I hate how over represented swords are in fantasy settings, especially for graceful dexterity based characters. I've been doodling around today trying to design an axe or mace that looks like it could be used with finesse in place of a longsword or scimitar, but so far I'm not coming up with much. What agility based non-sword weapons have any of you designed?
>I've been doodling around today trying to design an axe or mace that looks like it could be used with finesse in place of a longsword or scimitar, but so far I'm not coming up with much.
That's because axes, hammers and maces have always been the weapons of brutes, OP. Not to say that there's anything wrong with being a brute of course.
Western media has always been pretty focused on traditional, standard weapons. Some RPGs give you a handful of token "exotic" weapons, but they're usually just variant swords or spears. The punch-dagger is a rare exception.
Eastern media and anime, on the other hand, much as I hate getting /a/ in my /tg/, offers some nifty original concepts. One Piece is particularly good for this.
I'm on mobile, but I remember off the top of my head that there was one guy who had a glove with swords attached to each finger tip, and another who had a spear-hammer built out of his armor.
>>47216033
Captain Kuro and Don Krieg. Krieg was more of a brute than a finesse fighter, but he gets bonus points for the weird armor-on-a-pole including a gas attack and a stake launcher.
>>47216059
Thanks for knowing this. I was literally just looking at the entry for pole weapons on the One Piece wiki to figure out who the hammer guy was
>>47215996
Spears. If you want a non-sword melee-weapon for a character who is graceful spears are always an option. Polearms in general too, even if the average fantasy halberd looks like a massive axe on a stick a historical looking halberd can be used with finesse.
Anyway, my characters rarely use swords. Now that I think about it, only the scifi characters I have made have used swords. Well, chain swords and power swords but still.
Meanwhile the fantasy characters have battleaxes, spears and maces generally.
>>47215996
> I've been doodling around today trying to design an axe or mace that looks like it could be used with finesse in place of a longsword or scimitar, but so far I'm not coming up with much
Because you are a fucking dummy.
>>47216033
>>47216059
There was also captain Axe-hand Morgan who had an axe-blade for hand. Which seems like a really awkward way to use and axe but that's manga.
>>47215996
>>47216105
Also, you are a fucking idiot for not understanding what makes axes and maces what they are.
Axes rely on cleaving the enemy.
Maces rely on crushing the enemy.
Crushing and cleaving rely on, guess what? That's right, brute fucking force.
Meanwhile, blades rely on slashing and piercing the enemy, and piercing requires relatively little force, due to how soft the fleshy meatbags are, and slashng requires even less.
With that taken into account, it is obvious that axes and maces are best suited for direct heavy attacks, while blades and pointy sticks are best suited for less direct attacks.
Guess what kind of attacks is more suited for characters you would characterize as "graceful".
>>47216205
You could design an axe that is based on slashing though, similar to some historical axes which were very thin like a Dane Axe, but it would need a reason to be used over a sword.
>>47216205
>Crushing and cleaving rely on, guess what?
Hitting the target.
Now, piercing on the other hand? Yeah, thats raw brute force.
>>47216250
All real war axes were thin so that they could be swung quickly and without exhausting the wielder, you nitwit. Do you think people went into battle with woodcutting axes if they could help it?
>>47216257
Hit yourself with a hammer and a knife while applying the same force, and check which one injures you more.
Go on, I'll wait.
>>47215996
I cant believe anyone has said this.
Spears.
They are long, nimble stabbing implements.
Well, overall I'm not a fan of the str/dex weapons thing, as I feel it makes an absolutely abhorrent job of representing the reality of things, but if you want a more graceful axe, how about this one?
>>47216293
The hammer one. Bone splinters. Even more so, if its a tool hammer, and the crowbar side is used.
Knife does fuck all on flat hits.
>>47216110
>axe for a hand
Jesus, I hope he had some kind of wrist support
>>47216300
thats a horsemans axe, hardly what the op is trying to make up
>>47216293
Depends on the area. Deep stabbing wound to the abdomen is more likely to kill you than strong chop with an axe. Cut intestines, severed aorta, all this nasty stuff.
>>47216300
I'd like to see a min-maxed dual axe-wielding dervish type character. Sounds like a rad build concept.
>>47216307
>the same force
Are you perchance a dummy?
>>47216307
>flat hits
You know you're right when your opponent constructs a strawman in an attempt to disprove you.
>>47216312
No, the handle also extends outwards from the elbow, yet still underneath the skin.
>>47216299
I said it here: >>47216086
And honestly, European media doesn't give spears the credit they deserve. I mean it is true that common rabble have usually been armed with spears (or pikes) but in the hands of a trained warrior it can be a really deadly and graceful weapon.
In Asian media you will find heroes with spears and kung-fu warriors and whatnot but not so much in Western stuff.
>>47216328
>>47216321
>>47216327
This is a fun conversation you guys are having, but is there any chance you could debate less physics and debate more weapon design?
>>47216266
This is right.
Even though the term "battleaxe" evokes the image of a gigantic heavy instrument of murder in many people, a battle axe was actually much smaller than any wood cutting axe.
That's because it usually required much less force to cleave through an enemy and his armor than chopping down a tree. It was also a factor how fast you could strike again after an attack, so additional weight was a bad thing.
This also goes for throwing axes such as the Francisca/Franziska, which required at least as much dexterity as they required strength.
The exception to this rule are cavalry axes, dane axes and pollaxes which were made to be used from horseback or with both hands, respectively.
Also, the DnD 3.5e trait "Weapon Finesse" applies not only to daggers and rapiers, but also to axes.
For extensive piercing, we also have the Viking flavour.
>>47216307
>knife does fuck all on flat hits
And I have trouble hammering nails with a screwdriver. What's your point?
>>47216342
That's like asking someone to talk less about math and more about physics.
>>47215996
Or, instead, you could use the most popular weapon in human history, one that actually does rely on precision.
Although, of course, the whole "DEX vs. STR" thing is total bullshit. You can't be dexterous without being strong. It's possible to be strong but clumsy, but it is flat-out impossible to have 18 dex and 10 strength. Have you ever looked at an acrobat's body? Or an Olympic fencer's? If you want precise control over the movements of your body and weapons, you need a lot of muscle to make that happen. Not as much muscle as if you were trying to be a powerlifter, but pretending the stats are separate is simply incorrect.
>>47216342
Design of the weapon is based on physics of its applications, you dummy.
>>47216340
>>47216299
Op here, I dig spears and pole weapons, but I can't see them as being very practical for individual combat, because of the ease of getting inside when fighting someone using one. So if not a spear, what would be second best?
>>47216312
It's basically a prosthetic.
Aside from being fuckhuge it also has the problem of having a too short handle to be useful (if it wasn't a manga where the laws of physics are merely a suggestion.)
