Belkar's weapons?

[Professor Tanhauser]

I was wondering why belkar seems to be able to use only daggers? I mean, is it because he's a halfling or is it some class issue?

Seriously, I'd think he'd be physically able to handle larger bladed weapons.

[jindra34]

I was wondering why belkar seems to be able to use only daggers? I mean, is it because he's a halfling or is it some class issue?

Seriously, I'd think he'd be physically able to handle larger bladed weapons.

Its a belkar issue pure and simple

[Gallanoth]

My first thought would be he has weapon focus (dagger), but Belkar is too shortsighted for that. Daggers are probably just his favorite stabbing implements because we've seen that he can use other weapons such as the guard's katana that he used for his convicted murder.

[Ariko]

As Ive thought for a while, and someone pointed out in a recent thread, its likely that he is wielding the same weapons he had in the first frame of the comic, scaled down to halfling-size: short swords.

[Shott]

I think it's just a personal preference.

[brian c]

As Ive thought for a while, and someone pointed out in a recent thread, its likely that he is wielding the same weapons he had in the first frame of the comic, scaled down to halfling-size: short swords.

Indeed; also Small Short Swords are the biggest light weapons he can use, anything bigger and his TWF takes a hit.

[Lorde]

When the fight a Kobold many chapter ago, the Kobold wield short swords, which were pretty diferent from his daggers.

[Plactus]

They're daggers. He chose them under 3.0 rules, when short swords would be one-handed weapons for him. Also, daggers have a range increment, which means he doesn't have to take a -4 penalty for throwing them.

[NeonRonin]

There's also the factor that using larger weapons would impose penalties on his two-weapon fighting rolls. I've pondered making rangers who fought with two shortswords myself, rather than a shortsword and longsword in tandem. Haven't done it yet, but I've thought about it.

[heroe_de_leyenda]

Belkar's 3rd Edition character used two daggers for two-weapon fighting. He dealt d4's with each. It was like fighting with two shortswords for a medium character. When he was updated, they changed to small daggers for 1d3 damage (the munchkin solution would be to change them to shortswords but that wouldn't be as consistent for his feats and magic weapon and fighting stile -STAB!!!!- OR as funny), that's what makes him angry in OOTS #1.

[Hushdawg]

There's also the factor that using larger weapons would impose penalties on his two-weapon fighting rolls. I've pondered making rangers who fought with two shortswords myself, rather than a shortsword and longsword in tandem. Haven't done it yet, but I've thought about it.

Actual combat with traditional European longswords is difficult when dual-wielding. A longsword and shortsword combo, however, is very handy and easy to manage.

Even easier are two short swords or even dual-wielding scimitars or katanas.

This is all due to the weight-center of the blades for each weapon. Longswords have a center of balance that is further out on the blade so that momentum can propel the fighter through a swing. If you are dual-wielding a longsword it is hard to maintain the momentum of one sword through the swing while fighting the momentum of the other on a backswing.
All the other above mentioned weapons have a center of balance closer to the hilt and therefore function better as dual-wielded weapons.

Light sabers would be even better as there is no weight whatsoever on the blade.

Belkar uses daggers because of the ability to throw without penalty and because it allows the little psychotic ankle-biter to get really up close and personal with his quarry. I think Belkar has put ranks in "wet works combat."
(wet works being a modern slang term used when you are so tight in combat that the opponent's blood covers you)

[Crispy SpThief]

It's just Belkar. He chose daggers most likely due to 3.0 issues, and now he's gotten so used to them, he finds his daggers a natural and doesnt want to change.

[the_tick_rules]

he's doing fine with them, let the man be

[TheAlmightyOne]

I reckon he chose daggers because its easier to stab people in their sleep with them.

[Threeshades]

Actual combat with traditional European longswords is difficult when dual-wielding. A longsword and shortsword combo, however, is very handy and easy to manage.

Even easier are two short swords or even dual-wielding scimitars or katanas.

