If wizards could inexpensively enchant steel to reduces its weight significantly...

If wizards could inexpensively enchant steel to reduces its weight significantly, wouldn't every warrior have a horse-sized sword?

But doesn't that defeat the purpose? The whole supposed "thing" with oversized weapons is that they hit like a truck, and cutting the weight only harms that.

why have a horse siezed sword? you can only swing it a few direction, and you can't even use it to cut though a horse without the weight behind it. why would you want a horse sized sword? a normal sized sword that cuts better than another normal sized sword is better by a long shot. you want giant weapons? you take a blunt weapon. crush instead of cut.

What about I want a huge metal fan, so I can beat enemies by making such a powerful air blow that they can never stay solid/stand-up.

>having a steel sword that can be incredibly sharp and strong but also weight significantly less wouldn't be useful in any way

Ok

No, as games with a hitbox show (e.g. Dark Souls), big weapons are a liability in close quarters combat and any place where you can ostensibly hurt allies.

More likely we'd see warriors armored like tanks in several tens of mm-thick armor stomping rather than giant weapons.

>warriors armored like tanks in several tens of mm-thick armor

What kind of weapon would you need to hurt one of these tank-men?

That's a pretty exotic way to fight. I doubt there'd be enough demand for giant fans, so you'd have to do a lot of convincing to get any blacksmith to make it.

Something with firepower or magical.

Depends, just because its light enough to wear doesn't mean it can be practically designed around a humanoid body, or that it won't cause fatigue from heat and eventual physical strain. You can only make it so thick before you run into issues of mobility and flexibility, thus defeating the whole point of the armor.

It might be very popular among dwarfs, who would utilize it to great effect in tunnel fighting. Above ground large formation fighting? probably less so. Mmmmmmmmmmmmmaybe if pike formations are still a viable method of combat.

But if we have wizards, you can assume there will be some kind of magic battlefield terrain altering powers, weather altering powers, or say, shit like Heat Metal en masse cooking these 'tank men' alive.

it is. but for normal sized one handed and two handed sword. OP sword would be able to do it, but the normal sized swords do it all betterw

>More likely we'd see warriors armored like tanks in several tens of mm-thick armor stomping rather than giant weapons

No you wouldn't. Armor by its nature restricts your movement. That is why they are making it a close fit. To lessen the movement restriction. But you still can use your right hand to touch your right shoulder or put your palm on your chest when wearing plate armor.

Just say you are making one of those Pizza things you use to put pizzas inside those brick ovens.

>But you still can't* use your right hand

Unless they can do that without fucking over the mass of the blade, then there's no reason to ever do it. Just enchant the warriors to be stronger, more durable, and more agile. That way they can use heavier or larger weaponry without losing out on the damaging power of the increase in mass and size.

You'd probably see more people running around with armor plates a couple inches thick

Modern materials and design don't have to restrict movement much but they're still limited by weight. Remove that factor and it's just a matter of how good your smith is at forging less restrictive armor without leaving flexible points too vulnerable.

Yeah for larger swords the weight is one of the main reasons it's good for doing things. It doesn't have to be razor sharp


And in any case a huge weapon like that would be unwieldy and hard to use at short range -- why not forgo the whole magic bit and just use a polearm like a halberd or something instead of a sword

This I will approve.

Go and be unique

boiling oil

>More likely we'd see warriors armored like tanks in several tens of mm-thick armor stomping rather than giant weapons.

I don't think armor itself would change much because you don't want to restrict movement any more armor already does. However, lightening the load would made wearing armor in the first place easier and more practical.

>wouldn't every warrior have a horse-sized sword?
I'd go for a weightless rapier over a light horse of a sword.

The benefit of a light weapon is in the precision with which you can use it.
A gigantic but light weapon will be highly inefficient.
A gigantic but incredibly heavy weapon, which due to your immense strength you can swing as if it's light, will wreck anyone's day.

>Armor by its nature restricts your movement.
when will this meme end?

Depends on the armor really.
Depending on who it was meant to be used by or what the purpose it was made to do what it would be more or less restrictive.

Aerodynamics.

If its light enough to be the size of a horse it would be like waving a plastic bag.

Now what the wizard should invent is battle droids. Cheap effective killing machines only for 8.99

Remember kids, quantity has a quality all of its own.

If only the weight is reduced and not the mass it could be worth it.

>Remember kids, quantity has a quality all of its own.

The only real benefit to a larger size is mass. The heavier the sword, the more kinetic energy you connect with a target when you hit them with it.

You can make an argument that something the size of a german longsword (4-5 feet overall, a solid foot of which is handle) has an additional benefit because of the leverage two-hands on a long handle provides, but if you increased the size to pic-related and kept the same weight somehow, it wouldn't provide any real advantage.

I realize this discussion is mainly for swords and armor, but what about other weapons? Would spear tips be twice as long and would glaive poles have metal cores and bladed edges coming part way down the shaft? Would fighting men be generally more likely to carry secondary or tertiary weapons?

It would still require the same amount of strength to move it.

Lets say you have 1ton in space, it's technically weightless but if it was pushed towards you you would still get crushed because the mass is still 1 ton and would require a force of over 1ton to push it way from you.

But if weight is reduced but not mass you still won't be able to swing it. You'll just be able to support it more easily after you finally do haul it up onto your shoulder.

Why not just
>Enchant the sword so it is nearly weightless to the wielder
There, we dont need this physics argument

I've always thought that giant weapons in fantasy settings have a justification if they are used to fight much bigger opponents. I mean, you're not going to harm pic related with a normal longsword. Normal-sized slash wounds would be like paper-cuts. For bigger wounds you need a bigger blade. Am I completely retarded or does this make any sense?

Your completely retarded.

