Behold, the ultimate weapon for any adventurer.

Behold, the ultimate weapon for any adventurer.

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Spears and polearms are NPC weapons. They're for the nameless soldiers and hirelings that the hero leads into battle
    The true hero's weapon will always be the sword.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Its also the true weapon for any wanderer or person in a civilian context. a sword offers the best wearibility to effectiveness ratio of most any weapon. thus why pretty much every civilized peopled wore one. imagine luging around a poleaxe everywear. that is a weapon for war not adventuring.

      Though it is the ultimate weapon for armored combat.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >imagine luging around a poleaxe everywear.
        To be honest, the Spanish thought that luging around a Montante on your shoulder was socially acceptable.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The Spanish rarely fought single / small group combat in holes in the ground and crumbling ruins.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Those were mostly bodygaurds. casual civilians did not walk around with them. their primary duty WAS holding that big swordspear.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're thinking of Zweihander. Montante was more often used by plain civilians.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              literally the same thing but in different languages/regions.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Not exactly if you're autistic about proportions, but we at least know Montante tradition lasted a good bit longer as a civilian weapon.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                even if you were autistic about proportions, pretty sure "both" had a veriety of ranges so you could only give vague extremely general differences.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Montante tradition lasted a good bit longer as a civilian weapon
                No. Montante tradition lasted a bit longer as a rich man that wants to also bulk up weapon.
                Both werent even in the general range of civil and worker carry weapons (which would be axes, knives, clubs and spears along with better off families having probably a arming sword or two).

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >(which would be axes, knives, clubs and spears along with better off families having probably a arming sword or two).
                You have no idea what you're talking about. Swords were very much a middle class thing with guilds dedicated to those like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federfechter, when we're talking about past 15th century Europe. Nobody would carry any of those retarded things you mentioned besides one of the many types of one handed sword. Montantes would also end up used on various bigger ships by the Portuguese.

                So you're a janny.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Absolutely fake
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sincouwaan
                They would use big fucking swords.

                Because I misquoted the last post.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          No they didnt

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >a sword offers the best wearibility to effectiveness ratio of most any weapon
        Daggers are much better in that regard.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Never heard of a grossmesser, I take it

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Daggers fall off in effectiveness against longer weapons is the main issue with them, but a dagger + sword combo was quite common for nobles to go around with since it's the best of both worlds

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          not for general combat and self defense. the sword is an excellent middleground of a weapon. and yes most people would have knives too.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Daggers are much better in that regard.
          They lose out on effectiveness. Excellent for bread and cheese though.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >They're for the nameless soldiers and hirelings
      It's so I like to play my PC as a dissident, knave, vagabond, drifter, jack, mercenary, watchman and regular Bob who need to do what needs to be done.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Jokes on you, my favorite character archetypes revolve around washed up losers and complete fuckups.

        Oh yeah, and hipsters who refuse to use swords because they're too popular

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          What can I say, I'm an axe man. I didn't chose the dorf life, the dorf life chose me.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          nope. I always and still love flambergs, sabers, bowie knifes (all of them are kind of swords), firearms, maces and warhammers. And polearms of course. I just started ttrpg with playing as a knave in WFRP with a party of war dogs equipped with war hammers (because it is Warhammer, though) and crossbows during religious war. Swords are "too popular" for people who started with DnD I guess (but still, maces and axes should be popular as well because of clerics and dwarfs)

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Jokes on you, my favorite character archetypes revolve around washed up losers and complete fuckups.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        So you're a janny.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Its also the true weapon for any wanderer or person in a civilian context. a sword offers the best wearibility to effectiveness ratio of most any weapon. thus why pretty much every civilized peopled wore one. imagine luging around a poleaxe everywear. that is a weapon for war not adventuring.

      Though it is the ultimate weapon for armored combat.

      Funny that I think the swords are created for the sole purpose of either combat weapon or ceremonial object. The other armaments are originally working/hunting tools before can be used as combat.
      Daggers/Knifes? For skinning animals
      Spears/Polearms? For hunting/fishing
      Bows/Arrows? Same as above
      Javelins/Harpoons? For hunting/fishing too
      Axes/Hatchets? For chopping off trees/huge animal limbs
      Clubs/Hammers? For breaking bones/rocks

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You forgot flails. They're for threshing.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >The other armaments are originally working/hunting tools before can be used as combat.
        >Daggers/Knifes? For skinning animals
        Except the sword grew (literally) out of the dagger.
        And there's been plenty of sword/machete things used throughout history that were put to use both for daily chores and more social affairs. Including cavalrymen chopping wood with their sabres, despite them being designed solely for combat (as opposed to various kampilans, kukri, fascine knives, etc) and much to the despair of the armourers tasked with keeping a highly keen edge on them.
        Then again the whole thing seems rather silly to me, as the weapon version of all of these are frequently utterly worthless for the "original civilian" tasks. Have fun driving in nails with this thing.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Honestly the whole idea of multipurpose weapon/tool is retarded. You either fight someone or you craft something, you (usually) don't have to fight a dude while hammering a nail. Why not just have a dedicated weapon whose quality is of utmost importance and a decent, compact tools in your backpack when you need it?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Most do and most did
            Soldiers didn't cut firewood with a sabre if they have a lumber axe to hand
            However, sometimes you don't have one to hand so have to make do
            Hence bayonets and fairburn Sykes knives being used to cut string mor often than poking holes in people in recent years

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            To be fair the seax fit the multipurpose role and had a cool dark ages vibe to it.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The club is the first war weapon. There isn't that much tool usage for most clubs, you can't hunt with a club, they're pretty much just for war.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Rider with a spear killing the dragon is one of the oldest myths in the world, one day polearms will have their role back and you sword lover will weep, moan, and gnash your teeth.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Ok but look at how ugly the bitch he's saving is, and look at how stupid and penislike that dragon is.
        Dragons fought with swords are going to look much cooler, and the endangered maidens will be much sexier.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        In the book of Revelations, our LORD Jesus Christ himself casts down all of evil with a SWORD

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Wrong. Only true leaders and masters of warfare use them.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >adventurer
    Not only are you a realism fag, but a dumb one as well. Polearms are battlefiled weapons, heavy and difficult to carry around. Adventurers would use short swords, daggers, or axes (real ones, not two-handed giant memes).

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Polearms are battlefiled weapons
      perfect for riots
      >short swords, daggers, or axes (real ones, not two-handed giant memes).
      crossbows or bows also. And maybe slings. Spears and pikes as well. Everything depends on setting, place and convention. I am not OP and I personally don't care about realism, I like when characters have pointy and cruel weapons with hooks and serrated blades

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah, have fun walking through a dense forest or a claustophobic cave with a 9 feet pole behind your back.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >dense forest or a claustophobic cave
          You mean when you don't have room to swing a sword but can thrust with a spear just fine? Enjoy getting raped by goblins. And most hand polearms aren't 9 feet long, those are intended for formation fighting or fairly exotic martial arts. A short spear 4-6 feet long is perfectly usable.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Swords can stab and need less space to stab or get in position to that a pole. Romans knew about it a lot and used the gladius for a lot of very conservative poking.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            A 3 foot longsword will still be easier to fight with than a 6 foot short spear in such conditions, which can easily get tangled up in tree branches just trying to position it for thrusting.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >I stuck my polearm in a tree thrusting at the tree instead of at a person because I thought if I stabbed the tree my polearm would be in a better position to stab a person
              Are you simply retarded? The weapon goes straight out and comes back in. If for some reason you need to turn it or make it closer to you you... wait for it... hold it farther up the shaft so it's shorter now. Then you thrust it out to its full length again. Swinging around a sword is how you hit tree branches and trees when you have bad positional awareness and if you can't swing it a sword is just a bad version of what the spear is.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Are you simply retarded? The weapon goes straight out and comes back in.
                What happens when you have to turn, genius? Are you really this pathetic that you're going to pretend like enemies are just going to run straight at you through a dense forest?
                >hold it farther up the shaft so it's shorter now
                Congratulations, that's not how spears work. You've just pushed the spear backwards and now it bumps into brush behind you. Very clever thinking, anon.
                >Swinging around a sword
                is half the length of a short spear, which is far easier to avoid bumping into things with, and on top of that, you can thrust with swords as well. Oh, and you can maneuver your sword to thrust with more easily than with a short spear in these conditions.
                >if you can't swing it a sword is just a bad version of what the spear is.
                If you can't swing a sword because the forest is too thick, you're not going to be able to position your spear either when you'll have several feet of it sticking out either in front of your behind you. You've created a moot point.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >6 foot short spear
              6 foot is not a short spear. That's a spear. A short spear is more like 4 foot. That's why it's called short.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Short spears are considered anything from 4-6 feet long.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >pointy and cruel weapons with hooks and serrated blades
        Like a bill? Unfortunately no saw tooth blade.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah, have fun walking through a dense forest or a claustophobic cave with a 9 feet pole behind your back.

