Broadsword vs. Short Sword "problem"

[French Desperate WindChild]

5 hours ago, davecake said:

And I’d add one more category - paired swords (or paired anything really). The RQ way of treating fighting with an off hand weapon as two entirely unrelated weapon skills seems entirely unlike the way traditions of two weapon use, whether it is paired weapons like Kung fu ‘butterfly’ swords, or rapier and main gauche, are actually taught. Goes for paired stick fighting as well. 

you're right !

 

but thinking about it during my morning walk with my dogs, and after being challenging by some elves (no interest I know, but sometimes things must be said) that is true too with weapon + shield: shield is not only used to block an attack, it could give opportunities to attacks, and if i continue it is true with 1h weapon and 1 "free" arm, or weapon and dodge, or ...

 Fight is not attack then defense, it is more complex (well that's theory for me, no experience...)

 

so I identify different ways to follow

1) use the rules, don't consider the % of weapon (right, left, foot, head) as the exact representation of what is an attack, what is a parry. Just consider it as the % to touch and to know what are the damages. It is abstraction nothing more

Pro: simple, easy;     Cons: too simple ; a sword master is ridiculously unable to fight without a sword

 

2)   use "style rules" and consider a style %. It removes the question of the different %  (weapon, shield, etc...) so no more discussion then

Pro: simple, easy;   Cons: too simple ; a sword + shield master is ridiculously unable to fight with only a sword , and of course without a sword and a shield

 

3) add some modifiers to 1) and 2) to  fix the inability of your master

 

4) forget the "weapon/style" % to something radically different

One idea (this morning with my dogs, .. in the ok...) follow the "same" system that sorcery :

 

1. replace element runes by "weapon"
2. replace power runes by "type of damage" (blunt, cut, thrust, ...)
3. replace form runes by "type of effect" (do damage -the standard-, target the head, reduce opponent attack, push opponent, reduce opponent defense, raise your defense, disturb, reduce range, augment range...)
4. replace technics by "technics" (apply effect, remove effect, combine effects, combine weapon, do it before others, consume actions points -see below ...)
5. replace mp by actions points (masters have more points than beginers), each round you regain all your actions points.
6. define "school / style / ..." teaching some combinations
7. use the same system of resolution than sorcery (for example actions points needed = "runes" nb -2;
8. define a system to modelize how a fighter is more and more experienced ( ==> how actions points can be raised)
9. define a weapon matrix to modelize the difficulty to use a weapon instead of an other one (for example axe instead of swprd)

 

for example :

a standard sword attack :   [sword] + [cut] + [do damage] = 1 action point

2 sword attacks a round: [sword] + [cut] + [do damage] + [multi attack] = 2 action points

1 sword attack a round but with more strength: [sword] + [cut] + [do damage] + [do damage] + [combine effect] = 3 actions points

3 sword attacls a round: [sword] + [cut] + [do damage] + [multi attack] + [multi attack] = 3 action points

use your shield to  give your sword more chance to hit: [sword] + [shield] + [reduce opponent defense] + [combine weapon] = 4 actions points

same with an axe but you don't know [axe] ? use [sword] !  : [sword] + [shield] + [reduce opponent defense] + [combine weapon] = 4 6 actions points, -20% to roll

 

Pros : do what you want, simulate what you want, solve the "master unable to fight with something else" issue

Cons: too complex, fight need much much more irl time than other systems.

 

note that I will not follow this rule (and will not explore deeper to fix the potential issues) because it will be not only too complex but waste to much time for me. That is just an example of what could be the consequense to answer all the issues we may have with any fighting system (rqg or not, d100 or not)

Of course each personal issue may be answered by a simplier rule, but if you want to cover anything, I doubt you will provide something simpler

 

[PhilHibbs]

8 hours ago, SDLeary said:

The way I read this is that they think the damage should come from skill and strength as opposed to the weapon itself.

So it's all in the Damage Bonus and special/crit chance. Interesting idea, but it would take a lot of work to sweep out all the corners as it's such a big departure from how RuneQuest has always done it.

Edited May 9, 2022 by PhilHibbs

[Darius West]

10 hours ago, davecake said:

Swords are also special in RQ for religious reasons. The distinction between curved and straight swords is not just about the details of how you attack with them, but the distinction is important for several cults.
Hence the RQG obsession with the kopis - which isn’t a historical kopis, too long, which also brings us back to the short sword vs broadsword issue. 

