If you're running a bulky bruiser barbarian type, do you find that you have a preference for hammers, axes, swords...

Sword and mace on hip, shield on arm or back, knife in each boot, knife on chest,Bow, javalins, quiver strapped to back or backpack.

Or any of a million magical configurations. There's a quiver that holds bow, javalins, and arrows in a tiny space, knives can be hidden anywhere. The most unweildly thing is the sword, but that can just go on hip or back easily enough.

>What's your weapon of choice, and why?
Shield, and gif related

I find spears are often underappreciated.

The model is a great example. It has:

Supplies/Backpack,

sword and shield that are drawn (hands in use) and 2 javelins on the back.

I can buy some knives but is saying that he's got a mace, reach weapon, longbow. Not to mention a bastard sword is a 2h weapon most of the time (IRL. RPG systems go back and forth on 1h use with specific training).

My point I guess wasn't that you couldn't -physically- carry all that as a matrial class, it was that that's enough shit that:
A) you couldn't swap weapons quickly because of the amount of shit you have on you strapped together/on top of one another
B) One would presume that having a backpack + javelins + quiver + longbow (up to 2 meters long) + bastard sword + shield all strapped onto your person would inhibit your movement.

At a low level anyway. I don't underestimate the prowess of high level martials. So maybe it would have been a better question to ask if he's running a higher level campaign.

>in his hammerspace inventory space lmao
>no-one ever carried more than 1 weapon amirite?

But actually it's not even that heavy. If we assume dnd 5e weights:
>Mace 3lb
>Shield 10lb
>longbow 2lb
>longsword 3lb
>40x arrows 2lb
>3x Javelin=6lb
>3x Knife= 3lb
>Glaive 6lb

All in all that's 33lb. Not something a civilian wants to walk around with, but when your whole job is killing people, it's just part of the trade. Not a problem for the intellectually-disabled Conan knockoffs of D&D lore.

Probably keep the shield, javelins, longbow, on his back over his other belongings. Glaive held most of the time and used as a walking stick, or on his back. Arrows in quivers about the hips, mace and longsword tied to a belt, one knife by the belt, and a knife in each boot. It's doable.

Mauls and warhammers for maximum smashing.

Spear or the most versatile polearm as a primary, one handed sword/machete as a secondary, nonlethal backup.

Reach in real life is simply logistically the best option, and this basic tenant usually rears it's head in games. Saves your mobility. Often makes you able to fight much more safely. typically only slightly less damage than big beefy two-handers meant for maximum single hit damage. Mad style to boot.

I usually go with a two-handed warhammer. Think like those bigass 15-20 pound head hammers. Nothing quite says "don't fuck with me" like swinging around a hunk of stone the size of your head around.

*36 pounds. I forgot the sword.

Still, I do prefer OSR methods for encumbrance, since they're easier to use and take size, awkwardness, and general portability into account.

If we were doing this by ACKS rules (cause that's what I know)
>Mace 1/6
>Shield 1
>longbow 1
>longsword 1/6
>40 arrows 2/6
>3 javelins 3/6
>3 knives 3/6
>glaive 1
That would be 4 and 4/6th stone, which on its own is not enough to encumber someone, but additional gear or armor might start cutting into his movement rate. He could probably scrape by at three-quarters speed with no armor and some bare-bones provisions, but treasure would weigh him down to half speed.

It would quickly become obvious that more compact options (shortbow, darts) and less redundancy (i.e. drop the glaive) would lighten his load considerably. Either that, or that he should invest in a mount to carry this personal armory.

It wasn't a weight issue. I mean as you said a longbow is 2lbs, With weight limit being 15 * str, and lets assume a str value of 15, that gives you 225 lbs limit.

Do you you think you're going to be a functional fighter with 112 longbows strapped to your body? (with 1 lbs to spare for arrows)?

By all means, I'm sure there's a DM that only cares about the weight and not the practicality of it. That's just not been my personal experience, or the experience of anyone that I've played with.