        >behind your back.
        or with in hands looking for traps
        Also >caves
        I'm not a big fan of dungoen crawl. And pole arms ar still fine weapon during siege and in narrow corridors

        >pointy and cruel weapons with hooks and serrated blades
        Like a bill? Unfortunately no saw tooth blade.

        yep. no problem. This hook is still capable of sticking into the neck or tearing out a piece of meat. Whenever I play with handguns such as swords or knives, I like to describe how the teeth of the blade tear apart the body when removing the blade. Alchemy fire is also great in low magic settings. In high magic settings playing anything except a mage is pointless anyway (except maybe Warhammer Fantasy)

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >heavy and difficult to carry around
      that's what hirelings are for. and don't tell me you're fighting-man lacks a squire?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Polearms are battlefiled weapons, heavy and difficult to carry around.
      So, would you say it's improbable, or even impossible, for a hero to use one regularly on an adventure?
      You only need to respond with a yes or a no.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        yes

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Ah, good, then it fits in with the activity of imagining things, especially things that are impossible or improbable; fantasy.
          I appreciate your honest cooperation.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >le "fantasy is anything and everything that doesn't happen in real life" fallacy
            get better bait, shitter

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Get an argument or stay mad.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >you have to argue with me!
                heh, no.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It's fine that you chose to stay mad. Makes things easier on me.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                nah you're just a retard not worth arguing with. i won't engage with you any further so you can stop replying now, or don't idc either way it's fun watching you make a fool out of yourself 😀

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >imagining things
            Lmao bro you gay or something? I'm here to roll dice and pwn monsters, like in vydia. Take you lame ass worldbuilding to a fanfiction forum or something.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Impractical is the word you are looking for. Not improbable. It's the weapon thats hard to maneuver in the narrow tunnel and then you get skewered from behind because it takes you too long to turn around.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          That sounds a lot like an argument for realism.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >heavy and difficult to carry around
      They really aren't. And depending on length you can straight up use them as a walking stick. A monk's spade was a walking stick, a religious icon, a weapon, and a shovel to bury assholes who didn't think it was a weapon.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >use a poleaxe as a walking stick
        wtf am I reading
        a walking stick isn't supposed to have a shitload of weight stacked on one end of it

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Polearms are battlefiled weapons, heavy and difficult to carry around.
      Speak for yourself, wimpy Hume.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Polearms are battlefiled weapons, heavy and difficult to carry around
      >he doesn't just pull his polearm out of thin air

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The spear was considered the 'king of weapons' out of the Chinese 4 major weapons for a reason

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Spears aren't poleaxes

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        But poleaxes are spears

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          no

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I can think of a wide variety of situations where hauling a poleaxe around will be an active hindrance to an adventurer rather than a strength. Spears are lighter and easier to maintain if damaged or worn out. Same is true of axes. Poleaxes are something a knight brings to a war, since he can actually afford not only to buy but also have the weapon maintained, and he can ply such a weapon to the fullest since he'll have the best armor money can buy as well, thus not needing a shield to be combat effective in the thick of the fighting.
    A bow or crossbow, however, is something that provides immense situational advantage over most enemies and monsters since there's no defense better than "kill them before they reach you." It also allows for battle to be waged against enemies that have ranged magic or bows of their own, whereas not having one leaves an adventurer entirely doomed to be whittled down before he can close the gap.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >adventurer
      Not only are you a realism fag, but a dumb one as well. Polearms are battlefiled weapons, heavy and difficult to carry around. Adventurers would use short swords, daggers, or axes (real ones, not two-handed giant memes).

      Its also the true weapon for any wanderer or person in a civilian context. a sword offers the best wearibility to effectiveness ratio of most any weapon. thus why pretty much every civilized peopled wore one. imagine luging around a poleaxe everywear. that is a weapon for war not adventuring.

      Though it is the ultimate weapon for armored combat.

      Don't wizards normally go around hauling body-length wooden sticks in these settings? How the fuck is carrying around a halberd any different? They probably weigh around the same too. For a fact, they weigh about as much as a longsword does, so...

      The argument of them being unwieldy definitely doesn't hold up, if anything they're probably even better for adventures as they're easier to walk long distances with as you don't have to carry them on your belt, but rather can use them as walking sticks.

      Additionally, they're definitely much better weapons for fighting monsters and beasts than swords are for sure.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >They probably weigh around the same too.
        You'd think even someone clueless enough to think halberds are body-length would notice that they have a decent amount of metal stuck to the end of them.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          And staffs don't have magical glass balls stuck go the end of them?

          Regardless, I already posted the weight, it's 2.5kg, literally the exact same weight as a long sword.

          >Body length?
          Just how short are you? Pic rel. Other sources also cite 2.1 meters. Are you really gonna cause a fuss over a 20cm difference? Have you seen one irl? They're just over body length on the longest ones, and I'm only 188cm.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Longswords were more likely to be around 1.5kg. Late bigger two handed swords were between 2.5kg to 3.5kg depending on total length and blade to grip length.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This thread has been shit up by retards like you who can't into weights and measures. Heat your IQ up above room temperature before posting here again, thanks.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Just admit you're mad cause you're wrong. Saying other people are stupid when you can't provide a proper counterargument simply displays your ineptitude.

              Longswords were more likely to be around 1.5kg. Late bigger two handed swords were between 2.5kg to 3.5kg depending on total length and blade to grip length.

              Yep. And when compared to the weight of a halberd which is only 2.5kg, you really see it's not that much. People in this thread were arguing Halberds were unweildly for adventuring due to their size and weight, but a 1kg increase is hardly anything to worry about, especially when it doesn't have to be carried, but can be used as a walking stick. Also, any argument about swimming, caving, or climbing literally applies towards a wizards staff as well.

              The reason why the sword is preferred over the halberd in fantasy is cause it's more iconic and heroic, but in truth, pretty much any weapon could work.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Goddamn you're mad.

                The weights cited are just for the *head* of the halberd, you infinite mong. Now unless you're putting your halberd head on a birch stick (lol), you're easily getting another kg in wood for the halberd.

                You're also not using it as a walking stick (lol) unless you want to risk cutting yourself if you stumble. Like any sane person, you've shouldered it. But it's far more top-heavy than a longsword (which, honestly aren't that much less top-heavy, as they're intended more for bashing and thrusting than cutting, but you're already struggling with basic concepts, so...)

                But then you wanted to talk about montantes for some reason. One of the few swords that is legitimately meant to be balanced right above the crossguard, because it's integral to the weapon's technique that the tip be able to move quickly.

                You.

                Retard.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Oooooooh, my puny arms can't handle 3kg.... Oh god!!

                You've no business being an adventurer.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                NTA but learn to take the L kid. It'll make life a lot less painful.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                A rapier or a short sword, what historically people actually carried for personal protection, is easy to draw. Walking with a halberd is cumbersome. Can't carry it on your waist. Carrying it in both hands occupies both hands. Using it like a walking stick is hard because it's so long. If the blade was pointed up it'll swing too much and be hard to control, and if you put blade down you're blunting it. If you put it on a horse it's easier, but then you have to cover it so it doesn't hurt them. Having anything tied to the side of the horse, they will bump into it. So it's not faster. Ridden enough horses and carriages to know.
                Early adventures are usually tight caves or sewers. In those cases halberds aren't good. Hell, even swords beyond something really short, like a butterfly sword, aren't that good. It could keep what's in front of you at bay, but the moment they get past the head it's useless and you have to draw a backup weapon.
                Halberds, like pikes before, were mostly used in groups to keep enemies at length and stop charges. If you get around one you're facing ten more. If everyone had a pike or halberd and pushed forward that might work. But it also loses in splits in the cave/sewer. Enemies can just go to separate sides, and if you pick one you're fucked by the other.
                It's a difference between personal protection while on a road to the neighboring city and explicitly going adventuring and expecting a battle, and in case of the latter, where you're going and how many people you have. And if you're facing cavalry you're fucked anyways. Can't turn fast enough, can't split the formation to defend two sides because the others are open. And going five man testudo wins no battles because you're stuck defending. Even Romans used testudo sparingly, preferring shift switches to keep people fresh.
                You, sir, know nothing of historical battles or weapons. Different situations call for different weapons.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >You, sir, know nothing of historical battles or weapons
                Ironic that someone who just demonstrated their ineptitude in such matters would say this.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You know what would be cool?
        If the sword/shortsword/dagger carried as a sidearm could slot onto the staff on the fly, and act as a polearm.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >If the sword/shortsword/dagger carried as a sidearm could slot onto the staff on the fly, and act as a polearm.
          Too much hassle to detach the sword handle or tie down it to the staff. I would be better to carry a spearhead with attachable socket and a staff with modified shaft for said spearhead.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If the hilt detaches leaving a socket below the guard, and the detached part works as a pin, it could work

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It comes down as usual to "Tolkien wrote wizards with staves, then DnD codified it." The one class based weapon restriction with historical validity is clerics being limited to blunt weapons because they swore not to shed blood.

