>All of the above
10/10 would fight alongside
axe? who are you gonna fight? army of fucking trees?
who are you? fucking carpenter? now get the fuck out you have some nails to hammer
this is good, it was made for fighting but we can do better than that
>If your obscure flailed poleaxe is so good how come no one uses it.
>implying guns didnt make them all of them obsolete
No anon, you are the hipsters.
>then, anon tipped his fedora.
I learned this playing Dwarf Fortress Adventure Mode. With some beasts only certain metals can harm them but hammers don't apply because the crushing force of the blow to the beast itself is enough to kill it. If I were to use a bronze sword to kill something that only silver can be used to harm, thenI would be screwed.
And here's the follow up question, how do you balance the 3?
Definitely hammer. It can reliably fuck up everyone from the most heavily armoured opponents to people with no armour at all.
Alright, how does a mace swing faster than a sword? I imagine bashing enemies with a mace would be much slower and more energy consuming than slicing with a sword.
Maybe the same with an handaxe.
fuck da axe wound
stick the sword in
hammer the pussy
A mace does not weight 20lbs. It's actually lighter than a typical longsword which doesn't weigh that much either.
The force behind a swing comes from the wielder, not the weapon's weight. There's a reason people can point out the differences between an amateur and an expert when it comes to weapon use. An expert will use his entire body to put the most force behind a swing.
It's a hard decision. For some reason though, I don't like most normal swords. Like, I think some can be cool when they're overdesigned/fantasy looking, like I dunno, Frostmourne, Buster Sword, huge greatswords in general. Normal swords just aren't that useful or cool in comparison.
I'd much prefer to smash someone with a hammer or cleave someone with an axe, but a sword is kinda only good for fencing. Maybe that's how I see it actually - berserkers and badass warriors use axes, hammers, greataxes, greathammers, even badass polearms of all sorts, but swords are generally just used by silly noblemen.
There's a few differences-
The construction of the head - a poleaxe being three separate pieces, a halberd being one piece.
The balance is different, with a halberd being balanced for using mainly the head, a poleaxe being balanced so you can use the butt, too.
Speaking of the butt, some poleaxes have spikes on the butt of the shaft.
Halberds can be a bit longer than poleaxes.
Poleaxes aren't as uniform as halberds - halberds are axe on one side and spike or hook on the other, whereas poleaxes can be almost any combination of hammerheads, axe heads, spikes and hooks.
Generally speaking, poleaxes were for fighting solo against heavily armored enemies who are likewise on foot, while halberds were for formation fighting against lightly armored infantry and any sort of cavalry.
The two weapons are used very similarly in similar situations, though.
it is the natural human weapon which is why guns were designed to emulate it
the spear in the right hands is the most powerful weapon there is
>Frostmourne, Buster Sword, huge greatswords in general. Normal swords just aren't that useful or cool in comparison.
>Normal swords just aren't that useful in comparison.
The Buster Sword is literally impossible to wield by any normal human being regardless of the material it's made out of. Doesn't matter if it's super lightweight, that just translates into a clumsy oversized weapon that weighs nothing and has a fat edge. It's basically a really shitty mace.
They tended to break or cut through most shields, and were harder to parry than swords.
They did have that nasty habit of getting stuck on bone, and not much use on more armoured targets though, but that's what the spike was for.
both those swords look retarded as fuck
real swords have much better design asthetics
>Like, I think some can be cool when they're overdesigned/fantasy looking, like I dunno, Frostmourne, Buster Sword, huge greatswords in general. Normal swords just aren't that useful or cool in comparison.
>getting two attacks per round is stupid.
Well, yeah. That's what I said. Fantasy and unrealistic swords are cool in their setting. Swords in general are just boring and not as useful as hammers or axes.
Polearms are also awesome though.
So the real question is: Polearms, hammers or axes? I might design a new DaS 2 build depending on what this thread convinces me is most badass.
I currently play a spearwielding spartan build in DaS 2.
Spears are garbage outside of large scale engagements. What the fuck are you gonna do when some cutthroat with some fuckin dirks steps into your range. You're gonna die is what, ugly fuckin ballsack cunt.
