November 18, 2017, 08:23:33 AM

Author Topic: Swords!  (Read 567 times)

Offline shadowkat678

Re: Swords!
« Reply #15 on: November 15, 2017, 02:12:05 AM »
Dial up interweb speed atm so bear with me.

Dagger and Rapier is a thing Spanish, Italian and English schools in this and it is effective. You would expect to use it against someone also using dagger and rapier though. Dueling not fighting a battle.

I have used two swords on occasion usually a fast light long one and a heavier shorter blade and it is also effective in a full on attacking sort of way. I have used sword and hatchet as well but it didn't really suit me.

If you use a long bow it is possible to wear a sword but it must hang near vertically which makes it hard to run. A short bow probably has less chance of snagging on a belt worn sword pommel. Stick a knife wherever in a boot at the back of the belt so it sits in the small of the back across your groin or lashed onto the sword scabbard if you like.

Using a bow i tended to wear a long knife and forgo the sword. For Saxon/Viking period that would be a scramseax a one edged wedge shape blade cut on a diagonal to a point and for C15 a Falchion and buckler.
I carried my arrows diagonally through the back of my belt and drew them underarm to the string. You can run like this and climb with a reasonable chance of keeping your arrows.

on horseback I had arrows on the left side of the saddle, Dags in pannier holsters forward of the saddle a buckler on the right of the pommel(I am left handed) and my sword in a ring down the right front of the saddle.
It is hard to stop a belt worn sword giving false guides to your horse. The faster you move the more likely the end of it is to tap the flanks and when the horse responds you rein it in. Eventually they lose patience with you and buck or run you down a hedge or wall.

Do you know any sources with video on how the movements would be, or diagrams on how it would look just to give me a personal idea when writing? Also, because if I ever get to have an influence for a book cover...I mean. I know usually you probably don't, but. It'd be cool to see cover art that actually looks like how a character does for once. I hate cover art that screws up the way the character is described. I once saw one portraying completely different weapons on them then what was described in the books. That will NEVER cease to annoy me.  :-\
Be not a writer, but a Storyweaver. For that, my friend, is how you'll truly leave your mark.

Offline RobertS

  • Soulfinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 99
  • Total likes: 49
  • Gender: Male
  • Personal Text, isn't that a bit personal?
    • View Profile
    • robertdavidstrawn.com
Re: Swords!
« Reply #16 on: November 15, 2017, 02:51:42 AM »
There are many different styles of fighting and many situations not ideal to the weapon at hand.
In an restricted space (pretty much anywhere indoors) a knife is more useful than a sword. A spear is really useful indoors, if you have room to move and are covering a doorway with it, otherwise its pretty much a liability.
A single spear man against a swordsman is going to have a hard time. 10 swordsmen against 10 spear man should get massacred if the spear men have a clue.
with a knife you can take a swordsman if you are within 3 meters and the sword is sheathed. Facing off to a swordsman with drawn blades where he has space to use it with a knife is suicide.
Here's a question. I know duel wielding swords is ineffective, but a sword dagger combo was a real thing. I'm thinking of my main character having a bow with that as a backup, but I can't find much about it since most of the results when you google it is from video games like Skyrim...
These are my own observations so take them as you will. These observations are based on quite a bit of active research using padded blades against live opponents.

I don't count padded weapons as a perfect test. Weights and balances make a difference. But I have tried to learn and observe as I have gotten exercise and had fun. Most enactments have some safety rules that can alter reality and convince people of things that are not actually true. A lot of effective combat methods are not allowed in combat simulations. Combat simulations can teach us things that would not be true if the rules were gone.

Duel wielding is, in my opinion, highly effective. Your mileage may vary though. Duel wielding takes good control of stance, high flexibility, speed and the ability to do two different tasks with two hands. Some one with a shield and a sword will beat a duel wielder every single time, unless the duel wielder is a master. A master at duel wielding will take advantage of how slow a shield is and clean clock on the shield user, no matter what the shield user does.

A two handed sword user that thinks a two handed sword is a hacking weapon will just lose to a duel wielder. If a two handed sword user is aware that the two handed sword is the fastest and in the right circumstances most agile weapon a man can hold, then the duel wielder needs to run for it. Unless the duel wielder is a master. The master will block with one sword slide in and cut the man with the two handed sword while the man with the two handed sword user has no choice but to try and parry or block with his heavy and over long weapon. If the duel wielder is able to force the two handed sword user with subtle use to use the two handed sword crudely, he will win.