This is all due to the weight-center of the blades for each weapon. Longswords have a center of balance that is further out on the blade so that momentum can propel the fighter through a swing. If you are dual-wielding a longsword it is hard to maintain the momentum of one sword through the swing while fighting the momentum of the other on a backswing.
All the other above mentioned weapons have a center of balance closer to the hilt and therefore function better as dual-wielded weapons.

Light sabers would be even better as there is no weight whatsoever on the blade.

Belkar uses daggers because of the ability to throw without penalty and because it allows the little psychotic ankle-biter to get really up close and personal with his quarry. I think Belkar has put ranks in "wet works combat."
(wet works being a modern slang term used when you are so tight in combat that the opponent's blood covers you)

Are you sure about the katanes though? If they really were made for dual wielding, then why have they also been used in combination with a short sword (Wakizashi for this matter) instead of two Katanas?

About the light sabers: i have always been wondering how they could make all those swirly moves without any weight on the blade of their weapon. And why they didnt just go into a rapid flurry of attacks since that would be no problem with these things

Back to Belkar:
In comic number one his "Dagger" looked quite huge before it was scaled down to halfling size. It made the impression on me that it was more the size of a short sword even compared to the medium sized party members.

But anyway belkar could still use 2 Halfling short swords without any 2-weapon fighting penalties. And even if they dont look like daggers they are still stabby. (they are piercing weapons after all)

[Baalzebub]

I believe that Belkar will use any weapon, as long as it can inflict painfull stabs, or something that an NE or a CE character may think of. The daggers are his favorites, so let the Belkster be.

[Lorgarn]

Actual combat with traditional European longswords is difficult when dual-wielding. A longsword and shortsword combo, however, is very handy and easy to manage.

The European longsword, as to the school of the 16th century, is what most roleplaying systems call a bastardsword. It is primary used with both hand.

Even easier are two short swords or even dual-wielding scimitars or katanas.

This is all due to the weight-center of the blades for each weapon. Longswords have a center of balance that is further out on the blade so that momentum can propel the fighter through a swing. If you are dual-wielding a longsword it is hard to maintain the momentum of one sword through the swing while fighting the momentum of the other on a backswing.
All the other above mentioned weapons have a center of balance closer to the hilt and therefore function better as dual-wielded weapons.

Almost every historic balde has it's weight-center about its guard. When you wield a sword in a way, it propells you, and not that you propell the sword, you are doing a serious mistake, and (concerning real battle) you will die, because someon cuts off your arms or stabs you in the chest. Also, the katana has never been made to be double wielded, like the european longsword. Please do not tell thing, which are not true. I am doing historic fencing for more then 4 years now, according to real historic techniqes, people used 500 years ago.

Also, all those 'fancy double wielding fighting styles' people keep doing on Live Action Roleplaying or such, only work bacause:

a: you have hitpoints in those systems. i doesn't matter, when your opponent hits you one time, because you hit him 4 or 5 times in return. in real life, the one hit would matter very well...

b: you have hands in real life...and people with one weapon, especially with one longer weapon will hit you there, when you approach, compomising you quite quick.

Regards
Lorgarn

[Roderick_BR]

Yeah, it's a 3.0 -> 3.5 issues. In 3.0, he used a short sword/dagger combination, while a human-sized ranger would use a long sword/short sword combination. with 3.5, he should switch to a halfling-sized long sword/short sword combination, since the final damage would be the same, but he apparently was too lazy to do it correctly.

[Kreistor]

Yeah, it's a 3.0 -> 3.5 issues. In 3.0, he used a short sword/dagger combination, while a human-sized ranger would use a long sword/short sword combination. with 3.5, he should switch to a halfling-sized long sword/short sword combination, since the final damage would be the same, but he apparently was too lazy to do it correctly.

Or the DM was mean and wouldn't let him change feats already devoted to shortswords and daggers. I suspect the latter, since V wasn't allowed to change prohibited school and so can't cast Conjurations.