Polehammer best weapon
Piercing armor, skull and brains like it was nothing
>Axes have the highest damage but shittiest penetration
Swords have significantly worse penetration against armor. Axes had enough of a thick edge that they could still pummel and occasionally puncture armor.
If you were using a sword against a knight, you better have practised that half swording or your ass was toast. Your only options are to stab him in the armpit or wrestle him to the ground if you get lucky.
spears are a universal weapon like the Quarterstaff and a spearman can be extremely effective with one even fighting multiple enemies
swords are a similar deal but with less range or defensive ability
Swords are garbage tier show off weapons for the rich
>Require a ton of training to use effectively
>Don't even perform better than 99% of other easier to mass produce weapons that require less training
>being this mad
oh wow ok man how about you calm the fuck down before you have an asthma attack eh?
you have no idea what you're talking about, for the untrained yea a spear is only good in mass blocs which is why it was given to peasants, but if you have ever seen bow-staff/quarterstaff combat that is the same as using a spear but without the pointed edge
a shortspear is incredibly versatile, being used as a quarterstaff to block and parry any attack as well as hit your opponent from range and sweep them
or even thrown to impale them from far away
the spear is the ultimate weapon alongside the Longsword
Nigga that ain't how the swiss be rollin'
>He was an experienced soldier because when the bones were reassembled researchers found that the lower jaw had a massive cut from chin to ear, but the bone was well healed.
Someone survived this hit and was walking around like this
How does this make you feel?
Sigmund, pls go
The only reason you kill people is because you camp the early floors
lol hammer mace and axe fags mad they can't even get close enough to hit me
I always think axes are underappriciated being the default weapons given to barbaric, dumb or otherwise primitive fighters, defined by being large, heavy and used like sharpend clubs.
The only game i saw where someone gave the axe some love was the last Fire Emblem game for SNES, which had two fighters who used the swordsman moves with axes.
Though maces and hammers have the same problem.
>you can't block projectiles without shield!
Then fucking roll and dodge scrublord.
>you need to use your whole body to attack!
Or I could stunlock an enemy with my double swords.
>this isn't a realistic scenario!
Well if we're talking realistic scenarios, I'd use a gun, nerd.
It's often been argued the Halberd/Pollaxe and such derivatives are the most versatile and desirable weapon in combat, as they combine weight and strength, flexibility, range and effectiveness against a range of opponents.
It can work as an axe against flesh, a hammer against plate, and a spear against cavalry; it's easy to train someone with and can be used effectively by militias.
But of course, if we're talking a weapon of all time, i'd argue the Gladia, especially the Hispaniensis version; it's a weapon that beat greece's hoplites and the gaul's spears, the Khopesh of the gyppos and even the Fealx of the wild men.
Other weapons do well on paper, but none have built an empire so well.
yea they require a lot of training but they are still the most useful and the best weapons
nothing matches the sheer power and versatility of the sword other than the spear which is why both are such iconic human weapons
pic related, most people have no clue about how medieval combat was carried out
a longsword could be to pommel armored enemies much like a mace which is why they usually had very solid handles, or half sworded to faster close range striking, the longsword in the hands of a skilled user was incredibly powerful
Fire Emblem, despite being a Japanese fantasy game, is surprisingly good when it comes to portraying a wide variety of martial arts and weapons.
I don't mean they're authentic. But the armor obeys internal consistency, and so do the weapons. There are characters with a wide variety of weapons, and it doesn't generally fall into the lowest depths of martial arts portrayals which we so often find.
Against an armored opponent slogging it out on foot? Give me a hammer.
Just riding over peasant shits from atop of my war destrier? Then it becomes how quickly and often I can swing, so a sword.
axes just are not as useful or versatile as swords are, and get caught easily
they work best when combined with a shield as the vikings and saxons did using bearded axes to tear away their opponents shields
That's probably a mix of the Germanic tribes favouring them, and in Japanese works, always being seen as a bandit's tool, since woodcrafters.