        Being able to use magic AND whack someone with a poleaxe makes for a very well rounded solo character, particularly with some armor and healing items/spells.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >"Tolkien wrote wizards with staves, then DnD codified it."
          reminder that Gandalf slayed bodies with a longsword

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Hard to maneuver in narrow tunnels.
    >Gets stuck on everything.
    It's great on a battlefield. Sure. Less great for 4 guys going graverobbing.

    Yes you could make one that disassembles for portability, but it'll only be available when you spend a couple minutes beforehand screwing it back together.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      not even tunnels, you'll get your polearm stuck in a tree if you fight in a forest

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        In preindustrial settings, those forests shouldn't be so overgrown. Villagers would be going into them and managing them for food and building supplies, constantly, no?

        A poleaxe designed to be easily disassembled will also be far more fragile than one that isn't, by definition, since it introduces new points of failure in the design of the weapon. Good to keep that in mind.

        Also true, though you could use it reasonably effectively as a shorter weapon if it breaks at one of the connection points. It's not like your sword blade breaking off.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >In preindustrial settings, those forests shouldn't be so overgrown.
          Actually, the industrial revolution and following ages ended up using far more wood than humanity did pre-industry. Add to that the fact that human population exploded with the industrial revolution as well, and forests were surveyed and depleted far more than ever before.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Using more wood.
            Yes but a lot less traveling in and using the forests by the general population. Things went from actively managed forests to more of a plant and forget and come back in 20 years to clear cut approach, from what I understand.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >In preindustrial settings, those forests shouldn't be so overgrown. Villagers would be going into them and managing them for food and building supplies, constantly, no?
          In a preindustrial setting large amounts of forest would be declared crown land (or the land of the local nobility) and reserved for hunting by said nobility. Obviously there would be some amount of poaching but logging not so much.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Villagers would be going into them and managing them for food and building supplies, constantly, no?
          If a forest is safe enough for villagers to keep it clear, why would adventurers be going into it? If your GM is running "holy roman empire border war but with orcs" you need a better GM. A setting that's just fully settled ye olde europe with goblins in the cracks is boring.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Ah yes, I remember the historical invention of the sword was so humans could fight in the woods as no weapon except the sword can be used in the woods and certainly not spears. That's why every depiction of a forest/jungle society is armed exclusively with swords and never spears or other polearms.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      A poleaxe designed to be easily disassembled will also be far more fragile than one that isn't, by definition, since it introduces new points of failure in the design of the weapon. Good to keep that in mind.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >not a battle sword
    >literally picking straight up the "cheaper but worse"
    What are you poor?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      A battle sword
      You're not easily going to hook someone and pin them down to get skewered with a battle sword, or use it to disarm your opponents.

      But as several of us are pointing out, adventuring is not typical battlefield conditions.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I like the way that my fantasy heartbreaker handles this, where polearms are the best weapons in an all-out fight but require the user to hold onto them at all times which makes a lot of adventuring difficult. Also they can't be used in tight corridors but that's obvious.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Also they can't be used in tight corridors
      Aside from making sure literally nobody can use those tight corridors. If you can fit, your polearm can fit. If you can't fit, you can't swing a sword either yet a polearm would still work because you just stab with it anyway.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This is something that's represented, yes. You can stab with weapons in tight corridors and still do so comfortably.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >You have to be able to adapt to every possible scenario, from open field battles to sneaking through the woods or castle halls, or even moving through tight and dark caves
    >Yes, the best option is a large, clumsy, weapon of war that would draw eyes in every settlement, get stuck everywhere, and much more
    Best melee weapon for an adventurer is an axe. Best middle ground between an all-purpose weapon and a multi-use tool. It's easy to carry, sturdy, reliable, low maintenance. Any village or settlement as small as it is will likely be able to repair it. Even dull it still is a deadly weapon.
    2nd place is a tie between the sword, preferably short sword, and the mace.

    Of course, this is all assuming they have a dagger/knife with them at all times, which is also a must.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If I were restricted to just one melee weapon/tool, I think I'd pick a machete.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I didn't consider it because I assume OP means "relatively medieval-ish". Machetes are 19th century and onwards, and in some ways are very similar to axes. So yep, also amazing choice.

        If you're going to carry just a single weapon then you want that weapon to be capable both in defense and offense, or for its range to be defense in itself. Hence you had longswords/katana that could void blows easy due to their specific centre of balance and the guard, and were made to grip in both hands. Otherwise you need to carry a shield with you anyway, essentially making you look like you're going to war. But not like that was of importance. In medieval times (or fantasy) it wasn't unusual to carry weapons with you, especially outside of cities.

        Key thing is that we are talking about adventurers. Your goals and your daily life would dictate what weapon you carry much like you daily life today dictates what kind of tech gadgets you carry: phone, pc, charger, power bank, and so on.
        If you're wandering from settlement to settlement, staying indoors for the night, and so on, you can take a more specialized weapon.
        But the whole gimmick of being and adventurer is going on adventures, being stranded in the wilderness for days, going into dungeons, caves, etc. So reliability, flexibility in use, maintenance and easy to carry are much more important than maximizing combat potential.
        All in all the discussion is bad in the sense that it forces us to pick one weapon/tool above all for the sole choice for a profession that never existed. Realistic, an adventurer would always pick the best weapon/tools for their current job, but that renders the topic null.

        >Best middle ground between an all-purpose weapon and a multi-use tool.
        An axe that you use as a tool and an axe that you use for battle are two very different things. Woodaxes have thick axheads ideal for chopping wood but terrible for killing people, especially armored people. Battleaxes have very narrow heads meant for penetrating armor, flesh, and bone. If you try to use a battleaxe for chopping wood or other tool purposes, you will get it completely stuck in a tree and break it trying to pull it free.

        >Woodaxes have thick axeheads ideal for chopping wood but terrible for killing people
        You're using "terrible" here very loosely. Don't know about you but I'd very much not like to get hit by a woodaxe. And in the event that you meet a fully plated armor bad guy, turn it around and it's your makeshift mace. It will never be as good as a weapon specialized to fight wars, but it will be good enough in most scenarios, making it the ideal choice for a non-descriptive "whatever can happen" adventure.
        It's not optimized for combat, but it's just good enough at most things to get you through most trials.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >And in the event that you meet a fully plated armor bad guy, turn it around and it's your makeshift mace
          Literally why? You know how the mass distribution of the axe is a little on the stick and a lot on the head? Its moment of inertia is the greatest when swung normally, hence you get to hit the hardest that way regardless of whether an edge is present or not.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I think he means turn it so the blade's facing away from the target, hit them with the base of the head.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Still relatively pointless. Might as well enjoy a good edge.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Literally why?
            You are dulling the blade if you hit armor. But yeah, probably not a consideration when fighting to death.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Literally why?
            Just for arguments sake, my point isn't what is the most efficient use of a woodaxe in combat, only that it is sufficient flexible in terms of roles it can perform as tool or as a weapon that no other choice can beat it for a supposed all-matters adventurer.
            Also, what this guy said,

            I think he means turn it so the blade's facing away from the target, hit them with the base of the head.