>>47216378
He said spear, not sarissa.
>>47216327
If you hammer a nail, but miss, you literally break the bone you hit. Except if you hit the air bubble in the last joint(which just hurts like hell).
There is a reason people are very careful when hammering nails.
If you fuck up while carving wood, you don't even go trough to the bone. You might faint because you lose blood, and you bleed a little, but its so small you literally stop the blood loss with cold tap water.
>>47216401
>same force
>SAME
>FORCE
>>47216347
Not so much smaller as thinner, they had lighter, longer blades on the head as opposed to the huge heavy wedge.
>>47216410
Have you ever carved wood? You tend to go all in in terms of physical strength.
Contrast to nail hammering, where you don't do that.
>>47216378
>because of the ease of getting inside when fighting someone using one
Spearman can stab you while you trying to get close and easily kill you before you kill him, unless you are wearing good armor. Reach is a big deal, part of the reason axes aren't too popular.
>>47216378
Ok, you are very wrong and here is why.
You have a sword, say, and the other guy has a spear. How exactly are you going to "easily" get inside of his spear?
a trained warrior will have the tip damned near constantly jabbing and feinting.
Stop thinking in terms of "spearmen holding the line" and more along the lines of "A very light incredibly nimble sharp point constantly poking at you"
>>47216378
>Fast man with spear
>Someone gets "inside your range"
>Clobber them on the side of the head with the bigass stick you're swinging around, or if its a bladed polearm just choke up a bit
>?¿?¿
>Profit!
>>47216378
>but I can't see them as being very practical for individual combat, because of the ease of getting inside when fighting someone using one.
>>47216429
Whenever I'm carving wood and find myself needing to use a great deal of force I put down the knife and start using a chisel. Have you never swung a hammer in your entire life?
>>47216378
There's a weapon Asian monks use called a Meteor Hammer. It's basically two mace heads on the end of a long cord/rope. You use it by swinging them around at crazy speeds, and controlling these things in the air takes a lot of finesse.
I suppose if you made a club with a small enough head, you could call it more dexterous.
But overall, blades are dexterous because they are usually weapons that are made for slashing, with most of the weight in the handle so the blade feels light and can move faster. A mace or axe, on the other hand, has most of their weight in the head, because that's the end you're supposed to hit people with.
I'm not saying that maces or axes are bad - I mean, axes combine the force of a mace with the cutting power of a blade, what's not to like? - but they are not weapons of finesse.
>>47216372
STR kinda represents more of the mass portion of the F=ma equation.There are strong and fat people who wouldn't be as powerful without their fat.
>>47216378
Nah, spears can be used for individual combat but that means that the user needs to be really skilled, fast and dexterous... See what I'm getting at?
When someone is coming at you and you have a spear the first thrust can be done before they get in range. If you can do this and get past their protection the fight can be over at that point already. If they get past that you need to be able to run backwards as fast as they can run forwards or you have to pull in the spear and use it like a dagger. You can also use the spear like a staff while you fight and this will allow you to use it at shorter range.
Controlling the distance between yourself and the opponent requires lots of movement so spearman against someone with a sword and shield (for example) means that you have to be good on your feet and if there is less room to move it means that you need to make use of lateral movement and this is generally harder for people than simply going back and forth.
It all boils down to someone with a spear (or halberd) needing to be really skilled to do well in single combat and I believe this is exactly what you have been looking for.
>>47215996
This isn't a problem in GURPS where all weapon skills are based on dexterity, and strength is mainly for damage and being able to handle heavier weapons.
>>47216378
Polearms are for mass combat. For individual use, you get a shorter spear, and use it like a quarterstaff with a knife on the end. Or use a shortspear + shield combo, very effective and historically popular. Hoplites, motherfucker!
>>47216466
It's pretty metal.
>>47216461
I bet you use machines to finish the primary shape too. And don't like scars.
>>47216358
Your screwdrivers have poor handles then
>>47216469
As I said, you can be strong without being dexterous, but you CANNOT be dexterous without being strong.
>>47216469
Not when we're talking about hitting things with a weapon it doesn't.
>>47216489
An inclined plane is a machine, anon.
>>47216499
>>47216461
English question: What is the differene between carving, knife shaping and whittling?
>>47216490
>my one tool is bad at doing the job of this other tool which it is not at all designed to do
>therefore it's a shit tool
Every tool is a hammer, but that doesn't mean they're all good hammers.
>>47216509
carving is painting in the wood with a knife
whittling is changing the shape by cutting bits off iirc
>>47216358
Screwdriver is one of the few tools with a handle that can be used for hammering.
Doing nails with it is very easy.
Heck, it needs a flat handle so you can hammer the handle to do some things.
>>47216484
See that shit could cave someone's head in with a flick of the wrist. I'm sure it requires a lot of strength to use, but you're using that strength to control the weapon rather than using the weapon to channel your strength into hits.
>>47216468
>but they are not weapons of finesse.
They probably aren't weapons of quick darting direction changes at least.
That most defiantly doesn't mean there's no finesse to them, that the use is simply "hulk smash!". Everything about distance, timing and body mechanics still apply. Any weapon of decent length will have clear foible and forte, which quickly becomes important whenever weapons tough. Proper cutting technique makes a considerable difference with axes. Etc.
>>47216372
STR and DEX is more like the difference between a bodybuilder and an acrobat.
It's not that the acrobat doesn't have muscle, they've just devoted all their training into making sure they can move quickly and effortlessly. The bodybuilder has put all his training into getting as large muscles as possible, so he can pick up or swing around something heavy.
I'm pretty sure one could be acrobatic while only having about 10 strength.
>>47216535
You've never seen a screwdriver in your life, have you?
>>47216551
Round or flat end butt.
Bonus point for flat head type.
>>47216546
Axes, you can make that argument. But maces are honestly glorified clubs. It doesn't matter how you swing it, any part of the head is going to do damage. It's the easiest to learn to use, and the simplest to use.
>>47216389
Maybe that's why he's such a piss-easy early opponent who never shows up again? It's been awhile since I read those beginning chapters, but I could swear Luffy one-shots him once they actually start fighting.
I'm honestly surprised nobody has busted in shouting Katanas for no reason.
>>47215996
Hey OP, you said no swords...but what about SwordSpears, people underestimate just how badass they are, practicality? fuck that, its badass
>>47216549
I always thought it was more like the difference between a bodybuilder and, say, a magician or juggler. Acrobats are strong as fuck in real life, but you can be a fine painter or sleight-of-hand artist without any muscle tone.
>>47216470
Ehhh, from what I've seen the spear beats pretty much any other single weapon. Trying to bind and control a spear with a fucking longsword or a rapier is not a fun time.