They're not really romanticised in the same way. Though, of course, you get exceptions like this:
no it isn't, axes are really unweildly in combat and cant be used in as many situations as a sword
axes are only useful against enemy shields or heavy armor
even then everything an axe can do a skilled swordsman can do better
While I agree with prettymuch everything you said, I would like to add the poleaxe to your list of incredibly versatile weapons. It's not as iconic, though, which is a damn shame.
>Sigmund's scythe is the best weapon ever with perfect accuracy
>the minute I grab it it becomes near useless and I might as well try using a pool noodle for battle
Axes designed to chop wood are not really good as combat weapons since their point of weight and the form of the blade are designed for hacking down on immobile objects with a lot of force.
Axes designed for combat need a different weight ratio and different blade in order to be quick to wield and capable of cutting through targets horizontal and vertical.
Of course you can use a wood cutter axe to fight someone, but it isn't ideal for it.
As long as you're swinging just to make cuts and not go full edgelord decapitation move all the time, you should be good.
Medieval health care could handle broken bones from blunt trauma well, but a small cut could Karl Drogo a nigga.
i'd prefer a claymore over a poleaxe
there are stories of German swordsmen blocking arrows and cutting right through pikelines with their swords by swinging them in a sort of figure 8 sort of fashion
Everyone look at this little fairy boy and laugh.
If you do, geto ff the internet while you do. Spoilers are merciless for it.
Also suggest you start with this.
Ravel's bolero was beyond reproach as a choice here.
That's a shitty modern recreation
But the poleaxe has the pole, the hook (or hammer), the spearhead, and the axehead. While I'd say yeah zweihanders are great weapons as well, the poleaxe is entirely underrepresented considering it was the preferred weapon of the same German soldiers you're talking about.
>hold weapon closer to the pokey bit
>combat him with a shortpsear
>push him away with spear
>pull out your own dagger and recreate the scene from that michael jackson music video
how wrong can one faggot be
spears are the ultimate warfare and 1v1 weapon
longsword? outrange him
shield? outrange him and try to knock off weapon/injure shield arm
Chivalry is related right?
I mean its basically the game for medevial weaponry combat
I fucking love manning shortspear and just completely fucking all the Noobguards and cunty Knights when they try to walk up flailing their weapons until i headshot them
every game there are always these babies complaining about Archers being OP since they suck
Man at Arms and Archer are the objective patrician classes
Delicious Kukri / Kopis
It's like a short sword but with the force of an axe
Yeah the major issue for why axes are often seen as primitive weapons is because they were developed from tools. It's the same reason spears are seen as primitive compared to lances and knives are seen as primitive compared to daggers.
On the counter point, that's exactly why swords became such romatic weapons. Because they were designed soley for combat and not developed from a working tool.
The club/mace actualy have the same backround but since they are so easy to make the fall into the same category as aces.
Basicly swords became the glorified weapons they are because they are only designed for fighting and they require more work to be created and maintianed, which led to them being the prefered weapons of nobility.
Not to say that swords aren't effective weapons.
>worth fuckall without a bow
enjoy me feinting, you blocking, and me kicking to one shot you
jav archers are notoriously bad at the game
>let me get them with my tricks!
>wait shit I'm trying to go into melee range as the wost melee class
Vikings are often portrayed with axes because they're cheaper to make(less iron) and most people already had them at hand to chop wood. Axes are versatile tools while swords are basically just for combat.
>crack skulls with either end
>parries with the blade, demi hache or queue
>pull yourself over walls
>smash through shields and the arm behind it
i would have been so peeved having to go to war against that
like what do you even do
if that's how they're gonna play i'd just camp a cliff and shoot arrows like fuck you
There's that word again. I will follow your traces from now on and if you misuse it again I will find you and curbstomp your face so fucking hard that all your teeth fall out.
Actualy Archers served as support infantry once they had spend their arrows.
War in the middle ages was not like strategy games, there were no dedicated range only units.
An archer always carried axes, long knives or pikes with them to join the battle once the forces got too close to each other.
Here, have some ..interesting design notes from the series. The longsword actually turns up a few brief times, it appears to have a hollow centre. Weight reasons maybe?
