Would you like to see new weapon types?

[indigoasis]

While the series has seen it's fair share of weapons added to the ever-growing roster, they've all been able to be classified into different categories of weapon types. However, Three Houses finally introduced a new weapon type to the series, that being the Brawling weapon type, the first new weapon type since Daggers, which had been introduced back in Path of Radiance. 

Would you like to see the series experiment and add in more kinds of weapon types? If so, what kinds of weapons would you like to see?

Personally, I'm a big Castlevania fanatic, so I'd love to see whips added in. The Sword of the Creator can function as a whip, so there's already a blueprint for it.

[Acacia Sgt]

Combat staffs/sticks. Let's see some quarterstaff action.

[joevar]

Blunt weapon like Mace maybe?

another thing that i want them to consider since we now have so many class is: a variant or sub-categories weapon such as Greatsword. it will benefit from any sword specific skill, and of course it will be restricted by appropriate class.

thinking back on 3H for example , if Hero is the one class that can only wield it, it will give some reason to use it rather than feeling like an "inferior swordmaster that can also wield axe poorly compared to warrior-class". so its like a blend of old system where a class can only wield specific weapon, and new system where you can wield anything: so now you can wield any "base type" weapon, but some class has unique weapon to them

Edited August 8, 2021 by joevar

[lenticular]

I'm not opposed to new weapon types, but I'd prefer that they focus on making the existing weapon types feel more distinct. There just isn't that much to differentiate between swords, lances and axes in most Fire Emblem games other than a sliding scale of trading off might for weight and accuracy. In comparison, gauntlets in Three Houses or Shuriken in Fates both feel far more distinct with their own unique niche, and I'd rather something like that for the main weapon types too.

[vanguard333]

There isn't really much in the area of pre-gunpowder weaponry left that they haven't already used at some point in the series, and while early firearms could be interesting, I'm not really sure if I want to see them.

I suppose that, rather than new weapon types, it would be interesting to see the three main weapon types (sword, lance, axe) have unique subtypes. What I was thinking was that these subtypes would be dedicated two-handed weapons: they have great stats and unique abilities, but they're infantry-only and can't be used alongside secondary equipable items (i.e. shields). For swords, the two-handed subtype would be greatswords (historical European examples include the zweihander, spadone, and montante, and historical Japanese examples include the nodachi). For axes, poleaxe, and for lances, pikes.

Edited August 9, 2021 by vanguard333

[Jotari]

7 hours ago, indigoasis said:

While the series has seen it's fair share of weapons added to the ever-growing roster, they've all been able to be classified into different categories of weapon types. However, Three Houses finally introduced a new weapon type to the series, that being the Brawling weapon type, the first new weapon type since Daggers, which had been introduced back in Path of Radiance. 

Would you like to see the series experiment and add in more kinds of weapon types? If so, what kinds of weapons would you like to see?

Personally, I'm a big Castlevania fanatic, so I'd love to see whips added in. The Sword of the Creator can function as a whip, so there's already a blueprint for it.

Throwing lot's of shade on Radiant Dawn Crossbows there. Speaking of which, I'd like to see Crossbows return. They have an interesting mechanic that I think could have been implemented better. In the realm of other weapons, there isn't largely much  need imo. We have basic "hit physically" and "hit magically" weapons, any other additions would need a unique mechanic of some sort to justify existing. Whips and quarter staffs might look cool and all, but what are they actually bringing to the table as game mechanics?

Edited August 8, 2021 by Jotari

[indigoasis]

6 hours ago, Jotari said:

Throwing lot's of shade on Radiant Dawn Crossbows there. Speaking of which, I'd like to see Crossbows return. They have an interesting mechanic that I think could have been implemented better. In the realm of other weapons, there isn't largely much  need imo. We have basic "hit physically" and "hit magically" weapons, any other additions would need a unique mechanic of some sort to justify existing. Whips and quarter staffs might look cool and all, but what are they actually bringing to the table as game mechanics?

I didn't know crossbows existed, that's my b, but I would say that they're still bows nonetheless.

They added fists in 3H, so if they wanted to keep it around and make a weapon triangle with it, they could do something with whips, fists, and staffs (so Whips > Fists > Staffs > Whips, or something like that), or they could just keep it as a neutral weapon type like bows and daggers.

