Barak Shathur

I was thinking to keep the more effective armour piercing for military picks/war hammers. Also I like the idea of the bludgeoning effect being dependent on the force of the actual blow. I’m starting to really warm up to this game.

What about this idea for a house rule for sunder: instead of damaging armour, it functions as armour reduction equal to half rolled damage? This would represent the bludgeoning impact of mass weapons, and solves a couple of problems for me: it has sunder provide a more immediate effect by not requiring the same location to be hit twice in order to affect the outcome of a fight, and it also frankly reduces book keeping by not forcing me to keep track of a number of damaged armour parts. Would this break the game?

Excellent!

These are good points. How about military pick/war hammer, designed to punch through plate?

I meant average in terms of strength and stature, i e no damage bonus.

You’re ignoring the actual arguments I’ve been putting forth. I use pointed language in order to make a point. I’m sorry if I ticked you off. It feels like tempers are rising and I’m going to call it a day. I’ll just say that a large part of game design is setting up incentive structures for players, and sometimes (often) they are engineered, consciously or not, to underprivilege certain choices in a way that can be problematic from different viewpoints. For some reason it drives me crazy. Anyway, it’s been a great discussion, thanks all.

It seems odd to construct weapon stats with the assumption of damage bonus. I’m interested in what an average person wielding it can do.

Well of course. With enough damage bonus a dagger can penetrate plate.

But no damage goes through to the body part when you use sunder, am I right? So it only really has an impact if you subsequently hit the same location again. Except now the NPC has to buy new armour after he’s done with you.

So you have to hit the same location twice in order for this to have any effect? Doesn’t sound particularly effective to me. If you can get past the armour. Which an axe can’t do against plated mail or gothic plate. I care about the step children. It seems every game has to have them. In BGB, battle axes are over powered compared to swords, they now simply do more damage with no drawbacks. I have no issues with the great axe in Mythras.

This would work. Do axes, maces and hammers get armour penetration? I haven’t got the rules in front of me.

No, that’s not what it’s about. I really like the idea that combat can be determined by other factors than injuries. I just want that particular aspect to be in my view correctly represented. Within the damage range that Mythras uses, 1-2 HP means the difference between getting something past armour and a battle axe not being able to do a thing to someone in gothic plate. I think at least a bruise would realistic. And again, the difference between 1d6 and 1d8 is 30%. It’s the proportion that seems off more than anything.

Looking forward to it!

That's cool. And I do like what I'm seeing of the dynamics of Mythras combat. So I'm thinking that maybe I would adapt RQ3's weapon stats to Mythras. Do you have any input how this could be done most effectively? I guess just transferring the damage dice? Or maybe this is what I'll do: since I feel the battle axe has been nerfed, I could bump it one die step - 1d8+1 one handed and 1d10+1 two handed. I also might make sunder apply to shields rather than armour. And while I'm at it, military pick gets impale instead of sunder. After all, they were designed for armour piercing above all.

But so much in the RQ family is balanced, whether they like it or not. Nope. Nope. I do expect the broadsword, battle axe, short spear, warhammer and mace to be roughly equivalent tools with individual specialisations. They each have their particular field of application. The right tool for the right problem. Not that one of them is a kind of no brainer choice. As I said above, I would give it a first strike function (plus impale). That's enough to make it very attractive. Oh. My. God. THANK YOU. This video proves my point beyond any doubt. First: the only bouts that have any relevance for the historical periods during which spears and swords were common are the ones where shields, large ones, were involved. Of course it would be suicide for a single wielding swordsman to attack a guy with a spear. You just can't get past that spear tip. A sword was always intended to be used with a shield. This started to change with the advent of full plate armour, which happens also to be the time that 'short spears' begin to fade. Lots of training manuals from this era, relatively few of them involve spears (compared to swords and poll axes). When the reenactors in the video start using shields, even the commentator tells us that they have little experience using them, which is painfully obvious to anyone who has used shields. After a while, they begin to get it, and the sword and kite guy wins every time after that, even against a spear guy with a shield. This corresponds exactly to my experience with SCA fighting. With a good shield, it's usually quite easy to get past any pole arm's effective range, get real close and personal, and slaughter the guy (as in the videos). So in a historically accurate duel, the effectiveness of a spear is quite limited. But in the subsequent melee the spear shines, as it must have done historically. In mass combat, the shield is just incredibly effective and tends to win out. Range and lightning fast stabs against people who aren't directly facing you are just killers. I remember in one of the great SCA battles, with 1000-1500 participants, I got 3 or 4 kills. My friend the pikeman got 30. Most medieval fighting consisted of messy melees, not one on one duels as in the SCA, HEMA or most role playing games. For me, this is enough explanation for the popularity of the spear. A couple of other things that make the videos less than representative: these weapons are obviously much lighter than actual steel weapons. And the guys go down on a light touch, which just might not correspond to the actual force required to wound or kill your opponent. Here at least SCA fighting seems more representative, in that our rattan swords are heavier than these rubber ones, and we do full contact.

