If you were a warrior on a fantasy land, what weapon would you use?

[rrgg]

If available probably a good sword, dagger, and hargubut. Maybe a dag as well.

If those aren't around yet and I'm supposed to be an "adventurer" then I'd probably stick to trying to get really good with a sword then supplanting that with whatever other arms are available at the time. I don't want to have to haul a massive polearm everywhere, and that masterwork, Damascus-steel warhammer isn't going to make people much deader than some rusty one I've borrowed anyways.

[Luz]

I've always found that without a dedicated formation, a one-handed spear is too unwieldy to be much good against sword-wielding enemies. They can simply parry your first stab, possibly grab the spear shaft, and then move in closer than your effective range, all before you can reposition the spear for a second attempt. A two-handed spear can be more easily re-positioned for a second thrust because of the leverage gained by using two hands. Do other people have differing experiences?

In theory, but actually being able to parry a very fast lancer is not that easy.

Spoiler

Show

Random video I found online.

I would use a mace for armored oponets and a Rapier for non-armroed ones.

[CharonsHelper]

No one's going to jump on this?

Everyone loses one geek cred.

Phasers were from Star Trek.
Blasters were from Star Wars.

[rrgg]

No one's going to jump on this?

Everyone loses one geek cred.

Phasers were from Star Trek.
Blasters were from Star Wars.

Not sure which you actually meant. Blasters were mostly used as weapons and have unlimited ammo in most video games.

The Dominion War in ST:DS9 gives us more background on the phasers namely they have power packs and need them replaced and recharge. This does not come up much outside of war as the power pack's life span is longer than the average away mission. Also phasers are not constantly being fired on typical away missions. There's one episode were the Major Kira is explaining to a new solider the pros and cons of the federation phaser vs the Cardassian disruptor. The federation's has in excess of 15 settings and various power level allowing it to vaporize walls to substituting for a surgical knife. Kira dismisses the Federation's weapon as too complicated for war and recommends the two setting disruptor.

Just imagine fighting in the middle ages with Obi-Wan's sonic screwdriver though.

[CharonsHelper]

In theory, but actually being able to parry a very fast lancer is not that easy.

Spoiler

Show

Random video I found online.

I would use a mace for armored oponets and a Rapier for non-armroed ones.

That's not a one-handed spear - which was his entire point. (Plus - rapier/buckler is about the worst sword & board combination to deal with a polearm wielder.)

[Luz]

If available probably a good sword, dagger, and hargubut. Maybe a dag as well.

If those aren't around yet and I'm supposed to be an "adventurer" then I'd probably stick to trying to get really good with a sword then supplanting that with whatever other arms are available at the time. I don't want to have to haul a massive polearm everywhere, and that masterwork, Damascus-steel warhammer isn't going to make people much deader than some rusty one I've borrowed anyways.

What's a hargubut?

That's not a one-handed spear - which was his entire point. (Plus - rapier/buckler is about the worst sword & board combination to deal with a polearm wielder.)

Sorry, for some reason i read two instead of one.

[Gastronomie]

I'm surprised at the number of people who are willing to get in melee range of enemy monsters.

Seriously, that's damn dangerous to do. Don't want to risk that. Ranged weapons all the way.

[Lord Raziere]

Seriously, that's damn dangerous to do. Don't want to risk that. Ranged weapons all the way.

Well if we're being THAT sensible and flexible about "weapon" and "fantasy" my real weapon of choice is an orbital laser station that can accurately kill any single thing from continents away with a single thin laser shot while I chill in a cozy chair inside that station. Take no chances.

[Knaight]

Statistically speaking, probably a spear - they tended to be what was handed out in most armies (and other military organizations), and said organizations do the bulk of fighting with weapons. If we're talking about weapons we actually like and are good at, it works out pretty similar - I do various armed sparring type stuff, and favor two handed hewing spears.