            . Of course I didn't meant hitting the guy with the handle or the flat side.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >only that it is sufficient flexible in terms of roles it can perform as tool or as a weapon that no other choice can beat it for a supposed all-matters adventurer.
              You sounded reasonable enough, just a bit misguided and inexperienced, up until now. Now you are just talking pure nonsense. That is such an insane claim to make that I don't even know where to begin pulling it apart. It's wrong from the very start, as I've already illustrated. Woodaxes don't make for competent weapons at all. You'll find that very few tools make for good weapons and vice versa. There's no holy grail of a weapon that makes for a good tool. The closest there is to that is knives, and even for them, you see a big difference between a tool knife and a combat knife.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >You'll find that very few tools make for good weapons
                Yes, because modern tools are intentionally designed to be bad at causig injury for safety reasons. A woodaxe is already prefectly capable of killing people, and if you want to, you can intentionally design hybrid variants that are even better as weapons.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Yes, because modern tools are intentionally designed to be bad at causig injury for safety reasons.
                No, it's because all the design features that you can add to make a knife better at killing people also make it more fragile and less effective as a tool. And the same applies in reverse, as well. Serrated edges do terrible things to a person, but have limited use as a tool. A thicker blade mades a knife far more durable and rugged, but also less effective at stabbing into people smoothly than a thin blade. A sharper edge is better for killing, but also less durable and easier to damage, which isn't preferable for a tool. This is why there was a massive variety in knife designs throughout history, some which were meant for killing and some which were meant as tools. Stiletto daggers are used to kill someone, but god knows you'd break it in a heartbeat if you tried to baton wood with one.
                >A woodaxe is already prefectly capable of killing people, and if you want to, you can intentionally design hybrid variants that are even better as weapons.
                It is capable of killing someone. If they're slow, unaware, and not fighting back. It is also capable of killing the idiot who tried to bring it into battle, because it is difficult to control them in battle due to their very unbalanced weight which means you have to commit to every strike, as well as their suboptimal design making them terrible at penetrating armor which would be one of the biggest concerns an adventurer has on his quest.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Woodaxes don't make for competent weapons at all. You'll find that very few tools make for good weapons and vice versa.
                A modern axe intended exclusively for chopping wood doesn't. A medival axe meant for battle and one for chopping wood were the same axe in 99% of cases because people don't have money to waste on something intended only as a weapon and if they did waste it it would be on a sword. The vikings and franks used their axes for all purposes to the point that franks are named after their axe.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Woodaxes don't make for competent weapons at all
                Get hit by one then you can come back here and type that again. People lose fingers, hands, limbs from accidents with those. Just like a kitchen knife is more than enough to absolutely butcher a person, a woodaxe is more than enough to kill. Is it optimized to deal the most amount of damage possible? No. But does it do enough? Yes. This is even more pronounced in medieval times when optimization was lesser and you'd find less differences between an axe "tool" and an axe "weapon" on similar size. Farmers would often use working tools as weapons, for fucks sake.

                I'm not claiming woodaxes are battlefield weapons, I'm discussing the "the ultimate weapon for any adventurer", which implies the needs of someone who has to adapt to any threat, survive for days on inhospitable land, and work with the bare minimum. Of course, the discussion falls apart if you consider that any real life "adventurer" would take individual adventures and likely work with the tools for that job, in which case there wouldn't be an "ultimate" weapon, but I'd still argue in almost every case you'd have at least a small woodaxe around.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You don't understand, if it's slightly suboptimal it means it's worthless and will just get you killed instead if you ever took it into battle as every opponent you would ever face wouldn't be a peasant like you but the richest knight in the land decked out with the most optimal and expensive gear possible and perfect training who always moves and acts in the most optimal way imaginable thus leaving them with no openings ever.

                >Yes, because modern tools are intentionally designed to be bad at causig injury for safety reasons.
                No, it's because all the design features that you can add to make a knife better at killing people also make it more fragile and less effective as a tool. And the same applies in reverse, as well. Serrated edges do terrible things to a person, but have limited use as a tool. A thicker blade mades a knife far more durable and rugged, but also less effective at stabbing into people smoothly than a thin blade. A sharper edge is better for killing, but also less durable and easier to damage, which isn't preferable for a tool. This is why there was a massive variety in knife designs throughout history, some which were meant for killing and some which were meant as tools. Stiletto daggers are used to kill someone, but god knows you'd break it in a heartbeat if you tried to baton wood with one.
                >A woodaxe is already prefectly capable of killing people, and if you want to, you can intentionally design hybrid variants that are even better as weapons.
                It is capable of killing someone. If they're slow, unaware, and not fighting back. It is also capable of killing the idiot who tried to bring it into battle, because it is difficult to control them in battle due to their very unbalanced weight which means you have to commit to every strike, as well as their suboptimal design making them terrible at penetrating armor which would be one of the biggest concerns an adventurer has on his quest.

                People literally killed knights with literal bedposts they jammed literal nails into. And they gave it a cutsey nickname too. It's called a Gutentag. The polish like taking their scythes, taking the blades off and remounting them vertically onto straight shafts and then whacking people with them. People stabbed each other with the same pitchforks they used to move hay.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Get hit by one then you can come back here and type that again.
                You don't seem to understand that you can kill people with a lot of things, but it doesn't make them good weapons.
                >Farmers would often use working tools as weapons, for fucks sake.
                If they couldn't afford real weapons, they modified their tools for battle, such as replacing axe heads for ones that are more deadly and easier to wield. They weren't idiots, anon. And it doesn't take a genius to point out that tools are not what you want to be bringing into battle if you want the best chances to survive.
                >I'm discussing the "the ultimate weapon for any adventurer"
                And you're suggesting they bring tools? Laughable. Actually, genuinely insane. A battleaxe is a great choice for an adventurer who wants the best weapon that he can carry around practically. A woodaxe is the opposite. It's a tool. An adventurer might bring one if he can spare the weight (a hatchet is definitely a better choice for travel), but he'd better bring a real weapon to go with it.

                You don't understand, if it's slightly suboptimal it means it's worthless and will just get you killed instead if you ever took it into battle as every opponent you would ever face wouldn't be a peasant like you but the richest knight in the land decked out with the most optimal and expensive gear possible and perfect training who always moves and acts in the most optimal way imaginable thus leaving them with no openings ever.
                [...]
                People literally killed knights with literal bedposts they jammed literal nails into. And they gave it a cutsey nickname too. It's called a Gutentag. The polish like taking their scythes, taking the blades off and remounting them vertically onto straight shafts and then whacking people with them. People stabbed each other with the same pitchforks they used to move hay.

                > if it's slightly suboptimal it means it's worthless
                A woodaxe isn't just 'slightly' suboptimal. It's suboptimal in a wide variety of ways for battle. There's arguments to be made for a battleaxe as an adventurer's primary weapon, but you're asking an adventurer, who we can assume is experienced in battle, to forego a real weapon for a literal tool. It's outright lunacy. You want someone whose main goal is to survive, ply every advantage they can get in a fight against what are probably bad odds stacked against them, to use something that is not just subpar but not even designed for battle?
                >People literally killed knights with literal bedposts they jammed literal nails into.
                You're talking about an improvised weapon, which is still an inferior choice to a proper weapon, but which is still far superior to a proper tool like a woodaxe. It's a bad comparison to make.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >but it doesn't make them good weapons.
                You use "good" and "terrible" very loosely. Is a woodaxe as optimized as a polearm as a battlefield weapon? No. Does it need to be for an adventurer? No. But if you still insist woodaxes are that poor as weapons, again, go get hit by one.

                >bringing into battle if you want the best chances to survive.
                Into battlefields. But the topic isn't battlefields, is it?
                And adventurer's first threat is the environment and they need adaptability. Being less optimized is fine if it pays off with more usefulness. But I guess the concept of utility x damage is long gone in the age of min maxing rpg characters.

                >but he'd better bring a real weapon to go with it.
                Which brings back the whole point of axes in general being the best choice. Everything else is you being autistic about whether or not a woodaxe is not optimized as a weapon.