[Jotari]

8 hours ago, indigoasis said:

I didn't know crossbows existed, that's my b, but I would say that they're still bows nonetheless.

They're not just bows though, as Warriors can use Crossbows without being able to use bows, and Silver Knights can't use crossbows even though they can use bows.

Quote

They added fists in 3H, so if they wanted to keep it around and make a weapon triangle with it, they could do something with whips, fists, and staffs (so Whips > Fists > Staffs > Whips, or something like that), or they could just keep it as a neutral weapon type like bows and daggers.

I really don't see the appeal to add a bunch new triangles to things. If anything what advantage such a weapon could give would be to be outside of the weapon triangle entirely, like bows.

Edited August 9, 2021 by Jotari

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

Maybe a combat staff, like the bo-staff? Would need a name that differentiates it from healing staves.

I'm envisioning a melee weapon - accurate, moderate weight, fairly low might. What differentiates them from Swords? Basically, they would offer a defensive buff - when under physical attack, all damage received is cut in half. Think of it as the attack being "blocked", and some of the damage absorbed, by the staff. Ergo, this could be a good weapon for drawing in, and safely engaging with, a lot of foes on enemy-phase.

Edited August 9, 2021 by Shanty Pete's 1st Mate
Typo.

[X-Naut]

I'm in the camp of doing more with what we already have than adding another gimmicky weapon that might not stick. Fix the problems with swords/bows/axes or whatever needs fixing the most before introducing something new.

That being said, if daggers and gauntlets stick around I have a controversial suggestion: lump them under one weapon category. Both are unconventional in warfare, more associated with criminals and assassins than typical soldiers and typically infantry-locked. Plus, if they nerfed the killing power of knives into the ground they complement each other rather well. Gauntlets serve as their kill button, while daggers offer a ranged option and a means to sabotage foes they can't outright beat.

[Jotari]

3 hours ago, X-Naut said:

I'm in the camp of doing more with what we already have than adding another gimmicky weapon that might not stick. Fix the problems with swords/bows/axes or whatever needs fixing the most before introducing something new.

That being said, if daggers and gauntlets stick around I have a controversial suggestion: lump them under one weapon category. Both are unconventional in warfare, more associated with criminals and assassins than typical soldiers and typically infantry-locked. Plus, if they nerfed the killing power of knives into the ground they complement each other rather well. Gauntlets serve as their kill button, while daggers offer a ranged option and a means to sabotage foes they can't outright beat.

The name Fates uses for the overall weapon category already would fit pretty nicely, Hidden Weapons.

[Interdimensional Observer]

And I'll be yet another voice for "fix what we have". Without the weapon triangle and -faires, the differences between the three physical weapon types is slim. Lances as roughly +1 Mt -5 Hit +1 Wt over Swords, Axes as +1 Mt -5 Hit +1 Wt over Lances doesn't make a significant difference. -Not to say we need the the weapon triangle, it works, but why stick to so simplistic a form of differentiation?

Alternatively, keeping the basic four physical weapon types as conventional weapons and then adding special gimmicky subtypes to each may work. Keep Swords as is, but add knives and broadswords as sharing the Sword weapon rank, but having special mechanics that make them stand out. And knives and broadswords would be restricted to specific classes, while swords would be more widely available.

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

3 hours ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

Alternatively, keeping the basic four physical weapon types as conventional weapons and then adding special gimmicky subtypes to each may work. Keep Swords as is, but add knives and broadswords as sharing the Sword weapon rank, but having special mechanics that make them stand out. And knives and broadswords would be restricted to specific classes, while swords would be more widely available.

I've theorycrafted something like this, working from a simplified weapon system (a la Awakening):

Swords have Knives and Katanas as subtypes. Knives are ranged and usable by Thieves and Assassins, while Katanas have high crit and are usable by Myrmidons and Swordmasters.

Bows have Longbows and Crossbows as subtypes. Longbows get longer range and are usable by Archers and Snipers, while Crossbows can attack at 1-range, by Hunters and Warriors.

Tomes have Light and Dark magic as subtypes. Light magic gives defensive buffs and is usable by Mages and Sages, while Dark magic debuffs foes and goes to Dark Mages and Sorcerors.

Conceivably, you could add subtypes to Lances, Axes, and Staves too. Maybe borrowing from the Naginata, Clubs, and Rods that Fates brought to the table.