Options are overrated when every branch of your decision fork is insanely difficult for your opponent to deal with, and the design of the weapon allows you to get as fancy as you want. If you're tired of jabbing you can bonk the guy on the head with a lug or cut him open with the spearhead, and we haven't even moved away from the business end.
>seriously insisting that screwdrivers make good hammers
Quit playing dumb. Even if you're using one of the few ones that doesn't have a rounded bottom, you're only going to get pitiful levels of force out of the screwdriver because you've got no torque. Use screwdrivers for driving screws and hammers for driving nails.
>>47216378
Congratulations, you've incurred the wrath of a billion polearm fags
>>47216549
>I'm pretty sure one could be acrobatic while only having about 10 strength.
Sure, if you're about four feet high. In which case str 10 is a lot.
If you're about normal size though, then the strength to weight ratios necessary to be good at gymnastics means you look like this.
http://www.feelguide.com/2012/07/07/american-hotness-40-droolworthy-photos-released-of-the-u-s-mens-olympic-gymnastics-team/
Meanwhile the hulk mountain of muscle can be extremely quick, because he has immense explosive strength. Put the shot put guys next to the sprinters on the track and it ain't gonna be Usain Bolt who wins the 2m dash. Just don't ask them to keep that pace for more than five to ten feet or so... Magnus Samuelsson did very well on Let's Dance one year (ie he won), probably plenty to see on youtube.
>>47216484
Well, of course it is
What else would it be made of?Joke aside they're neat af
>>47216549
>I'm pretty sure one could be acrobatic while only having about 10 strength.
Nope. It takes a fuckton of strength to be able to move yourself with that much ease and grace.
I've seen acrobats and gymnasts completely new to powerlifting just rip a 2x bodyweight deadlift up off the floor.
>>47216623
The problem is that most systems don't differentiated between agility and manual dexterity.
>>47216651
This honestly. An acrobat would likely have a good dexterity and a good strength, since a lot of the stuff they do is crazy
>>47216520
are you for reall rigut now? screwdrivers can be hammers if you dont have a hammer. Have you ever done construction work in your life?
>>47216682
They were largely written by overweight nerds who'd never done anything remotely physically taxing in their lives.
>>47216573
>It doesn't matter how you swing it, any part of the head is going to do damage. It's the easiest to learn to use, and the simplest to use.
The hard part about using an axe, sword, or other melee weapon isn't hitting so you do damage. It's hitting at all in the first place, while not getting hit yourself.
>>47216715
Are you fucking illiterate? I just said that they're all hammers but not all of them are good hammers.
>>47216205
>Meanwhile, blades rely on slashing and piercing the enemy
>using a sword to 4% of it's capabilities
>>47216715
Here's a comment from someone who has done construction work: If I see some moron using a screwdriver as a hammer I would never let him live it down. Doesn't matter if he's just fixing something on his backyard or if it happens at work. In latter case everyone would come to laugh at the fucktard because why the hell would you do something like that? Did you forget your hammer and didn't feel like taking few steps and get it back? Don't even dare to tell me that someone wouldn't even have a hammer if they do construction work.
>>47216756
>what is a rapier
>>47216645
No he hasn't, he has incurred the wrath of spear fags, a wrath now looming over you.
>>47216478
Long spears were considered strong or even ideal dueling weapons also. They just aren't conveniently portable in daily life and so were mostly weapons relegated to the field. But they truly were the kings of all melee weapons for most fighting purposes.
>>47216731
You're not wrong, but cutting consistently with edged weapons under non-optimal circumstances is a surprising bitch to do.
Your sword may have gotten nicked, the other cunt may be wearing a gambeson, your grip may be fucked because of all the panic sweat, etc.
>>47216205
The dichotomy you are describing has less to do with strength or precision and a lot more to do with what your target is: ie, naked flesh, cloth, gambeson, mail, or plate. Both a "strong man" and a "dexterous" man would both prefer a mace when fighting against full plate, and both would prefer a spear when fighting against a man in gambeson.
>>47216814
I suppose you're right on that respect. I mentioned polearms because they tend to pop up any time someone mentions spears
Spears seem pretty legit though, all things considered. They pop up a lot in myths too, which is neat
Fuck finessing. Smite and cleave.
>>47216659
Don't the modern Chinese use cloth ones for sport?
>>47216484
On a similar note a flail would also work, and for the same reason. Once it gets up to speed it's not using the strength of the wielder as much as it is the mass and speed of the business end.
Imagine a dance-battler jumping and spinning with that thing like fucking Yoda, keeping a circle of flying metal around themselves.
>>47216033
>Western media only gives us swords and spears
>But not eastern media! They had a guy with swords, and a guy with a spear!
You are a stupid weaboo.
>>47216340
It's because they're rabble weapons. You've gotta separate your hero from your peasantry. How? Give the hero the sword. Swords then become the "cool" weapon, and obviously you want to give the "cool" weapon to heroes, and it's basically a self-reinforcing cycle from there.
>>47215996
Agility and dexterity, you say?
I immediately remembered this fight from daredevil when I saw this thread
https://youtu.be/dKCnrgVGgYw
Skip to 2:30 for the fancy stuff
Always thought warhammers to be patrician. Especially with the symbolism of a gavel. Bashin' niggas like you're a judge sentencing their doom.
>>47216786
I'm at work right now, on a construction site, as an electrician.
I don't own a hammer. I own a pair of pliers. Also screwdrivers make great light mallets, ie if you need to hammer something into place but you don't want to damage the surface of it.
>Make a thread about weapons
>Suddenly everyone is an expert
>>47216573
>It doesn't matter how you swing it, any part of the head is going to do damage
Yes, so you have to actually hit them with the head. Hit them with the haft and they won't be anywhere near as hurt, miss with the head and you've overreached and you're open.
Honestly it's all about timing and distance to your target, same as an axe. The only thing you don't have to worry about it the angle you strike with the head, but most wrist positions are kind of weak so you'd have to angle your arm in exactly the same way.
>>47217525
>make a thread demonstrating one's supreme ignorance of weapons
>suddenly everyone else knows more than you
>>47216905
Well, there goes my joke
Meteor Hammers seem really interesting though, I need to look more into them
>>47217788
Woah woah, OP here, that wasn't me. I'm just sitting back trying to see if you can hammer a nail with a saw
>>47217788
I've yet to see the second one.
>ITT: D&D is really bad at reflecting real world skills and proficiencies. more at 11.
>>47215996
Your best bet to show skill with something like an axe is to highlight alternate uses. You'll never see an especially finessed approach with an axe swing, just because of how they work: the point of balance being near the head means that their power lies in a simple swing, putting a huge amount of force behind a small striking surface.