With that said, if we remove the restriction for just one weapon that changes a bit - I'm adding at least two slings. I already know how to use them, although I'd need to put some serious time into practicing them to get my accuracy up. I already know how to make them, and have made somewhere in the vicinity of a hundred in my life; this includes one I made literally an hour and a half ago*. I'd need to pick up some new skills to get there, because I generally use commercially available twine, but given how bad of an archer I am and how making acceptable string doesn't seem that hard the sling is likely still my best option.

*Based on when I finished it, starting time gets pushed back another two hours or so.

[rrgg]

What's a hargubut?

Either that or a hackbut, hargubus, harkubus, harquebus, arquebus, etc. Any of those would be good whether you're fighting men or monsters. Plus hunting is way easier with birdshot than with a bow or crossbow.

Also on the subject of obscure Tudor terminology: a "dag" refers to a small, wheellock pocket pistol of the kind that was used to shoot young Edward VI's dog in 1549.

[Noje]

I think Rod of Lordly Might is the clear winner here. It's like, four weapons in one!

[Lvl 2 Expert]

In a world like D&D? Something with a lot of range. Definitely. Anything, maybe two things. Bows take too long to train in, so maybe a combination of an (early) firearm (if available) or a crossbow and a sling. A sling is light, fast firing, just kind of rubbish for hunting because you have to announce yourself by wildly swinging a stone around just before your shot. (Even if that only takes a fraction of a second, it's a fraction of a second in which the target can start running.) The firearm is heavy and slow to reload, but packs way more of a punch to anything armored. After that a nice long spear, possibly with some sort of hook or side blade to it, and at least one form of close quarters backup, some type of short sword maybe. Possibly with some sort of basic throwing weapon, a club or a dart, for that extra bit of emergency ranged attack. or, given that this is a fantasy setting, a wand of any spell that will give me time to run away. Maybe some tanglefoot bags, stuff like that. Most things I can't kill with a blunderbuss (loaded with a nice ball and shot mix maybe, to utterly shred anything in front of it) I won't be able to stop with a fireball either anyway, so something designed for stopping power for me.

I don't care if I break my back under all that stuff, this world is dangerous! Why am I even a warrior? Can't I just collect alchemic ingredients for a living or something? I bet I could do that reasonably safely while carrying only two or three weapons. Sling, spear and a knife I'd need anyway seems pretty reasonable. As a baker I might even be able to get away with carrying only one weapon, a smoke bomb for when PC's enter my shop.

[Knaight]

A sling is light, fast firing, just kind of rubbish for hunting because you have to announce yourself by wildly swinging a stone around just before your shot. (Even if that only takes a fraction of a second, it's a fraction of a second in which the target can start running.)

They're actually not bad for hunting - that wildly swinging a stone around takes an amount of time pretty comparable to just throwing it*. They're also pretty quiet for the most part, right up until the loud crack that accompanies a release - a problem that bows and crossbows don't exactly avoid. The big thing is that getting good enough to aim at a small target as in hunting is tricky**, and slings don't do super well with underbrush and the like.

*In most styles, if you're trying to hunt with figure 8 that delay is on you.
**"Simple weapon" my foot.

[Shinn]

I would use loads and loads of alchemical grenades, plus a mace for close-quarters and a crossbow for really ranged foes.

[Dappershire]

In theory, but actually being able to parry a very fast lancer is not that easy.

Spoiler

Show

Random video I found online.

I would use a mace for armored oponets and a Rapier for non-armroed ones.

What did I just watch? That sword was flimsier than most cardboard blades ive seen. And if he had just dropped the damn buckler (really? against a spear?) he'd have had control over the spear in over half of those attacks. I really don't wanna armchair general this, but pretty sure I could have won two out of three matches against that spear with just a long knife.

As for what weapon would I specialize in? Siegecraft. Never enough Catapulteers in the realm, am I right? Its got its weak spots, so secondary and triciary would copy everyone else here. Cross bow, loaded and waiting (mostly for flying attacks). And a spear to brace against charges.