There are literally 2 things different in the stat blocks for the Kopis and the Broadsword, and that is allegedly that broadswords take 2 pts less Dex to use without penalty, and apparently the broadsword is CT, while the Kopis is S in terms of the type of damage they do.  This means that the broadsword is a slightly better weapon, as it is a little easier to use, and you can choose to either impale or slash on a special roll.  Shortswords are really just scaled down broadswords that do a bit less damage and are easier for small people to use according to the RQG rules.

Now we can make a big hoot about the religious differences, but Lunars aren't going to be cast from their cult for using a broadsword, anymore than an Orlanthi would be impested for using a a kopis.  Admittedly a Seven Mothers Rune Lord is required to know Kopis specifically, but the Orlanthi requirement is just a 1h sword.  Even Humakt doesn't care if you use a kopis or not in RQG. 

For this reason I think you might be over-stating the religious importance of swords a bit davecake.  It matters a little bit, but mainly to fanatics, and really their opinions are fundamentalist diehard and absurdist in equal measure, as that is what a well roleplayed extremist is supposed to be like.  I mean "you use a kopis therefore you are a traitor to Sartar" is not a very plausible argument, anymore than "you use a broadsword therefore you are a traitor to the Empire" would hold water in anything but a lune-struck kangaroo court of wanton military atrocities imo.

[PhilHibbs]

2 hours ago, Darius West said:

Now we can make a big hoot about the religious differences, but Lunars aren't going to be cast from their cult for using a broadsword, anymore than an Orlanthi would be impested for using a a kopis.  Admittedly a Seven Mothers Rune Lord is required to know Kopis specifically, but the Orlanthi requirement is just a 1h sword.  Even Humakt doesn't care if you use a kopis or not in RQG.

Humakt is not just a Heortling deity, he's worshipped all over the place, so saying "even Humakt doesnt care" as though Humakt would care more than Orlanth is a nonsequitur.

2 hours ago, Darius West said:

For this reason I think you might be over-stating the religious importance of swords a bit davecake.  It matters a little bit, but mainly to fanatics, and really their opinions are fundamentalist diehard and absurdist in equal measure, as that is what a well roleplayed extremist is supposed to be like.  I mean "you use a kopis therefore you are a traitor to Sartar" is not a very plausible argument, anymore than "you use a broadsword therefore you are a traitor to the Empire" would hold water in anything but a lune-struck kangaroo court of wanton military atrocities imo.

"It isn't extreme therefore it doesn't exist" is a fallacy. People will view you differently if an Orlanthi routinely uses a Kopis in Sartar, you will find it harder to make friends and influence people. When I got a Skoda back in 1999 I was laughed at, it was a real thing. It was a perfectly good car, at a good price, as good as the more expensive VW that I got after it, but I was subjected to genuine derision and mockery by certain friends and colleagues.

[Monty Lovering]

19 hours ago, davecake said:

I don’t really understand this. Could you explain a little? A dagger thrust with a real fighting weapon is absolutely capable of stabbing through to the heart, and thus both disabling someone and very quickly killing them. Sure, not every blow is going to manage going straight through the rib cage etc - but it’s certainly something that the weapon is capable of. And it is really not that hard for a head blow to be both disabling (up to unconsciousness) and potentially lethal, when inflicted with something hard (and even unarmed brawls are dangerous, especially if they cause someone to fall hard onto a hard surface). 
I do think the RQ rule of instant death through general hit point loss is unrealistic though - people who are unconscious and who have a potentially lethal injury can survive a surprisingly long time, and often survive terrible injuries if got to a modern emergency department, especially with even minimal first aid - and let’s assume Heal Body is pretty much as good. 

Ok, so in RAW a dagger does 3-6 with an average of 4.5 damage. 
 

That is on average more or less automatic incapacitation for an unarmored opponent with 4-5HP in vital areas. And at minimum damage it will take out an arm. 
 

There are plenty of mechanisms for maximising the damage a weapon can do. Crits and Specials for example. Which means a dagger can do up to 12 points of damage possibly ignoring armour. Enough for an instakill on head and abdomen. But with the RAW damage, nothing to reflect a less serious wound. Which obviously happen. 

So if you have daggers do 1d4, say, then you go to 1-4, average 2.5, Crits and Specials take that to 8, again possibly ignoring armour. Enough to have someone down and bleeding out. 

Its even worse if you go to the ‘mega weapons’ that do 3d6 (3-18, 10.5, 36) or 2d6+2 (4-14, 9, 28). With the latter that’s incapacitation 97.23% of the time on an average unarmored human.

