Why does Bastard Sword have a U in parry in 1 hand?

[maximara]

Originally Posted by Rupert

Pity that that does not describe the swords used in 'German longsword' fighting, which were thrusting as much as cutting weapons, and might be used in one hand instead of two. Therefore, if the above definition is definitive, the German longsword users were not, in fact, using longswords.

Wrong. "The long sword family includes the claymore, the spandon, the espadon, the zweyhander, and the flamberge""

Zweyhander is the way the author spelled Zweihänder which is a German longsword.

More over the German School of Fencing does appear in the book (pg 270) and begins with "The German school of fencing for many years favored the two handed sword the schwerdt. This weapon was taught as a favored sword from 1480 until 1570 by the reigning fencing association of the time the Marxbruder" and seems to be what many people mistakenly call "German longsword" fighting.

In fact, Castle (the reference used for the Long Sword entry) states "The word Schwerdt in Germany was restricted to the heavier kind of sword, such as was called Long Sword or the old-fashioned sword, m England

In reality, this fighting style wasn't limited to just the longsword (as implied by the misname) but included polearms, daggers, messers (with or without a buckler), and the staff as well.

I should point out that what people calls a "great sword" overlaps with the high end of the longsword category but the really large ones used skills more akin to polearm and staff then two-handed sword for the very simple reason the thing was too big to be used as a sword.

[David L Pulver]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Cool, so again I guess it's a bit odd that a new rule (or rather change of existing rule) and one that was going to come up a reasonably frequently in common genres didn't get play-tested at any point?

The 4th edition combat rules were playtested fairly extensively. In regard to this particular rule, playtesters seemed to like the change from "unready after any attack or parry" to "cannot parry if you used it to attack (or vice versa)." I still have email records of back and forth discussions on this rule and how the final version was adopted in the first draft.

Of course, there is a huge difference between "months of playtest by a few dozen people, only some of which may be focused on melee weapon changes" and "a dozen years of actual play by thousands of people coupled with intense development in combat and low-tech focused source books." Naturally, the latter process will refine rules to a far greater degree than the former.

It's also worth noting that 4e introduced a great number of changes across all areas of the game (e.g., in defense, the dropping of PD). Some rules had received years of prior testing in the authors' campaigns; others were developed during the design and consultation process. It's more or less impossible to talk about one 4e rule being playtested or not playtested. People tested the system as a complete package.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by David L Pulver

The 4th edition combat rules were playtested fairly extensively. In regard to this particular rule, playtesters seemed to like the change from "unready after any attack or parry" to "cannot parry if you used it to attack (or vice versa)." I still have email records of back and forth discussions on this rule and how the final version was adopted in the first draft.

Of course, there is a huge difference between "months of playtest by a few dozen people, only some of which may be focused on melee weapon changes" and "a dozen years of actual play by thousands of people coupled with intense development in combat and low-tech focused source books." Naturally, the latter process will refine rules to a far greater degree than the former.

It's also worth noting that 4e introduced a great number of changes across all areas of the game (e.g., in defense, the dropping of PD). Some rules had received years of prior testing in the authors' campaigns; others were developed during the design and consultation process. It's more or less impossible to talk about one 4e rule being playtested or not playtested. People tested the system as a complete package.

Cool cheers for that (I admit I was a bit surprised by the initial claim).

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by maximara

Long Sword (pg 364): "The long sword was of the two handed variety. It was invariable a cutting weapon and was always, because of its length and weight used on foot. Blades of these weapons often reached five feet and more in length. The long sword family includes the claymore, the spandon, the espadon, the zweyhander, and the flamberge" (Egerton Castle (1885) Schools and Masters of Fence: From the Middle Ages to the Eighteenth Century)

That contradicts the one English writer who defines the difference between a long sword and a short sword: George Silver says that the only difference is that the long sword has a long handle and the short sword has a short one. We see those kinds of sword with about a 48" overall length being used on horseback from the 14th century until they fall out of fashion. True 5'-6' two-handed swords tend to be used on foot but that does not seem to be what "long sword" meant.

Historically, the difference seems to be that one crowd said "bastard sword" and another said "long sword," I don't see both terms in many sources (and "bastard sword" is rare in English in general). Its much like staff weapons: Gary Gygax picked names from all over Europe across 300 years and gave them a precise definition, in any one town in any one year there were a few common names which each covered weapons with different forms but similar function.