>fantasy is real life guise
there is a reason why the spear was the single most common weapon across the entire planet along with the bow for almost all human history
it dominates everything and is perfectly built for the human body
the sword and the gun are just derivatives of the spear's basic design
Unless you have actually used a spear
or seen one in action, it’s hard to imagine just
how lethal it can be. A good, sharp spear,
measuring 6 feet in length and weighing 2 lbs. or
more, can easily be stabbed through the toughest hide to create a wound channel two feet long by three inches wide! What’s more, unlike the wound channel of a bullet, the wound channel of a spear can be immediately enlarged to gigantic proportions. All one has to do is pump the shaft up and down or twist it from side to side. Just imagine the swath a 13" blade could cut through a chest cavity as it’s rotated back and forth over
a full 180° arc! This same spear hits twice as hard when thrown. That’s right! Penetration of a hand thrown spear through flesh and bone rivals that produced by a 470 Nitro Elephant Rifle. A good spear man can easily hurl his spear completely through a bull elk, moose, grizzly bear or even a cape buffalo
the fact is for mid range fighting the Spear is king, weather its hunting or combat.
the axe is nothing compared to it and is highly situational
You seem to think the only part of a spear that's a weapon is the sharp pointy bit. While it's an important part of the spear, there is also the shaft itself and the weight at the end for balance. When a guy closes in, these parts of the weapon do not disappear and you are perfectly capable of flipping it around and whacking a nigger in the fucking face with the back of the spear and then kick him in the dick and knock him over so you can stab him in the fucking face with the spearhead.
I don't think you fucks quite understand the appeal of a hammersword.
you can fucking cave in a niggas skull or you can fucking cleave said skull in half, you can do goddamn aynthing you fucking want with a hammersword
r u srs
archers wreck in close combat in Chivalry
I always tear apart these cunty knights thinking they are hot shit until I'm jumping around them in circles and quickly slashing them to death
maces were also known as the go to weapon to waste some rich armorfags shit, so much that they were banned at one point by the catholic church for being 2gud against the nobility.
Unlike the crossbow though, they got unbanned quickly (about 150 years)
That's it. I'm sick of all this "Masterwork Bastard Sword" bullshit that's going on in the d20 system right now. Katanas deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.
I should know what I'm talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine katana in Japan for 2,400,000 Yen (that's about $20,000) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even cut slabs of solid steel with my katana.
Japanese smiths spend years working on a single katana and fold it up to a million times to produce the finest blades known to mankind.
Katanas are thrice as sharp as European swords and thrice as hard for that matter too. Anything a longsword can cut through, a katana can cut through better. I'm pretty sure a katana could easily bisect a knight wearing full plate with a simple vertical slash.
Ever wonder why medieval Europe never bothered conquering Japan? That's right, they were too scared to fight the disciplined Samurai and their katanas of destruction. Even in World War II, American soldiers targeted the men with the katanas first because their killing power was feared and respected.
So what am I saying? Katanas are simply the best sword that the world has ever seen, and thus, require better stats in the d20 system. Here is the stat block I propose for Katanas:
(One-Handed Exotic Weapon)
19-20 x4 Crit
+2 to hit and damage
Counts as Masterwork
(Two-Handed Exotic Weapon)
17-20 x4 Crit
+5 to hit and damage
Counts as Masterwork
Now that seems a lot more representative of the cutting power of Katanas in real life, don't you think?
tl;dr = Katanas need to do more damage in d20, see my new stat block.
>seriously trying to compare a spear's usefulness against a fucking elephant gun or any firearm, completely disregarding hydrostatic shock, temporary wound cavities, bullet fragmentation, and the range advantage
Just stop. Spears are good weapons but guns are superior in just about every conceivable situation.
This pasta never fails to amuse me.
I seem to recall seeing pictures of a longsword where the crossguard was a hammer head. Damned if I can find them now, though.
It happened a few times, mostly in the middle east and india. These are Ottoman.
nothing outclasses it one on one
which is why it was still used effectively for millennia against all opponents
even today it is extremely effective, combined with a dagger for close combat you can outmatch anyone, even in some cases a rifleman
I'm pretty tired of games only having swords so I've been having a boner for anything blunt or exotic, never liked axes though i can appreciate their efficiency.
