Medieval fantasy

>t. Murican /k/tard who can't imagine life without amendment 2: schoolshooter boogaloo

>no rational response so just resorts to memes

>memes
I'll have you know those are buzzwords.

And what exactly is it that makes a sword magically more heroic than a polearm?

Centuries of storytelling?

Throughout history swords have often been regarded as a symbol of royalty and leadership, as most often it was nobles who could afford them, at least during the dark ages. They were also the focus of several honor codes during such times, namely chivalry and bushido. Combined with the fact that swords feature very prominently in several popular heroic legends (Excalibur and Durandal namely) and you have a concept that sticks in people's memory even today.

Being fucking useless would be the main reason.

>There's absolutely no reason not to include firearms
There is;I don't want to. I already there were firearms in that era. They're just boring.

I'm sure you're just fine with them in 40k and star wars but the moment they're in a medieval setting your little brain shuts down

This.
That someone even asked shows they are either an idiot troll or merely an idiot.

It's a status thing. People don't just carry swords for no reason. If you have a sword you're an adventurer or a guard or a noble.
youtube.com/watch?v=8Lqa1YBdJQ4

Where does OP talk about guns? OP is talking about POLEARMS.

shhh it doesn't fit his agenda

>he prefers using a weapon he likes over battlefield tactics

How are you gonna set up for the rogue with your big ass halberd blocking a 5ft hallway

>medieval fantasy
>autistic faggot complains there are guns

While swords were secondary, archeological digs and analysis on skeletons show that sword were pulled out a lot. Opponents routing? Slash their legs and thighs with a sword.

>every fight takes place inside closed corridors

>Is a Knight
>isn't prepared for an ambush in a closed space

Notice the word SECONDARY, meaning it's there but not the PRIMARY weapon

Totally ruins the realism for me too. Also when I play modern campaigns the PC's better have a drone or a missile in their inventory or I rip their sheet in front of them and tell them that they just don't have the raw capacity for an intensely realistic campaign such as mine. I mean they can't even buy milk without being outgunned by a hobo.

>you can only make 6ft+ horizontal swings with a halberd
>t. brainlet

...

Polearms are for peasants. No one wants to be a peasant. The want to be an actual person. People use good weapons. Swords are good weapons.

>anime poster is a retard
like clockwork

>complaining about anime on an anime imageboard
like faggot

...

>muh historical accuracy

>Using bait this shitty and still getting so many serious (you)s
That's the real mystery.

>medieval fantasy
>fantasy
>swords are primary weapons rather than secondary to polearms
>>fantasy

The cancer is real. Off yourself weeab.

No Binky, both of those are facts. Check and do some research.

You don't swing with halberds fyi

...

Polearms are still really useful in skrimishes. And even in single combat, most polearms (outside of obvious bullshit like pikes) are still an advantage, as a spear (for instance) can shorten it's reach as necessary. For niche cases you would still have your sword as a sidearm. Also pollaxes are a thing.

This is my new favourite meme.
Are there more of these Lindybeige maymays?

Fuck off. I bet you even like shadman

No, he got fired just after that.
He wasn't even really an academic, he was doing volunteer job

You are right but most people know about medieval setting from movies, and we know how movies are. Most people also belives samurais used katanas, ninjas were guys dressed in black, and so on.

You should point (nicely, since most of mankind are made from snowflakes) that's the sword is a bad choice and how a good polearm can be better even than an magic sword, since if the other guys pokes you from 4 meters you will never got the chance to use that fancy sword.

But since people are stupid, let them choose the sword. And let them die by the polearm.

Turns out most peoples view of medieval fantasy is actually heroic fantasy. Blame people 1000 years ago for thinking swords are a "hero's" weapon, an autistic meme we still suffer from today.

What's the longest you've ever spent walking? An hour? Three hours? 10? How about sun up to sun down? I don't know about you but if I'm gonna have to spend 90% of my day walking around, I don't want to have to carry shit. Plus what if I have to go into a particularly small cave? Like with walls and a ceiling? Do I have to hug my polearm when I'm in town to avoid gathering a collection of eyes or is that optional? I'm just saying people might be pretty spooked if I'm just walking everywhere with my big ass poker. But sure, let me know how good all that reach works out against a 10 ton dragon bolting for you. Especially since, you know, WE'RE IN FUCKING FANTASY LAND WHERE NONE OF THIS SHIT MATTERS!

I regularly go on week long hikes in the appalchians with a 30 pound backpack. The fact is that people DID carry this stuff around topped with the fact that they have beasts of burden, wagons, and serfs to carry additional supplies.

>Roman/Greek era fantasy
>swords are primary weapons rather than secondary to pilum
>confusedblakkman.jpg
maybe it's because you rarely play as the member of an organized army and rather play as a member of a small group where smaller, more versatile weapons are better fit.

Shit opinion. If you're fine with crossbows, you should be fine with handguns.