What you want to do is show the versatility of the weapon's shape: use the beard to hook an opponent's limbs or shield, hold it just under the head and use it like a punching dagger for close-combat scenarios, thrust with the blunt top to send an opponent off balance and open them up for a deadly strike.
Never forget that even a simple weapon can be used with great skill, even if it can't really be used with "finesse".
>>47216266
>That's because it usually required much less force to cleave through an enemy and his armor than chopping down a tree.
Just to be clear, most of the time you're not cleaving through armor at all. Unless your opponent has shit for armor or you're very early on the timeline, armor was generally pretty damn good at what it was made to do, which is not get cleaved. Even armor made of cloth is much more effective at stopping attacks than most people would imagine.
To get around armor, generally you'd target unarmored locations, use blunt force, or put a ton of force behind a small striking surface (which, while it could penetrate armor, even plate on occasion, isn't really "cleaving").
>>47216900
Yo, that axe head is ready to shatter
>>47216413
Yeah, that's what I meant. Thanks for clearing it up.
>>47216788
A weapon that requires a lot of upper body strength to use well.
>>47216205
Blades are also damn near useless against almost anything worth being called armor unless you use half-swording techniques, which not all kinds of swords can really do.
>>47215996
it could be something as simple as having a pointer tip like a kaiser helm think about it 1 axe lower weight how ever you also sacrifice range for mobility your axe is now too dextrous how ever it has a pointy tip you could also have a spiked gauntlet in your other hand, and be wearing heacy armor and tank with an axe a tiny pointy axe with recall this is getting way out of hand now.
>>47218755
ja war hammer superior
>>47218623
That's just not true.
>>47215996
Axes are a weapon of economics and fixed leverage. They have less metal and the wooden handle is easily replaced if broken (good luck) so they are cheaper to produce and can outfit more units. This changed in the 14th century when almost all men-at-arms even had swords as metallurgy and mining had advanced to a degree of commonality.
The center of gravity on an axe is closer to the head, so it's a longer lever and thus always less agile than a shorter lever. Swords have length and a center of gravity around 1/4 the length of the blade from the hilt (in general, there are always outliers). The way you make the axe more "finesse" is to choke up all the way to the head, creating nothing but a fist-held slicing weapon. The heft of the axe's wedge and its power are its strongest suits in general, as well as the ease with which it can hook shields.
Creating a finesse axe from scratch essentially involves making a curved sword blade but attaching a wooden handle behind it. Essentially, you get a non-polearm bardiche, which would be unweildy as all of the weight would rest forward of the grip (which is behind the blade instead of below it).
In short, axes by their nature are not finesse weapons. They are intended to continue swinging to even keep their agility. It's a light, economic power weapon with short range and limited scope that can hook shields.
>>47218816
You're joking right? Rapiers have respectable breadth and a length going up to 4 feet, averaging at 3.5. Do this: grab a 4 ft 2.2 lb stick and hold it out by the far end. Just hold it straight. Try using cut techniques. It's difficult because the longer a lever, the harder it is to move.
>>47217267
You're a fucking electrician. Don't correct someone on the proper use of hammers when your job DOESN'T INVOLVE A FUCKING HAMMER.
>>47218623
Running someone through with a pointy weapon is described as surprisingly easy in basically all historical accounts.
Running someone through to the hilt was not a rare occurrence.
>>47216509
Whittling implies a certain laxity. Like your bored around the campfire so you wittle a bit, its kinda the hobby term. Carving is more artistic, you put more effort in, etc. Least thats how I always thought of it. Don'tknow bout knife shaping though, never heard that one.
>>47219169
> doesn't involve a hammer
wew
I mentioned the pliers for a reason. Smacking shit with other shit is an every day occurrence, though most of the time there's a flat head between the pliers and the shit I'm beating.
Don't talk shit on electricians, we work with powers beyond your feeble understanding. We're modern day wizards.
>>47218030
This man is wise, if you want finesse use your brain and roleplay it instead of just saying I attack and rolling some dice ( I mean your still going to have to roll dice, but it can be tons cooler.)
>>47215996
You have inspired me to draw up a graceful and dexterous axe.
I think it might come out more Asian than intended.
If I were more weaboo, I might know if it was already a weapon.
I'd draw up my envisioned dwarven Garudo shadowdancer dual wielding them, but I've got another piece I'm working on.
Maybe next thread.
>>47219371
>Smacking shit with other shit is an every day occurrence
Apparently not common enough to invest in a fucking hammer, you absolute toolbox.
>We're modern day wizards.
Is this what electricians really believe? Shut the fuck up and get to work, you leccyplumber.
>>47219486
> using a hammer
> lugging around a big piece of shit with one use
> not carrying around a smaller thing that hits almost as hard and can do a lot of shit
wew
> is this what electricians really believe?
No, it's what we know. Go on, explain to me how electricity works. Explain why the black wire is bad to touch and the green one is okay (the jury is out on white ones. Personally I don't trust the fuckers). I can wait.
>>47216340
Depends on your spear. The reenactment ones i used to use had poles that were exceptionally thick and heavy as fuck. thinner javelin sorta spears would work though.
>>47219542
>hammer
>big piece of shit
Get a fitter's hammer, you fucking woman.
>Explain why the black wire is bad to touch and the green one is okay
Because you don't want current running through you into the ground.
You fucks can circle-jerk about how impressive you are all you want, electrical engineering is not rocket science, and certainly not magic. And just today, I found out you're too pussified to carry around a hammer for when something needs hammering, too.
>>47215996
How do you graciously smash or hack at something?
>>47219886
Be an anime character or something.
>>47215996
Weapon finesse is not a social construct OP.
>>47216788
>a civilian weapon for unarmored duels
>literally a weapon of court officials and wealthy burghers
Never fucking understood D&D.
>>47219123
>I don't know what the fuck "balance" is!
>>47216009
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3CACKhRa_E
Look at this slow and brutish axe
>>47221014
it was made popular by thugs, actually.
>>47215996
Too much weight on one end loses balance. Axes, hammers and maces rely on the weighted end to carry through and generate force. You're better off creating a rod or pole arm weapon.
Examples below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhCHw0Ovqf4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGGtLtWjpfA
skip to 0.35
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLp_X7UdMxk
Otherwise...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tKWCivrWsc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRBwvIX7Sao
>>47216628
>from what I've seen the spear beats pretty much any other single weapon.
No.
>Trying to bind and control a spear with a fucking longsword or a rapier is not a fun time.
It is easier than you have always claimed in these threads. A sword is easier to maneuver than a spear due to being shorter and balanced more towards the handle than a spear, which is weighted closer to the spearhead. The further out you hold a spear, the looser and less stable your control over it becomes, and you do need to hold a spear out far to outrange a man with a sword.