Just not realistic.  Add in a damage bonus and it’s even crazier.

I also have death taking longer to happen; below 0 THP, you lose 1HP per MR and die at negative 1/2 CON. So with you on that one.

 

 
 

 

[Monty Lovering]

19 hours ago, SDLeary said:

The way I read this is that they think the damage should come from skill and strength as opposed to the weapon itself. So think of it somewhat like Pendragon (or PDP) modified somewhat by skill (though I could easily be wrong about skill, and they were just thinking success level).

SDLeary

Not quite. 
 

I think weapons should ideally have a damage range starting at 1, with the base die being based on the “kinetic potential”. So small (dagger) 1d4, medium (small axe) 1d6, large (broadsword) 1d8, go up a die if used two-handed, allowing a +1 for weapons with superior performance against armour, +2 for outstanding performance against armour.
 

So broadsword 1d8, 1H spear 1d8+1, because a spear is better vs armour.  Large axe 1d8+1 as likewise better than a broadsword against armour, war hammer 1d8+2 as its better than an axe against armour. 2H spear 1d10+1, as it can do more damage wielded two-handed. Likewise large axe two-handed 1d10+1.
 

This obviously gets you into situations where you have larger versions of weapons used 1 or 2H (large axe, war hammer) used 2H only like great axe and great hammer, so they do 1d12 plus whatever they get for their armour piercing characteristics.

So weapons are important in determining basic damage dealing ability. Just toned down a little.

The weapon SR are also twiddled with so a large axe vs broadsword vs spear choice is a trade off between cheap with slightly better damage but slower strike of the axe or the expensive but greater speed and slightly less damage potential of a sword or the ultimate cheapness, reach and penetration of a spear. 
 

Which means IMG spear are as universal a weapon as on Earth. Your sidearm shows your culture or status.

Very IMG.  

[Monty Lovering]

21 hours ago, davecake said:

And I’d add one more category - paired swords (or paired anything really). The RQ way of treating fighting with an off hand weapon as two entirely unrelated weapon skills seems entirely unlike the way traditions of two weapon use, whether it is paired weapons like Kung fu ‘butterfly’ swords, or rapier and main gauche, are actually taught. Goes for paired stick fighting as well. 

Still not happy with dual wielding rules. 
 

Thing is both shield and weapon and dual weapon wielding are dynamic. Your shield will get used as a weapon in a fight far more than RQ allows. Dual wielding is highly dynamic with it switching between attack and parry and dual attacks depending on how the opponent performs. 

I’m kinda thinking of allowing a follow-up action if an opponent misses their attack and the parry of the missed attack is made successfully.

Battering at an opponent’s weapon in such an instance is not realistic. Someone misses you, you’re going to try and use that opportunity to attack them.

Instead it would allow (with shield and weapon) a shield attack or knockback at -20% or (with two-handed weapon) a second attack at -20%.

Dual-wielding would allow an attack with the offhand weapon at normal skill if the opponent misses their attack.

But maybe it’s all too complex for a normal group and requires a set of crunchy rules nutters to make it work. 

[Duff]

On 4/17/2022 at 10:51 PM, JustAnotherVingan said:

Hunters often used quite long spears. I'd argue useful in massed formations or against a single foe, bad against several opponents in a skirmish which is a lot of RPG fights.

I'd offer a different take. 2h spears are excellent weapons for skirmish encounters, particularly against multiple foes as long as you don't get surrounded. Spear and shield on the other hand is a terrible combination is such circumstances, the advantages being almost entirely reliant on fighting in formations (when it becomes highly effective). Mythras deals with this to some degree but RQ's simpler mechanics don't do a very good job of simulating it.

[SDLeary]

20 hours ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

Pro: simple, easy;   Cons: too simple ; a sword + shield master is ridiculously unable to fight with only a sword , and of course without a sword and a shield

I wouldn't say unable. If one of the pair is missing, perhaps a 20% penalty?

SDLeary

[SDLeary]

5 hours ago, Monty Lovering said:

... 1H spear 1d8+1, because a spear is better vs armour... 

But in general, they aren't. They just give you the advantage of reach. 

Even assuming they were, would you then lose the additional +1 if you were fighting someone without armor? Same for the other weapons mentioned.

And if you going this route, does something like a Gladius do more when thrusting? That's what it was optimized to do. 

6 hours ago, Monty Lovering said:

I also have death taking longer to happen; below 0 THP, you lose 1HP per MR and die at negative 1/2 CON. So with you on that one.