You're right that it had basically no skill floor (sharp end goes into other man), but an experienced and skilled spearman is a force to be reckoned with. Between a spearman and a swordsman of the same skill and experience, it would more come down to who made a mistake first.
There's something about bashing people with blunt weapons.
if you can git gud with a Yari spear, you cannot be bested in battle
the literal git gud of the world
Then you turn it into a spear
a spear without a spearhead can still be used as a quarterstaff to extreme effectiveness
you people have no idea what a spear is capable of and obviously have never used one
spears for fishing or hunting are one of the most effective weapons and honestly more useful in many cases than firearms
>Implying anyone even remembers that shit game anymore
So a sword, that doesn't cut a fucking thing, a sword that isn't a fucking sword, but an unsword, blade without blade, needle without point, knife without edge.
Also a bad hammer with most likely aesthetics of Hamburger Helper,
Arguably, yes. Of course, attrition-wise, the spearman is at disadvantage; only the greeks really bothered to make their spears remotely durable, i.e. the Dorys or Sarissa; most medieval and later examples were decidedly brittle, vulnerable to merely striking an extended shaft.
Situational weapon in every sense, really; the Halberd or poll axe are a decided improvement on the idea by giving the wielder at least some lateral offensive; flanking was murder on hoplites and such.
>chop it in half
>just like my Japaneses animes!
fact is ANY pole weapon has a huge advantage over close combat weapons like swords or axes
Is this nigger serious? Saying that spears are more useful in modern combat situations than a gun?
They have their various uses.
Good for armoured or un-armoured open tents. A solid mix of blunt force and cutting. But there are so many variations it's best to use them for what they were designed for. You wouldn't use a wood cutting axe to fight the cavalry.
Good for armored opponents the best. Takes not to get it to move, but it fucks up what it hits. Hurts through the armour, as well as damaging the armour. Good shit.
Best for unarmoured opponents, or opponents with exploitable weak points in their armour. A claymore and things like it are acceptable for armoured opponents, but your sword will take a lot of damage because it's so thin compared to a hammer or mace. Looks pretty good, though. So at least you'll die looking spiffy.
Best weapon coming through:
You can use this shit for any opponent, even ones resistant to magic. Why? You can make spells that weaken their resistance. Fuck warriors, magic is the true power of winners.
if you read what he says he doesn't advocate dueling a gunman out in the open, but chooing where and when to fight
at mid range (about 10', or 20 if you are a shot throwing it) the spear is not completely outclasses and can win against a gun if used well
You do know that swords can be used to thrust? Also not every soldier could afford a full plate armor.
Swords are the most costly weapons and the most well balanced.
Axes/Hammers/Halberds were used because they were cheap as fuck to make and maintain, they're basically a piece of sharp or pointy metal with a long woodshaft.
Poleaxes/Pikes started to become popular when firearms appeared because those were slow to charge making their users vulnerable to cavalry.
As a hockey fan, I had to disable autocorrect in order to talk to my friends about any players at all. I make some stupid spelling errors, but none of that dumb shit that autocorrect forces happens.
Not him, but am I doing it right, anon?
I think one of the more interesting facets of spear combat was actual formation warfare.
As a single weapon it's decidedly unimpressive, but as a drilled group it becomes a lot more effective militarily, even up to the Renaissance and later, with the Spanish Tercios.
As a singular, personal combat thing though, you can do a lot better. There's a lot more factors to warfare than which has the pointlongerer or the sharpyedgest.
>implying your shit would work
it's a terrible idea son, get it over with
In terms of vidya gaems crushing damage is usually the best as it is effective against nearly everything, including spooky skeletons, golems, armored opponents and so on.
Also Hammers/maces often come with advantages that stun enemies or something similar, which is always good to have.
>hammersword is a terrible idea
a sword has a lot of weight behind it and is also very accurate
with heavy armor people just made sturdier thin/sharper swords to get at those weak points
an unarmed swordman could take out a fully armed Knight if he knew what he was doing
not to mention the pommel could be used as a mace to bash their head in
Not really, if all you need to do is defend yourself until you can regain the reach advantage. And spears don't weigh very much, they're only like 2 pounds.