                >but which is still far superior to a proper tool like a woodaxe. It's a bad comparison to make.
                Had to quote something for someone else, you're just being autistic friend. You're ready to claim improvised weapons are better but not to admit that something made to chop wood might also be able to chop limbs.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >You use "good" and "terrible" very loosely.
                No, I don't. Terrible is pretty obvious just from using a woodaxe to chop wood. It's quite effective at its purpose, which is chopping wood. And it will not be in battle, for reasons I've already explained but you've conveniently ignored.
                >Does it need to be for an adventurer? No.
                If you want the "ultimate" weapon for an adventurer, yes, it needs to be optimized for battle. Because it's a weapon being discussed, not a tool. It had better be damn good at what it does, IE killing people, before you start discussing how useful it is outside of combat.
                >But if you still insist woodaxes are that poor as weapons, again, go get hit by one.
                Trains are far more lethal than woodaxes. Would you call them a good weapon?
                >Into battlefields. But the topic isn't battlefields, is it?
                Adventurers do go into battlefields sometimes, yes, as well as plenty of other types of combat. Woodaxes aren't good at any type of combat. You can't even point to a particular kind of combat where they are more desirable as a weapon than anything else an adventurer can choose to bring. Because they aren't desirable as a weapon. At all. Battleaxes are. Which is why professional armies used battleaxes, not woodaxes, in battle. QED.
                >And adventurer's first threat is the environment and they need adaptability.
                Which is why they bring tools, in case they need them. And weapons, for when they need weapons.
                > But I guess the concept of utility x damage is long gone
                It may shock you to know that when it comes to doing things, you want the most optimal things for those purposes, such as tools for chopping wood and weapons for chopping heads.
                >Which brings back the whole point of axes in general being the best choice.
                It's like you've just ignored every single point you just lost on and then decided to declare yourself the victor anyways. Axes in general are not the best choice. Battleaxes might be, but there's room for argument.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >you're just being autistic friend.
                No. You claimed that one should bring an axe because they are useful as both tools and as weapons, which is wrong. It's just wrong. You're mixing two different things together and treating them as the same thing. This isn't being autistic, this is me actually knowing the difference between a tool and a weapon and you pathetically flailing around trying to act like they're the same thing.
                > You're ready to claim improvised weapons are better
                Than tools? Yeah, no shit, Sherlock. What the fuck did you think the logical conclusion was when you compare improvised weapons to tools? Of course improvised weapons are better than tools at killing people. They're still not preferable to a real weapon forged for that specific purpose.
                > but not to admit that something made to chop wood might also be able to chop limbs.
                What are you even talking about? I've never disputed that you can kill someone with a woodaxe. All I've pointed out is that they suck at it compared to proper weapons, and you've lost your bloody mind trying to claim otherwise.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >trying to act like they're the same thing.
                Not really, only saying they are useful enough. But that word "enough" is what you don't seem to understand.

                >Of course improvised weapons are better than tools at killing people
                So a wood plank with a nail is better than something made to chop wood. Got it.

                >and you've lost your bloody mind trying to claim otherwise
                Never claimed they are better than proper weapons, only that for the topic at hand they don't need to be, and pointing out that your frame of reference is shitty to begin with.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Not really, only saying they are useful enough. But that word "enough" is what you don't seem to understand.
                Enough is what you don't understand. No professional soldier in the history of mankind has ever said "yes, this axe made for chopping wood seems good enough to rely upon for my own survival in this war." Soldiers have taken swords, spears, bows, polearms, what have you, but there is no standing, professional fighting force that ever thought woodaxes were "enough." No adventurer has reason to settle for something like that as his one and only 'ultimate' weapon when there's a wide variety of far superior weapons to choose from.
                >So a wood plank with a nail is better than something made to chop wood. Got it.
                Yes, absolutely. Geodendags did a decent job of killing heavily armored knights despite being crude and often improvised because they capitalized on the same strengths as a mace. A woodaxe would do very poorly in the same situation for reasons I've already outlined.
                >Never claimed they are better than proper weapons,
                Yes you did. You did so right here:

                >Literally why?
                Just for arguments sake, my point isn't what is the most efficient use of a woodaxe in combat, only that it is sufficient flexible in terms of roles it can perform as tool or as a weapon that no other choice can beat it for a supposed all-matters adventurer.
                Also, what this guy said, [...]. Of course I didn't meant hitting the guy with the handle or the flat side.

                >only that for the topic at hand they don't need to be
                Of course they do. This is about the 'ultimate' weapon for an adventurer to bring. If it's not even good as a weapon, how can it possibly be a better choice than any proper weapon?
                > pointing out that your frame of reference is shitty to begin with.
                Bitch, you have consistently exposed that you don't even know the difference between a woodaxe and a battleaxe to begin with. Your metric for a 'good' weapon is something that is unwieldy as all hell and has poor penetration against armored opponents. You talked about using it backwards, completely clueless about where all the weight is directed and how clumsy that would be. Like, how much more do you need to humiliate yourself before you admit you were wrong to lump two different categories of axe together?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >"yes, this axe made for chopping wood seems good enough to rely upon for my own survival in this war."
                Which war you autist? Do you understand aventures aren't wars?

                >. A woodaxe would do very poorly in the same situation for reasons I've already outlined.
                Yes, because it would immediately stop having a metal end and wood shaft.

                >Yes you did. You did so right here
                Read the lane you ape.
                >my point isn't what is the most efficient use of a woodaxe in combat
                >only that it is sufficient flexible in terms of roles it can perform as tool or as a weapon
                >that no other choice can beat it for a supposed all-matters adventurer

                I literally state there that the woodaxe ISN'T a more optimized weapon than a proper battlefield weapon, only that it is better at performing a much wider range of jobs and applications while also being a good enough weapon.

                >You talked about using it backwards, completely clueless about where all the weight is directed and how clumsy that would be
                Literally read what you quote.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Which war you autist? Do you understand aventures aren't wars?
                You're missing the point, as always. Adventurers can very easily join wars, but either way they're going to be seeing real combat even if it's only against monsters in a dungeon. There's no reason to ever settle for an inferior option like a fucking woodaxe to be their main weapon, holy shit.
                >Yes, because it would immediately stop having a metal end and wood shaft.
                There is more that goes into the quality of a weapon than just the materials it's made of, you absolute buffoon. Imagine seriously trying to argue otherwise.
                >I literally state there that the woodaxe ISN'T a more optimized weapon than a proper battlefield weapon
                You are arguing that a woodaxe is the ultimate weapon for an adventurer. You are asserting that it is superior to all real weapons for the purpose of being used as a weapon by definition. Are you now going to try to gaslight and pretend like you never said that a woodaxe would be the ultimate adventuring weapon? If you don't understand the meaning of "ultimate weapon for an adventurer," you should probably go back to third grade.
                >it is better at performing a much wider range of jobs and applications while also being a good enough weapon.
                That's a lie. You are asserting that it is the best weapon an adventurer could ever take. That is literally the whole point of this thread, and you did, genuinely, claim that it is better than all other options. Now you are backpedaling and shifting the goalposts, predictably, because your stupid ass has never chopped wood in your life and got caught out on it and humiliated for it, like you deserve to be.
                >Literally read what you quote.
                Go ahead, then. Explain how you know better than the laws of physics how a weapon works, and how center of balance doesn't matter in the design and function of a weapon, apparently.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                This fucking retard seriously thinks adventurers never join wars? The term 'adventurer' literally comes from professional mercenaries who go off to foreign lands to seek wealth and glory either working for local armies or raiding them if they can't afford to pay.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >"relatively medieval-ish"
          I considered it but on the other hand it's not like there was some super modern technology that allowed them to exist, more so the necessity. Since those would be very handy for fantasy adventurers that didn't exist in reality, for things like traversing overgrown elven forests and the like I could imagine machetes coming into existence.

          On top of that some medieval weapons were basically almost machetes. Wikipedia describes a certain falchion as "very much like a large meat cleaver, or large bladed machete".
          I wanted to post a link but hiroshimoot won't let me, just google "conyers falchion".

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Though I only started reading more now and
            >Falchions are sometimes misunderstood and thought of as being similar to machetes; however, the ancient falchions that have been discovered are very thin and on average, lighter than a double-edged blade. These weapons were therefore not cleaving or chopping weapons similar to the machete, but quick slashing weapons more similar to shamshir or sabres despite their wide blade.
            Still, I think it's perfectly reasonable to go all like "I broke my last 4 falchions so this time I asked the weaponsmith to make the blade much thicker" if you want your next character to have a machete.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I could imagine machetes coming into existence

            While I disagree that medieval weapons were "almost machetes", I can agree that with a demand the manufacturing would eventually make them a reality.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            a medieval machete is a bill. Hand bills don't have a long pole, the polearm ones do

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >You're using "terrible" here very loosely
          No, I'm not. Have you ever actually used a woodaxe before? They're weighted all wrong for use in battle. They're downright unwieldy. You can inflict grievous bodily harm with one, yes, but you aren't going to find them easy to work with against an opponent who isn't a stationary tree or log. Throwing all that leveraged weight around is great for chopping wood, and it is also terrible for anything that involves having to adjust your strikes, parry, and hopefully bring the weapon back to stance in time before you get stabbed. Battleaxes are designed the way they are designed for a reason.
          > And in the event that you meet a fully plated armor bad guy, turn it around and it's your makeshift mace.
          What a fucking terrible idea. Woodaxes are weighted only for striking in one direction. They aren't designed to be swung backwards effectively. Battleaxes sometimes are, with spikes or blades on the back end that balances out the weight and serves as a useful alternate weapon in such scenarios.
          >It will never be as good as a weapon specialized to fight wars
          It will never be good as a weapon period. Not for wars, not for duels, it is a tool and only a tool. An adventurer needs a real weapon, which a battleaxe is and could fill that purpose well. It won't be an effective tool, but it is certainly a deadly weapon and deserves respect.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >They aren't designed to be swung backwards effectively.
            No axe is. Double bitted axes are a giant meme, almost all of them have a single blade and you hit people with that. Swinging backwards with an axe causes all the leverage of the weight to be against you and you'll hit someone like a wet noodle and tire yourself out. You're better off carrying the moment through and wheeling the thing around yourself to try again.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >No axe is.
              Some are, as I noted in my post. There are plenty of examples of battleaxes that have the necessary things in their design to be swung backwards with good effect.
              >Double bitted axes are a giant meme
              I didn't say anything about a double bitted axe. I mentioned spikes and such. It's the exact same principle that goes into a poleaxe with its varying ends of different types of deadliness.