>poking weapon with limited close quarters capacity and only MAYBE a slashing option
>close quarters weapon that, while it lacks the reach, can be used to stab, slash, and block attacks all equally

gee, brainlet, it's almost like they're useful in multiple situations, including close quarters, which is the one that heroes and adventurers usually find themselves in

Oh yeah let me just carry this 8 foot poleaxe into a fucking cave

>he has to shift the goalpost to save any remaining credibility

This was my first post in the thread, dumbass. And I'm certainly not wrong. Unless you know you'll be fighting in a field or a courtyard, why choose a polearm?

You mean halberd. A pollaxe is a shorter weapon intended for individual armoured combat, see pic related.

>implying it's not still a valid point

i mean, unless your entire group of PCs is a military squad that fights in formation, there's no real reason to use polearms

I wasn't aware of length being a distinguishing factor, I thought the difference between a poleaxe and a halberd was the latter having a point. Thanks for the info. That weapon looks good for small group and close quarters combat.

>I wasn't aware of length being a distinguishing factor
Whats the difference between a pike and spear if not length.

They aren't complaining about anime. They are pointing out that the anime poster is a retard.

I meant specifically between poleaxe and halberd, not between polearms in general

Depends on polearm. A lot have enough versatility to dominate where they are strongest and still threaten where they cannot bring their strength to bear.

Also the amount of armour you're likely to be up against makes a huge difference. Also, with RPGs in mind, it's important to keep in mind that nobody would actually walk around in full plate all the time. Heavy armour is very much a battlefield measure.

While being a memepost, let's put some thought in the topic...

Consider polearm vs. sword and shield instead.
Also, this comparison depends on the scenario and local laws.

Outside of organized warfare:
being an adventurer (ie. civilian) and walking around with a polearm is like open carrying a rifle in today's world, everyone would likely give you uncomfortable glares and the guards will probably want to have a word with you. Unless you have a pack horse, you will have to carry it around in your hand, which is an annoying encumberance; imagine, for example, going grocery shopping and having one of your hands occupied at all times, unless you place it somewhere so you can use both. Or another example, having to climb a ladder with one hand constantly carrying it. That being said, could make for a decent walking stick while on the road. Speaking of traveling, what kind of armor are you wearing? I hope it isn't full plate, which is what a lot of pollaxe users wore while wielding one of those because they didn't use a shield, since dying isn't a fun prospect. Let's say you wear more comfortable armor (maille, brigandine), you might prefer to have more length on your polearm (8 feet or so, maybe a little more?) to add to your safety; now your polearm just got more encumbering in the above situations as well as countless others. That being said, nothing wrong with spear and shield either. Also, there are some places a pack horse won't necessarily be able to follow you, so I would recommend planning for such occasions.

TL;DR: Not the most comfortable solution for traveling (adventuring), but very powerful weapon for combat.

In organized warfare:
Hell yeah, kit up with plate armor and wreck some dudes with a pollaxe.

Cont'd...

Cont'd...

A sword in comparison, outside organized warfare:
As a civilian (adventurer), although this depends on the setting, it's typically less concerning to have a sword at your side. It was common for travellers in Europe to carry a sword and buckler, when allowed as above. It's lightweight, won't really get in the way, and you can stow it at your side. As mentioned at the start though, this should be more about swords alongside shields; as an adventurer, combat is expected, so staying alive is a big priority (fame and fortune is worthless if you're dead). As such, using just a sword for melee is risky, unless you are a bowman/crossbowman. That's where shields and armor come in: as mentioned with polearms, you will probably want to wear armor that will be more comfortable than plate to travel around in, so maille or brigandine should suffice. That being said, you can also use a shield to greatly enhance your survivability. You can also sling them on your back with a strap and still have your hands free, and will be generally well protected from most humanoid enemies. It would also offer passive defense by sitting on your back. Shield size is also a consideration in terms of encumberance vs. protection, but even something as small and light as a buckler is a boon.

TL;DR: Very comfortable for traveling, viable weapon for combat (although secondary to a polearm), but becomes equally as potent as a polearm when combining it with a shield.

Organized warfare with swords:
As suggested above, sword and shield is a potent combination, but admittedly I don't know much about their use in such situations... Didn't the Romans use sword and shield as a primary combination after throwinf javelins? The shields were very big too, of course, but this goes to show how this combination can effectively act as a primary weapon.

>Enter a fantasy game
>Assume it's medieval

It's absolutely crazy. Like someone put out a modern system where pistols were common weapons for the PCs because they're a readily available sidearm, and rather than do real research generations have just gone back to that single source so now we have movies about the Second World War being fought primarily with pistols.

