Nightshade

The problem is that there's no good way to know where to stop and start here; some weapons have more carry-over skill than they seem, and some don't. When I was in the martial arts I found that the baton and shortsword fighting I was learning had more to do with each other than the shortsword did with my foil fencing, for example. And some of this can apply to other sorts of skills. So there's a strong tendency to either lump things heavily or distinguish them completely. A similar problem to what sometimes arises with attribute distinctions (this comes up in BRP most noticeably in arguments about whether Size and Strength should be entirely independent). Not everyone feels that way, however, and GMs have to deal with all kinds, or this wouldn't even be an issue. After all, some people can make just as interesting a character (from their point of view) chosing from the most effective options, so why bother with the suboptimal ones?

Of the ones I used, I liked the check-on-event style system from RQ:AIG the best.

I have to point out that unless you were using a two-handed weapon as a primary, there was no real reason to develop a secondary weapon per se; you could just as easily carry a backup (well, there might be weight issues but few people were so tight that the difference in weight between, say, a second longsword and a shortsword was likely to be critical). Now you might well need to develop an off-hand weapon skill, but there was really no need for that to be a different weapon as such; I had a character who got quite good with off-hand longsword, but it was still a longsword. The obvious exception, of course, is if you were primarily a two-handed weapon user, but given how valuable a shield could be in RQ, we just didn't see too many of those (unless you count bowman, but then, bowman always had some kind of non-ranged weapon skill, too, and it was rarely two-handed).

That's probably why you rarely saw them used; the crush was essentially heavily imbalanced dependent on the user. The RQ: AIG version, as I recall, treated armor at half value and moved the damage up a couple steps, so it was good for pretty much anyone. Well, partly that's because its arguably too good. I don't disagree completely about a backup weapon, but almost no one who wasn't trying out for a rune cult that required one seemed to think a backup melee weapon was enough of a priority to spend much training time on, not when they were likely already spending their training time between a primary melee weapon, a ranged weapon and a shield.

I recall that being more of an issue for armor or mounts than weapons, though. But that was also 25 years ago now, so... Well, they could also be used as throwing weapons, and I recall some special rules for setting versus charge (you used the mount's damage bonus rather than your own), but that never seemed to counterweight the reduced hit points and problem with losing them on an impale. The plus was kind of a wash; you traded higher minimums for lower maximums with a broadsword. The problem there was, again, as I recall the strength minimum was also higher. They seemed to do so when I used modified RQ:AIG rules, so I suspect you're correct.

If you're only going to use a single metric, muzzle energy is probably about as good as you're going to get; its what Aftermath! used as its basis for its guns. The problem you'll run into if you don't watch it, however, showed up in Aftermath! which used that as the basis for its guns; it either ends up making some really outrageous numbers for some rifles and up, or it ends up lumping handguns together a lot. They dealt with this by massaging the hell out of the handguns, to the point some of them were clearly over the top, but if you don't want massive lumping at that end, you need to do _something_.

I would expect so.

There've actually been a fair number of games where success level had as much impact on damage as the base weapon damage, and since that was primarily dependent on skill level, that was the practical effect. TORG/Shatterzone/Masterbook comes to mind.

The problem is that they don't seem to show up any more often in non-Gloranthan games. And again, part of it involves resource overhead; if you're going to carry more than one melee weapon you're going to use seriously, that drags down your training time. If not, you have to decide which one is best, and few people decide on the spear (the decision between sword, axe and mace tends to be more muddy; the Mace often gets left aside in part because of magical reasons; if you learn Bladesharp, you can often use it on your primary and secondaries (dagger if nothing else) but few people carry two bludgeons). With the axe, I suspect its either Strength issues (as I recall, there's no longsword equivelent on the typical list of axes; there's the battleaxe which as I recall typically has a Strength requirement of 13 for one handed use) or double function issues (at least some swords being able in some versions of the rules to be used as impaling weapons and slashing weapons). In fact, I came to appreciate some of the virtues of the spear when I was forced to use it because it was the best melee weapon available to a primitive hunter I was playing in RQ3; but there's usually another choice that seems more attractive, overall. The only downside to that as compared to a bow (and I've commented elsewhere I've probably seen more RQ characters killed by arrow fire than any other single source over the years) is the rate of fire, but as I discovered with the same character's sling use, rate of fire isn't everything.