[X-Naut]

16 hours ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

I've theorycrafted something like this, working from a simplified weapon system (a la Awakening):

Swords have Knives and Katanas as subtypes. Knives are ranged and usable by Thieves and Assassins, while Katanas have high crit and are usable by Myrmidons and Swordmasters.

Bows have Longbows and Crossbows as subtypes. Longbows get longer range and are usable by Archers and Snipers, while Crossbows can attack at 1-range, by Hunters and Warriors.

Tomes have Light and Dark magic as subtypes. Light magic gives defensive buffs and is usable by Mages and Sages, while Dark magic debuffs foes and goes to Dark Mages and Sorcerors.

Conceivably, you could add subtypes to Lances, Axes, and Staves too. Maybe borrowing from the Naginata, Clubs, and Rods that Fates brought to the table.

I've thought similar, albeit slightly different for swords and bows. Swords would get Blades back as proper two-handers that are Merc/promoted infantry locked, while the bow options you listed are Archer/promoted infantry locked. If Snipers continue getting extra range then Warrior also getting longbows won't hurt, and it'll enrich the latter's bow utility. Blades would be heavy but have really high Mt and similar or better Hit to swords rather than dumpstering it.

Tomes having Dark has been done before, but Light has been tied to Staffs in PoR and 3H and I think it's worth considering, especially for people who insist on mono-weapon type classes and want a mono-staff class too.

Lances and Axes are trickier because Fire Emblem has frequently portrayed them as their "heavy" variant despite not committing to it. Axes could be remedied by adding more one-handers (clubs/maces, etc), but base Lances could use an overhaul. They'd now have an innate Speed penalty of say -3 that's separate from weight, but mounted classes receive extra damage based on movement when using arts, specials, etc provided they only strike once. They'd also enable a default "Charge" command for mounts that is basically a blank combat art to use it at will. Infantry can still use them but miss out on this perk. However, this wouldn't apply to throwing lances (spears) and a few other unique polearms, some of which may be infantry-locked.

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

23 minutes ago, X-Naut said:

Tomes having Dark has been done before, but Light has been tied to Staffs in PoR and 3H and I think it's worth considering, especially for people who insist on mono-weapon type classes and want a mono-staff class too.

Hm... what if we combined PoR's mechanic (whereby some staff-users get a skill granting them access to light magic), and RD's mechanic (whereby staves can be equipped, and used to counter-attack)? Namely, staves can be equipped and used to counter-attack, but rather than hitting them with the staff (1-range physical), it's a light magic attack (1~2-range magical). Different staves could have different effects - Mend would have higher Might than Heal, for instance, while the Ward staff would debuff the target's Res. I'm thinking infantry healers (but not mounted ones) would get this ability - or, perhaps it should be limited to "holy" classes (so Priest and Bishop get it, but not Sage).

Edited August 10, 2021 by Shanty Pete's 1st Mate
Added detail.

[Interdimensional Observer]

22 hours ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

I've theorycrafted something like this, working from a simplified weapon system (a la Awakening):

Swords have Knives and Katanas as subtypes. Knives are ranged and usable by Thieves and Assassins, while Katanas have high crit and are usable by Myrmidons and Swordmasters.

Bows have Longbows and Crossbows as subtypes. Longbows get longer range and are usable by Archers and Snipers, while Crossbows can attack at 1-range, by Hunters and Warriors.

Tomes have Light and Dark magic as subtypes. Light magic gives defensive buffs and is usable by Mages and Sages, while Dark magic debuffs foes and goes to Dark Mages and Sorcerors.

Conceivably, you could add subtypes to Lances, Axes, and Staves too. Maybe borrowing from the Naginata, Clubs, and Rods that Fates brought to the table.

While not the entirety of my thoughts, I was thinking along the lines of the three basic types of injury.:

• Cut- Wide but shallow open wounds.
• Stab- Deep but narrow open wounds.
• Blunt- Wounds that damage both wide and deep, without necessarily creating openings.

In FE weapon types, Cut is usually what Swords cover, Lances and Bows are Stab. Axes are Blunt, barring maybe Hand Axes and Tomahawks, because while they do cut, the majority of the damage comes from the weight of the weapon itself.