[Cluedrew]

**"Simple weapon" my foot.

Does that not refer to the simple construction and hence easy access? Although honestly, out of bows, crossbows, javelins and guns, slings seem to be the hardest to aim, it is the only one where aim requires good timing as well. They are also way more deadly than popular culture would give them credit for.

[Gastronomie]

Well if we're being THAT sensible and flexible about "weapon" and "fantasy" my real weapon of choice is an orbital laser station that can accurately kill any single thing from continents away with a single thin laser shot while I chill in a cozy chair inside that station. Take no chances.

Well, if that were permitted I'd go that way, but if restricted to medieval technology I'd go for ranged weapons and boobie traps. Like, why fight ogres head-first when you can guide them into trap holes (use that "legendary stupidity" to your advantage, folks) and assault them safely from above?

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Does that not refer to the simple construction and hence easy access? Although honestly, out of bows, crossbows, javelins and guns, slings seem to be the hardest to aim, it is the only one where aim requires good timing as well. They are also way more deadly than popular culture would give them credit for.

The existence of weapon proficiencies suggests it's mainly about use. A fighter trained using a longsword and a halberd in the kings court can now pick up most weapons and use them, a wizard who has mostly een studying at the feet of his master can only use simple weapons well. Despite the double axe of Gortak the Destroyer hanging on the wall of his masters castatorium. For most weapons it sort of works. A quarterstaff may not be super simple, but if you wield it like a basic polearm it is lighter and has less extra features than other polearms, and is thus a bit simpler to use.

[Corsair14]

I am curious to everyone who keeps saying spears and pikes are easy to use, how many of you have actually used a pole arm in combat in modern combat sports involving actual armor and having to hit with force. One on one, pretty much anyone with a spear is toast vs an opponent with a shield. In a group you have an advantage as a shield cant cover every angle. That's how people get gigged in a melee, its never the spearman in front of you, its the one on either side of him. Second, spears actually do take quite bit of skill and quickness to use correctly. One of the exercises one of our super-dukes recommends is hanging three tennis balls on thin rope or 550 cord from a tree branch at varying heights(head, chest, stomach level) and standing back about 6-9 feet and hitting each one in order while moving, counting 100 strikes. If you miss one, start over. Couldn't tell you how many times I have had muscle failure doing this over a period of hours and after several years of admittingly sporadic practice, have never finished the exercise.

You will also notice in Armored combat league and battle of the nations, no one uses a spear. Its because they do jack to an armored opponent, unlike heavier polearms.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Personally I just figured it would be nice to have a few extra feet of weapon between me and whatever monster is trying to eat me this time. It's nice that characters in the games have hit points, but I figure a single hit from an owlbear flesh golem might take me out altogether, so I'd prefer having some extra tools for not getting hit over tools for damaging my opponent.

Plus polearms are generally pretty decent as anti-cavalry weapons, a lot of large monsters will be more like cavalry than like infantry when you're fighting them.

(And going with both a firearm and a lucerne hammer or something seemed like it might break my back just a little too much.)

[Twizzly513]

When my father was in the coast guard he did tournament fighting and legitimately had a suit of armor in our living room when I was little. Because of this he taught me how to wield a lot of weapons with at least some degree of skill.

My preferred weapon is a quarterstaff. Simple, fast, versatile, can be used in nonlethal situations, even a little showy if you want. Problem is it's harder to use in lethal situations since blunt force trauma is hard to do on something like a dragon.

However, as mentioned upthread, carrying one weapon is a bad idea. So I'd probably carry two short-swords to wield together in addition to a staff. Maybe some throwing knives/daggers.

[CharonsHelper]

I am curious to everyone who keeps saying spears and pikes are easy to use, how many of you have actually used a pole arm in combat in modern combat sports involving actual armor and having to hit with force. One on one, pretty much anyone with a spear is toast vs an opponent with a shield.

I wasn't thinking a boar spear for use against other people, I was thinking for use against slavering beasties.

Animals coming after you almost always do so in a straight line and don't generally do a lot of parrying.