I've been talking about both, actually. Remember the actual topic of this thread: why don't PCs use some weapons? I'm suggesting that as a general use weapon, there are problems the spear has that the sword doesn't, and as such, unless you're willing to train in more than one melee weapon (which, after all, has an overhead cost) the spear's advantages are outweighed by its disads. While I think its defensible that this became more and more true as warfare progressed, what's really relevant about it here is how it works out for a typical PC in the range of activity he participates in.

Then I don't see what the point of your comment about weight of kit was. I think it is useful, or I wouldn't have brought it up in the first place.

Its not nearly as severe with slashing weapons or impact weapons as it is with thrusting weapons, however, and the longer the weapon is the more vulnerable it is to this. I'm simply suggesting that with actual usage, the practical difference in reach with a 3' spear and a typical longsword (when used to thrust) is minimimal. If you don't agree, you don't, but it certainly seemed the case when watching spear and sword sparring when I was in martial arts. Sure. But by the time you've already started that low attack, you presumeably have already gotten the shield out of line from above. There's nothing that requires you to do it _until_ you've already eliminated that risk from at least that individual combatant (and I'd have to assume that it wasn't that easy to avoid, since that seems to have been the core of the gladius thrust technique the legionnaires used, though obviously that requires less commitment than a slash would). It's pretty close to it when it comes to actually delivering a blow to target before he does to you, all other things being equal. There are obviously other issues when things like penetration and damage are involved (against an armored target, getting in the first weaker blow that does little or nothing against him because his armor absorbed most of the force is obviously less useful than getting in the second blow that's heavier and can get through the armor), and in some cases it can be hard to parry a heavier weapon for obvious reasons--but most of this only works on non-thrusting weapons. It isn't appreciably harder to deflect a heavy thrusting weapon than a light. That's one of the trade-offs with them. Oh, it is; but that doesn't help much once its brought out of line. Recovery in the end is recovery, and mass is mass. Certainly true; but that doesn't say it was as easily countered as the technique. Nothing I've seen suggests that's the case. You can get a lot of answers to that, but only a few of them have to do with advantages to the spear. However, note that there's one important difference here; shield use was _not_ common in Japan. This means in practice you're talking typically about two handed use, where the spear tends to look a lot better (two handed sword use doesn't make nearly the difference at the other end). It matters quite a bit for a weapon that can be moved up inside of, however. If its shortened up enough, why am I more concerned than I would be with him trying to do the same thing with a dagger? I fenced in the round quite frequently, actually. Don't confuse match fencing with everything that goes on. And you managed to do retreats on that terrain at speed and never tripped? Really? I'm honestly having trouble believing this, having sparred in the martial arts in rough terrain and watched people trip with some frequency in those conditions, while lightly dressed and with good visibility. Actually, the slower both parties are, the more things harm someone retreating, because there's not enough time to get any real distance before the opponent can respond. The gap is almost entirely dependent on speed, and that's true even if both are very fast; that's because there's always some lag time between the start of a retreat and response, but if the person retreating can't get far in that time, it means less. Se my comments elsewhere about use of long knives. I don't doubt it does, but at the point you're effectively reduced to fighting with it as a long knife, I think that's enough to show the problem from my point of view. Sure. That's an advantage of a reach weapon I've never denied. But once he does, he's easily inside the optimal combat range of the spear, and the guy's got the choice if he can't get back to that of essentially using the stick or the forshortened blade with the problems associated with it. Its ideal against most weapons because you want to keep your own options open, but it still loses a lot less (at least if its not _too_ long and thrusting oriented itself--really long thrusting blades have some of the same problems I'm addressing here) than the spear here, so you just accept that. Well, he can try, but playing shield push is a game for both; that ends up just turning on who's stronger and has the better balance.