Your posts make a lot of assumptions, even more than the OP

Firearms are a rennaisance-era weapon, not medieval.

as has been stated there's also the fact that in fantasy a sword is thought of as the "default" weapon.
but honestly, adventurers are exceptional people, and there are numerous famous/mythological figures associated with a specific weapon. There are plenty of swords (Excalibur, Muramasa, Bram, Damocles, etc.) even a cursory amount of research will reveal a tremendous variance in weaponry, Guan Yu's crescent blade, Odin's spear Gungir, David's Sling, Zues' Thunder bolt (essentially a javelin), Thor's hammer, Gilgamesh's jawbone, pretty much every Kung Fu weapon.

t. Brainlet

Isn't the entire discussion based off of assumptions? That doesn't stop us from trying to make reasonable ones though. There are a lot of variables to consider when talking about why X weapon may not be used instead of Y weapon, and I tried to find a balance between generalizations and specific situations. Is there anything you may want to elaborate on? I'm open to discussion, which is why I posted that wall in the first place.

That's true. I just also wanted to propose how it may not necessarily be such a bad thing to use a sword as a primary weapon (assuming a shield was paired with it).

I know I will get shit for it, but after larping with polearms I can say that fighting then with a sword sucks. You need a shield or you needed to take a hit to get inside their swings.

>Medieval fantasy
>Don't even use lances and mounted combat
Yall cowards don't even joust.

For one, you assumed OP was talking about adventurers and he may very well have been but never specified and as this poster said the swords and shields being used in large-scale battle is quite popular in fantasy media

There is rarely a situation that having a longer ranged weapon isn't an advantage. And any situation that a polearm isn't the preferred option, you can have a sword at your side, or a hammer, or a mace, to make up for it.

>ITT: Swordfags getting BTFO

Swords are great, it's just, sometimes they aren't the best option.

why are you like this?

I agree that I assumed the topic was primarily adventuring (we're on Veeky Forums after all, not Veeky Forums), but I also realize that adventuring may not have been the point, which is why I tried to consider the use of the proposed weapon within organized warfare. A polearm is pretty much a no-brainer in such a situation as I mentioned before.
For the bit about swords and shields being popular for large-scale warfare in popular media, I don't believe this would or should invalidate the concept of such a weapon within organized warfare in a historical context, or did I miss the point? The most recent example I can think of in media is For Honor, where hordes of soldiers just charge with abandon at each other with swords and shields, but a roman legionary would operate in a more organized manner, and used a gladius as their primary weapon after throwing several javelins. While media may incorrectly depict the use of a sword and shield, it was still a viable weapon in organized warfare, at least during the roman period.

My points wasn't that it was never used in warfare, it's that it wasn't the primary weapon.

I don't recall Excalibur being a guisarme-voulge or Muramasa being a naginata.
Faggot.

Fair enough, and I generally agree with this. Roman legionaries are an exception to this, but it's more of a deviation rather than the standard. That being said, I think this is still a reasonable example to suggest that a sword (with shield) is sufficient enough as a weapon combination to be used as a primary weapon, even if it wasn't the popular choice for most armies.

My 18 strength Barb carries a buster sword he can use like a polearm, if needed.

So what's the problem?

Melee weapons are light. A halberd weighs, what, 3~4 kg? That's around the weight range of modern service rifles; it's very tolerable compared to the stuff that'd be in your pack.
I do suppose the length could make them inconvenient, but while you can't hold a halberd in a Belfast cradle, you can use one as a walking stick.

There is also the fact that even if the hero has a named sword, there is a fair chance that they will also use a lance, spear or polearm as is applicable to their situation since this was simply standard practice for warriors. The Chivalric heroes including Arthur and Roland had no qualms lancing foes as knights are wont to do despite having two of the most iconic swords in western literature for example. It's a bit depressing how the anti-polearm crowd will cite legends and historical literature to prove their point without bothering to read them.

this guy looks like a real dickhead showing up to the battle with a rusty curtain rod

Can confirm, the spiral knife make an exciting internal texture that really enhances the experience. It's also worth considering a blade with shallow serrations; the severed muscle fibers will twitch and trail along the penis as you move, which is a novel experience. They tend to turn pulpy after a bit, though, so you might want to consider making a second hole to finish off in.

Statistics. According to the numbers, 96 people on Veeky Forums have murdered or are likely to murder someone. If I post this pasta, eventually some nutcase is actually going to listen and follow it, and the world will be a better place because the headline will read "Man Humps Neighbor's Bloody Leg to Death."

then why isnt it just a spear

Because you can't chop with a spear.

>not making an entry point into the chest cavity for the vacuum suction effect
pleb

I don't recall Rhongomyniad being an arming sword or Tonbogiri being an uchigatana either.
Faggot.

In order to chop wood with an axe you must swing it...

While doubtful as a primary, they are very versatile & useful for many occasions. I wouldn't be surprised if some fighter was put into a situation where he's forced to drop his spear or poleaxe for his sword.

See quora.com/If-mail-was-so-effective-against-swords-why-were-they-ever-used-Why-not-just-always-use-a-mace-or-axe-or-something/answer/Daniel-Ma-36

>"medieval" fantasy
>articulated plate
>no guns

>a pointy piece of steel is more interesting than a fucking firearm
Pretty sure this means you suck at firearms

I have never played a role playing game. Does D&D allow you to play a polearm character?