A:That would throw off th balance of the weapons
B:They wouldn't fit through doors and such
C:They would be uncomfortable to carry around

is he though?

I like you. I like you a lot. The idea is that once something is past a certain size it just gets hard to actually wound them fatally with conventional weapons.

Sorta like Monster Hunter logic.

Sorry dude, youre retarded.

This. Make it wielder exclusive, give them a ton heavy sword that only weights 2 pounds for them.

Watch them wreck shit.

It would crush you if it was traveling fast. Not if it was simply pushed towards you, same as on earth .

Ah yes, the well-known phenomenon of being crushed by a car gently rolling into you

You seem to not understand physics very well, so the cliff notes is that there isn't such a thing as "a force of 1 ton" without the influence of gravity. There is a force required to accelerate the mass, and the force you need to exert to "push away" the mass is, assuming there is no force currently being exerted on the mass (i.e. it's moving towards you at a constant velocity), is dependent on the speed with which you want to stop it, but essentially you need to accelerate it enough in the opposite direction of its motion to make it stand still. It obviously requires less force to brake it over 20 seconds than in one second (think brakes on a car, you don't have to be stomping the brake if you just want to stop somewhere within the next kilometer (time is the relevant figure but obviously if it has a velocity it will also be displaced during that time))

Now, that might be difficult, and require force, which would make the mass crushing, but that's only because you're neglecting the fact that you're just going to be accelerated by the mass, i.e. it's going to push you along with it.
You'll just hitch a ride on it, unless it's sufficiently fast that hitching a ride isn't possible without compromising the structural integrity of your body.


Now, that doesn't invalidate your first sentence at all, which is technically correct (technically because while it's true that it requires the same strength, it's no longer necessary to use the much weaker stabilizing musculature to keep it above ground, think of the difference of deadlifting lmao3pl8 or lifting it from a table in front of you), but it won't crush anyone unless it's fast enough, and that's the case regardless of the mass

Why would you? A bigger weapon would only mean problems handling it while you have taken away the advantage behind one - the capability to inflict heavier blows.

And besides, all you need to do accomplish with a weapon is to kill someone, overkill is unnecessary and potentially dangerous for the one inflicting it as it takes out more energy and increases the likelyhood of the weapon getting stuck in something.

The absence of weight makes it much, much easier to swing around, because there is no longer a massive torque fucking up everything for you.

Think of how easy it is to pull a 20kg box if it's lying on the ground as compared to lifting it up in front of you. Weapons aren't heavy enough that they'll be difficult to push (I mean, one easy way to see this is by putting wheels on something and pushing it, the wheels don't negate the mass of the object, but it makes it much easier to move than trying to carry it)

>>I don't think armor itself would change much because you don't want to restrict movement any more armor already does.
why is Veeky Forums so bad at medieval combat

Because it'd still be awkward as shit to swing around and it'd be garbage for close quarters fighting.

do you even know what a pike is
you don't make a sword bigger to make it heavier you fucking retard, otherwise everyone would be using spiky mauls

You two are retarded. A puncture wound, regardless of how deep it is (and to a degree, how much force is exerted by it) isn't going to be very dangerous if it's too small to actually significantly disturb your structural integrity.
If you doubt that would apply to, say, a really hard mosquito sting, take the example of neutrinos penetrating all the way through your body.
If you say there's not enough force to destabilize the structure in either of those situations, I'd ask whether you think a mosquito being hurled at you through a gun is going to do much of anything if it hits you.

Now, it's sort of moot for 90% of monsters (I mean, shrapnel can still fuck you up seven ways to Sunday and that's rarely going to be too big), but with a sufficiently big monster, it does actually apply.

Though it's doubtful that such a monster would care about ANYTHING you could wield in your own hands

Weapons not intended to damage but intended to displace their opponents, to knock them on the ground and rendered vulnerable like any regular knight.

Imagine a giant pool noodle, except with a steel handle and rod going throughout it and made primarily of solid rubber.

If you have the ability to change the mass of metal couldn't you cast it on arrows mid flight so they become as heavy as a truck right before they hit your target.

It's not a meme you stupid fuck. Anything you wear, even spandex yoga pants when you go to get fucked by your daddy, restricts your movement; it is just such a miniscule amount it is effectively non-restrictive.

The more shit you put on, the more restricted your movement gets.

Now, if you want to dispute the amount of restriction, feel free. Some people take it way too far. But it does restrict your movement, period.

Too many people have pointed out all the practical reasons why your question is stupid as shit. Go back to your Niptoons you weeb.

>not making it so it activates on impact and act three freezes whoever gets stuck by it

>Trying to swing a metal wall accurately
>wind

OP didn't say anything about incredibly sharp or strong, just reduced weight. Benefit to a large sword is the weight, so it serves no real purpose. I'd rather have the spell cast on my armor and tower shield.

Cast silence on armor. Warrior is crushed beneath the weight.

You'd be better off enchanting gauntlets to swing a heavier blade.

You're a fucking retard if you think using the term "restricted movement" is in any way, shape or form a relevant thing to mention if you imply its usage is apt with any increase in force necessary to displace an object (that's called work, explained for you as you clearly lack a fucking brain)

By that logic, dangling from a rope does not restrict your movement as it does not increase the amount of force necessary to displace you. Are you now gonna backpeddle and say it restricts your ability to choose where you wish to move? Well so does fucking consciousness as it restricts your willingness to choose arbitrary, pointless movements.

Kys you fucking college freshman faggot

Back to the Hidden Sand Village, Temari

He said sword, that implies sharp.

>benefit to the large sword is the weight
Ah yes, as exemplified by the widespread usage of leaden swords

He never mentioned force of displacement, user. You're getting your posters mixed up.

what exactly do you imply restricting movement means other than increasing the force necessary to perform the same amount of work?