I'm all for this. Currently, I do envision it a bit differently though:

• If you are brought to 0 or below Total HP through normal damage, then you have CON – (amount taken below CON) Hours to die
• If you are brought to 0 or below Total HP due to a Major Wound*, then you have CON –  (amount taken below CON) to die
• If you are brought to 0 or below Total HP due to a Critical Wound**, then you have CON – (amount taken below CON) Melee Rounds to die

* A single blow that exceeds the value of the location

** An actual Critical Hit that takes you below CON

SDLeary

[Monty Lovering]

28 minutes ago, SDLeary said:

But in general, they aren't. They just give you the advantage of reach. 

Even assuming they were, would you then lose the additional +1 if you were fighting someone without armor? Same for the other weapons mentioned.

And if you going this route, does something like a Gladius do more when thrusting? That's what it was optimized to do. 

I'm all for this. Currently, I do envision it a bit differently though:

• If you are brought to 0 or below Total HP through normal damage, then you have CON – (amount taken below CON) Hours to die
• If you are brought to 0 or below Total HP due to a Major Wound*, then you have CON –  (amount taken below CON) to die
• If you are brought to 0 or below Total HP due to a Critical Wound**, then you have CON – (amount taken below CON) Melee Rounds to die

* A single blow that exceeds the value of the location

** An actual Critical Hit that takes you below CON

SDLeary

Compared to a sword cut, spears are better against armour. Arrows too. I started with the + only being in place for more than 3AP. Dropped it as too complex for my group - they were all newbies. Might work with another group. 
 

And shortsword gets a +1, as does dagger, as does 2H long sword and greatsword, all based on historical styles of usage where the point was used against armoured opponents. 

The weapon groups thing you guys have been taking about I do too. So for example any 1H axe is the same skill unless you pick up a totally novel form mid combat in which case there’s a penalty. But that goes after a moderate period of adaption. And you get 1/2 skill in 2H axe.  Same with other weapon types like Mace and Hammer, with Dagger, Rapier, Shortsword, Kopis, 1H Cut/Thrust and 1H Slash, 2H Cut/Thrust and 2H Slash as different sword skills all granting 1/2 skill in the others. And I’m stealing the idea of any melee combat skill having some universality by saying you get 1/4 in other melee skills unless it’s something exotic like net or whip  

As for the damage thing, here’s mine. There are similarities. 

 
 

 

 

[French Desperate WindChild]

absolutly, but in this case it is not a "style skill" rule.

It is something more complex.

 

Go further in this way: one style provides percentage in one weapon, in the other weapon, in a similar style, etc... and if you follow this path,logically  you would arrive at the weapon skill rule (aka RAW) 🙂

 

 

 

[French Desperate WindChild]

1 hour ago, Monty Lovering said:

Compared to a sword cut, spears are better against armour. Arrows too. I started with the + only being in place for more than 3AP. Dropped it as too complex for my group - they were all newbies. Might work with another group. 

an interesting point of view (and your damage resolution is interesting too, complex, but really interesting)

However, if you start to consider the defensor armor has an impact on the damage of the attacker weapon , you may consider that attacker armor would have an impact on stats and damage

 

just hypothesis, I m not specialist (just seeing that if spear were not used on foot with a full armor medieval style, there should be a reason, but I may be wrong, maybe that's just a popular myth and reality was different) :

 

heavier is your amor, more damage your mace will provide.

heavier is your amor, less chance you have to touch (and probably depending on your weapon the penalty should be different -> why medieval knights didn't use spear on foot ?)

heavier is your opponent armor, less chance he has to parry

etc...

[Darius West]

18 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Humakt is not just a Heortling deity, he's worshipped all over the place, so saying "even Humakt doesnt care" as though Humakt would care more than Orlanth is a nonsequitur.

The reason Humakt cares more imo is because Yanafal Ta'arnils was an ex-Humakti, and his trick of bending his sword so that it didn't break from Humakt's sword breaking apostacy curse (way worse than a mere spirit of retribution, as Humakt himself breaks the swords) might admittedly be a matter of some cult concern, if it is even the case. 

It does raise the issue of whether a Humakti illuminate like Yanafal who is repeatedly resurrected, thus openly flouting the cult's principles, is actually subject to the "spirit of retribution", given that the spirit of retribution is a God. 

