I found the errata that clarifies that dwarves can use swords, not only short swords - which I was hoping for.

I then have a sort of flavour/narrative/gone mechanic question.

Orcrist and Glamdring are sibling swords - or something akin to this no?

I at least seem to remember from lotr and the old merp sourcebooks that these two swords look very much alike, are about the same size and so on.

Are these long swords or normal swords? for some reason I always thought they were longswords - but that may be because normal swords are usually called long swords, and long swords in this game is usually called bastard swords in other fantasy games (for some unknown reason).

Now, what follows is my main question and idea. Considering that dwarves can only use swords, not long swords, could one treat swords "as" long swords - what I mean is not to use the long sword stats for swords when dwarves wield them, but let dwarves use (normal) swords two-handed, like humans and elves can use long swords either one- or two-handed? Arguably this should also apply to hobbits wielding short swords.

I know its bad form to refer to motion pictures as source material, its blasphemy in some circles, I hope you don't mind.

In the new flashy Jackson flick called the hobbit Thorin uses Orcrist - a sword (if not a long sword), I'm pretty sure that some strikes are done two-handed - would you let that do 1 more point of damage (or thereabouts) or would you just let it be flavour and narration? What about hobbits wielding short swords two-handed?

I'd go with them as 'normal' swords rather than longswords and the occasional two-handed usage is just narrative description on the part of Thorin's player rather than it giving any mechanical boon, in my opinion. Same with hobbits using shortswords two-handed.

Yeah, I figured as much.

I guess a forward stance could sort of signify a two-handed hack with a short sword. Myeah.

For some reasons (probably pre-Peter Jackson imagery), I always imagined Glamdring, Orcrist, Narsil and other blades of Gondolin or from the Westerness as ToR would define as longswords.

Although it differs from the RaW, I wouldn't have issues with Dwarves using a longsword, especially if they are restricted to wielding it 2-handed.

Blame D&D. They played loose and fast with weapon naming, and it stuck.

Fancy seeing you here, I assume you're the same weasel as on the FFG forums?

Oh, I blame D&D for most bad stuff in games, even when its not really fair. I've had fun with the game, but eh...

Glorfindels idea about letting dwarves use the long swords only 2 handed is something I could let slide - given that a character figures it out him/herself. Yes. Thanks for that.

I'd be alight with dwarves using long swords but they could only be used in 2 hands.... I was considering not allowing dwarfs to use any great weapon....

Ok, this I gotta see! Flaming dwarves.

Reminds me of what the Romans used to do with pigs...

Indeed I am.


"Alight with Dwarves"

That reminds me that I have to chronicle my party's Tales of Wilderland finale. It involved the Dwarf lighting the main villain on fire as he lay at his feet (he had the trait, and Tolkien does make a point that Dwarves can light fires in the most impossible conditions). Insanity ensued from there.

:-)

I hope you know what I meant!

I don't see a problem allowwing dwarves to use long swords in 2 hands . Mattocks seem to have roughly the same stats so no strong arguement could be made about it changing game balence, and if dwarves are strong enough to weild a long hafted axe or mattack why not a long sword too?

A normal bladed sword is about 3' in length. The longsword, hand-and-a-half sword and bastard sword are all the same style: approx 4' blade with an extended hilt, allowing for two-handed use. Just different names for the same sword.