Then comes the real problem. If the Shield user or the two handed sword user also has armor, then the duel wielders best option is to leave.

In a passage or in the open, when I duel wielder faces someone reasonably skilled with a pole arm of usable length, no matter how gifted the duel wielder is, he is looking at low odds of winning. If there are curves in the passage or a few trees, things may have gotten easier for the duel wielder. 

Everything is scissors, rock and paper. Don't discount using two swords, while they didn't always use them that way, a lot of samurai found carrying a pair of blades useful.

Let's take the sling as a clear example. If you have room to use it and the skill, it beats just about everything. The ammo is cheap, the mass and velocity is perfection and the rate of fire is pretty darned good. With a sling it is easy to fire a fifty caliber bullet just under the speed of sound. Armor can be pierced and it is hard to dodge a sling bullet. Arrows can be dodged and even caught. A sling bullet is a different thing. The problem with the sling is that it takes years of training. A bow can be taught well in a month or so. A gun in a week.
 A man with a loaded crossbow or someone close by with a club is going to beat the sling user at a quick draw. I would put a sling user against a huge man in armor and expect the sling user to win every time, just like the Bible said.

There is a reason that there are so many weapons. If one was the best in every users hands, then we would only have one.

So until you have watched arnis done by a master, don't sell duel wielding short. Keep in mind that escrima stick fighting is practice for duel wielding. Change those sticks out for swords and watch out.
I would rather look stupid today than be stupid tomorrow.

Offline The Gem Cutter

  • Captain Analogy
  • Writing Group
  • Master Namer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2293
  • Total likes: 1738
  • Gender: Male
  • We've exhausted all possibilities - time to begin.
    • View Profile
    • The Gem Cutter Tales
Re: Swords!
« Reply #17 on: November 15, 2017, 03:05:53 AM »
Here's a question. I know duel wielding swords is ineffective, but a sword dagger combo was a real thing. I'm thinking of my main character having a bow with that as a backup, but I can't find much about it since most of the results when you google it is from video games like Skyrim...
Arguably the most famous samurai Musashi Myamoto promoted dual-wielding, which is completely viable within a fairly broad family of situations. Dual-wielding requires a number of skills that not everyone have, so I would not say it's for everyone. You can learn to kill with a sword three ways fairly effectively in a week. You cannot learn to use two swords simultaneously in less than a month, imo. And dual-wielding is neither decisively powerful nor vulnerable in the context of its origins - which is in a region where there were no long fencing-style weapons and the jungle terrain was not suited for anything much longer than a katana, most of the time.
Here's some videos that illustrate some popular, legitimate styles:
Musashi's techniques: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3fBjNeXsJI
Philippino martial arts style :  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQqqtrzKePk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5od7YtZk20
The Gem Cutter
"Each time, there is the same problem: do I dare? And then if you do dare, the dangers are there, and the help also, and the fulfillment or the fiasco. There's always the possibility of a fiasco. But there's also the possibility of bliss." - Joseph Campbell

Offline shadowkat678

Re: Swords!
« Reply #18 on: November 15, 2017, 03:09:38 AM »
Here's a question. I know duel wielding swords is ineffective, but a sword dagger combo was a real thing. I'm thinking of my main character having a bow with that as a backup, but I can't find much about it since most of the results when you google it is from video games like Skyrim...
Arguably the most famous samurai Musashi Myamoto promoted dual-wielding, which is completely viable within a fairly broad family of situations. Dual-wielding requires a number of skills that not everyone have, so I would not say it's for everyone. You can learn to kill with a sword three ways fairly effectively in a week. You cannot learn to use two swords simultaneously in less than a month, imo. And dual-wielding is neither decisively powerful nor vulnerable in the context of its origins - which is in a region where there were no long fencing-style weapons and the jungle terrain was not suited for anything much longer than a katana, most of the time.
Here's some videos that illustrate some popular, legitimate styles:
Musashi's techniques: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3fBjNeXsJI
Philippino martial arts style :  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQqqtrzKePk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5od7YtZk20

Thanks for the video! The series will end her in multiple terrains...which brings another question to mind. How would bladed styles work in different areas? She might find herself having to find out how (and struggling to) adapt in the second book.

These are my own observations so take them as you will. These observations are based on quite a bit of active research using padded blades against live opponents.

I don't count padded weapons as a perfect test. Weights and balances make a difference. But I have tried to learn and observe as I have gotten exercise and had fun. Most enactments have some safety rules that can alter reality and convince people of things that are not actually true. A lot of effective combat methods are not allowed in combat simulations. Combat simulations can teach us things that would not be true if the rules were gone.