With this is in mind, one could create formulate some subtypes.:

• Broadswords/Greatswords are defined by being big and heavy, so they should be Swords with a Blunt lean.
• Rapiers are all about Stabbing.
• Naginatas are for Cutting, and Poleaxes I think too.
• Jousting lances might make for lance-Blunt, considering Henry VIII of England had a life-changing concussion after a jousting incident. 
• If you made Axes somewhere between Cut and Blunt, then Maces could be pure Blunt.
• Crossbow bolts can be big and impactful, so maybe a Blunt aspect to them.
• Daggers as a throwing weapon could compensate for Cutting not being something Bows or Crossbows do. 

Making Cut, Stab, and Blunt matter however, would require enemies having strengths and weaknesses to each kind.

The Hammer I take it has long been the Axe category's anti-Armor weapon, because it eschews the cutting altogether and doubles-down on Blunt force, which is the best way to damage someone clad in thick armor. So it'd suggest to me that doing away with traditional effective bonuses might be in order. Instead, give all classes a baseline of 0-0-0 Cut-Stab-Blunt resistance -separate from Def- and then add positive and negative resistance in accordance with the class and what it wears.

Armor should be weak to Blunt as I explained above. Horses should be weak to Stab, because if a Paladin comes charging at me and I just stand firm holding a pike in front of me, and the rider pays no attention to the pike whatsoever, either they or the horse will find themselves very dead once they come to a screeching halt and the inertia of the charge drives the spearhead deep in them. This means all I need is to figure out a common class that'd be particularly weak to Cut.

[AnonymousSpeed]

On 8/7/2021 at 11:55 PM, lenticular said:

I'm not opposed to new weapon types, but I'd prefer that they focus on making the existing weapon types feel more distinct. There just isn't that much to differentiate between swords, lances and axes in most Fire Emblem games other than a sliding scale of trading off might for weight and accuracy.

I mostly agree with this, but with one major disagreement: Swords are distinguished by their lack of 1-2 range options, which makes them bad.

On 8/8/2021 at 6:34 AM, Jotari said:

Whips and quarter staffs might look cool and all, but what are they actually bringing to the table as game mechanics?

And I'll agree with this generally as well. Crossbows were neat, and I'm really only interested in seeing new weapon types if they can add something interesting mechanically. I'd be much more eager to see hidden weapons brought back from Fates than to see whips or weapon subtypes, which sound like overcomplications more than anything. Shurikens and daggers were some of the most strategically fascinating weapons the series has ever seen and gave thieves a use in combat without changing them from a "utility" class.

[Jotari]

One thing I have had a slight itch to see in the past that never seemed practical was weapons of dual weapon types. Like a Halbard as a Lance-Axe hybrid (or a Naginata for a sword lance hybrid, axe swords are also a thing, at least in fantasy games, probably in real life too as there's a tonne of weird historical weapons that seem to exist only to be cool). In other words a really good weapon, but you need like B rank in two different weapons to use. It always seemed a silly idea because it'd require a tonne of different classes with varying weapon types to not become basically class exclusive weapons. But in a free for all system like Three Houses it could work much better. What's that? Weapon triangle you say? Well a Lance-Axe weapon would naturally be neutral to swords, weak to axes and strong against lances. Weird and overly complicated? Hmm, perhaps, but fun, I'm willing to roll the dice to find out!

Edited August 11, 2021 by Jotari

[joevar]

3 hours ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

While not the entirety of my thoughts, I was thinking along the lines of the three basic types of injury.:

• Cut- Wide but shallow open wounds.
• Stab- Deep but narrow open wounds.
• Blunt- Wounds that damage both wide and deep, without necessarily creating openings.

In FE weapon types, Cut is usually what Swords cover, Lances and Bows are Stab. Axes are Blunt, barring maybe Hand Axes and Tomahawks, because while they do cut, the majority of the damage comes from the weight of the weapon itself.

With this is in mind, one could create formulate some subtypes.:

• Broadswords/Greatswords are defined by being big and heavy, so they should be Swords with a Blunt lean.
• Rapiers are all about Stabbing.
• Naginatas are for Cutting, and Poleaxes I think too.
• Jousting lances might make for lance-Blunt, considering Henry VIII of England had a life-changing concussion after a jousting incident. 
• If you made Axes somewhere between Cut and Blunt, then Maces could be pure Blunt.
• Crossbow bolts can be big and impactful, so maybe a Blunt aspect to them.
• Daggers as a throwing weapon could compensate for Cutting not being something Bows or Crossbows do. 