It doesn't help that the real world metrics are something of a moving target; is killing power what you want (Most gunfights end with someone in shock rather than dead outright)? Shocking out? What? Add in the fact that only a limited number of studies have been done on actual results as compared to on extension of data based on lab work and theories about what is effective (I still remember when hydrostatic shock was a big issue in ballistic damage theory before they found out it was only really signficant for head wounds), and the fact is we don't really know in any certain way what makes an effective round. Some things are generally assumed to be an overall better thing (impact energy), but even within those there's a lot of variables and which ones actually help or hurt are open to interpetation.

That was a common problem in general with FGI games of the period, and its quite true. It'd be easy enough to prepare them; after all, its no more complex in principal than the separate ranged and melee hit location tables RQ3 used (though doing it for every shape would be a pain; in Aftermath, the majority of opponents were other humans so you could afford a few special cases easier).

I accept that what you say was true for your group, but there were several local Aftermath games for a while, and no one seemed to have more trouble with them than they had with other local game systems; in particularly, the couple people who did often had trouble with strike ranks or other elements of RQ, too.

I don't actually have much evidence a typical sword is heavier than a typical spear; there's less metal involved, but by the time you're dealing with a 5' of wood, the difference is generally not going to be significant. I'm afraid I can't agree; I think its possible to say that a given weapon is _on the average_ a better single choice, without saying that the other has no use, or does not have its virtues.

I was mostly referring to using a shield to deflect the shield upwards so you could come up from under it. Obviously, this isn't certain, but it seems like its much easier to do with a shield than, say, another weapon (or none at all). Note I've acknowledged that benefit several times, though it only seems a signfiicant one with medium to long spears. I'm told that even slashing swords have an under-shield style technique that works for them; the only risk is of the opponent then coming up underneath the shield, but to some extent _any_ use of a weapon limits shield play. The problem with that is a longer weapon is almost always heavier than a shorter, even when the former is made of wood, and as such simple physics makes it slower to bring around. It wasn't about the spear types per se, but about how worthwhile spear-and-weapon techniques were, which turn on how wieldy the sword tends to be. They were pretty consistent on deciding it was only useful with spears with short hafts, though; its just how short they suggested (some thought nothing much beyond a jo in length was workable). I would imagine so, but at that point I'd think when using it farther back it would also be harder to use. Or put simply, there's going to be an optimal point of grip, one way or another; its just a question as to where that is (of course with some historical setups that use the shield as bracing, this is a bit confused). I'm not convinced with an armored opponent interested in pressing the attack that's sufficient. I'll bet you were fighting on even footing however, weren't you? And what were you wearing while doing so? I never had any trouble ballistaing back away from an opponent fencer either, but for the most part we were fencing on flat floors with little question there was a clear space behind us. How often is that the case in a real battlefield? The problem is, it _doesn't_ do that if the opponent follows _immediately_. Now when fencing, you're able to move extremely fast, so if you're quick and lucky you can retreat and get back into line before the opponent responds (but it requires both, because if he's alert enough to notice you start and immediately follows through, you, at best, won't have changed a thing). I can't imagine that this will be true to the same extent with moderately armored opponents. Of course, as with almost any extension type attack; but the point is, once someone comes up in under spear range, the _last_ thing he's going to do is retreat again given a choice, because he's now at his ideal range, and the other combatant isn't. So if the spearman can't force it, it likely won't happen.

Sure. As I said, I've done the same, with shortspear and shortsword. But its hard to deny on purely efficiency grounds that it gives you another skill you have to chase with your training time.

Probably. Character gen could be a bit of a chore until you got used to it, but the amount of die rolling and chart looking in play wasn't any worse than RQ. The BAP system was a bit annoying on grounds of micromanaging movement and actions, but that was pretty much true of RQ3 strike ranks, too, and it had a bit less problem there if anything.

The Urath setting I've mentioned elsewhere evolved out of this, and a campaign a friend ran briefly (albiet twice) set in the Americas in the 1700's.

That's really been my argument, though in looking back, I have to conclude I've expressed it poorly.