Duel wielding is, in my opinion, highly effective. Your mileage may vary though. Duel wielding takes good control of stance, high flexibility, speed and the ability to do two different tasks with two hands. Some one with a shield and a sword will beat a duel wielder every single time, unless the duel wielder is a master. A master at duel wielding will take advantage of how slow a shield is and clean clock on the shield user, no matter what the shield user does.

A two handed sword user that thinks a two handed sword is a hacking weapon will just lose to a duel wielder. If a two handed sword user is aware that the two handed sword is the fastest and in the right circumstances most agile weapon a man can hold, then the duel wielder needs to run for it. Unless the duel wielder is a master. The master will block with one sword slide in and cut the man with the two handed sword while the man with the two handed sword user has no choice but to try and parry or block with his heavy and over long weapon. If the duel wielder is able to force the two handed sword user with subtle use to use the two handed sword crudely, he will win.

Then comes the real problem. If the Shield user or the two handed sword user also has armor, then the duel wielders best option is to leave.

In a passage or in the open, when I duel wielder faces someone reasonably skilled with a pole arm of usable length, no matter how gifted the duel wielder is, he is looking at low odds of winning. If there are curves in the passage or a few trees, things may have gotten easier for the duel wielder. 

Everything is scissors, rock and paper. Don't discount using two swords, while they didn't always use them that way, a lot of samurai found carrying a pair of blades useful.

Let's take the sling as a clear example. If you have room to use it and the skill, it beats just about everything. The ammo is cheap, the mass and velocity is perfection and the rate of fire is pretty darned good. With a sling it is easy to fire a fifty caliber bullet just under the speed of sound. Armor can be pierced and it is hard to dodge a sling bullet. Arrows can be dodged and even caught. A sling bullet is a different thing. The problem with the sling is that it takes years of training. A bow can be taught well in a month or so. A gun in a week.
 A man with a loaded crossbow or someone close by with a club is going to beat the sling user at a quick draw. I would put a sling user against a huge man in armor and expect the sling user to win every time, just like the Bible said.

There is a reason that there are so many weapons. If one was the best in every users hands, then we would only have one.

So until you have watched arnis done by a master, don't sell duel wielding short. Keep in mind that escrima stick fighting is practice for duel wielding. Change those sticks out for swords and watch out.


Hm How would you think about a character learning multiple weapons? Not like a lot. But maybe three different forms. A sling would be easy to carry around, and while not mastered, maybe something that's just "proficient". My character has been practicing to kill for fifty years. (Magic world created elves instead of humans. Yipee.)

I would think that would be plenty of time, and I think three different styles wouldn't be too much. And the combination of the bow (need to figure out the type), sling, and dagger-sword combo seems like a good thing for a character that relies on speed, stealth, and fighting one on one, or maybe two or three if having the advantage of good hit and run terrain.
Be not a writer, but a Storyweaver. For that, my friend, is how you'll truly leave your mark.

Offline Dark Squiggle

Re: Swords!
« Reply #19 on: November 15, 2017, 03:09:57 AM »
I never did any sword fighting or martial arts, but I can tell you I made a stick with a basket on the end and a sling when I was about 10. The stick could fling fist sized rocks quite fast and accurately at anything more than 10 ft away after I played with it for a while, definitely could've killed someone at 150 ft - when used by a 10 year old. The sling was far more impressive - the stones flew fast, but I never figured out how to get them to fly in any particular direction. If you could figure out how to use it properly, I can easily see a sling piercing armor. Neither of them was anything like the 'slingshot' people like to think of in the Biblical David-and-Goliath story; they were both legitimate weapons that could kill, just like a gun. I never managed to build a bow or atlatl that I could get to work though. (I did this all on my own, without internet access, so maybe there are Youtube videos that could teach you how to make these things.) In highschool, I had a freind who built a strange thing out of a hard plastic straw and some balloons and rubber bands that could send steel nails, minus the heads, through sheetrock. I also made many spears and daggers out of wood, broken glass, or bits of steel, even a sword out of a piece of steel pipe. (The same friend made a successful bow, but it was never as nasty as a stick with a basket and a stone.) Knowing how effective such makeshift weapons were, I would not take ones made by people who knew what they were doing lightly.