              >Woodaxes don't make for competent weapons at all. You'll find that very few tools make for good weapons and vice versa.
              A modern axe intended exclusively for chopping wood doesn't. A medival axe meant for battle and one for chopping wood were the same axe in 99% of cases because people don't have money to waste on something intended only as a weapon and if they did waste it it would be on a sword. The vikings and franks used their axes for all purposes to the point that franks are named after their axe.

              >A modern axe intended exclusively for chopping wood doesn't.
              What is this meme? You think we only invented woodaxes in the 21st century? The distinction was known as far back as the Roman Empire.
              >A medival axe meant for battle and one for chopping wood were the same axe in 99% of cases
              No, they weren't. When peasants had to go into battle with improvised weapons, they switched out the head of their axe from one suitable to be used as a tool to one more suitable for battle. They did a lot more than that with other tools like their scythes to make them actually effective, if still a bit crude.
              >because people don't have money to waste on something intended only as a weapon
              What the fuck are you talking about? There was an entire class of society that was professional soldiers, mercenaries, and of course knights who "had money to waste" on things intended only as weapons. Those "vikings" and "franks" you're talking about were professional warriors who didn't compromise and construct shitty, hybrid weapon tools. The Danish axe, the most famous and feared viking weapon, would be a terrible tool. The blades were far too narrow, designed solely for piercing armor and killing people. The same goes for the Franks. In no period of history did any professional army choose to wield weapons out of poverty and inability to afford the best the smiths knew how to make. This is just absurd.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Machetes are 19th century and onwards
          Falchion, Falcata, Grosses Messer, and even a Scimitar, Cutlasses are all machetes. Machetes are the current common name for a very, very long line of chopping swords.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If you're going to carry just a single weapon then you want that weapon to be capable both in defense and offense, or for its range to be defense in itself. Hence you had longswords/katana that could void blows easy due to their specific centre of balance and the guard, and were made to grip in both hands. Otherwise you need to carry a shield with you anyway, essentially making you look like you're going to war. But not like that was of importance. In medieval times (or fantasy) it wasn't unusual to carry weapons with you, especially outside of cities.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Best middle ground between an all-purpose weapon and a multi-use tool.
      An axe that you use as a tool and an axe that you use for battle are two very different things. Woodaxes have thick axheads ideal for chopping wood but terrible for killing people, especially armored people. Battleaxes have very narrow heads meant for penetrating armor, flesh, and bone. If you try to use a battleaxe for chopping wood or other tool purposes, you will get it completely stuck in a tree and break it trying to pull it free.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Of course, this is all assuming they have a dagger/knife with them at all times, which is also a must.
      I've always picked up some sort of side or backup weapon for every game I've ever played, be it a dagger or holdout pistol. It seems like a great use of those weaker or less used weapons like the sickle or club, more for flavor than anything else.
      But it still bugs me that GMs have never put me in a position where I'm without my main weapon. I get it would make combat more of a slog and not everyone in the party bothers with that, but still.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >can't be sheathed or stowed for climbing/swimming
    >gets in the way going through dense vegetation or narrow tunnels
    Yeah no retard
    Halberds and poleaxes being the best battlefield weapons doesn't make them good for adventuring.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Halberds and poleaxes being the best battlefield weapons
      Even that's questionable. Lances and cavalry were supreme in the same era that poleaxes/halberds were so popular. When pike squares became popular as a counter to cavalry, poleaxes stopped really mattering because then warfare was about getting your pikes up in time to stop the cavalry charge. Then zweihanders were developed as a counter to pikes, returning us to the classical
      >light infantry with pikes in formations beat cavalry
      >but heavy infantry beats light infantry
      >but cavalry beats heavy infantry
      All while bows and crossbows, then later firearms, remained very effective and vital for any serious military engagement throughout the medieval period. By my count, ranged weaponry remains the king of warfare. Isn't the era we live in proof of that enough?

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'd shorten the haft down to about 3-4 feet for portability and replace the "talon" with a flattened prying end like on a crowbar for utility.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Having had to lug one of those 5 miles on a reenactment march, you can fuck right off.

    Even Montantes are better, as they're like a quarter of the weight.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What kind of polearm weighted something like 10kg?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The head of a Swiss halberd alone weighs more than a montante in total. Mounted on a 1.8 meter pole, it would both weigh in excess of 7kg and feel like it weighed a lot more due to its imbalance, unlike the montante which is balanced just above the crossguard.

        You could have just said you've never marched and/or carried something on your shoulders, anon. I'm told there's no shame in being a NEET these days.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >The head of a Swiss halberd alone weighs more than a montante in total.
          I mean I don't have a halberd at home, but https://www.clevelandart.org/art/1916.1559#:~:text=Overall%3A%20230.7%20cm%20(90%2013,2.44%20kg%20(5.38%20lbs.)
          suggests it's in fact not as heavy. About the weight of Montante.
          > to its imbalance, unlike the montante which is balanced just above the crossguard.
          Not like you're supposed to be swinging it, unless you waste so much energy just preventing it from tipping.
          >You could have just said you've never marched and/or carried something on your shoulders, anon. I'm told there's no shame in being a NEET these days.
          Never had the exact experience of a long march with either, but it's not like I don't do cardio or am unemployed.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I specified the Swiss halberd. You know, what's in the image. The heads weigh quite a bit more than a Montante on their own, at 2.8kg. Placed upon a properly reinforced pole, you could reach as much as 7kg.

            Again, that's unwieldy weight because a polearm is weighted heavily towards the head. A Montante is roughly 6-to-2 body-to-hilt in construction, and the balance lies just above the crossguard. That is clearly a far better balance to be carrying around.

            Maybe let people who've been there and done it talk about it and just pay attention in the future.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              You don't carry either weapon around, and the halberd can be used as a walking stick meaning you never feel it's weight at all while the giant sword has to be strapped to your back and "balance" doesn't matter at all. So you're full of shit that you've "been" anywhere.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I have yet it see anyone calling a pollaxe a Swiss halberd, nor have I seen one that had the head weight 2.8kg. Even the fucking shaft reinforcements don't make any sense when a historic halberd with length of 2.3m is 2.4kg whole. But you have a 1.8m one that has a head of 2.8kg alone.

                I am sure whoever gave you that pollaxe did it as a joke or wanted you to murder one of your fellow reenactors, because who the fuck would make a 7kg pollaxe if you could barely fucking swing it around.

                >Again, that's unwieldy weight because a polearm is weighted heavily towards the head.
                Offset because you can have wide a grip as you want or move the entire thing up as far or as back as you want. Is that the problem? You retards think you swing every weapon by the tiniest back part of the shaft and must always swing at maximum weight? Yeah, you'd better believe using a polearm like a sword is retarded, unwieldy, and ineffective. Maybe wield the polearm like a polearm and then find out that even the heaviest ones are nearly effortless to maneuver and use. You can even be lazy and just brace your arms or even just brace the halberd in the ground and just angle it at people trying to come near you.

                t. a brigade of people who've never carried a polearm

                We get it, you don't know what you're talking about, shut the fuck up now.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >the 2 hours I spent with my fat retard friends walking through the woods while LARPing is the exact same as an epic adventure where you travel for months and I'm 1000000% more qualified to speak on this topic than you
                Few things are more retarded than joining a discussion to tell everyone to be quiet.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Then there's you.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                https://medievalextreme.com/halberds/swiss-halberd-for-medieval-combat/#:~:text=The%20Swiss%20Halberd%20for%20medieval,Weight%20~3000%20g
                Retard

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                We established you're a retard, yes.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Don't mind him. He's probably so fat he struggles to carry even light weights. Any man who's gone to the gym can easily lift well over 100kg. Being told to carry 2.5kg for long distances is nothing. And you don't even notice the weight difference between 1kg and 2kg because both are so ridiculously light. Hell, I'm sure the fucking COIN PURSE an adventurer would carry weighs more than their halberd. Any person who's gone trekking has already walked with sticks that weigh well over 3kg. Anyone saying Halberds would be too heavy is making a completely dishonest argument based on misconception. Weapons aren't heavy in most cases. Even shit like Zweihanders are actually pretty fucking light compared to what most people expect. They're meant to be swung around in combat, they're not the fucking Dragonslayer from Berserk.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I have yet it see anyone calling a pollaxe a Swiss halberd, nor have I seen one that had the head weight 2.8kg. Even the fucking shaft reinforcements don't make any sense when a historic halberd with length of 2.3m is 2.4kg whole. But you have a 1.8m one that has a head of 2.8kg alone.