To break it down further, a short spear (AKA one-handed) is designed to be used one-handed, leaving room for a shield. These need to be gripped around the middle of the shaft to have proper leverage and control over them since you only have one hand on them. You could brace it under your armpit to hold it out further, but you lose a lot of immediate response and control over it. In effect, you wind up working with half the actual range of the spear, which winds up being close to the actual length of a sword (the average sword in question being 3-4 feet long, with the average short spear being 6-8 feet long).
Long spears, such as pikes and sarissas, must be used two-handed. These can be much longer than short spears, up to three or four times the length of a human from foot to head. At such lengths, they lose considerable usefulness in any sort of melee battle that does not involve organized formations because they become flat out unwieldy even with both hands on them. Even in formations, the principal weakness is how difficult it is to quickly reorient every pike or sarissa to face a flanking opponent, because they are so long you can't just swing them around willy nilly.
Even if you were right, spears are still trivialized by armor and shields. You only need one or the other to ruin a spearman's day utterly, no skill necessary.
>>47216833
>kings of all melee weapons for most fighting purposes
No.
>>47215996
OP, don't want to break it for you, but certain weapons are not for finess, but brutal killing at lowest price possible.
Finess is not a construct, it's a real thing.
The notion of a distinction between strength and speed/agility in combat is a retarded meme that should be excised from preindustrial fiction. Speed is derived from strength. Finesse is allowed when your muscles are strong enough to control a tool without effort.
>>47219867
> hoo doo I'm a big mean drywall guy look at my big dumb hammer
Jeez no wonder all of you guys became beans. Your job requires subhuman levels of intelligence.
>>47222757
>spears are still trivialized by armor and shields
Good thing armor and shields are swords. Or something. Your post was retarded.
>>47223559
You really think anyone is gonna fall for bait that weak?
>>47216537
It actually doesn't require much 'strength' in the conventional way that we think of it - as it uses the whole body (legs, arms, back, shoulders etc).
>>47221875
>>47221489
Look at how much effort is going into reversing the direction of the axe - look at how all the actual 'damage' is in swings that use the whole body to generate torque and swing huge arcs with one or both hands.
Just because someone is doing it 'quickly' (with a small easily controlled) weapon doesn't defeat the underlying principles. The 'potential' energy comes from having a weight on the end of a lever, the damage comes from accelerating that lever.
When you compare this to something like say a *sword* which can inflict grievous injury simply by putting the blade beside someone and either drawing or pushing (to cause a slice). Sure axes 'could' do that, but they don't have 3 and a half feet of cutting edge, they've got like 3 inches.
>>47217136
Glorious and beautiful.
>>47215996
The spear is a pretty good alternative for the image of a graceful and quick fighter, but I've never seen anyone run it unless it's for the reach, which is sad.
Oh, designed? Haha, I'm not that clever.
>>47216651
This is why D&D is dumb. "Average strength" for a man is generally agreed to be the ability to lift 100 pounds (or 45 kilos) over your head.
For whatever reason, Strength 10 doesn't map that properly.
>>47215996
Just stick it on a polearm and call it done.
Axes and maces are not "agility" weapons. Technically, nothing is, but the main purpose of an axe/mace is to swing an awkward heavy bit of metal in a large arc so that it punches through whatever it hits with a large amount of force. That's not going to be an agile weapon under any definition. At best, any agility involved will be in keeping the weapon momentum going through the followup swing.
I suppose you could look up a meteor hammer as a "sort of" agility bludgeoning weapon.
>>47215996
>I hate how over represented swords are in fantasy
According to Fiore, the sword is the most versatile of weapons, the halberd is the most powerful, the spear is the most deceptive or something like that, and the dagger is the quickest.
What does an axe do better than any of those weapons? By the time medieval combat had fully evolved, axes were almost exclusively polearms, because the design requires more leverage than a 3 foot haft can afford in order to be useful. Smaller one-handed axes were basically just spikes for puncturing plate armor that D&D would consider a light pick rather than an axe.
>>47225283
>Axes and maces are not "agility" weapons. Technically, nothing is
Historically, the sword was. I wish I could show you a video to make my point but HEMA is garbage.
>>47225310
Axe cuts wood better.Fiore was a cool dude
>>47225424
Eh, it's probably more manual dexterity. Most sword lessons I've seen (sword & shield, at least) focus on being able to turn and maneuver the sword properly. Sure, it needs the agility to aim it during a thrust, but a mace needs the same to ensure you hit a dodging target.
Two handed swords and half-swording again relies on maneuverability and shifting your grip/adjusting your stance for proper leverage, which would again be a focus on manual dexterity.
Then again, I'm hardly an expert and my knowledge is limited. There could be sword techniques that have a greater emphasis on quick agility. I know that when I've used weapons in martial arts that agility and quick, accurate strikes were emphasized... but that seemed to apply about as much for all weapons, from a staff to a stick to a katana. I would assume a standard sword would be mostly the same.
>>47225262
If you can OHP 100 pounds I'll eat my hat
>>47225556
Sorry, I'm confused. Are you considering manual dexterity to be the opposite of agility? My point was that swords are agility weapons rather than strength weapons. Sword fighting is all about working your way around your opponent, since it's basically impossible to overpower unless you're an ogre fighting a six year old girl.
>>47222757
>single weapon
>single
>i.e. not sword AND shield
A shield makes most weapon matchups easymode as long as your weapon is actually capable of wounding your opponent.
Also, you seem to be completely discounting the existence of two-handed spears sized similarly to a quarterstaff. I don't know how much experience you have fighting with and against against spears of that size, but I can tell you from first hand experience that they are fucking stupid to use and oppose. If you're anywhere within shouting distance of competency, you can punch well out of your skill class against pretty much every other single weapon.
>spears are still trivialized by armor
No more than any other hand weapon. The spear at least retains (with suitable blade geometry) the capability to punch through mail.
A great deal is made of the mace's ability to crush and contuse even through full harness, but if a man-at-arms clad in plate is capable of withstanding pollaxe hits he sure as fuck can withstand a mace.
>>47217525
That pommel is way too big, the guard is too bulky which just adds unnecessary weight, and the blade is too thick, even ignoring the fact that it is misshapen.
>>47216546
that is a beautiful weapon
>>47222757
You do know there's a length in-between short spear and massive two-handed spears right?
Many experts like Matt Easton also agree that the spear has the advantage over the single sword.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2YgGY_OBx8
![MS_Ludwig_XV_13_39v-a[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/30QBSA8.jpg "MS_Ludwig_XV_13_39v-a[1].jpg")
>>47222757
>To break it down further, a short spear (AKA one-handed) is designed to be used one-handed, leaving room for a shield.
Short spears are often, perhaps even typically used in two hands. Pic related.