[Theoboldi]

If I was a warrior? Well, I'd love to say that I have the finesse and strength necesarry for wielding a serious polearm, or good enough aim for a ranged weapon. But I really don't have either, being a gangly, nearsighted basement-dweller.

As such, I'd personally have to opt for a big stick. So, uh, quarterstaff for me, I guess? And then I'd try and learn magic or become a cleric as quickly as I can.

[Cluedrew]

The existence of weapon proficiencies suggests it's mainly about use.

I explained that badly. I meant that because it is simple to make and acquire anyone who wants to could get one and practice. ("Simple weapons" are the ones everyone can use right?) So for simplicities sake you could just say any character than wants one could of had practice with it. Mind you I might be thinking into this too much.

[Gnoman]

More likely, the D&D designers conflated the sling and the slingshot, using the appearance of the former and the attributes of the latter. A slingshot (the Y-shaped thing with a rubber band that Dennis The Menace and Bart Simpson carry around) is very simple to use and very low powered (until you get into some of the really fancy wrist-mounted kind with very heavy rubber), so the "sling=weak but easy" idea fits well enough for it.

[Potato_Priest]

I am curious to everyone who keeps saying spears and pikes are easy to use, how many of you have actually used a pole arm in combat in modern combat sports involving actual armor and having to hit with force. One on one, pretty much anyone with a spear is toast vs an opponent with a shield. In a group you have an advantage as a shield cant cover every angle. That's how people get gigged in a melee, its never the spearman in front of you, its the one on either side of him. Second, spears actually do take quite bit of skill and quickness to use correctly. One of the exercises one of our super-dukes recommends is hanging three tennis balls on thin rope or 550 cord from a tree branch at varying heights(head, chest, stomach level) and standing back about 6-9 feet and hitting each one in order while moving, counting 100 strikes.

Didn't people still use pikes in the days of heavy armor? Those are just extra-long regular spears.

There's a difference between being able to stab a mosquito out of the air and using a weapon mostly properly. The former is really hard with any weapon, the latter is easier with a spear (but not a one-handed spear). Can you think of any other weapon that's easier to use with little to no training?

In the LARP game I've played it's not how hard you hit that matters, true. However, I've been known to accidentally send people out of the game by stabbing them too hard with a foam spear, which I've never had a problem with using other weapons. That probably speaks more to my poor force control than to my godlike spear proficiency, but it does at least demonstrate that you can stab pretty hard with a big 2-handed spear. And yes, spears do really suck if the enemy has a shield and you don't have a formation.

[Corsair14]

Pikes as in the 15 foot version were a later period weapon when the age of gun powder was taking over and people were wearing less heavy armor, meaning more spots to target. Even the last of the armored cavalry(horsemen) were only wearing a bullet proofed breastplate(which not a spear on the planet would penetrate) and some light curved plates over other likely hit exposed points. I say light in that it was maybe 16-20 gauge steel and a spear wouldn't penetrate that either for the most part but an axe or two handed sword wouldn't have any trouble even if it was just damaging or breaking what was under it. Most of that armor's purpose was to turn direct blows into glancing shots, something that took another 200 years to remember after the age of armored cavalry ended(mid 1700s)**. People were armoring down, since 50 cal musket balls really didn't care about armor, and making themselves lighter and more maneuverable was more advantageous than being a walking tank that couldn't tank anymore. The Polish Hussars rode with their "light" armor and 18 foot lances(intentionally longer than the Swede's Pikes) until guns were just too much for them. Even in their final days thanks to their armor they still lost far more horses than they did riders. Spears and pikes made that resurgence for a short while and at the same time two handed polearms and swords went away, until someone went "hey, why don't we just strap a big knife on the end of this here five foot long musket and use it like a spear." Now every infantryman could assault other unarmored infantry and shoot them without specialized formations of each(and why they are still used to this day however infrequently).