              I am sure whoever gave you that pollaxe did it as a joke or wanted you to murder one of your fellow reenactors, because who the fuck would make a 7kg pollaxe if you could barely fucking swing it around.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Again, that's unwieldy weight because a polearm is weighted heavily towards the head.
              Offset because you can have wide a grip as you want or move the entire thing up as far or as back as you want. Is that the problem? You retards think you swing every weapon by the tiniest back part of the shaft and must always swing at maximum weight? Yeah, you'd better believe using a polearm like a sword is retarded, unwieldy, and ineffective. Maybe wield the polearm like a polearm and then find out that even the heaviest ones are nearly effortless to maneuver and use. You can even be lazy and just brace your arms or even just brace the halberd in the ground and just angle it at people trying to come near you.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'd rather go with some kind of warhammer, no sharp edges or points that need maintaining, and it's useful against monsters with armoured hides or breaking down obstructions. One with a short enough handle could also be easier to carry around than a polearm.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Sidekick's weapon

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Every time I see a thread like this I wonder why, if polearms supposedly were easier to master, cheaper to craft, and strictly superior in both 1v1s and mass battles, anyone ever bothered with swords and axes, let alone across dozens of different cultures across time. Were they all collectively taking the piss?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >axes
      Nobody bothered with them pretty much. Outside technically pollaxes.
      >swords
      Swords were literally the peak weapon when you were constrained by size, so they nearly always hung on the belts of spearmen and halberdiers. They also didn't have a dead range after the enemy closes in. People often cite HEMA as a way to prove polearms/spears/anything with greater range was just better than a sword, but it's a very bad way to judge asymmetric weapon fights where you (unlike a sword duel) must always consider whether a stab would be enough to stop someone from switching ranges and disabling your main weapon, or would successfully stop him.

      By 14th century they also weren't constrained by metallurgy. You would see bladesmith be able to use large monolithic chunks of high carbon steel, which they learned to quench properly, so at some point someone said fuck it and just made a sword with the range of a polearm.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      people bothered with swords because they're light, easy and safe to wear, most have some capacity for both cutting and thrusting, and outside of some swords in a few places in limited periods of history they're one handed so you can use a shield

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They were expensive to make and thus were seen as a way to show off. No one in history actually used them as they were worthless in actual combat.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Swords?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Because Ganker is retarded. It was a common formation in the medieval era to have meant with shields and single hand weapons like swords and maces in front with men who have halberds, spears, poleaxes, etc. in the second line. The first line would brawl with the enemy and the second line would strike from overhead at the assholes on the other side.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Lug a big and heavy lump of wood and iron around, sometimes even for days at a time
    >Clumsy in tight spaces
    >needs two heands, meaning you can't hold a lantern when exploring dungeons and crypts
    >only useful in formation
    lol
    lmao

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >only useful in formation
      Poleaxes are bad in formation. The person using them needs room to wreck people's shit. You're thinking of a halberd which is not even remotely a poleaxe.

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    For me, it's pic related. Doesn't rust when it's wet, easy to take care of, and best of all, it's light.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      hold up, you're not like a secret kung fu master or anything?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You bastard, how did you do that without a sword?

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nope.
    That's the ultimate for armoured combat, or to break up a big but weak formation, and probably pretty great to fight monsters.
    Btw, a 2h sword would work as well in those roles.
    Against ranged enemies, when sneaking/scouting, and when marching for long distances (so you can stay in light armour), you'll want a shield, which means using either a sword of a spear.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The ultimate weapon for armored combat is wrestling.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I thought that was included in pollaxe and 2h sword (all kinds) fighting.
        Yeah, and it levels the field, a poll might be more devastating than a sword, but if you're ending up rolling on the ground like it's a bjj fight, does that matter?
        It would matter against a giant monster, but there probably are better weapons against those, when you need to really do some damage to make them feel the hit (bardiche?)

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Way too fucking heavy, doesnt earn a place in my pack

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I like a heavy saber. Its just as weildy as a sword meaning I can use it in caves, corridors & forests with little problem. Its fashionable enough to take to a party as formal wear. You can use it like a light axe for bush work too.

    Add a boarspear & a light crossbow if dealing with monsters

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No.
    >Sword
    >Dagger
    >Bow & Arrows
    These are the essentials for Adventurers.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      And a Gun

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    lol cuckstick

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Tempered Steel
      :-

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You know who had to fight in close quarters with lots of shit around them in case they got into a melee? Pirates. You know what pirates used? Improvised weapons such as tools they used on their ships like belaying pins as clubs and mattocks, as well as axes, hammers, and here's the good bit: pikes and halberds. These were necessary in case the defenders had any, because wow, wouldn't you know it, you can hold up an entire hallway or entryway by making it really sharp and pointy from a great distance and it turns out that works because people don't swing pikes like swords. You know what they didn't use because they'd get caught in everything and serve no purpose? Longswords.

    Boarding pikes are even a specialized version of a naval polearm, used during and against boarding actions. But somehow they used these for hundreds of years despite that the crammed conditions of a ship would render them completely useless since fa/tg/uys think you swing them around at people instead of being the narrow thrusting weapons they are.

    Poleaxes aren't that tall either, learn what a poleaxe is. It's not a pike.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Okay, but who asked?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Absolutely fake
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sincouwaan
      They would use big fucking swords.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >You know who had to fight in close quarters with lots of shit around them in case they got into a melee? Pirates. You know what pirates used?
      I can guarantee you pirates almost never used boarding pikes or halberds. Those weapons were used by proper navies, like the British navy, who were trained extensively to use them. Pirates didn't have standardized arms or training. They tended towards simple but effective weapons like hand axes, cutlasses, and pistols for that reason.
      >These were necessary in case the defenders had any, because wow, wouldn't you know it, you can hold up an entire hallway or entryway by making it really sharp and pointy from a great distance
      That's nice, but this is a defensive action in known territory you're talking about. Assuming you're the same anon as before, the differences with this scenario and the earlier one are pretty obvious. An adventurer traveling through a dense forest doesn't know the territory, usually, and is at major risk of bumping into things if he's reacting on the spot to an enemy (who can very easily choose to come from any direction other than the one the adventurer is currently facing, unlike the interior of a ship where pathways are set).
      >Boarding pikes are even a specialized version of a naval polearm, used during and against boarding actions.
      If longswords were somehow too long to use, then so were halberds by your own retarded-ass logic. Did you even read your own post before you posted it? No, of course not. Not like it matters, anyways, given you're talking about a period of history after the longsword had already phased out of common use.
      >Poleaxes aren't that tall either, learn what a poleaxe is. It's not a pike.
      Longswords aren't actually that long, either. Learn what a longsword is. It's not a zweihander.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      boarding pikes are for stabbing the idiots on the other boat, when they get over on your boat you get out the choppa

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Good day.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The romance of a simple pointy stick.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It's not just a pointy stick. It's a Bat with a Spike.

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Depends where you are adventuring.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The favorite weapon of Anhk-Morpork

  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I don't see how pollaxes are too unwieldy to be used in small confines. They're usually around the same height as the wielder and are used with a wide grip, so if you cant swing a pollaxe you probably cant swing a sword very well either.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What sword do you mean? Something like 1m blade 20cm grip longsword will be both shorter to swing, and due to weight and centre of balance also easier to accelerate in small places (because you need less space to reach sort of terminal velocity needed to cut X). In addition to that you can perform cuts even at closer targets, even though cutting with the bottom half of the blade is suboptimal.