Offline The Gem Cutter

  • Captain Analogy
  • Writing Group
  • Master Namer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2293
  • Total likes: 1738
  • Gender: Male
  • We've exhausted all possibilities - time to begin.
    • View Profile
    • The Gem Cutter Tales
Re: Swords!
« Reply #20 on: November 15, 2017, 03:19:40 AM »
War fighting weapons are invisibly shaped by things other than combat, so be careful how far down the "realism" hole you let yourself go. Half of these issues relate to economics and scale - fielding an army of katana-wielders is impractical given the time those swords need to be manufactured in the way they historically were produced, for example.
Real war weapons tend to be simple and devoid of any style or fanciness. They tend to be ugly and practical. Ugly, intimidating-looking weapons are effective - this is why most bayonet kills are to the back as one man flees.
Real weapons tend to be durable, even to the expense of their lethality, to certain extent. For example, many modern assault rifles use small bullets - allowing soldiers to carry 200+ bullets, instead of only half that many if their bullets were larger (and more lethal, with longer range and better accuracy and penetration).
And lastly, real war weapons are often not ideal - made in large numbers with often questionable quality. Now, a rich man's weapon might be his own, and that would probably be better than average - sometimes a lot better.
Swords break all the time. Real fighters carry spares and although they spend their time 90/10 favoring their "normal use" (i.e., using your best hand), professionals practice using their weapons in the weak, as well. For example, professional soldiers switch their use of the rifle to match the corner they are going around, allowing them to expose less of their bodies before their weapon comes to bear.
Lastly, real weapons tend not to be multi-functional. War spear, fighting knives, etc., are generally not very throwable because designing them to be so is impractical on several levels. And in war there's lots of baddies about, and they throw things back.
The Gem Cutter
"Each time, there is the same problem: do I dare? And then if you do dare, the dangers are there, and the help also, and the fulfillment or the fiasco. There's always the possibility of a fiasco. But there's also the possibility of bliss." - Joseph Campbell

Offline RobertS

  • Soulfinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 99
  • Total likes: 49
  • Gender: Male
  • Personal Text, isn't that a bit personal?
    • View Profile
    • robertdavidstrawn.com
Re: Swords!
« Reply #21 on: November 15, 2017, 03:37:35 AM »
Hm How would you think about a character learning multiple weapons? Not like a lot. But maybe three different forms. A sling would be easy to carry around, and while not mastered, maybe something that's just "proficient". My character has been practicing to kill for fifty years. (Magic world created elves instead of humans. Yipee.)

I would think that would be plenty of time, and I think three different styles wouldn't be too much. And the combination of the bow (need to figure out the type), sling, and dagger-sword combo seems like a good thing for a character that relies on speed, stealth, and fighting one on one, or maybe two or three if having the advantage of good hit and run terrain.

Look up the Spartans and how they trained kids to use slings. Before you got to eat you had to knock a small loaf of bread out of a tree. Every day you stepped a foot further back. It isn't long before you have a kid that you don't want to get too angry. The  Spartans practiced with slings and still learned other weapons.

Give a character a crazy parent or mentor that is in love with sparta and you could easily have a fairly young kid even that has learned several other weapons. Your character doesn't need fifty years to learn weapons but fifty years of weapon use will definitely teach a lot of dirty, rotten, sneaky tricks that can help keep him alive.
I would rather look stupid today than be stupid tomorrow.

Offline RobertS

  • Soulfinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 99
  • Total likes: 49
  • Gender: Male
  • Personal Text, isn't that a bit personal?
    • View Profile
    • robertdavidstrawn.com
Re: Swords!
« Reply #22 on: November 15, 2017, 03:48:36 AM »
War fighting weapons are invisibly shaped by things other than combat, so be careful how far down the "realism" hole you let yourself go. Half of these issues relate to economics and scale - fielding an army of katana-wielders is impractical given the time those swords need to be manufactured in the way they historically were produced, for example.
Real war weapons tend to be simple and devoid of any style or fanciness. They tend to be ugly and practical. Ugly, intimidating-looking weapons are effective - this is why most bayonet kills are to the back as one man flees.
Real weapons tend to be durable, even to the expense of their lethality, to certain extent. For example, many modern assault rifles use small bullets - allowing soldiers to carry 200+ bullets, instead of only half that many if their bullets were larger (and more lethal, with longer range and better accuracy and penetration).
And lastly, real war weapons are often not ideal - made in large numbers with often questionable quality. Now, a rich man's weapon might be his own, and that would probably be better than average - sometimes a lot better.
Swords break all the time. Real fighters carry spares and although they spend their time 90/10 favoring their "normal use" (i.e., using your best hand), professionals practice using their weapons in the weak, as well. For example, professional soldiers switch their use of the rifle to match the corner they are going around, allowing them to expose less of their bodies before their weapon comes to bear.
Lastly, real weapons tend not to be multi-functional. War spear, fighting knives, etc., are generally not very throwable because designing them to be so is impractical on several levels. And in war there's lots of baddies about, and they throw things back.

