptional in strength like Gutts or magical in nature) but let's not act like they're historical.
>>44810361 Well obviously I wouldn't try that on someone with an atrophied sense of humor. If someone can't take a gentle ribbing for carrying around 12 feet of sword they can always trade it for something reasonable, Or deal with the occasional "while turning to face the cult leader, your fuckoff huge sword clips into the skull of the prince you were hired to rescue. With his life, the the ritual to summon and bind the fiend is complete. The blood you spilled burns the sigil of the master into you. Enjoy your new pet Quasit Stenchlord."
>>44791910 This is literally me in pathfinder. Grung the Kind, the nicest ork you'll ever meet. He wields a large greataxe that does the damage of a size huge. He also frequently enlarges himself with potions from the alchemist.
I mean, many systems have rules about this sort of thing. D&D 3 had fullblades, which have a blade length roughly around 5 feet for a medium character (and probably over a foot of handle, much like a real world zanmadao). An Epic level fighter with the appropriate build could wield a weapon two sizes larger than them, which it seems is quadruple length. So 20 feet long. Okay, maybe I wouldn't actually allow that. Maybe in that case I'd have to rule that they could do it mechanically, but we'd be going by something inspired by the square cube law in actual length.
I look to reality for some guidance, but I rarely play in a strictly realistic setting, in most of them, especially home brews, even your most basic melee type (fighter or whatever) is implied to have a sort of subtle natural magic or psychic power or just pure mythicness that means they casually exceed the expectations set by reality.
>>44803477 I'd say one if the bigger WTF things if the fuckhueg fantasy swords is the lack of fuller. Then again the average faggot thinks it's to let blood out and keep the (non-existent) vacuum of the wound from making you lose your sword.
>>44819937 I'd say it's because the entire point of the fuck-off huge fantasy sword is to showcase how much of a stronk your character is. The only reason the fuck-off huge fantasy sword is not a solid iron club is because swords can have cool shapes and cut things.
>>44820619 I don't get why people untrained in the use of swords can't understand the idea of leverage. Like when you see people gripping a katana with both hands wrapped around the handle right beneath the tsuba instead of with one on the bottom of the handle. This lady might have been able to do actual cuts if she held it differently.
>>44791839 There is, in actual fact, an NPC in my setting that wields a bastards sword designed for fuck-off huge giants in one hand. Magic is involved. So, size 7-8 if you're using one hand, size 8-9 if you're using two.
>>44803477 did you read what I replied too, I know those swords would be silly to use at the size indicated in the OP post, but the guy i replied to said he wouldnt even allow such sword designs at 1 meter or less. The designs as shorter swords are not that outlandish desu, as giant twohanded monstrosities yes, but as a one handed reasonably sized weapon they arent so ridiculous as to be outside the realm of possibility, specially in a fantasy setting.
>>44791839 Depends on how they make their character. If they come with a character built like Guts and wearing magical armor or bag then, sure, I'll allow up to a 6 or maybe 6 and a half. But if you come up with some twig-armed bishonen, you can only use up to a 2.
When i was in a museum trip, a the excursion guy let us get a hold of some of the weapons, i went for the biggest one because i was a huge weaboo at the time, and i found it was suprisingly easy, it was a godamn claymore.
>>44834546 That's because you were handling what was probably a properly proportioned blade. 4 and 5 in the OP are sorta pushing it just based on this angle and everything else is kinda oversized as far as we can tell.
>>44835050 3 is already pushing it because the blade is wider than 1 and 2. 4 is comically wide. 5 most likely has a weight of 4-6kg and has balance issues. 8 has most likely a weight of 50-100kg, and 9 over 150kg.
>>44835082 I know that. I was talking about proportions, not length. Don't really think 3 is pushing it too hard thou, it kinda depends on how well balanced it is and how nicely shaped the blade itself is.
Which are things we can't really infer based on this chart.
Having only one arm isn't the end of the world. it's a lot better than only one leg. Many arming sword and Kriegsmesser codices teach to fight with your off hand behind your back or across your chest to minimise it as a target.
>>44815567 "I take off my sheath by swinging the sword really hard" >Roll, Roll, Roll >Okay, the sheath flies off and beans the bandit in the head. You catch him flat footed and crit him. He's out cold.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.