I appreciate the thoughtful and excellent work you guys have done on Mythras. Is it then your opinion that short spears are objectively "better" than other one handed weapons?

If anything, this article bolsters my argument that an axe is anything but an unobtrusive weapon with a narrow head whose primary function is to perform shield hooks. The axe has much greater momentum than other weapons and its impact is devastating. Even a shield would not necessarily save the hand or arm holding it from damage. The long-handled axe would shear through any part of the body it hit. The later axes have longer blades to have a broader area of effect and inflict wider cuts.Axes deliver great force in blows which cut, pierce and crush at the same time. Axe blows are usually very deep because of the speed and weight of the blow. Axe blows to the torso or skull will instantly disable the victim, cause massive blood loss and rapid collapse. Blows to the extremities will invariably amputate whatever they hit. The impact of an axe blade will cut easily through living bone. Blows with axes will more easily defeat armour and cause crush wounds even if they cannot cut. Axes made as weapons are often have relatively light heads but they can be swung so fast the impact is very devastating. A glancing blow with a sharp axe will still cause horrific cuts. Sounds pretty bad to me. Did you see those axe wounds? Absolutely. Any stab concentrates the force in a small point. However, even though it goes deeper and can potentially reach internal organs, it also has the potential to bypass these entirely and leave the victim standing. On the other hand, some people survive attacks when they have been stabbed seriously dozens of times. A warrior in battle may have the psychological wherewithall to survive stab wounds which do not incapacitate him and keep functioning. Absolutely. This is why I like the RQ/BRP concept of stabbing: double damage, which allows for deep penetration even through heavy armour. And similarly, a 1d6+1 battle axe has no chance of even slightly bruising someone in plated mail or gothic plate. No, for me, RQ3 still has the best weapon stats of any game I've seen. Battle axe does 1d8+2 damage while broadswords and short spears do 1d8+1 but can impale. The axe will hit harder on standard blows, but the spear and sword have the capacity to inflict those horrible deep stab wounds. Afterthought: it would be nice if axes had a shield breaker effect. Like sunder but applied to shields. Would make them a lot more fun. And also historically accurate as I understand it.

It’s a whole die step greater than the battle axe though. Again, it’s the proportional difference which seems too great here. Far be it from me to claim expertise in any of the above subjects, SCA or otherwise. And certainly not in actual medieval combat. None of us can. But we are approaching it from a gamer’s perspective, and the essence of games is balance. Short spears in my Mythras will do 1d6+1, and will gain any benefit from reach that’s available in the rules.

Thinking this through a bit more. What “axe”, “sword”, and “spear” represent in this kind of game are tools optimised for combat that rely on impact to damage your opponent. As such, they correspond to roughly the maximum amount of weight that you can wield in one hand with speed and flexibility enough to get past an opponent’s defenses. Within these limitations, the actual potential impact, i e damage, is going to be roughly similar. In terms of d6’s and d8’s within a point or two. I can’t buy that a stab from a spear does 30% more damage than a chop from an axe. It sounds like the spear was given a higher damage output simply because it was historically a more popular weapon. This would be the equivalent of the D&D sin of making the sword the “best weapon” because it was seen as more heroic in our culture. What differs are other factors. With a spear, penetration and reach are the main advantages (apart from cheapness). For a sword it is versatility. For an axe, well, I’d say it’s brute force. I’m reading through Mythras for the first time and I’m finding it beautifully constructed. It truly has processed the experience of decades of BRP and solved so many of the balancing problems that were so plentiful in what was supposed to be the ultimately balanced and playable simulationist game. This spear thing just stands out as something that breaks the pattern. But even the sun has spots, and finding one single kink like this speaks to the excellence of the whole.