[Hushdawg]

Are you sure about the katanes though? If they really were made for dual wielding, then why have they also been used in combination with a short sword (Wakizashi for this matter) instead of two Katanas?

Yes, I am sure about the wieldiness of two Katanas. You are right, the smaller swords are more traditional and this is because most warriors train with a dominant hand. However, for those who have limited ambidexterity and have the ability to train in true two-handed combat style, dual-wielding would be best with two Katanas. Realize that oftentimes people use a shorter weapon in the off hand as a defensive blade rather than offensive.

So it all boils down to individual fighting tactics and capabilities. Not everyone who is right-hand dominant can coordinate the left hand into full attacks, but using it for defense is much easier.

About the light sabers: i have always been wondering how they could make all those swirly moves without any weight on the blade of their weapon. And why they didnt just go into a rapid flurry of attacks since that would be no problem with these things

Well, that's kinda what they do with the method of combat. It is much faster-paced than traditional swordplay, especially when you look at the way General Grevious went to town with them.

I think you see the swordplay with Light Sabers at a much more advanced stage in the "Prequel" movies than in the original trilogy (which is about the only thing better about those films).

Back to Belkar:
In comic number one his "Dagger" looked quite huge before it was scaled down to halfling size. It made the impression on me that it was more the size of a short sword even compared to the medium sized party members.

But anyway belkar could still use 2 Halfling short swords without any 2-weapon fighting penalties. And even if they dont look like daggers they are still stabby. (they are piercing weapons after all)

True, but he would still get a penalty to throwing short swords. Given D&D game mechanics the use of daggers is more wieldy to his style of fighting.

That being said, I would think he'd prefer a shortsword/dagger combo with reserve daggers for throwing.

By the way, remember that the whole function of Strip #1 was illustrating the errata with 3.0 that was fixed in 3.5 and the dagger shrinkage was just a really fun gag to play.

In 3.0 small characters could fight with medium sized weapons without penalties and deal more damage than with size appropriate weapons. It was a serious oversight in the reconstruction of the game after WoC bought up TSR.

Now in 3.5 there is a feat called Monkey Grip that allows the same thing; but you have to use up a feat slot to be able to do it.

[Hushdawg]

Almost every historic balde has it's weight-center about its guard. When you wield a sword in a way, it propells you, and not that you propell the sword, you are doing a serious mistake, and (concerning real battle) you will die, because someon cuts off your arms or stabs you in the chest. Also, the katana has never been made to be double wielded, like the european longsword. Please do not tell thing, which are not true. I am doing historic fencing for more then 4 years now, according to real historic techniqes, people used 500 years ago.

Yes, swords should propel you through the swing, however in the case of European longswords the weight is closer to the tip than in a scimitar or a katana.
In the case of a curved blade, the center of balance is at the apex curvature point to assist the wielder in carrything through the slashing attack.

The Katana was not intended for double wielding, I agree; but it is EASIER to double-wield a katana than a European longsword because of the construction.
"Historic fencing" is all fine and good but it doesn't mean you know everything about all weaponry and combat techniques.
If I want to know something about Rapier fighting then I'll certainly ask you.

Also, all those 'fancy double wielding fighting styles' people keep doing on Live Action Roleplaying or such, only work bacause:

a: you have hitpoints in those systems. i doesn't matter, when your opponent hits you one time, because you hit him 4 or 5 times in return. in real life, the one hit would matter very well...

b: you have hands in real life...and people with one weapon, especially with one longer weapon will hit you there, when you approach, compomising you quite quick.

um... you've not played D&D have you?
That's what critical attacks are all about. The numbers in D&D are all based on basic defense and attack skills that the character has attained. So if an opponent has a greater skill set then his attack has a greater chance of striking and causing damage.
Also, there have been many times when a character I've played will be hit for half of his hit points in a single strike.

Yes, the game is unrealistic because it doesn't account for targeted damage and shock from being wounded however IT IS A GAME.

I'm well aware of the consequences of fighting in real life and the wisdom in targeting a weapon-bearing arm first in combat.

