Stolen from the other DQ list but I thought it was interesting....



After reading the Edi's fine compilation of weapons, and in the
process of preparing to run a DQ game for the first time in years,
I've been reading the weapon charts most carefully.  One thing I
have noticed is the exaggerated weight of many of the weapons listed.

To give an idea of what swords would typically weigh, let me give you
the following quote.  As leading sword expert Ewart Oakeshott
unequivocally stated: "Medieval Swords are neither unwieldably heavy
nor all alike - the average weight of any one of normal size is
between 2.5 lb. and 3.5 lbs. Even the big hand-and-a-half 'war' swords
rarely weigh more than 4.5 lbs. Such weights, to men who were trained
to use the sword from the age of seven (and who had to be tough
specimens to survive that age) , were by no means too great to be
practical."(Oakeshott, Sword in Hand, p. 13). Oakeshott, the 20th
century's leading author and researcher of European swords would
certainly know. He had handled thousands of swords in his lifetime and
at one time or another personally owned dozens of the finest examples
ranging from the Bronze Age to the 19th century.*

Looking at just the swords from 2nd Edition DQ, we find that of the 11
swords listed, only 3 weigh less than 3 pounds (estoc, rapier, and
short sword).  The hand-and-a-half weighs a staggering 6 pounds, and
the two-handed sword tops the scale at 9 pounds!

Science tells us that carbon steel, the material used to make swords,
has a density of roughly 0.284 pounds per cubic inch.  Knowing that
the two handed sword weighs (according to DQ) 9 pounds, we can figure
out how thick the blade would be, and we can show how absurd this
weight really is.  If we figure the length of a two-handed sword as 50
inches (pretty average for this type of weapon) and a blade width
averaging 2 inches (again, well inside the historical average), using
a simple volume formula (V=L x W x H), we find that the 9 pound blade
(31.69 cubic inches) would have to be (31.69 = 50 x 2 x H, 31.69 = 100
x H, so H = 0.3169 inches.  The average thickness of a historical
sword of this type would be around 1/8-inch, or 0.125 inches.  So our
9 pound sword is about 2.5 times as thick as it really would be! 
Using our averages from historical weapons, we find the volume of the
sword would be (V = 50 x 2 x 0.125) or V = 12.5 cubic inches.  Since
carbon steel is roughly 0.284 pounds per cubic inch, we see that the
sword should weigh about 3.55 pounds.

Even if we went to a 72-inch length, which is about as long as a
practical two-handed sword can get, we see that it should weigh just
over 5 pounds.  That being the case, I think we can rationally say
that the weights for swords in DQ are just a tad too heavy!  A quick
and dirty solution would be to take the weight of all the swords and
cut them in half.  This might make a few of them a little lighter than
they should be, but better that then an unwieldy monstrosity!

Well, that's enough lecturing for today.  Besides, this took up my
lunch hour and now I need to get back to work.

Stephen Miller
Ancient Gamer and Curmudgeon


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

On 29/07/2005, at 16:34, Martin Dickson wrote:

> Opinions sought from the list: Should Namers be able to cast 
> Counterspells while in contact with Cold Iron?

Short answer - no.

I believe the change in the wording was probably to remove the fact 
that a strict reading of the rules allowed it.

cheers,

clare


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

At 07:46 30/07/05, you wrote:
>After reading the Edi's fine compilation of weapons, and in the
>process of preparing to run a DQ game for the first time in years,
>I've been reading the weapon charts most carefully.  One thing I
>have noticed is the exaggerated weight of many of the weapons listed.

Heck, I noticed that factoid and pointed it out over a decade ago. But 
nobody seems to want to know about anomalies in the weapons table.

(decides not to mention Giant Clubs and Giant Maces)

Jacqui


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Hhmm, given the game was originally  made by a  group of war-gamers I'm 
willing to bet that game balance was as an important consideration as 
historical accuracy when these details were decided.  It's certainly an 
odd deviation, but we'd have to check against the relative weight of 
weapons other than swords and balance everything to change it thoroughly.

A possible explanation is that Alusian weapon manufacture and design is 
not direct analogue of Earth's and that Alusian culture has always 
judged a warrior by the size of his or her weapons.  And that there are 
a lot of folks, unwittingly or no, are...   ..overcompensating.


ben


Jacqui Smith wrote:

> At 07:46 30/07/05, you wrote:
>
>> After reading the Edi's fine compilation of weapons, and in the
>> process of preparing to run a DQ game for the first time in years,
>> I've been reading the weapon charts most carefully.  One thing I
>> have noticed is the exaggerated weight of many of the weapons listed.
>
>
> Heck, I noticed that factoid and pointed it out over a decade ago. But 
> nobody seems to want to know about anomalies in the weapons table.
>
> (decides not to mention Giant Clubs and Giant Maces)
>
> Jacqui
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

I have a Steel two handed sword on my broom cupboard it's a light weight one
made for little old me, I have handled one made for a bigger male, which
weighed much more, although it was the same length.
My brothers transitional rapier H 1/2 is not as heavy as one based on a
broadsword.
The game writers have set a standard weight for an unstandard object.
(Probably from ignorance).

I have always looked at the weights of many things in DQ, as more of an
encumbrance type listing, that two hander of mine might not weigh 9 lbs but
it's a pain of a thing to lug around, and if your not using it in a fight,
your better off with out it.

Take for instance a medium back pack it holds 40lbs, not a volume, 40 lbs.
But 40lbs of coins takes up less room than 40lbs of blankets or 40 lbs of 2
handed swords. But by the rules, once you have 40lbs of coins you can't
squeeze one more in, and 4, 5 ft long swords fit into the pack with room to
spare. Its part of what happens when you keep it simple.

Another thing is that by the time you add amour a weapon or two, potions
etc, most characters are balancing TMR and def loss of due to weight,
against usefulness.
If weights were as this Edi suggested, halved to be more in line with the
real world, characters would be so brisling with weapons they wouldn't be
able to walk though a door. (Possible for the same reason as 4 5ft long
swords fit in a backpack.)

Helen

-----Original Message-----
On Behalf Of Jacqui Smith
Sent: Saturday, 30 July 2005 9:35 a.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Weapon Weights. 

Heck, I noticed that factoid and pointed it out over a decade ago. But 
nobody seems to want to know about anomalies in the weapons table.

(decides not to mention Giant Clubs and Giant Maces)

Jacqui


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

>
> On 29/07/2005, at 16:34, Martin Dickson wrote:
>
>> Opinions sought from the list: Should Namers be able to cast 
>> Counterspells while in contact with Cold Iron?
>
>
>
>
Definitely not

Scott Whitaker


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

I've added two more sets of notes to the library
	Scabs Scribe Notes
	Return to the Fastness - Part 1

Both were GMed by Jono but there are no clues to what session they were run 
so they're stored right down at the bottom of the title index. If anyone 
can help identify the session - and the scribe, that would be most 
appreciated please.

Keith.


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-announce-request@dq.sf.org.nz --