>>47216833
>But they truly were the kings of all melee weapons for most fighting purposes.
No, short spears and swords are the kings of melee weapons. Long spears are for pointing in the general direction of enemy troops.
>>47227672
wtf...which way is he facing?
>>47224908
/thread
>>47215996
Knives, daggers and glaives.
You need a light, sharp blade. Maces, hammers, axes don't do this well and they either don't have a blade, or have to small of a blade, to deal damage w/o the need to generate force.
>>47227776
Oh, also katars.
>>47227731
This was before artistic perspective was invented. There's a great deal of debate as to what the fuck is happening in many illustrations in old manuscripts.
Since we're talking HEMA shit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Slu4MgS-Rzg
RUSSIA STRONK
>>47227731
He's looking back over his shoulder. Window Guard is handy because it's an aggressive guard in one direction and a defensive guard in the other.
>>47227731
i'm more concerned about the fact that his head is inside his neck
![Pisani-Dossi_MS_16a-c[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/iPY8Y5N.jpg "Pisani-Dossi_MS_16a-c[1].png")
>>47227731
>>47227938
Here's the same guard on the other side.
>>47227915
Ukrainians almost had it this year. Rekt the Ruskies in the first round.
Unfortunately they lost pretty handedly the second two rounds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0yOSs6P344
Watched the whole thing live in a thread on /int/. Fun times.
Pic related is an earlier round. Pooland vs Russia. Predictable outcome. Nobody has beaten Russia for seven some odd years in this event.
Posting more. Should be noted that the group fights are more wrestling with weapons than anything else - goal is to get your opponent on the ground, nothing more. Lots of Judo involved on top of hitting with weapons.
>>47228039
That's pretty much what happens when a battle between two heavily armed groups breaks down into a melee. Although a real battle would then have the extra step of getting on top of the knocked down guy and stabbing him in the face/neck/armpit, which isn't exactly feasible if you're trying to avoid fatalities.
How about two short Lucerne hammers with spikes on their points? Have the user's fighting style be focused on dodging, hooking, grappling, and stabbing them while they're down. Maybe some opportunistic smashing as well.
>>47222757
>>47227672
>swords
Holy shit, that's retarded. Swords aren't even considered an actual weapon of war. It's a side-arm. You use a sword when you have nothing else to use.
The only type of sword which is a proper war weapon and can go toe-to-toe with a pole weapons is a great sword, which is essentially isn't a sword anymore.
Regular swords were mostly used as means of self-defense due to being easy to comfortably carry around, that's it.
And in terms of speed, maneuverability an nimbleness swords got no shit on spears.
>>47228308
Someone had better let the Egyptians, Persians, Romans, Vikings, and most light cavalry throughout history that they were using inferior weapons and never should have been successful.
Can someone explain how lances work? A lot of fantasy art only shows the fancy lances that in Game of Thrones are called "tourney" lances, but was there a real distinction between lance types like that or was it more just a gradual difference based on length?
>>47228515
Tournament lances are "soft", in that they aren't tapered down to a point and have a big ball of padding on the end (And sometimes some kind of ball or fist shaped topper over that). They'll still hurt like fuck and you can still totally kill someone, but it'll be from blunt impact and broken bones, not direct penetration.
Combat lances are tapered down to a point and you can basically drive one right through a person until it sticks out the other end.
Tournament lances are sometimes made to a higher standard and have that fancy fat end and paint to make them look cool. Combat lances might literally be nearby small trees that have been cut down, given a small hand guard, and sharpened.
>>47228515
Lances are just spears used from horseback. They might have slight changes to the design like rondels to protect the hand and make it easier to grip, and lugs to prevent overpenetration, but really it's just a spear. Hell, they're the same word in Italian. Tournament lances were blunted and later on were design to explode into splinters.
>>47227984
why are russia so invincible in BoN?
Superiour training and tactics?
Drugs?
We know that they are corrupt and bribe the judges, but why would they even need to? they seem to be able to take on everybody!
>>47228039
veterans from the riots probably
>>47228613
The most important part of using a lance is actually the stirrup. With a stirrup, you can brace with your horse and hit them with the impact of 2600lbs (Give or take) at 25mph brought to a sharp point. Without stirrups, you're basically just reduced to stabbing the same way you could on foot, but at a higher angle.
>>47228476
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_ancient_Egypt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immortals_(Persian_Empire)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_military_personal_equipment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_Age_arms_and_armour
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cavalry
>Every single fucking case either shows spear as the main weapon for close combat.
>Using inferior weapons
>Even fucking Odin had a fucking spear.
Now tell me, how it feels to be that wrong and retarded?
>>47228308
>knights only charged down fleeing peasants with their swords
>>47228663
>>Every single fucking case either shows spear as the main weapon for close combat.
>>47228666
That was the main purpose of swords, satan.
>>47228674
How does it feel to be an illiterate faggot?
>>47228674
wops, managed to delete
>romans
>spears
also, you cant compare a medieval "sidearm" to a modern sidearm.
>>47228674
>those tits on the top of his helm
Erry time.
>>47228689
Feels better than being an armchair expert with my head lodged in my anus.
>>47225310
>>47225507
And because of this they were better suited to naval combat than many other forms of weaponry.
>>47228714
I have no idea how your head lodged in your anus makes you feel better.
>>47225891
100lbs isn't that much, btw
![Battle_of_Borodino_panorama_-_detail_04[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/wUQiVAb.jpg "Battle_of_Borodino_panorama_-_detail_04[1].jpg")
>>47228663
If I really cared, I'd sit here all night dumping images of gladii and cavalry sabers, but I don't, so I won't.
>>47215996
Crossbow.
Double bladed sword
Swordspear
Naginatas
Yari
Or OP you could use the weapon that requires ultimate finesse to use effectively without crippling yourself
Fists
>>47219047
This guy knows his stuff.
>>47228663
>every single
>pila are now close combat weapons and not javelins
>the gladius didn't exist
>starts citing ahistorical figures
This is fascinating.
>>47215996
There are considerably more swords in myth and legend than other individual weapons. RPGs reflect that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mythological_objects#Weapons
>>47221524
Huh, so that's where the name comes from.
The bowie knife is the most masculine of weapons and the stiletto is the most feminine. Everything else is just a shitty compromise.
>>47215996
I feel the handguard in this pic gives the axe a more graceful air (maybe out of an association with the basket hilts on rapiers).