You're not the only one to study combat.

[jindra34]

b: you have hands in real life...and people with one weapon, especially with one longer weapon will hit you there, when you approach, compomising you quite quick.

Regards
Lorgarn

Thats why historically most second hand weapons wer designed to be weilded back-handed... so that you could strike effectively without making your arms big targets... infact most effective dual styles i've seen use both blades back-handed.

[Kreistor]

Yes, swords should propel you through the swing, however in the case of European longswords the weight is closer to the tip than in a scimitar or a katana.

I'm pretty sure you don't know what you're talking about. First, let me point out that Europeans never seriously classified swords until the 1800's, so there was no "longsword" in history. (There are some indications that in the late period there was some naming, like the bastard sword, but there does not seem to be a unified classification that differentiated all types of swords.) We differentiate it now, but the users at the time did just carried swords. A late period writer referred to knights having two swords (long sword on the horse and short sword on the hip), but this may not have been a standard classification, just an adjective differentiating the two swords; thus, there is no modern agreement on what exactly a longsword is, which is how we have such a variety of definitions for it.

Longsword on Wikipedia

You'll notice that the thing called a longsword here differs from a katana only in the lack of curve in the blade. It tapers towards the point just as a katana does (others taper more than this one... European swords were widely varied in form), and is pretty much a uniformly thick piece of metal from hilt to tip, just as a katana is. That would place the balance point of the blade plus hilt at almost exactly the same point...

but

the european blade also has that thing back close to the wielder called the pommel, something katanas never had. It is specifically designed to bring the balance point closer to the hilt. Additionally, note the crossguard is also metal and heavy. This too serves to shift the balance point closer to the wielder. Katana guards were wooden and light and thus did not significantly move the balance point.

Consequently, I think you'll find the balance point of European swords to be closer to the hilt than katanas.

As for which sword would be easier to use one handed, there is no doubt it must be the European blade. Europeans did not use two handed blades until the supremecy of plate armour over one handed weapons, so the development of the early weapons that could be used easily two handed (sometimes referred to as hand-and-a-half swords, basically one handed swords that were just long enough for the wielder to grip the pommel with the second hand) was specifically made as modifications to a weapon that allowed two handed use once a shield was destroyed. It was not until the shield fell into disuse (since it had become redundant wrt armour) that solely two handed weapons began to be fielded, and that was such a short period of european history as to not matter. Though we have the equivalent of greatswords in museums, there is no description of them ever being used on the battlefield, so we don't even know how they were to be used, if they were. Longswords (two handed weapons) were used, and we know that they were used as piercing, not slashing weapons, against plate armour. You will find later modifications to these weapons did not sharpen the blade near the hilt so that it could be grabbed. If you sit down with a broom handle and try to use a blade in such a manner, you'll find it cannot be used to slash, but it the grip closely resembles the grip you would use on a spear, which lends itself to thrusting.

[Kreistor]

Thats why historically most second hand weapons wer designed to be weilded back-handed... so that you could strike effectively without making your arms big targets... infact most effective dual styles i've seen use both blades back-handed.

Are you talking about the blade pointing down towards your forearm? That's not a defensive position, though movies might think it is. The weapon is not protecting your hands in that position! You can't catch and hold the enemy's blade like that, either. To block with it, you need to move your entire arm in front of yourself, which leaves openings on the defensive side. You also can't block low very well, since you can't reach as low as you can with the blade forward.

[Lorgarn]

Well this gets quite off-topic, i apologise. Perhaps we dicuss this in another thread. However, I feel I have to write an answer...

Yes, swords should propel you through the swing, however in the case of European longswords the weight is closer to the tip than in a scimitar or a katana.

As I stated, this is not right. European swords do not have their weight pont close to their tip. Even the swords used today for training of showfights (which have a heavier blade, due to the fact, the edge is not sharp and about 2mm thick) have a weightpoint not more then 5cm away from the guard.

In the case of a curved blade, the center of balance is at the apex curvature point to assist the wielder in carrything through the slashing attack.