This is very true. As an example, the first guns were a horrible battle weapon at the start. They were just cheaper to make, use and train with. guns allowed poorly trained troops to have good enough results against more expensive and thus less expendable troops. Being able to sacrifice the poor untrained members of society while obtaining military advantage was win win to a lot of countries. It seems like some things never change.
I would rather look stupid today than be stupid tomorrow.

Offline Yora

Re: Swords!
« Reply #23 on: November 15, 2017, 06:25:14 AM »
War fighting weapons are invisibly shaped by things other than combat, so be careful how far down the "realism" hole you let yourself go. Half of these issues relate to economics and scale - fielding an army of katana-wielders is impractical given the time those swords need to be manufactured in the way they historically were produced, for example.
100 men with iron weapons will beat 20 men with bronze weapons. Even if their weapons are slightly inferior.
Spriggan's Den

There is nothing to read!

Offline RobertS

  • Soulfinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 99
  • Total likes: 49
  • Gender: Male
  • Personal Text, isn't that a bit personal?
    • View Profile
    • robertdavidstrawn.com
Re: Swords!
« Reply #24 on: November 15, 2017, 06:47:34 AM »
War fighting weapons are invisibly shaped by things other than combat, so be careful how far down the "realism" hole you let yourself go. Half of these issues relate to economics and scale - fielding an army of katana-wielders is impractical given the time those swords need to be manufactured in the way they historically were produced, for example.
100 men with iron weapons will beat 20 men with bronze weapons. Even if their weapons are slightly inferior.
Humorously, people go on and on about how steel weapons are superior to bronze because of their strength. Sadly they are correct but for the wrong reason. Bronze can be quite strong, it is often used in guards on swords. Not the place you want weakness. The reason that bronze is clearly inferior is that bronze weapons are really, really heavy.
I would rather look stupid today than be stupid tomorrow.

Offline Rostum

Re: Swords!
« Reply #25 on: November 15, 2017, 10:22:45 PM »
Apologies I can’t keep up with the conversation as I have intermittent wireless only at the moment and two days wait for an engineer to tell me it’s not my gear at fault. Before they actually try and work out the problem.

Bronze weighs 541lbs/ft3 Steel 490lbs/ft3 (sorry not feeling clever enough for metric atm) not enough to make a difference. Whether a sword weighs 3lbs or 31/4lbs is not really relevant.

Late Bronze age Swords were longer and held a better edge than early iron age swords. So long as you don’t mind them bending up and breaking they’re fine. Early Iron age blades are superior but the technology and cost would have been beyond the reach of many who stuck to using bronze.

Quote
100 men with iron weapons will beat 20 men with bronze weapons. Even if their weapons are slightly inferior.

100 will beat 20 regardless as a rule and there is no superior/inferior just different. A wooden club can kill you as dead as a nuclear bomb can.

ShadowKat678 can you tell us a little more about your world and characters? Is the setting influenced by any historical period? Do they have to carry their own gear? Is the terrain hospitable?
Are they in an army or at war? I probably have some video of charging round on horses in c16th gear. I am not sure how useful or relevant it will be?

Quote
Hm How would you think about a character learning multiple weapons? Not like a lot. But maybe three different forms. A sling would be easy to carry around, and while not mastered, maybe something that's just "proficient". My character has been practicing to kill for fifty years. (Magic world created elves instead of humans. Yipee.)
I would think that would be plenty of time, and I think three different styles wouldn't be too much. And the combination of the bow (need to figure out the type), sling, and dagger-sword combo seems like a good thing for a character that relies on speed, stealth, and fighting one on one, or maybe two or three if having the advantage of good hit and run terrain.

Learning is the easy bit you never actually stop doing that. Getting Good takes a while longer.
You can learn any number of weapons. Life is not an RPG to do so you need someone to show you what you are doing wrong and to practise and keep practising. I used to teach newcomers how to be safe with blunt spears and knives. So perhaps not a great analogy, but safe also mean under control. I put the tip of a spear where I intend it to go as hard as I intend despite the actions of those I am fighting.