If his DM lets him roll with that setup, more power to him. I just prefer running my characters with more actually feasible set ups.

Have a good day, friend

See >I do prefer OSR methods for encumbrance, since they're easier to use and take size, awkwardness, and general portability into account.

^basically this. He can still obviously move with his set up, but he'd have to change things to retain 100% mobility in all games I've played.

I'm a personal fan of the mount solution.

...

axe

Axes.

They're a classic for a reason.

I find those silly.

I like more realistic Warhammer designs because it looks like an actual weapon and not a stage prop.

My usual loadout for my barbarians are a war axe and a shield, a spear, and some kind of knife or short sword.

>Not a problem for the intellectually-disabled Conan knockoffs of D&D lore.
>Not playing your barbarian as a wisened, aging warrior of the old way

>1h Mace + Heavy Shield for undead

My group determined that axes should be in the same ballpark of effectiveness as maces when it comes to dealing with undead, or anything for that matter. The way we look at it, an axe isn't too dissimilar from a flanged mace.

... is that reason "because people are retards"?

Every culture that could afford to build a sword used those instead for a good reason.

Just because I like talking about this stuff, and not because I disagree, would you mind naming it?

>swords were used instead of axes
swords were largely status symbols for officers. anything a sword can do an axe can do cheaper. considering the caliber of most soldiers throughout history, its easier to drill "swing your farm tools at people instead of plants" than rapier dueling techniques

>swords were largely status symbols for officers.

>anything a sword can do an axe can do cheaper.

You can add some Plumbata for good measure.

youtube.com/watch?v=ndNT3cjwugs

Forgot my image.

I had a high-level rogue once that just had a coat full of knives of all sorts of materials and enchantments.

One of the more interesting one was a Heartseeker with the throwing distance enchantment, that cast Faerie Fire when it hits its target. Another had Anchoring and Ghost Touch for pinning incorporeals. There were at least four dedicated to specific -banes for hard-to-kill creatures.

In dnd we call those throwing darts.

Though using a real-life name for it does emphasize that they're actual weapons and not the recreation-room toys most of us are familiar with.

Greatwords. Anything else is the peasant choice.

I like my bulky, muscly warrior types to carry bows. Stories from antiquity always had heroes and strong men be good with bows, and often, like Odysseus, the bows were so rigid that nobody but the strongest of men could string them.

As for melee weapons, sword, spear and shield are my go to for warriors.

I ask you: would Van Zandt have looked as cool with a sword as he did with an axe?

Fuck no. Fuck no he wouldn't.

All of my martials use trick weapons. Weapons that change between multiple forms.

Or like a shortsword made of solid moonlight or some shit.

>one handed sword/machete as a secondary, nonlethal backup
>nonlethal

kek

>tfw no system in which a shield and one-handed spear is the optimum combo like it was for most of human history

Closest thing I've played to this archetype is my WFRP woodsman, who carries a big fuckoff lumberjack axe and a longbow.

Fists, is the only reliable weapon that will never abandon you

>Says the cheater who blinded his opponents, attacked them when they were sleeping, etc on fucking duels
I wish someone killed him with a musket and called him a fag for going around with edgy weapons

>tfw no system in which a shield and one-handed spear is the optimum combo like it was for most of human history

A machete, falcata, falchion, dao, kopis, or other short hacking sword.

I just go with poleaxes, regardless of who or what I'm playing as. Nothing special about them, they're basically just 4 weapons in 1.

You can stab, jab, crunch, hack and block with 'em, and they look brutal as fuck in actual combat.

Pike or small hammer and buckler, in a perfect scenario both of them. These are the true weapons of kings(layers)

Hell yeah, my dude.

...

Many tried to, but failed.

You forgot to mention the "coming late to a duel to unsettle opponent" trick.

Actually brain dead

Yeah, that's fair. For whatever reason I just seem to have a strange affliction with large hammers, to the point that I have a sledgehammer in my room instead of a bat or whatever for home defense.