18 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

"It isn't extreme therefore it doesn't exist" is a fallacy. People will view you differently if an Orlanthi routinely uses a Kopis in Sartar, you will find it harder to make friends and influence people. When I got a Skoda back in 1999 I was laughed at, it was a real thing. It was a perfectly good car, at a good price, as good as the more expensive VW that I got after it, but I was subjected to genuine derision and mockery by certain friends and colleagues.

My point was not "it isn't extreme therefore it doesn't exist".  My point was that if even the extremists are not likely to take the issue seriously, who else will?  Sorry if you missed that.

Edited May 10, 2022 by Darius West

[PhilHibbs]

2 hours ago, Darius West said:

The reason Humakt cares more imo is because Yanafal Ta'arnils was an ex-Humakti, and his trick of bending his sword so that it didn't break from Humakt's sword breaking apostacy curse (way worse than a mere spirit of retribution, as Humakt himself breaks the swords) might admittedly be a matter of some cult concern, if it is even the case...  My point was that if even the extremists are not likely to take the issue seriously, who else will?  Sorry if you missed that.

I see, I hadn't picked up on that specific Humakti theological point. I was thinking of it purely as a Sartar-vs-Lunar social situation, "using the weapons of the enemy".

[PhilHibbs]

12 hours ago, Monty Lovering said:

Thing is both shield and weapon and dual weapon wielding are dynamic. Your shield will get used as a weapon in a fight far more than RQ allows.

Yes, in movies you see warriors smacking each other with their shields all the time. This never happens in RQ because there's never a mechanical advantage to doing it.

Maybe something could be done with the special success on a parry. If there was a result that prevented the attacker from attacking with their main weapon for one round, then they would have to kick, punch, shield-bash or cast magic instead, giving a reason for more varied combats.

Edited May 10, 2022 by PhilHibbs

[icebrand]

25 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

Yes, in movies you see warriors smacking each other with their shields all the time. This never happens in RQ because there's never a mechanical advantage to doing it.

Maybe something could be done with the special success on a parry. If there was a result that prevented the attacker from attacking with their main weapon for one round, then they would have to kick, punch, shield-bash or cast magic instead, giving a reason for more varied combats.

I allow a 2nd attack with the offhand (at half chance and +5 SR). Its not that big a deal with the -20 for extra parry!

Off-hand must be SR3 or 4 ofc, no offhand battle ax attacks!

[SDLeary]

9 hours ago, Monty Lovering said:

Compared to a sword cut, spears are better against armour. Arrows too. I started with the + only being in place for more than 3AP. Dropped it as too complex for my group - they were all newbies. Might work with another group. 
 

And shortsword gets a +1, as does dagger, as does 2H long sword and greatsword, all based on historical styles of usage where the point was used against armoured opponents. 

Because the general mode a spear is used in, the thrust, it has the potential to be better against armor. If you get a good, clean, perpendicular hit against the plane of the armor.

Arrows, the same.

A sword in a thrust could have the same advantages, because they are not only used to cut.

The problem is, that most weapons in these categories are not (traditionally) designed to do this. If you look at most spears, arrow heads, and sword points, they are broad blades. Broad blades are not good at penetration against rigid items. They can penetrate, but the design of the head is not actually designed for that.

There are some spears, arrows, and swords with specialty points that are designed for armor penetration, but certainly not the majority.

So giving all spears (or any other weapon) a cart blanche +1 to all damage because its good against armor, feels a bit... off.

And back to my shortsword reference. My question actually was (should have been?), if a shortsword is NOT used in a thrust capacity (or if a Hewing Spear is NOT used in a thrust capacity), are you still giving it a +1 in your system?

SDLeary

[SDLeary]

3 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Yes, in movies you see warriors smacking each other with their shields all the time. This never happens in RQ because there's never a mechanical advantage to doing it.

Maybe something could be done with the special success on a parry. If there was a result that prevented the attacker from attacking with their main weapon for one round, then they would have to kick, punch, shield-bash or cast magic instead, giving a reason for more varied combats.

I'm toying with the idea of simply lowering the parry chance of the defender if they are facing a dual wielder. Reasoning is that they have a more difficult time predicting the vector a successful attack will come from. 

So, the purpose of dual-wielding is NOT to confer any real advantage on the person fighting that way, but to confuse the defender in their attempts to parry/block things.

SDLeary

[Monty Lovering]

7 hours ago, Darius West said:

The reason Humakt cares more imo is because Yanafal Ta'arnils was an ex-Humakti, and his trick of bending his sword so that it didn't break from Humakt's sword breaking apostacy curse (way worse than a mere spirit of retribution, as Humakt himself breaks the swords) might admittedly be a matter of some cult concern, if it is even the case. 