I do not doubt, that katanas have a very good balance, but I do not see, how the curve of the blade affacts that so much. Please explain.

The Katana was not intended for double wielding, I agree; but it is EASIER to double-wield a katana than a European longsword because of the construction.

I still fail to see why, as to the things I stated above.

[QUOTE=Hushdawg;2372783]
"Historic fencing" is all fine and good but it doesn't mean you know everything about all weaponry and combat techniques.
If I want to know something about Rapier fighting then I'll certainly ask you.
[QUOTE]
Oh, I am absolutely sure, there are far more qualified people in the world than me. But still I stick to things, that I know and do not assume things. I did not say, anything about rapier fighting, did I? You assume things about a weapon, that are not quite true (the weightpoint of european swords) and you assume certain thing, behind the word historic fencing.

um... you've not played D&D have you?
That's what critical attacks are all about. The numbers in D&D are all based on basic defense and attack skills that the character has attained. So if an opponent has a greater skill set then his attack has a greater chance of striking and causing damage.
Also, there have been many times when a character I've played will be hit for half of his hit points in a single strike.

I was not talking about DnD. I was talking about Live Action Roleplaying...as I said in my former post...

Regards
Lorgarn

[jindra34]

Are you talking about the blade pointing down towards your forearm? That's not a defensive position, though movies might think it is. The weapon is not protecting your hands in that position! You can't catch and hold the enemy's blade like that, either. To block with it, you need to move your entire arm in front of yourself, which leaves openings on the defensive side. You also can't block low very well, since you can't reach as low as you can with the blade forward.

Back-handed is not just down your arm, though movies often portay it that way.
It also includes perpedicular to arm on the "outside" which enables you to make very different strokes than on the inside... including ones that can protect your legs... the advatage of back-handed is that usually your arm and hand are following the blade not the other way around thus making most strikes to your arm strikes against your blade... so yes it is better for defense when you have spent the extra year or two overriding your instincts to make possible to use a sword that way... most people also have a hard time thinking about back-handed styles because of their innate counter-intuitiveness.

[Rat_Summoner]

Strange that a thread about Belkar and his daggers/short swords has become a discussion about the history of the 'long sword' or lack thereof.

[Hushdawg]

Exactly... and I'm so sure that there aren't other things that have changed names over the course of the centuries.

Besides, Spanish swords that I own are one-handed, 48" in length and would not qualify as rapiers.

So; they are not bastard swords (hand and a half) so what do I call them so that people in 2007 know what the heck I'm talking about?

I don't care what people called them 500-800 years ago; I'm communicating with people today.

Anyone who is going to accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about over a simple term of semantics is simply not worth my time for discussion.

[jindra34]

Exactly... and I'm so sure that there aren't other things that have changed names over the course of the centuries.

Besides, Spanish swords that I own are one-handed, 48" in length and would not qualify as rapiers.

So; they are not bastard swords (hand and a half) so what do I call them so that people in 2007 know what the heck I'm talking about?

I don't care what people called them 500-800 years ago; I'm communicating with people today.

Anyone who is going to accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about over a simple term of semantics is simply not worth my time for discussion.

Broadswords i believe

[Threeshades]

Exactly... and I'm so sure that there aren't other things that have changed names over the course of the centuries.

Besides, Spanish swords that I own are one-handed, 48" in length and would not qualify as rapiers.

So; they are not bastard swords (hand and a half) so what do I call them so that people in 2007 know what the heck I'm talking about?

I don't care what people called them 500-800 years ago; I'm communicating with people today.

Anyone who is going to accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about over a simple term of semantics is simply not worth my time for discussion.

So what you are saying is that you are referring to weapons as they would be classified by today terms no matter how they might have been called the time they were "used" (by used i mean prectical use in wars for example and not as in sport fencing or self defence in a desperate situation in which you happen to have a sharp sword nearby)

Simply to get this clear. (because the whole discussion is getting slightly confusing)