If you're going by real life, then anyone using a two-handed weapon should be in heavy armor, because they don't need a shield. A two-handed weapon and light armor is for disposable soldiers, not adventurers. And in most systems I'm familiar with, barbarians don't tend to use heavy armor. Which is why I ditch realism, it's boring.

Depends on the game. If you're mostly against human enemies, people in armor, then yeah go with that aesthetic. But a big monster is not going to be in armor, and that tiny hammer is not going to bother it very much. Best hope you can hit it in the head with that spike, and it can penetrate the skull.

I usually try to go with an axe. Cause I love axes. Then the first magic weapon i can equip is a spear or something eqauily out of charcater.

Plus you don't need to take it all with you, all the time. If you have a room rented at an inn chances are you won't need much on short notice in a city or whatever.

Will you enter a barbarian rage for 1d10+level rounds is someone breaks in?

Glaives will always have a special place in my heart.

I hope you are dressed as flamboyantly as possible while swinging that shit around. Sporting a puffy hat is mandatory.

Depends on the setting.
Axes are practical, Spears are realistic, Great swords are classic.

This shit right here.
Allthough giggles that
>swords = non lethal weapon.

I'm using a lance on my current Str fighter type in 5e.
Honestly, the lack of proper polearms in d&d (and friends) is fucking stupid.

My choice overall probably comes to a warhammer, though. Against a giant ogre, maybe something like a dane axe.

The scotsman in me demands claymores

Depend what flawor I want to give them, curently I'm playing a kind of tribal guy with aztec/sumerian inspiration, I use a axe and a sword as duo, very brutal style, but I'm looking for idea to give it a bit of substance, he his still low level tough.

Would you disrespect your opponent by not doing everything you can to beat them?

That's the plan, mate.

It's practically anime-tier but I love over-sized maces and tanks just charging shit with a hand held wrecking ball la Havel the Rock.

Greataxe for me. Or anything that has a chance for higher damage. I'd rather roll a d12 for damage than a d8+whatever, because there's the chance that it'll do a lot. Plus, I feel like it makes it more real for a barbarian or some shit to not have a perfect strike every time.

Truly depends on the characters personality. Tell me more about this guy and I can tell you his weapon of choice If I were playing it

>cheater
LOOOL all's fair in love and war, feel free to whine about how it's not fair and you were SUPPOSED to win as you bleed out, bitch.

but that's
g a y
a
y

I can't remember the name but 3.5 d&d had a ridiculous weapon that I loved that was basically a mess of antlers on a pole.

>t. the reincarnation of one of the men who lost to him in a duel and is still salty about it

If there's one thing I think we can all agree on it's that it's smart to keep at least a weapon + shield combo and then something with more reach, just for the sake of being versatile.

I'm just wondering how often this happened in real life though. Most people that had large weapons (a polearm or two-handed sword or dane axe) seemed to prefer carrying a short weapon without an accompanying shield.

Is there a reason for that?

Too awkward to stow the shield on their person, perhaps?

The sword was just there for a back up or if shit got to close to you. When that happens I doubt you'd have the time to fiddle around trying to reach a shield if it wasn't already in your hands.
Also the use of polearms besides spears only become popular when armour started to negate the need for a shield.
Regarding the dane axe, IIRC, they already stood behind a shield wall which would make carrying a shield not as needed. If the shieldwall broke then you were fucked anyway.

that is just the stupidest version of a trick weapon possible, and the person who designed it has not idea how to design bloodborne weapons. wheres the teeth? wheres the giant wheels? wheres the stone sheath? see all that chain space? too much chain space, not enough blades. that person failed, and wouldn't last a minute in an actual hunt.

it's the mentally ill cousion of the pimp cane

If you were using a 2 hander, you were already fighting without a shield, so either in heavy armour, a strong defensive position, or dead.
You can use that advantage with a secondary weapon too, no need for a shield. A free hand can be useful too.

...

Halberts and glaives. All day, e'r day.

What's a halbert? Is it the gay love child of Dilbert and Hal from Malcolm in the Middle?