Well no shit sherlock, but the problem is that guns have ranges of several hundred meters or more, and if you throw it you're not getting a second shot. If you can choose where you're fighting than you could probably defeat a gunman with your bare hands by jumping on him and disarming him before he gets a shot off.
Slings are really undervalued, come to think of it.
Brytenwalda educated me.
Is the leg screw-on or is it just a pin? That's a neat idea, but there are two problems I can see with it.
1: If the club is screwed onto the base and the table, then it would take entirely too long to get that thing ready for any sort of intrusion
2: If it isn't, it'll probably be really easy to knock the whole thing over
Also, metal grips would be super uncomfortable, would be better if they were leather or at least just the one in the back.
Oh and it would suck if you had a lamp on that shit or something. I'd hate to have a table that I have to keep completely empty next to my bed incase someone breaks in when I can just have a baseball bat under my bed.
>Spears, slings, bows, pikes and poleaxes have been the most used weapons until made obsolete by gunpowder (And even then, pikes trucked on for another century)
>They're always used by secondary characters, women or asians as exotic weapons
Fuck swords and fuck the west's obsession with swords. Even the fucking samurai loved bows more than their shitty ornamental knives.
This looks like some ancient Mesopotamian shield and spear, and the hair fits too, but the armor and sword are waaay off.
A person with that kind of shield would never have that kind of sword and vice versa.
Its like being armed with cevlar armor and a musket.
what if we made the pommel
>stick them with the spike
>cant pull my weapon
>I die to the next guy
You are meant to use the blunt end mostly, else you get stuck in armor and bone and you are defenseless for a few seconds.
I do medieval re-enactments
you have no idea what you are talking about and I assume you get your sword knowledge from such illustrious sources as anime and tv
a sword isn't a rasor balde, you can cut your hand a little if it means taking out an armorer opponent
armor was hardly made someone invincible and they were still very weak if you knew how to take them
which again is why swords were never phased out as you say but perfected to take out armored opponents
its why broadswords of the 10th-11th century are replaced by thinner, pointed ones latter in the 14th-15th
Pic related is the best modern weapon for melee IMO
>can't hold like a warhammer without wearing mail gloves
>blade either worthlessly thick to hold the hammer up or thin enough to shatter the first time the hammer is used
I imagine that they are just pins, but unless you are knocking the table over constantly, you won't have any problems with it falling apart.
As for keeping things on it, I doubt you would want to put anything like a lamp on it if you bought the thing for self defense. At most, I could see putting an alarm clock on it, but even then, I would most likely only use it for my daily carry shit. Wallet, phone, pocket knife, and the such.
I do agree with you about the metal grips though, that just seems like poor design by someone unfamiliar with weapons.
Honestly that the most retarded thing I have ever writin in my life and now I feel a great shame
what this nigger said >>255482417 makes more fucking sense then what the hell your thinking
that is what they used it for man
check out the Talhoffer manal
>hurr u can only use weapons like they do in movies doe
it is basically the perfected club in all aspects
Swords- Good for slashing limbs off peasants and light infantry in general, bad against the dudes in armor.
Hammer-Fuck no, I'll assume you meant mace or general bludgeoning equipment (Flails,Morningstars, etc): Good against said dudes in armor, not as good against peasants and light infantry as a sword.
Axe-Best of both worlds, crushes armor AND rends limbs to let people bleed to death.
That's for one handed. For twohanded weapons, get a fucking Poleaxe, all the t
reach of a spear and the power of an axe.
This is the only correct option.
>makes more sense than what you're thinking
ITS A FUCKING HAMMER ON A SWORD FAGGOT I DON'T KNOW HOW I CAN EXPLAIN IT BETTER, IT JUST FUCKING WORKS
REMOVE THE CROSSGUARD NIGGER
Yeah they're probably pins. I wouldn't want to put on alarm clock on it because I whack that shit hard when it goes off and I'd probably knock the whole thing over and an empty table just looks tacky too me. Not a big deal, though, it's a neat idea.
more like hordes of drunk chavs taking the piss out of each other
but i assume you know all about these things from your intense daily online escapades
Seems like a good way to take your eye out.
