Explanation of Sword Chucks

[Sabelo2000]

The other problem is that no slashing weapon is effective against heavy armor. If you look at the weapons that were actually used in actual battles against actual armored opponents, it becomes clear that the spear, axe, and mace were the favored weapons. The Roman gladius and Greek short sword (both of which were secondary to the spear) were often not even sharpened on the sides, but presented a very dangerous point that could punch through bronze breastplate. Most large swords were only ceremonial in application, like the German zwiehander. Even this huge sword would only put a dent in full-plate armor (which was, like the zwiehander, never used in actual battle.) Against a typical chain-mailed opponent, the sword could be effective because putting the entire force of a 5-pound blade into a thin plane would at least break whatever bone was under the armor. Again, though, the edges were not sharpened.

It was the lightly-armored Turks and Chinese who used slashing swords such as the scimitar and wakazashi. These swords were rumored to be so finely honed they could slice a silk scarf floating in the air.

Both of these archetypes, however, are impossible to use effectively when swinging one sword on the end of a chain. Its path through the air would tumble and wobble, so even if the desired body part were hit, it would be the wide (and weak) flat of the blade most likely to make contact. And as we all know, applying force to the flat of a blade simply snaps it.

Advantage: guy who's not trying to use sword-chucks.

[R2Keen2]

The idea of Sword-pole-Sword would more closly resemble a three-section staff, a weapon that does exist, but its not nunchucks.

Weapon wise i believe a long sword is capable of being 1 handed.. rapier would fall under this catigory if i'm correct. Bastard Swords were the next step weighing more due to a longer blade and thus requiring two hands to weild without training. A two handed weapon would be filed under Greatsword, longer and heavier than the bastard swords.

Oriental combat honned the skills of slashing, European style slashing was a skill to wear down the enemy through blood loss and distraction of pain. In fencing yes slashing shows up a bit more but the rules of fencing weren't so much to the death it was usually more best 2 outa 3. Where it two the death i believe thusts would be a favored attack for striking weak points.

As i was saying before the 4 bladed sword has the problem of less aerodinamics and if contact is made by 2 blades at once the force is distributed less harshly resulting in less damage. Either way The swords are reduced to mainly blunt damage sharp or not and the nun-chucks have increased odds of damaging yourself both ratio wise and severity of the wound. Final judgement: Unbalanced weapon.

Its not to say someone couldn't use a pair and be deadly, and its not to say they couldn't be duel wielded.. Keep in mind if someone does duel wield nun-chucks they tend to catch them between their arms or other parts of thier bodies to keep control.. the blade adds much more challange to catching it.

[Air Tperrec]

has anyone taken into account with all this proving sword chucks wrong who created the idea in the first place?

:fighter: Sword-chucks yo!

[Black Mage von Stabby]

But sword-chucks are right (NOT WRONG) most of the time, plus, this is a thread speculating over the advantages and disadvantages of the sword-chuck, not Fighter.

[kam_islash]

Dungeons and Dragons wise it could work.

Type: Exotic

Two short swords attached to a chain double the length of a normal nunchaku. In order to be safely used, gauntlets with at least a +1 modifier must be worn. If gauntlets are not present, each time the sword chucks are used you will take 10 points of damage and your arms will become less effective until healed.

However, if your character has Deft Hands or Toughness he might be able to skillfully run the blades along his arms without being cut.

Damage is 1d4 for both attacks, if however, one chooses to use the swinging attack, one runs the risk of damaging oneself therefore one must roll a reflex save. if the save fails, you are hit with 1d4/2 damage.


One can wield two swordchucks at once, raising the damage to 2d4 rather than 1d4, but one must roll a higher saving throw against hitting oneself, which has been upgraded to 2d4/2.

Proficiency in swordchucks offers +2 success roll bonus in the following skills:
-Deflect Arrow
-Intimidate (Youd be intimidated too if you saw someone swinging two swordchucks)
-Whirlwind attack

Any skill or feat that gives you dex bonuses is extremely helpful when wielding swordchucks.

///

[shiney]

2d4? For swordchucks? Come on man, that's low damage.

[kam_islash]

Its the damage that the PHB gives a short sword, AND a nunchaku too.

I can't really alter it any more than that, unless you can figure about how much more it would be when factoring speed into the equation.

///

[shiney]

Make it d6 then.

[XJapan-EndlessRain]

With a nunchuck you give more wrist action, with a swordchuck you give BODY MOMENTUM... put a 200 pound warrior with 50 pounds of armor moving that weapon and it would do a LOT of damage, no matter how you look at that.

I like White Wolf because momentum actually has a factor in the game, which is handy, and if it were not the intellectual material of another person I would probably take the time to create the schematics for White Wolf Sword Chucks, which would definatly turn out very well (I am a Mage fan, even though my books are not here at the moment)

[kam_islash]

Ok d6 it is.

If these things are a certain weight, I think Telekinesis could easily wield them.

///