Making Cut, Stab, and Blunt matter however, would require enemies having strengths and weaknesses to each kind.

The Hammer I take it has long been the Axe category's anti-Armor weapon, because it eschews the cutting altogether and doubles-down on Blunt force, which is the best way to damage someone clad in thick armor. So it'd suggest to me that doing away with traditional effective bonuses might be in order. Instead, give all classes a baseline of 0-0-0 Cut-Stab-Blunt resistance -separate from Def- and then add positive and negative resistance in accordance with the class and what it wears.

Armor should be weak to Blunt as I explained above. Horses should be weak to Stab, because if a Paladin comes charging at me and I just stand firm holding a pike in front of me, and the rider pays no attention to the pike whatsoever, either they or the horse will find themselves very dead once they come to a screeching halt and the inertia of the charge drives the spearhead deep in them. This means all I need is to figure out a common class that'd be particularly weak to Cut.

thats very interesting and very RPG like damage, which is great. but in a game where most duel solved within 2 turns at most, it became unnecessarily complicated and restricting. rather than making it less effective, this would just make it a unit cant attack certain enemy almost like they dont have enough strength, or risk losing a unit by brute forcing it. compared it to action and RPG or maybe something like Monster Hunter game, where an enemy could take 3 to 10 minutes depending on your dmg types.

 

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

Weapon triangle you say? Well a Lance-Axe weapon would naturally be neutral to swords, weak to axes and strong against lances. Weird and overly complicated? Hmm, perhaps, but fun, I'm willing to roll the dice to find out!

isnt that basically still weapon triangle? but rather than making the loop reversed, or just changing its weak-strong like old game, its now doubled down by changing the weak-strong as well as forgetting its own weapon type. i dont think its that much complicated in terms of code? you just make more weapon loop thats hidden in the game guide but is in the code. its still "lance-reaver", "axe reaver" at the end of the day. But its more work ofc

Edited August 11, 2021 by joevar

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, joevar said:

isnt that basically still weapon triangle? but rather than making the loop reversed, or just changing its weak-strong like old game, its now doubled down by changing the weak-strong as well as forgetting its own weapon type. i dont think its that much complicated in terms of code? you just make more weapon loop thats hidden in the game guide but is in the code. its still "lance-reaver", "axe reaver" at the end of the day. But its more work ofc

No of course it isn't any more complicated to code. I mean more complicated for players to intuit. See the Fates weapon triangle and how little players like that. It's not massively complicated, but still, trying to remember how axes interact with shurikens is outside the realm of rock paper scissors simplicity that players are used to which leads a lot to disliking it (whereas Heroes does basically the exact same thing, it just heavily colour codes it way more and removes multiple weapon types on a single unit which makes it easy to grasp without thinking).

In terms of the functionality, it wouldn't quite be the same as reaver weapons, which just invert the weapon triangle, as a Halberd would still be both a Lance and an Axe. In other words it is weak to itself, while also being effective against itself. Depending on how one wants to utilize a system, a halberd going against a halberd would actually result in both units having WTA against each other, or possibly both having WTD, or both cancelling each other out (which would be the simplest). Breaker skills would also be a particularly useful counter, as a hybrid weapon would be vulnerable against two different types.

Edited August 11, 2021 by Jotari

[vanguard333]

On 8/10/2021 at 3:03 PM, Interdimensional Observer said:

While not the entirety of my thoughts, I was thinking along the lines of the three basic types of injury.:

• Cut- Wide but shallow open wounds.
• Stab- Deep but narrow open wounds.
• Blunt- Wounds that damage both wide and deep, without necessarily creating openings.

In FE weapon types, Cut is usually what Swords cover, Lances and Bows are Stab. Axes are Blunt, barring maybe Hand Axes and Tomahawks, because while they do cut, the majority of the damage comes from the weight of the weapon itself.

With this is in mind, one could create formulate some subtypes.:

• Broadswords/Greatswords are defined by being big and heavy, so they should be Swords with a Blunt lean.
• Rapiers are all about Stabbing.
• Naginatas are for Cutting, and Poleaxes I think too.
• Jousting lances might make for lance-Blunt, considering Henry VIII of England had a life-changing concussion after a jousting incident. 
• If you made Axes somewhere between Cut and Blunt, then Maces could be pure Blunt.
• Crossbow bolts can be big and impactful, so maybe a Blunt aspect to them.
• Daggers as a throwing weapon could compensate for Cutting not being something Bows or Crossbows do. 