Most of this text describes the usefulness of spears in massed infantry combat. That's not the issue here. What I'm talking about is the raw damage output in a one to one comparison between one handed weapons. And the author confirms one of my main points, that the popularity of the spear has something to do with it being both cheap and effective. So you could equip lots of warriors with it, while a sword was more like a Rolls Royce. They gave names to them, I remember one called 'Leg Biter'. They named spears and axes too, but I think I've come across a lot more swords with names. It feels like the above article is trying to do the admittedly admirable job of elevating the status of the spear to what it really was, since it's been depreciated in our contemporary mythology, but it has to do this by suppressing all that's already been said about swords. A completely different animal! I'm talking about the one handed short spear as represented in Mythras. Like you said earlier, the weapon table covers 10,000 years and the above quote does not refer to the High and Late Middle Ages during which the spear was less prominent. Most of the illuminations that show knights actually fighting with spears have them on horseback. Again, mounted combat, and especially the lance, is not the subject. I know, I should. So little time, so much to do. What I do have is my decades of experience with SCA combat, which although limited in relevance for actual historical combat knowledge, has taught me about basic dynamics of armoured movement and kinetic qualities of hand held weapons.

Thanks for the fun and exhaustive replies! This is what I come here for. This is all well represented by the Impale, which gives a spear (and other impaling weapons) a greater likelihood of penetrating armour and inflicting great damage. RQ3 had it exactly right, in my opinion. Battle axes had a slightly higher damage die (1d8+2), while swords and spears (1d8+1) could impale making them potentially more devastating. Here I feel like you're talking about the way an axe would function in a mass combat situation. Pulling down your opponent's shield rim doesn't do anything for you unless there someone else nearby to take advantage of the opening. Yep. The spear has terriffic penetrating ability, what with it's long shaft providing leverage and all. This is particularly effective when stabbing at someone stuck in a mass of other warriors, such as a shield wall or other formation where there's little room for maneuvering. In a duel like situation with an opponent who is able to move around and affect the engagement distance, it's more of a challenge since if you're able to get inside the reach of a spear (or any polearm, really) you really limit the spear wielder's options and make it much harder for him/her/it to attack (as Bilharzia says above). If I were to abstract this to a level of abstraction similar to BRP, I would give a spear a bonus to initiative, likely allowing it first strike in most situations. Then you might include rules for closing, which I personally find cumbersome and never use. I have always felt, based on my admittedly limited experience with SCA fighting, that the advantage of swords lies in their extreme flexibility compared to other hand weapons. You can slash, chop, stab, and the well balanced blade allows for quick rotating and shifting of your axis and plane of attack when swinging, while the length of the blade provides an extended striking surface that other weapons lack. If I were to represent this in a game, I would give swords a considerably higher base percentage, maybe 25%, as its main advantage, combined with the Bleed and Impale specials. So how about the swing of an axe? The concentration of weight at the end of the shaft increases the momentum and would surely generate a potentiallly greater impact on a clean hit than a one handed spear thrust, no? There's a reason we use axes to chop things. The drawbacks of an axe consists in it's relatively short shaft which reduces its reach, its limited striking surface compared to a sword and the unbalanced nature of it which makes it that much harder to feint and exploit sudden gaps in your opponent's defenses. And a mace, which has similar balancing issues, can strike with all sides of the head which makes it easier to use than an axe or hammer. I would give an axe an equal or greater damage range to a sword or spear, but a much lower base percentage, like 10%. Now this is a straw man, since what I'm arguing for is making spears equal to swords and axes in terms of damage (but with differing advantages), not inferior.

It does a whole die step more damage than a battle axe or military pick (i e warhammer). If a spear was that much more effective those other weapons would have dropped out of use and you wouldn’t have seen e g knights running around with them. I’ve seen very few (no) illuminations of medieval knights with short spears. And vikings liked their axes. Must have been a reason.

Why should the spear be the most potent? Especially given that all the other weapons seem balanced against each other. And the spear is one of the cheapest weapons too, it’s not like it’s some kind of super weapon for the elite. A spear should be cheap and effective and great for mass combat, but not superior to an axe or mace in terms of damage. I’ll set it at d6+1, but I don’t want to have to house rule and I wonder it there’s something I’ve missed here. Is there logic? I don’t see it.

But they downgraded other equivalent weapons such as broadsword and battle axe that kept the same stats until now. Why should the spear be elevated over them? Battle axe went from 1d8+2 to 1d6+1. That’s quite a jump.

So short spear does more damage than other one handed weapons, why? Is it a typo? Shouldn’t it be 1d6+1 rather than 1d8+1?