An effective spearman in an age where there is armor would have to be able to hit a moving fly, its the only way they would be able to hit weak points in the armor. But yes it did make a convenient if ineffective weapon for a peasant in an early age. But peasants were hardly considered effective infantry. Note most professional soldiers carried real weapons post 1000AD and also note peasants as conscripts ended as well when it was found professional soldiers were far more economically efficient. In ancient Greek times, when the spear was at its zenith, they had a solid breastplate at most, but often just layered linen armor instead and they mostly relied upon their shield and a helm for protection along with that of their buddies next to them. Catch even a skilled hoplite out of formation and they would likely drop their spear and draw their short sword. Of course spear and polearm people cheated too and often went for the feet and lower legs. Naginata wielders were notorious for this and its actually an important part of the art form.

**Funny little known story, even during the American Revolution, General Washington was still enamored of light armored cavalrymen in the style of Polish Hussars who had ceased in their role the decade or two before. Von Stueben had to work very hard to convince him of the error of this expensive endeavor and that its time had passed.

[Lord Raziere]

Well, if that were permitted I'd go that way, but if restricted to medieval technology I'd go for ranged weapons and boobie traps. Like, why fight ogres head-first when you can guide them into trap holes (use that "legendary stupidity" to your advantage, folks) and assault them safely from above?

Well here is the thing with bows:
-there is a saying "you want to train a good archer, start with his grandfather" archers take a LONG time to train, bow and are arrows are not something thats easy to learn, and people who are good at it often end up with deformed arms due to the strength and skill needed.
-crossbows while easier to learn, has the problem of the medieval ages banning it because it makes ranged combat easier and thus a "cowards weapon" because they were in love with knights. and has the whole mechanism thing going on, so hope you can repair it if it breaks. yeah, hope you can find people to help repair an illegal weapon. that and crossbows require their own special bolts, they're not interchangeable with normal arrows, and what if you run out?

because the big problem with ranged weapons is your ammo is limited to how much you can carry while still being mobile. a shield and spear is at least reliable in that you don't need constantly keep the supply up.

[Gnoman]

Well here is the thing with bows:
-there is a saying "you want to train a good archer, start with his grandfather" archers take a LONG time to train, bow and are arrows are not something thats easy to learn, and people who are good at it often end up with deformed arms due to the strength and skill needed.
-crossbows while easier to learn, has the problem of the medieval ages banning it because it makes ranged combat easier and thus a "cowards weapon" because they were in love with knights. and has the whole mechanism thing going on, so hope you can repair it if it breaks. yeah, hope you can find people to help repair an illegal weapon. that and crossbows require their own special bolts, they're not interchangeable with normal arrows, and what if you run out?

because the big problem with ranged weapons is your ammo is limited to how much you can carry while still being mobile. a shield and spear is at least reliable in that you don't need constantly keep the supply up.

Both of those are largely nonsense.

The first part only really applies to the Welsh/English longbow, which was an immensely inefficient weapon that required a massive amount of strength for the power it put out. The long years of training were not really for aiming, just for building up the musculature to use the thing at all.

The second applies only to a very short period in actual history, and an edict that was completely ignored. 99.99% of fantasy settings don't have a Central Authority that could issue such a decree, and thus no "crossbow ban" would ever be enacted.

As for ammunition, both arrows and bolts are very easy to make. Making your own arrows is the ages of archery was just about as common as people in the black powder era casting their own bullets, and far more common that the (still fairly common) folks that reload their own cartridges today. Even if you can't supply your ammo yourself, any village fletcher could turn them out for you with great ease. Running out in the middle of a battle can be an issue - that's one reason why only an idiot carries only one weapon.

[Corsair14]

A crossbow in its most basic form is stupidly easy to make and aside from some metal work, is easier to make a more powerful version than it is a bow. You have the prod, the wooden stock with a notch cut into it and a lever on a swivel that you push down to push the string out of the notch. These high speed mechanical ones with triggers and such are much later developments. They don't have near the range or speed of fire of a long bow which is why they never actually over took the bow in usage before gunpowder took the stage.