>hollow baseball bat that bends on heavy impact
>Not using highly pressurized wood in the shape of a broadsword that will break through bone easily and can have the sides bladed
As an australian i can say cricket is a shitty sport compared to baseball, and that's saying something
Anyway if you are not trained to wield a sword, I'd go with an axe. If you swing it at the right time, you have better chances to kill your opponent than with a sword.
However, you have to keep in mind that swords were used on the battlefield, and that, on a battlefield, you might have more than a single opponent. A sword can be swung faster and easier than any other weapons while using very little energy from its wielder. If the fight lasts more than half an hour, you'll be glad to be wielding a sword.
Katanas are cavalry swords man
they aren't all that effective otherwise and cant be used in as many situations as the longsword
SLOW DOWN THERE BUCKO, I DON'T HAVE MY TABLET OUT
I EVEN MADE THE HANDLE LONGER SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO HANDLE THE BLADE
That shield has a fucking retarded design.
>small as fuck
>handle isn't in the middle, so you have to hold your entire fucking arm infront of you to block, restricting movement heavily
There's a reason they didn't make small shields like that. Bucklers and most roundshields had the handle in the middle and were not strapped to the arms because that's the whole fucking point of them, making a small light shield that you can be mobile with and block things dynamically.
>bashed because I played baseball instead of cricket
>whole time they just kept making shitty baseball references
Life is pain.
just admit that your idea is bad and you should feel bad
Someone get us a time machine, we're going to win the hundred years war!
That shit doesnt make sense. You dont need the hammer, the longsword is big and heavy enough to already hit like a truck.
Even if you dont cut, the force of impact will break bones.
what are you gonna do with that
smack'em on the bum?
>not using an authentic ash hardwood Louisville slugger and imploding someones skull
ILL TAKE A MINUTE TO STOP TALKING ABOUT THE HAMMERSWORD AND POST THIS
just use a gun you dingus
LARPers are mostly only that autistic here in 'Murica
On the polar opposite side, Russian people actually die on occasion thanks to complete lack of safety and utter chaos.
My weapon of choice, shearing knife. Bitches ain't even ready for my giant ass razor-blade
>Using physical weapons when magic exists in most fantasy settings
This is even dumber. Unwieldy and a simple small knife blade would to the same job.
You can aven have 4 small blades around the bat and call it a mace or whatever those mexian obsidian axes were.
Paint it green and you've got yourself a mass production contract. We'll retake solomon with our new prototype Bat Zam.
The club (or in a baseball bat's case, an extended club) has always been a reliable and effective, albeit primitive weapon. the biggest problem i find with bats, especially ones made of metal, is reverberation.
yeah, you're gunna be able to hit shit hard, and it's gunna HURT, but it's going to destroy your hands if you're fully gripped during impact. Wood is different, it absorbs the impact alot more and if it doesn't break off it gets harder from the impact.
the same logic wouldn't apply to swords or anything else that has a small contact surface area, unless they were fuckhuge.
aluminum bends and gets misshapen easily
a well made solid hardwood bat will take a lot to break it, and it packs a harder punch than a hollow bat
metal doesn't make it stronger
It depends on the shield, I'm not familiar with bigger shields but I'm pretty sure the ones that were big enough to cover most of your body were often strapped around your arm like that.
I love Russia's absolute lackadaisy approach to everything. It's like they realise how meaningless one individual is, but are too drunk to care.
True, but those are only used by greeks and romans.
The german/saxon/viking shields were used in formation and in skirmishing and were generally more successful.
Which is why they survived longer on the battlefield.
I'm going to smack them on the head and cause serious brain damage with minimal effort.
then i'm gunna turn it sideways, with all the force behind it on a small surface area, and use it to break bones with ease.
There's a reason the wide + thin weapon design works so well.
If someone is charging at you, you only get one serious chance to hit them with your spear, miss that chance and he's next to you putting whatever shorter ranged weapon he has in your face. If he has a shield, that one chance is gonna be very hard to hit.