Making Cut, Stab, and Blunt matter however, would require enemies having strengths and weaknesses to each kind.

The Hammer I take it has long been the Axe category's anti-Armor weapon, because it eschews the cutting altogether and doubles-down on Blunt force, which is the best way to damage someone clad in thick armor. So it'd suggest to me that doing away with traditional effective bonuses might be in order. Instead, give all classes a baseline of 0-0-0 Cut-Stab-Blunt resistance -separate from Def- and then add positive and negative resistance in accordance with the class and what it wears.

Armor should be weak to Blunt as I explained above. Horses should be weak to Stab, because if a Paladin comes charging at me and I just stand firm holding a pike in front of me, and the rider pays no attention to the pike whatsoever, either they or the horse will find themselves very dead once they come to a screeching halt and the inertia of the charge drives the spearhead deep in them. This means all I need is to figure out a common class that'd be particularly weak to Cut.

This sounds interesting overall. I think at least a few RPGs these days divide damage between slash, pierce, and blunt. Just a few smaller things I'd like to point out as someone who has done a lot of research on medieval weaponry:

1. European Swords are generally cut & thrust weapons. There are some exceptions such as the kreigsmesser and the falchion (not Marth's sword; actual falchions), but generally, medieval European swords focused on both cuts and thrusts. In fact, the advent of plate armour in the late middle ages led to most swords becoming more focused on stabs than cuts, and there was even a subtype of longsword called the Estoc that could only be used for stabs.

Also, swords could actually be used for blunt damage through an anti-armour technique called Mordhau: the wielder grabs the sword by the blade with both hands (if you hold it properly, you won't cut yourself as the blade has to move in order to cut) and bludgeon the opponent with the handle of the weapon. Of course, since the only purpose of the technique is anti-armour, it would be implemented in FE as a skill.

2. Axes are sharp weapons; they are designed for cutting. The weight of the weapon is for the momentum of the cut and even then, actual historical axes are far lighter than one would think because the axe heads are far thinner than that of woodchopping axes. Blunt weapons are weapons such as maces, war hammers, and flails. In other words, they are bludgeoning weapons with no edge to them.

3. Broadswords are not medieval weapons; the name "broadsword" refers to basket-hilted swords from the 17th-century.

4. Greatswords are not defined by weight; they actually generally feel lighter than polearms of similar length because of the weight balance being closer to the back. Greatswords are defined by their size and shape: they are almost as long as their wielder is tall. They, like most smaller straight swords, are cut-and-thrust weapons. Their greater length and momentum means they excel at being used for fending off the attacks of polearms and keeping them and smaller weapons at bay. They are bodyguards' weapons.

5. Rapiers can actually cut; they won't cut a limb off, but they can sever an artery. But you are correct that they are mainly for stabbing. They are also mainly dueling weapons, and you weren't that likely to see one on a battlefield.

6. Poleaxes were designed with versatility in mind: they generally have an axe head at the front, a spike on the top, and a hammer head at the back. They can cut, thrust and bludgeon. They were meant for use by heavily-armoured infantry for fighting heavily-armoured infantry.

7. If you want lance-blunt, there are a number of polearms that were designed for bludgeoning. Just a few examples include two-handed flails, the Lucerne (basically a more hammer-focused version of the poleaxe), and a Dutch weapon called the Goedendag (meaning "good day") that was a combination of spear and club.

[Interdimensional Observer]

1 hour ago, vanguard333 said:

Axes are sharp weapons; they are designed for cutting. The weight of the weapon is for the momentum of the cut and even then, actual historical axes are far lighter than one would think because the axe heads are far thinner than that of woodchopping axes. Blunt weapons are weapons such as maces, war hammers, and flails. In other words, they are bludgeoning weapons with no edge to them.

Ah, I overestimated their heft. I see. Blame Etrian Odyssey on this one, they made Axes Bash/Blunt there, likely to further differentiate them from Landsknecht class's other usable weapon type- the sword (Ironic, given I've read they were primary pikemen, but it's a name chosen for pure fancy, not anything historical).