It does raise the issue of whether a Humakti illuminate like Yanafal who is repeatedly resurrected, thus openly flouting the cult's principles, is actually subject to the "spirit of retribution", given that the spirit of retribution is a God. 

My point was not "it isn't extreme therefore it doesn't exist".  My point was that if even the extremists are not likely to take the issue seriously, who else will?  Sorry if you missed that.

Given that swords we now call by names like sabre, arming sword, scimitar, broadsword, long sword, katana etc. were all called swords by the people who used them - katana even means ‘sword’ it’s not that curved swords are not swords which stops them breaking. 

Humakt is not stupid. He knows it’s a sword even if it’s curved. 

The reason they don’t break is they don’t look like Death runes. 

IMG

One could posit that non-cruciform swords are also immune to the curse.

Quite how Humakt knows an apostate Humakt is using a sword shaped like a Death rune is a different question. Deep dark magic? A personal retributory spirit who follows them around? The guilt of the apostate? I don’t go for omniscient gods. 

[PhilHibbs]

22 minutes ago, Monty Lovering said:

Quite how Humakt knows an apostate Humakt is using a sword shaped like a Death rune is a different question. Deep dark magic? A personal retributory spirit who follows them around? The guilt of the apostate? I don’t go for omniscient gods. 

Curses don’t require knowledge. If a witch curses a young man who spurns her to always hurt the ones he loves, she doesn’t need to keep an updated Rolodex of all his lovers.

Yes, magic should have rules, but we don’t have to understand every detail.

Edited May 10, 2022 by PhilHibbs

[Monty Lovering]

1 hour ago, SDLeary said:

I'm toying with the idea of simply lowering the parry chance of the defender if they are facing a dual wielder. Reasoning is that they have a more difficult time predicting the vector a successful attack will come from. 

So, the purpose of dual-wielding is NOT to confer any real advantage on the person fighting that way, but to confuse the defender in their attempts to parry/block things.

SDLeary

Duel wielding is not attacking “simultaneously” and confusing your opponent.

It’s often a substitute for a shield because shields are a pain in the butt to carry.

There’s a video game and RPG obsession with it as people think it means you attack twice as often.

It doesn’t.

Your offhand weapon is your parrying weapon. If your opponent misses their attack THEN you should be allowed to attack with the offhand weapon. If you want to attack with both weapons you get no parries.

IMG

[Monty Lovering]

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

I allow a 2nd attack with the offhand (at half chance and +5 SR). Its not that big a deal with the -20 for extra parry!

Off-hand must be SR3 or 4 ofc, no offhand battle ax attacks!

The RAW rules for dual wielding as regards SR are against most actual historical uses of two weapons. 

Very frequently it was something like a rapier (SR normally 2+2+2 = 6) and a dagger (2+2+4 = 8 ) which is impossible in RAW.

So I just put any second attack in on SR12. 

[icebrand]

Just now, Monty Lovering said:

The RAW rules for dual wielding as regards SR are against most actual historical uses of two weapons. 

Very frequently it was something like a rapier (SR normally 2+2+2 = 6) and a dagger (2+2+4 = 8 ) which is impossible in RAW.

So I just put any second attack in on SR12. 

Love it and stealing it! +5 SR or SR12!

[Monty Lovering]

2 hours ago, SDLeary said:

Because the general mode a spear is used in, the thrust, it has the potential to be better against armor. If you get a good, clean, perpendicular hit against the plane of the armor.

Arrows, the same.

A sword in a thrust could have the same advantages, because they are not only used to cut.

The problem is, that most weapons in these categories are not (traditionally) designed to do this. If you look at most spears, arrow heads, and sword points, they are broad blades. Broad blades are not good at penetration against rigid items. They can penetrate, but the design of the head is not actually designed for that.

There are some spears, arrows, and swords with specialty points that are designed for armor penetration, but certainly not the majority.

So giving all spears (or any other weapon) a cart blanche +1 to all damage because its good against armor, feels a bit... off.

And back to my shortsword reference. My question actually was (should have been?), if a shortsword is NOT used in a thrust capacity (or if a Hewing Spear is NOT used in a thrust capacity), are you still giving it a +1 in your system?

SDLeary

Spear are better than swords against armour because history.

I have rolled back quite a bit of complexity after six months of play testing with my players.

I started off VERY crunchy.

I’ve trimmed stuff that added nothing to the fun and kept stuff I think makes the weapons more believable.

Your table might enjoy that detail.