I could teach someone to use a spear safely in an hour or so if they were motivated and interested.
They would also be learning to use a shield and be taught knife fighting and knife and shield at the same time. Off the top of my head how to get the point where they were trying to, how to keep control of it when parried, how and when to take or give ground, how to control your opponents weapons and weapon or shield, how to parry and not be left holding a stick.
A few weeks of practice got them up to full speed and along with some drill got them useful in a shield wall as well as fighting one on one.

As an aside I taught small men and women differently from big guys as you need to know different approaches when you are 30cm+ shorter and only 2/3 of their weight going toe to toe with somebody bigger, stronger and with more reach is best avoided in 1-1 fighting. In a melee not getting bounced off their shield and trampled into the ground by same is also an issue.



Offline RobertS

  • Soulfinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 99
  • Total likes: 49
  • Gender: Male
  • Personal Text, isn't that a bit personal?
    • View Profile
    • robertdavidstrawn.com
Re: Swords!
« Reply #26 on: November 15, 2017, 11:09:11 PM »

Bronze weighs 541lbs/ft3 Steel 490lbs/ft3 (sorry not feeling clever enough for metric atm) not enough to make a difference. Whether a sword weighs 3lbs or 31/4lbs is not really relevant.


A 24 oz vs 26 oz may not seem dramatic but in bicycle parts a 2 oz difference can equal a lot of money. As far as speed goes, 2 oz added to a 1.5lb sword with the same center of gravity and length is like night and day in my hands.
I would rather look stupid today than be stupid tomorrow.

Offline shadowkat678

Re: Swords!
« Reply #27 on: November 15, 2017, 11:19:25 PM »
ShadowKat678 can you tell us a little more about your world and characters? Is the setting influenced by any historical period? Do they have to carry their own gear? Is the terrain hospitable?
Are they in an army or at war? I probably have some video of charging round on horses in c16th gear. I am not sure how useful or relevant it will be?

@Rostum

I put a link to my two page story (very rough) plot summary in a critique thread for help with thinking up hooks and other smaller summaries. I can put it up here, and if that's an issue I can edit it out. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QaSKhJgR8xyHa3ARlcWqG--SqBesgvjPGrMY9hj0b3g/edit?usp=sharing

I'm honestly deciding where the first terrain will be. The world is Nimrith, and basically a mirror to ours, but with magic. So it has cultures and terrain that's kinda like ours, but influenced by the environmental nature of Nimrith. I'm going to be doing some research to try and take some influences, but so far I haven't gotten any hard specifics yet.

Time works differently, and most creatures live a lot longer, so that might affect the level of those she fights who actually have training. But, and you'll see why in the story description as I'm trying not to make this too long, she's been very specifically trained to kill as a single fighter instead of working in a team or army, so she'd probably have a style that would take advantage of that.

I think the first book it'll either be forest, jungle, or some other area with a lot of cover and plant life. She's probably had some city fighting. The second book she'll be in the desert a bit, so that'll be a very different environment to adapt to. Third I'm not sure, but the ending scene I've already planned and it'll be on a type of highland plain by the sea unless it's changed.

She does carry her own gear, but while magic is harder to get, she has some handy but simple, practical items to help out due to what's she's been finding herself doing.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2017, 11:55:27 PM by shadowkat678 »
Be not a writer, but a Storyweaver. For that, my friend, is how you'll truly leave your mark.

Offline Rostum

Re: Swords!
« Reply #28 on: November 16, 2017, 12:05:50 AM »
If you are traveling and not at war Armour tends to be kept at a minimum. Likewise you don't lug the armoury round with you what you if you can help it a good knife is always an essential though a hatchet will chop you firewood and help you fight off casual attackers a bow may get you meat on the hoof and make you a risk at range to those intending you harm. A sword has no other purpose than to signify you have wealth, status and martial prowess.


Offline shadowkat678

Re: Swords!
« Reply #29 on: November 16, 2017, 12:38:48 AM »
If you are traveling and not at war Armour tends to be kept at a minimum. Likewise you don't lug the armoury round with you what you if you can help it a good knife is always an essential though a hatchet will chop you firewood and help you fight off casual attackers a bow may get you meat on the hoof and make you a risk at range to those intending you harm. A sword has no other purpose than to signify you have wealth, status and martial prowess.

What if you know someone's after you? I feel like it still might be easier to carry than a long spear. Would a rapier be easier to carry than a short sword? Cause I'm going to be honest at this point. I really like dual wielding. And I could just say screw it and do it anyway, but this discussion is giving me ideas. XD
Be not a writer, but a Storyweaver. For that, my friend, is how you'll truly leave your mark.