      [...]
      [...]
      t. a brigade of people who've never carried a polearm

      We get it, you don't know what you're talking about, shut the fuck up now.

      You literally came up here saying how hard pollaxe is to carry, claimed it's nearly 10kg and got btfo by seeing a historic Halberd example of longer proportions being just around 2.4kg. Nobody cares that you could've possibly carried a 10kg polearms, when historically and hypothetically in fantasy people would carry ones in 2-4kg range.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        t. mad

        We get it. You don't know what you're talking about. Shut the fuck up now.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's mainly the issue that a sword doesn't have a long handle to contend with, while polearms do and that complicates matters. Swords, maces, and axes were what invaders most often used when taking a castle and fighting through the hallways for that reason. Lots of castles and fortresses made their outer hallways particularly narrow to make bigger weapons harder to bring to bear that way. With one-handed weapons, there's less risk of bumping either the top end or bottom end of the weapon on a wall. It's not to say that polearms are weak or anything. It's just a practicality thing. Polearms ruled battlefields (at least as long as there were no cavalry with lances to skewer you with). And it's not as if armies sacked castles and fortresses all the time, not when it was usually easier to siege them till they surrendered.

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah!
    I love to give halberds the mobile leaping/dashing skills associated with spears, combined with the defense-smashing skills of axes in my games, while giving them a bit of extra reach in exchange for slightly lower power. These things, of course, on top of the synergies with magic that all weapons have, because in a setting where magic exists to the point of being literally everywhere, adventurers should be able to tap into it.

  27. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >enters a pitch black, partially-submerged, narrow and low-cealing tunnel
    >has to crawl, squeeze and sometimes hold breath
    >encounters an slime or small enemy
    >can't swing
    >thrusts do almost no damage
    >can't stand
    >can't run
    >dies
    Imagine having all dungeon being convenient theme parks for "adventurers".

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >an slime

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        your point?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You don't know?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I think I do, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by not assuming you fixated in a small mistake, anything else to say about the original post?

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >small mistake
              Imagine being an inept retard.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >fixated in a small mistake

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >enters a pitch black, partially-submerged, narrow and low-cealing tunnel
          >has to crawl, squeeze and sometimes hold breath
          >encounters an slime or small enemy
          >can't swing
          >thrusts do almost no damage
          >can't stand
          >can't run
          >dies
          Imagine having all dungeon being convenient theme parks for "adventurers".

          fucking esl monkey

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >small mistake
            Imagine being an inept retard.

            kek, imagine having so little to say you become this assblasted over something so insignificant.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >having so little to say
              It was the only part of the post worth saying anything about.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      do almost no damage
      nonsense

  28. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm being completely unironic when I say that threads where autists, NEETs, literal and proverbial LARPers, HEMAfags, greybeards and the odd amateur historian get extremely worked up about the hypotheticals of historical and/or fantastical combat are the best thing about /tg/. Entertaining to read every time and sometimes you even learn something.

  29. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A mass of pikes and spears are good for making a passage impassable, but beyond that two-handed weapons have no place when fighting in cramped spaces like how "dungeons" are depicted.

  30. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    For me it's the glaive, a general's weapon.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >General
      >In combat
      Smoothbrain

  31. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >can't be used one handed
    It's garbage for any actual adventure, even real life ones let alone heroics

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >can't be used one handed
      Your system doesn't let extraordinary, heroic characters perform extraordinary, heroic feats of strength? Sounds like your game is garbage, not the weapon.

  32. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Anyone knows why the axe heads in poleaxes are straight instead of curved?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Curve has less effective hook on the axe blade

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >straight instead of curved?
      what to do you mean, there are poleaxes of both types. As for why the straight ones, nobody know for sure, only expeculations on the aplicability it might have if any other than aesthetics, much like wavy blades.

  33. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    adventurerer? no. He can't use that inside dungeons or close spaces
    A machete I think is more fit, works as a tool too, sizeable enough to be used indoor and outdoor

  34. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    it's actually shit for an adventurer because you can't wear it
    a one handed sword or axe with a mid-szied shield is the ideal adventurer's armament

  35. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    poleaxe fags are infinitely more annoying than katana fags ever were, because at least the katana fags were funny in how retarded they were

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >MY HANZO STEEL CAN CUT A MAN AND HIS HORSE CLEAN IN HALF

  36. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The mace is practical. Easy to use, carry, and kill with. Never has to be sharpened and maintenence is low. Great against armor, still a big stick against regular dudes. Macebros stay winning

  37. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why not something more convenient to carry?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Because this is basically a powerlevel argument and those are never started in good faith.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      In heroic fantasy, no weapon is "inconvenient" if you're doing it right.

  38. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Poleaxes are pretty sweet. As far as polearms go they're sufficiently knightly for my liking.

  39. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Sorry I use a spear because I plan on killing any dragon I encounter

  40. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I like swords.

  41. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    until you are in confines spaces where you cannot swing them with enough force or maneuverability to do their job

  42. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    K have fun lugging that shit around everywhere especially indoors.

  43. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    /k/unt here with a reality check. Anons routinely walk around the woods with 4.5kg WW1/WW2 surplus rifles for fun, which are very much like fantasy polearms with bayonets fixed. If your character can't handle the weight of a polearm they're a pussy. The real limiting factor is length, and that only applies in specific cases. Boar hunting with spears in dense brush still happens in the US today, and the spontoon (basically a longer boar spear) was US military issue for officers through the mid 1800s. This means unless your character is in narrow caves and hallways, or at sea, a polearm will work just fune.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Eh, spontoons don't strike me as a cave exploring sword but dungeons are usually unreasonably wide anyway.

      I think if the guy was expecting resistance, atrack orcs, wtc, he would totally take a halberd and armor, if he was travelling and maybe highwaymen could be a problem than he would travel with a group and carry a sword... luke it was in the actual middle ages.

  44. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Large enough to need carrying by hand rather than being easily stowed in a scabbard or travel bag over long distances
    >Countered by someone with a large shield or a ranged weapon
    >As a polearm, relies on formation fighting to prevent people getting inside your minimum effective striking range

    The ACTUAL ultimate adventurer's weapon, however...

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      ... alerts an entire dungeon on a first attack.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        AND fucks your hearing because you're shooting in a closed environment, so forget about listening to the soon-to-be ambushers.

  45. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    > suddenly a sharp turn in the corridor
    > suddenly a cliff to climb down off
    > suddenly a swarm

    Any adventurer worth his salt will pick weapons that can serve as tools as to save on space and gain versatility.

    > You hunt with a bow
    > You cut wood with an axe
    > You hammer stuff with a... well... hammer
    > And a dagger can be useful to cut stuff

    Bonus: You got ways to pierce vital areas and chinks in armors, break bones and bend armor piece, as well as chop someone's arm off.

    You can reach targets from afar as well as fight close quarters. Leave monoweapon gaytry to those with supply chains, you're a survivor.

  46. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    real men use whatever OBJECT they want as a weapon, and just make it work

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Based! I'm using a shield with a bear trap mounted on it.

  47. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If you have proper armor then 2 handed weapons>one handed weapons, otherwise a shield would be needed. Pole arms have the advantage in reach, especially on horseback which is why they were so widely used throughout history. Swords had their own niche

  48. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >polearm fags will go on and on about so-called "realism" until realism becomes inconvenient to their wank, at which point they start saying it's fantasy so who cares

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      We have the right to do so after decades of being shat on and undervalued by popular media. Swordfags don't deserve a damn thing.

  49. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >literal NPC town guard weapon
    lol
    lmao
    stop being a snowflake and get a sword like everyone else, fuckboi

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      But the sword is literally the snowflake weapon.

  50. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >This weapon designed for formation fighting on a battlefield is the perfect adventuring weapon.

    I am so sick of idiot pseudos knowing fuck all about weapons.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >designed for formation fighting
      Speakign of knowing fuck all about weapons...

  51. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >halberd
    >soldiers literally marched across countries with these in campaigns
    >Hurr, you can't go adventuring in them, they're too heavy
    Literal retard take

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Soldier's didn't also need to carry all their camp equipment on their back too you fucking inbred.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >He doesn't have hirelings
        They also carry the loot.

  52. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >table has a resident spear apologist
    >no ic/ooc separation
    >brags about how great spears are and shit-talks swords whenever possible
    >"swords are just clumsy oversized knives and i have a knife for close quarters combat so all my bases are covered"
    >gets into longwinded arguments that go nowhere
    >insults anyone who disagrees with him
    >the system we're using has no weapon ratings so none of this matters on any level

Your email address will not be published.