Part of the problem may be that we may be talking about different lengths of spear; keep in mind I've been very heavily refering to spears in the 4-6' range here, and if that's what you're talking about, then we've had different experiences; I haven't used them myself (I wasn't a sojutsu student) but I watched quite a bit of work with them done by others, and all but the instructors seemed to have trouble with them choked up unless used two handed. Now, if you're talking about short spears with 3-4' handles (yes, I know it overlaps; the 4' range was exactly the size where the instructors seemed to be in disagreement about shortened up usage), I don't doubt its not that much a problem (though I at that point think you've now got essentially a long dagger in your hand with a stick on the end, since its not going to have any more thrusting power than that). Actually, I'd argue it can come up easily in a battlefield where formation has broken up. To use a not uncommon in-game event, look at what happens when you're fighting back to back with someone to avoid letting someone circle you. Or frankly, just fighting in an environment where there are obstacles around. As I've commented in regard to backing up, fighting on a nice flat plane is sometimes a luxury. Not at all. I will freely admit my own grip isn't as strong as it could be, so my own personal perceptions would be skewed here, but the comments I heard about control issues with one handed use of medium length spears (remembering again that sojutsu doesn't use shields, so shields may distort this issue to some degree) were from people who handled them regularly, and in the case of the instructors, as part of their profession. I've been trying to avoid some of the argument-from-history because it ends up being partly conjectural, and frankly, sources often disagree on it. The Legions just happen to be the best of a bad lot because their kit usage is relatively well known over time (noting the disagreements I've seen about later use of the hasta other than as anticavalry weapons) and one can see a direct evolution from spear using troops; as such its less muddy than bringing in things like the nobility's use of spears in jousts, duels and hunting, where other issues can come in. And I'm not claiming it is. A medium length spear is not at all a bad weapon to have as a first line weapon in many circumstances; it has reach, it can have quite a bit of penetrating power for a cheap weapon, it works fairly well with a shield wall, and if properly designed, it works as an adequate throwing weapon. I've had several characters who used one primarily as a weapon and then had a backup melee weapon (usually a longsword but sometimes a shortsword). I just have sufficient evidence there are downsides to it that make it less than ideal in the light of training overhead (in the sense that you have to train people in more than one weapon if you follow my assumption that it can be situationally bad). And that's not what I've argued. What I've argued is that if you want a weapon that is overall more useable in more situations without difficulty, a sword is superior to a spear. That doesn't make it the best choice in all cases; it means its the most _generically_ useful weapon. Frankly, the only reason I don't think you see spears used more often in the game is that they get lost on impales a lot, and most people don't want to take the time to train heavily in two melee weapons.

That turns out not to be quite as true as was once thought, though; look up "elastic cavity" (if I'm remembering the term correctly) if you want to see some discussion of this. Turns out that a lot of the cavitation is transient and doesn't mean as much as they thought. That doesn't make your point entirely invalid, but I just wanted to note that ballistic gel is actually a bit deceptive here, as it doesn't show the difference between transient and permanent cavitation.

Aftermath was not actually the mechanical nightmare it has a reputation for; it sometimes went to more trouble than was useful (the 30 hit locations, for example, only really mattered for armor placement on the majority of hits), but in the end, it was only modestly more complex than RQ3.

I have to note that boars don't have parrying weapons, particularly shields. I realize it isn't necessarily trivial, but once it happens, it happens, and trying to reingage back to proper spear range is non-trivial. That did not seem to be the opinion of the sojutsu instructors I talked to, or perhaps more accurately, they seemed to consider it inadequately stable, and prone to bein too easy to knock out of alignment (there was some disagreement here, but it tended to be in degree, not kind). (Note I've carefully discussed the longer spears; the shortest ones are another issue, but they also, at that point, tend to eliminate most bonuses to effectiveness they have over other weapons that are otherwise more versitile). I've mentioned this when dealing with two handed use several times, but having watched attempts to do so one handed I am, shall we say, unimpressed; frankly, a six foot stick is simply too unwieldy to use as a bludgeon with one hand unless one is _very_ strong. I'm an ex-fencer, so I'm aware of this, but there are risks to doing so fast enough to be of use, not the least that tripping is a real issue unless you're on firmly even footing, and frankly, there's no guarentee once someone's gotten up in on you, that they won't simply follow. I can't help but think this is even more true if both are moderately to heavily armored, which can't help the lead time of the retreater much. And if the foe continues to follow through as he approaches? Keep in mind also, that in a lot of combat, there are any number of reasons unlimited retreating isn't practical.