>>47216205
>Imagining a large, giant of a man; standing 6-feet-7 at 266 pounds, traps like fuzzy caterpillars, pecs like dome hubcaps, doing ballet with a steel mace in his hand
>The mace, such a simple, brutish weapon; nothing but a runner's baton to him
>He's twirling, ducking, diving, swooping; his mace always in motion, like some sort of swinging pendulum of death, so graceful and light it almost fools you into believing it's wire and wood
>But make no mistake. If he hit you with that thing, it'd rip your jaw off its hinge like the Terminator tried to whack your face off with a baseball bat
>He demolishes brick walls with that thing for fun
>Dances around it for hours until it's nothing but rubble and chalk
>And even then, he's still not tired
>A perpetual motion machine
>Of living sweat and gleam
>Carried in his hands
>Like he's powered up by steam
BALLET BARBARIAN WHEN?
>>47228929
This feels like it belongs in an Animu....and maybe in my next game.
>>47228623
Apparently the HEMA (or whatever they call it there) clubs there are really fucking active. Lots of young guys and army vets. Supposedly there were 200-something people vying to get one of only 50 slots (five teams, ten each) for this particular tournament.
>>47227984
Second round
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORO9fH_Jnrs
Third
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nQ9SLj18eI
>>47216257
>Now, piercing on the other hand? Yeah, thats raw brute force.
Okay, seriously, that is so wrong it hurts.
Piercing is mostly about technique. A direct perpendicular strike will pierce a person very easily, because the point of impact is very small, and all of the force of the blow will be directed through this small point.
It's like breaking wooden boards / tiles as a martial artist. It is all technique, not strength.
>>47229153
dafuq is this? dafuq does this work? and the most important question, why did she start it in English?
>>47229165
This. It takes less than 7 pounds of force to pierce through the sternum with a longsword. That means that if you were to lie down and set a longsword in the middle of your chest, a strong flick is all it would take to drive it clean through you.
>>47229165
Well yes, but a lot of that technique, at least for martial arts, is about maximizing force. I've been doing martial arts since grade school, while technique varies from break to break depending on what sort of strike your using there is a universal underlying principle. That principle is striking through the target. When you perform a break your actual target should be slightly behind the board or brick, no a lot if you contact too early your going to hurt yourself, but just enough that you can split the target by coming to completion and following through. the most important part is not stopping when you hit the solid surface, and following through. I had trouble with this on brick breaks for a while when i was younger, i remember my first black belt examination i couldn't break the brick and failed. I was scared to follow through, and i wasn't putting force into it and i was stopping at the brick. My technique was otherwise flawless, but i didn't follow through with enough force. I don't know why i'm rambling, its not like i'm trying to disagree with or refute your point, this just felt like a good opportunity to make use of my knowledge.
>>47216439
>You have a sword, say, and the other guy has a spear. How exactly are you going to "easily" get inside of his spear?
Strike at the spear tip, then take control of it with your sword as you step in, driving it around and away from you.
If they are a whole lot better than you, it won't work. But if skill is roughly equal, it works quite well.
>>47216468
>I suppose if you made a club with a small enough head, you could call it more dexterous.
This.
Small flanged maces like those pictured can move crazy fast, change direction with a flick of the wrist/arm, and still hit like the fist of an angry god.
>>47229248
This works really well with a long spear (8-12 feet), less so with a short spear. Short spear is essentially just a pointy quarterstaff, so it's pretty versatile in close measure. The whole "getting gutted by a spear before you can even get close enough to hit him" thing is pretty much bullshit, though. A short spear has more or less the same effective range as a longsword.
>>47229259
I actually loved that D&D 4e allowed that. Rogues had some fantastic mace builds that hit like a truck.
>>47229165
Also strength is a factor, at least in breaking boards or bricks in martial arts (oddly enough more for boards than bricks, i'll get to why in a moment.)
The simple fact of the matter is that to break the material requires a certain amount of force. its true that you can generate that force with momentum, or you can multiply that force by reducing the area of contact, but when you get right down too it with a human body you can only get the contact point so small. Even if you do the really hard core training to strengthen your fingers (which I've never met anyone who does, or heard of anyone who does other than monks in china) you can still only get it to a few centimeters at best.
Since we can only get the contact point so small obviously having greater strength would mean you could exert more force on that contact point, and therefore break more.
Breaks involving momentum it could be argued are less determined by strength, but strength can also translate into momentum.
Now brick breaking is more about technique, actually its about leverage. I can't speak for all schools of martial arts, but every brick breaking i've ever seen has used this long thin slabs that are then held up on the side. When you strike in the center its own weight is working against it. Breaking multiple bricks isn't actually that much harder than breaking a single brick, because we don't lay them flush on top of each other, we put in little spacers so there is a bit of room between each brick. what this means is that when the first brick breaks it falls and hits the second, and the force of it falling and its weight is added to your descending appendage helping you to break the second brick. its still harder to break multiple bricks than a single brick, but the only reason we can is because we cheat in the set up. if we laid them flush we would never be able to break 3 or 4, hell im not certain we could break 2 (best i've ever seen was 8)
![Skythian_archer_Louvre_G106[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/lKns8En.jpg "Skythian_archer_Louvre_G106[1].jpg")
>>47215996
This is what a typical battleaxe looked like, up until the advent of the Danish axe and then the halberd. It sure looks like a quick weapon to me.
>>47229199
>i remember my first black belt examination i couldn't break the brick and failed. I was scared to follow through, and i wasn't putting force into it and i was stopping at the brick.
I know what you mean, we call it being "scared of the board". We had one black tip who failed their black belt grading like 6 times because they just couldn't follow through, and kept trying to brute force it.
Once you fail once, it's really hard to break your mind out of it and build the confidence to commit to the follow through.
>>47229172
Goal is to get all members of the opposing team on the ground. Knees or above, it touches, you're out.
It's held in Prague; only reason she spoke english was for the livestream audience.
>>47229343
Yep I was so freaking nervous, and it just compounded with each failure. They let me have a couple goes at it, I just couldn't do it. Came back a year latter and managed just fine. You ever done any touch breaks (do not know what term you would use, its the ones where you start with your fingers already on the bricks), now that is some serious shit. Never done one myself but I love watching them.
>>47229172
Forgot to add, in the stream there was a Brit commentating.
>>47229293
>The simple fact of the matter is that to break the material requires a certain amount of force. its true that you can generate that force with momentum, or you can multiply that force by reducing the area of contact, but when you get right down too it with a human body you can only get the contact point so small. Even if you do the really hard core training to strengthen your fingers (which I've never met anyone who does, or heard of anyone who does other than monks in china) you can still only get it to a few centimeters at best.
Yes, there is an amount of force required, but in my experience as a black belt in Tae Kwon Do, if you get the technique absolutely correct, you have more then enough momentum from the body mechanics alone to break it.
I've personally "tapped" through a pine board while doing a fairly slow speed demonstration of the correct technique.
>>47229369
Yeah, we don't normally do them, but if you have a couple of bored 1st and 2nd dans with a pile of spare boards, it's bound to happen ;)
I've done them with pine boards, and I can manage a single board, but thats about it.