1 hour ago, vanguard333 said:

Rapiers can actually cut; they won't cut a limb off, but they can sever an artery. But you are correct that they are mainly for stabbing. They are also mainly dueling weapons, and you weren't that likely to see one on a battlefield.

No surprise here, it's more practical and realistic. Games likely overemphasize the rapier's pointedness to distinguish them from other sword types. Reality and what's good for gameplay divulge.

1 hour ago, vanguard333 said:

Also, swords could actually be used for blunt damage through an anti-armour technique called Mordhau: the wielder grabs the sword by the blade with both hands (if you hold it properly, you won't cut yourself as the blade has to move in order to cut) and bludgeon the opponent with the handle of the weapon. Of course, since the only purpose of the technique is anti-armour, it would be implemented in FE as a skill.

It does indeed sound like it'd make a good Combat Art. Throw it on at least one master of the blade as an indicator of their training in techniques off the standard path of sword mastery.

1 hour ago, vanguard333 said:

and a Dutch weapon called the Goedendag (meaning "good day") that was a combination of spear and club.

Good day for whom? Is it referring to the wielder's good fortune to be using one of these? Or does it mean the weapon is a great way to sarcastically welcome the enemy to their death with a quick knock to their cranium? 

I like it. It's better than the siege towers I've heard the French at least twice nicknamed "Bad Neighbor". 

1 hour ago, vanguard333 said:

Just a few smaller things I'd like to point out as someone who has done a lot of research on medieval weaponry:

Thanks for all the information! 😄

I was told back in high school that military history is not so useful. And although I'd like to say my preference is more towards other aspects of history, I can't deny that some military history is still entertaining. I've been having taking copious notes out of a book from my local library on medieval siege warfare (focusing on the 11th century to the early 16th- no "Dark Ages", with most attention going to France, England, and the Crusades; occasionally Italy, Spain, islands in the Mediterranean; Germany and east of it are mostly ignored). It's been very enjoyable. If you'd like the notes, although I'd think you'd probably already know a lot of it, I can provide.

[vanguard333]

17 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

(1) Ah, I overestimated their heft. I see. Blame Etrian Odyssey on this one, they made Axes Bash/Blunt there, likely to further differentiate them from Landsknecht class's other usable weapon type- the sword (Ironic, given I've read they were primary pikemen, but it's a name chosen for pure fancy, not anything historical).

(2) No surprise here, it's more practical and realistic. Games likely overemphasize the rapier's pointedness to distinguish them from other sword types. Reality and what's good for gameplay divulge.

(3) It does indeed sound like it'd make a good Combat Art. Throw it on at least one master of the blade as an indicator of their training in techniques off the standard path of sword mastery.

(4) Good day for whom? Is it referring to the wielder's good fortune to be using one of these? Or does it mean the weapon is a great way to sarcastically welcome the enemy to their death with a quick knock to their cranium? 

I like it. It's better than the siege towers I've heard the French at least twice nicknamed "Bad Neighbor". 

(5) Thanks for all the information! 😄

(6) I was told back in high school that military history is not so useful. And although I'd like to say my preference is more towards other aspects of history, I can't deny that some military history is still entertaining. I've been having taking copious notes out of a book from my local library on medieval siege warfare (focusing on the 11th century to the early 16th- no "Dark Ages", with most attention going to France, England, and the Crusades; occasionally Italy, Spain, islands in the Mediterranean; Germany and east of it are mostly ignored). It's been very enjoyable. If you'd like the notes, although I'd think you'd probably already know a lot of it, I can provide.

1. Oh; don't get me wrong. Axes do have more heft than swords on account of the center of mass being near the head; I'm just saying that it is a sharp weapon meant to slash and chop. Side note: there's an ancient forward-curved sword called the Falcata that's essentially designed to combine the heft and chopping motion of an axe with the nimbleness of a one-handed sword.

I've never played Etrian Odyssey; that's an... interesting gameplay decision. Why didn't it give them swords and pikes?

2. More than likely. Interestingly, the Estoc that I mentioned earlier had no edge and could only be used for stabs. It's essentially an extremely narrow and stiff longsword. The armorslayer in Three Houses is essentially an estoc, which makes sense as one method of fighting an opponent that's wearing plate armour is to stab into the gaps in the armour, and the estoc was optimized for that.

3. Yeah; it would be a good combat art.

4. I don't know why the weapon was called, "good day"; I just know that it was called that. In fact, there are actually multiple theories for why it was called that.

