You know what would be cool?

If people still used medieval weapons for personal protection and fighting wars.

I feel like I would be comfortable carrying a large maul with me on a daily basis.

And fights would be more fair. More personal.
Let everyone stand in a field with their blunt, cutting weapon of choice and be done with it.

No collatheral damage, no dead children, no stray bullets killing bystanders.

I'd go for a shortsword, shield and a dagger personally. A shortsword is good for slashing and stabbing. It only lacks range, however it makes op for it in moveability. A large mace or hammer is slow, if the wielder misses after his first swing he is vunorable. A longsword can be used faster for slashing, however it doesn't have the mobility of a shortsword. A two handed sword is heavy, and if you miss you are just like the mace or hammer open to a quick strike.

TitanT2 wrote:

And fights would be more fair. More personal.
Let everyone stand in a field with their blunt, cutting weapon of choice and be done with it.

No collatheral damage, no dead children, no stray bullets killing bystanders.

I'd go for a shortsword, shield and a dagger personally. A shortsword is good for slashing and stabbing. It only lacks range, however it makes op for it in moveability. A large mace or hammer is slow, if the wielder misses after his first swing he is vunorable. A longsword can be used faster for slashing, however it doesn't have the mobility of a shortsword. A two handed sword is heavy, and if you miss you are just like the mace or hammer open to a quick strike.

Yah, I think my body frame is more comfortable with a larger weapon. I fenced for a few years when I first came to college and my being a larger individual did not help. However, I liked Epee fencing more because my size was less important than my hand-eye coordination combined with the length of my arm. It's the closest thing to actual sword fighting without having things like "right of way".

Seriously, who gives a crap if your sword touched mine before I hit you. I hit you, you've been injured. Like if you go for a slash to the top of the head in sabre, but you hit their sword beforehand, it's not you point. I feel that's sort of goofy in terms of fighting, but it makes sense since the rules are based around creating a fighting sport that is defined on skill rather than strength.

Ixidor Asgrod wrote:

Yah, I think my body frame is more comfortable with a larger weapon. I fenced for a few years when I first came to college and my being a larger individual did not help. However, I liked Epee fencing more because my size was less important than my hand-eye coordination combined with the length of my arm. It's the closest thing to actual sword fighting without having things like "right of way".

Seriously, who gives a crap if your sword touched mine before I hit you. I hit you, you've been injured. Like if you go for a slash to the top of the head in sabre, but you hit their sword beforehand, it's not you point. I feel that's sort of goofy in terms of fighting, but it makes sense since the rules are based around creating a fighting sport that is defined on skill rather than strength.

Ah fencing. Unfortunatly fencing works when you duel someone. In a larger battlefield without guns the technique is pretty useless. Fencing acquires focus on one enemies movement. Take a couple and you won't have a way to defend yourself. A shortsword with a shield would be very efficient against a man with just a sabre. Use the shield to block the sabre and get in close enough to bash the sabre to his side. So you can use the shortsword to stab him in the chest. Depends on the skill of both fighters though. The problem with a 2 handed weapon or having a single weapon is that one arm is used. The other is empty.

Agreed... as I took kendo as a kid (and I'm obsessed with them) I would totally use a katana or wakizashi. Plus bows are fun. ^_^

TitanT2 wrote:

Ixidor Asgrod wrote:

Yah, I think my body frame is more comfortable with a larger weapon. I fenced for a few years when I first came to college and my being a larger individual did not help. However, I liked Epee fencing more because my size was less important than my hand-eye coordination combined with the length of my arm. It's the closest thing to actual sword fighting without having things like "right of way".

Seriously, who gives a crap if your sword touched mine before I hit you. I hit you, you've been injured. Like if you go for a slash to the top of the head in sabre, but you hit their sword beforehand, it's not you point. I feel that's sort of goofy in terms of fighting, but it makes sense since the rules are based around creating a fighting sport that is defined on skill rather than strength.

Ah fencing. Unfortunatly fencing works when you duel someone. In a larger battlefield without guns the technique is pretty useless. Fencing acquires focus on one enemies movement. Take a couple and you won't have a way to defend yourself. A shortsword with a shield would be very efficient against a man with just a sabre. Use the shield to block the sabre and get in close enough to bash the sabre to his side. So you can use the shortsword to stab him in the chest. Depends on the skill of both fighters though. The problem with a 2 handed weapon or having a single weapon is that one arm is used. The other is empty.

Eh... most average fighters would be at a disadvantage if only one of them had a shield. xD

Scott Chain wrote:

Eh... most average fighters would be at a disadvantage if only one of them had a shield. xD

And that is why it is a great defense/weapon :p

TitanT2 wrote:

Scott Chain wrote:

Eh... most average fighters would be at a disadvantage if only one of them had a shield. xD

And that is why it is a great defense/weapon :p

I hope there's a shield throat punch finishing move in Skyrim... my year would be made.

Scott Chain wrote:

Eh... most average fighters would be at a disadvantage if only one of them had a shield. xD

Yeah large weapons are saved for fantasy, where it fits because it's fictional. In reality the size of War Hammers were pretty small, so you could pair them with a shield, but still do enough damage to smash a dude's face in.

Ixidor Asgrod wrote:

Scott Chain wrote:

Eh... most average fighters would be at a disadvantage if only one of them had a shield. xD

Yeah large weapons are saved for fantasy, where it fits because it's fictional. In reality the size of War Hammers were pretty small, so you could pair them with a shield, but still do enough damage to smash a dude's face in.

All you need is a couple pounds at the end of a stick to do irreparable damage.

In this fictional neo-medieval world of ours...Will armor (whether it be leather, chain, or plate) be widely distributed?

If it is: Give me a blunt object. Crack 'em open like a walnut. Break their bones, and their ability to fight.

If it is not: Give me a blade. All you need is one nick across one's artery to win in the long run.

Vigo Surai wrote:

In this fictional neo-medieval world of ours...Will armor (whether it be leather, chain, or plate) be widely distributed?

If it is: Give me a blunt object. Crack 'em open like a walnut. Break their bones, and their ability to fight.

If it is not: Give me a blade. All you need is one nick across one's artery to win in the long run.

Meh, give me chainmail/leather if it is in a fantasy setting.
Else... Kevlar...

I myself would probably carry a longbow and multiple daggers. My frame is too small to carry much of anything else, plus it'd be sexy to shoot people

Be aware of swords...