Goddamn it can hurt when you fuck it up though.
>>47229388
This is absolutely true, and I do not dispute this. Proper technique and momentum will allow you to break boards even if you are not necessarily physically strong. Im not saying strength us a prerequisite for board breaking in general. I am saying past a certain point if you get thicker boards or lay multiple boards flush against each other stregth can be an important factor.Theoretically if you have two people with perfect technique perform the same break the stronger should be able to break a thicker board than the other, or a board made of a harder wood.
In my experience while its true just about anyone can perform a break, we had different boards for different levels and physiques. You didnt hand a kid the same board as the mid twenties vet and expect him to break it.
>>47229414
Oh the horrors of bored martial artists waiting for the class to start. Out of curiosity your place do seminars? We have bi annuals where the head guy comes over from Korea, those are always great, but your so damn sore afterwards. I remember this one time the guy just had us do the same stance for like three hours and I could barely walk afterwards.
>>47229467
Our Grand Master (Master Chong Chul Rhee) moved to Australia from Korea back in the day, so he lives here. Which means he personally attends every grading.
I'm still not sure which causes more pain, the rough training during the day when he is in town, or going out on the town with the other black belts afterwards ;)
>>47225891
I am deeply distraught that no bong has posted a picture of them holding 100 pounds in notes over their head yet.
>>47229496
Shoot thats convenient. Back when I was first testing we recorded ours then sent them for evaluation. Now we have skype. Always the after party man, always the after party. You do tourneys?
>>47229509
If I had a hundred pounds of free weights lying around in my bedroom I might.
>>47228623
Russia's army is so poorly equipped these days that they're pretty used to plate harnesses.
>>47229537
I meant the currency of the United Kingdom, the pound sterling.
The final fight in the last Deadpool movie had a guy whose shtick was super dexterity fighting pretty gracefully with a pair of tomahawks.
>>47228858
No
Rapier:
early 16th century: from French rapière, from râpe ‘rasp, grater’ (because the perforated hilt resembles a rasp or grater).
>>47229603
I know, the statement was in jest.
>>47228929
>THIS TECHNIQUE HAS BEEN PASSED DOWN THE ARMSTRONG LINE FOR GENERATIONS
>Ballet ensues
>>47229135
I heard the russians train like they fight, but without armrour.
and Why not? they got enough people to pick from that they can get the toughest moterfuckers their tundra has to offer.
>>47229611
Oh.
I didn't get the joke.
>>47229689
Don't worry, you didn't miss out on much. The implication was that the word "rapier" is derived from "rapist".
>>47229715
Yeah, not exactly my highest brow attempt at humour.
>>47224908
That's a great post.
>>47221489
This almost makes me miss AC3. Almost.
>>47228929
Dangerous.
>>47228929
This is how I elf barbarian
>>47229519
Sorry, got distracted, my sabum-nim showed up at my house for drinks ;)
Nah, Master Rhee frowns on tourneys, so we aren't actually allowed to. Allegedly, if he hears of a black belt going in a tourney, he will take your belt.
>>47216958
He one-punch-knock-outs people, pulls himself up hanging from cliffs and swings around with his whip. He is pretty strong.
Axes and maces have have a point of balance that is far away from where the grip so they aren't very nimble. That's the whole point of them. If you put the point of balance closer to the grip they would just fail at their purpose and you're better off getting a sword.
Sure, the big axes with round blades would requite a lot of skill since they'd be used more with draw cuts instead of just chops, but they are still big, top heavy weapons
>>47222996
>gets shit on when he tries to make electrical engineering into "magic"
>immediately devolves into personal attacks with nothing of substance to back it up
Crackerjack save there, boss
>>47225891
I can't tell if this (>>47228741) is you, but yeah, 100lb OHP really isn't that much. I usually rep 1 pl8 OHP for 5 reps a set, and if I tried to pass that off as "impressive", all the other people in the gym would laugh and call me a nogainz lifting faggot.
>>47234130
kill yourself
>>47215996
Oh gee, I wonder why the weapons most effective when correctly aimed at weak spots see more play in the hands of finesse masters than the weapons that crush shit through power.
>>47216549
I bet any olympic gymnast can beat any bodybuilder in the same weight class.
You need to go into bearmode strongman competitions and weightlifters to find people stronger than gymnasts. They'd be the perfect soldier if their caloric intake wasn't so huge.
>>47216878
The sharpest swords were hindu, turkish, paki, etc. Talwar and Kilij are ridiculously good at slicing stuff and yet, two layers of silk and some leather were enough to save you from that edge.
Unlucklily for you, they were also relatively heavy and weighted on the tip so you were as likely to get broken ribs from a swing even if your armor blocked the slash.
So yes, the weapon depends on the opponent's armor and the armor was almost always one step ahead in the damage vs protection arms race, that's why the only two parts of a knight's old equipment that still visit the battlefield are armor and daggers.
>>47216033
All You Need Is Kill, the book that spawned the Edge of Tomorrow movie, explained the merits of a giant axe pretty well. They do stuff right sometimes.
>>47222996
Every mexican in my neighborhood is an electrician, petroleum engineer or surgeon.
It's their american-born rat kids that suck with their la raza bullshit.
>>47225262
You should be able to lift half your weight unless you're an utter pussy, but Str also represents punching power and other esoteric feats of strenght. The average person can definately not put half their weight behind a punch unless they're trained and if they're trained they're not average anymore, they're an athlete/fighter.
>>47225310
As soon as the halberd showed up both spears and axes became the ugly failed children of war.
>>47229589
You mean the euro?
>>47225891
I did so many times while on active duty. That's part of why the 100lb OHP is part of the basic physical. Most folks who know they'll have to do it for work do a lot of it in the gym:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dwz60ptrck
Here's a man of pretty average physique doing it (with bad form): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wk9etdU-PVo
Here's a fit woman repping it out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkqoDVhdvDg
If you cannot do a single OHP at 100lbs you are out of shape in a serious way (or a 90lb woman who is the only one who isn't a cheerleader or gymnast).
So I hope you're trolling.
>You should be able to lift half your weight unless you're an utter pussy, but Str also represents punching power and other esoteric feats of strenght.
What? Punching is not an "esoteric feat of strength." That's shit like ripping phonebooks in half. Punching hard doesn't even require you to be strong, just have a lot of bulk and know the proper technique.
What the fuck, /tg/. You're better than this.
>>47236504
That's wrong, but you're free to continue believing it.
>>47236795
Spearfags are /tg/'s furries.
>>47216378
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naginatajutsu
>>47236735
>That's shit like ripping phonebooks in half.
That's what I meant. The STR stat is ill defined bullshit that doesn't correctly represent strenght.