5. You're welcome. I just thought I'd share what I know as someone who has done a fair bit of research on this. I still wouldn't necessarily call myself an expert, as the research is a hobby of mine.

6. Well, like anything, how useful it is for someone to know is a matter of context. For me, I'm an aspiring fantasy writer, so I incorporate a lot of what I know about ancient and medieval society, particularly the military knowledge. This knowledge also ties into another hobby of mine: HEMA (Historical European Martial Arts).

Most of my attention goes towards Celtic History; mainly Scotland. But I have also been looking a lot at French history because of a university course I took on Chivalric Literature and a fantasy story I plan to write about knights.

[Interdimensional Observer]

On 8/27/2021 at 10:10 PM, vanguard333 said:

I've never played Etrian Odyssey; that's an... interesting gameplay decision. Why didn't it give them swords and pikes?

Again, EO isn't anywhere near historical. Not like many games even have pikes or recognize them as something separate from spears and axes. This a franchise that later had scythes as a weapon, and I know those are not ever suited for fighting because of how impractical they are.

 

On 8/27/2021 at 10:10 PM, vanguard333 said:

But I have also been looking a lot at French history because of a university course I took on Chivalric Literature and a fantasy story I plan to write about knights.

Although it's but a quick side note in the text, the siege warfare book I've been reading, suggests that there is a possibility chivalry derived some influence from the Arab world. Muslim poets and mystics in the 10th and 11th centuries were writing above love and putting the woman on a pedestal to be revered. Not that can we can be certain of such, as if Christians would ever admit to being inspired by the infidel.

And yet, the shared cultures of elevating women in the arts, while keeping them social-legal inferiority to men, did allow the two sides to admire something about the other. Saladin being the chivalric Muslim so glorious to Europeans, that it is reported as soon as ~20 years after he died, some aristocrats were making outright impossible claims of being descended from him via an affair he had with a European woman their ancestor. A heretic so praiseworthy in knightly behavior you'd like to be his descendant.

And then there is the siege of Oreja in Spain. Wherein the Queen of Castile tricked a very chivalric Muslim ruler into not laying siege to the city where she was left in command, as she was but an innocent frail woman, thereby canceling the Andalusian's plan to force her husband to split his forces by sending some to her aid. This allowed the King of Castile to take the Muslim city he was in the process of besieging. -So it is recorded, whether the account is embellished, I'm not one to say.

[vanguard333]

1 hour ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

Again, EO isn't anywhere near historical. Not like many games even have pikes or recognize them as something separate from spears and axes. This a franchise that later had scythes as a weapon, and I know those are not ever suited for fighting because of how impractical they are.

 

Although it's but a quick side note in the text, the siege warfare book I've been reading, suggests that there is a possibility chivalry derived some influence from the Arab world. Muslim poets and mystics in the 10th and 11th centuries were writing above love and putting the woman on a pedestal to be revered. Not that can we can be certain of such, as if Christians would ever admit to being inspired by the infidel.

And yet, the shared cultures of elevating women in the arts, while keeping them social-legal inferiority to men, did allow the two sides to admire something about the other. Saladin being the chivalric Muslim so glorious to Europeans, that it is reported as soon as ~20 years after he died, some aristocrats were making outright impossible claims of being descended from him via an affair he had with a European woman their ancestor. A heretic so praiseworthy in knightly behavior you'd like to be his descendant.

And then there is the siege of Oreja in Spain. Wherein the Queen of Castile tricked a very chivalric Muslim ruler into not laying siege to the city where she was left in command, as she was but an innocent frail woman, thereby canceling the Andalusian's plan to force her husband to split his forces by sending some to her aid. This allowed the King of Castile to take the Muslim city he was in the process of besieging. -So it is recorded, whether the account is embellished, I'm not one to say.

Yeah; I figured that it probably wasn't anywhere near historical. As for scythes, there is actually a version of scythes that historically was used on the battlefield. However, they looked like this:

Spoiler

The only video game I've seen have a historically accurate war scythe is Demon's Souls.

 

As for chivalry, it wasn't chivalry itself that got influenced by the Arab world so much as the concept of Courtly Love, which was introduced via interaction with Spain. One thing to understand about chivalry was that it was not one unified set of rules; it was a nebulous concept that was a matter of debate and discussion even back in the Middle Ages.