Spear?

[Barak Shathur]

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?

[Raleel]

nope. they've been doing d8+1 since at least RQ3. I doubt it's a typo, unless it's been carried through RQ3, MRQ2, RQ6, and Legend, which seems unlikely.

Why shouldn't it to d8+1?

[Bilharzia]

That's the 10,000 year weapons table, so you could tweak the damage for different eras, but it is perhaps the most potent 1h weapon you can use.

[AndreJarosch]

It does make 1 point more damage than a sword, but it has lesser hitpoints and lesser armor points that a sword. 

A spear is a hunting tool that also can be used as a weapon. 
It is used by humans since the stone age. 
They would have abandoned to use it, if if wasn´t THAT effective. 
 

Edited May 6, 2022 by AndreJarosch

[Barak Shathur]

5 hours ago, Raleel said:

nope. they've been doing d8+1 since at least RQ3. I doubt it's a typo, unless it's been carried through RQ3, MRQ2, RQ6, and Legend, which seems unlikely.

Why shouldn't it to d8+1?

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.

Edited May 6, 2022 by Barak Shathur
Axe

[Barak Shathur]

5 hours ago, Bilharzia said:

That's the 10,000 year weapons table, so you could tweak the damage for different eras, but it is perhaps the most potent 1h weapon you can use.

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. 

[Barak Shathur]

5 hours ago, AndreJarosch said:

It does make 1 point more damage than a sword, but it has lesser hitpoints and lesser armor points that a sword. 

A spear is a hunting tool that also can be used as a weapon. 
It is used by humans since the stone age. 
They would have abandoned to use it, if if wasn´t THAT effective. 
 

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. 

[lawrence.whitaker]

A spear is an incredibly effective weapon for dealing damage. A sharp metal blade on the end of a length of stout wood, driven with force and leverage in a single direction is going to penetrate armour more efficiently and effectively than a sword, axe or mace. Military picks/great axes/warhammers are specialized weapons for hacking through armour, which is why they have the Bash, Stun and Sunder traits (which spears, long and short, do not).

The battleaxe is not really the sort of formidable Gimli-style thing you often see depicted in fantasy fiction; it's a relatively unobtrusive weapon with a narrow head that can be easily kept in the belt and used in close-quarters battle to pull-down shield rims and chop at exposed limbs where a spear won't be as effective. But it's a slashing/hacking weapon, whereas a spear is designed for impaling and driving into the target: not just the spearhead, but sometimes the shaft as well. Swords are more all-purpose, being both slashing and stabbing weapons, but you don't have the same momentum and leverage as you do with a spear.

I also found this quote from museumreplicas.com, discussing swords and spears:
 

Quote

A weapon causes most of its damage from the end where inertia builds and momentum is at its peak. This means the end or tip of whatever is being swung around. The longer the weapon, the wider the swing, the more power you can generate. A normal hit from a sword can feel like a bolt of lightning coming from a spear. The multiple handholds on a spear meant it could be used in many different ways and the power of a full-body thrust put into one had a massively damaging effect through armor, mail, padding, and bone.

Weapon stats were given considerable thought when we were designing RQ6, and Pete Nash has first-hand experience of using many of the weapons listed. But Your Mythras is Your Mythras, and if you want to make swords and axes superior in damage to spears, then you should do so.

Edited May 6, 2022 by lawrence.whitaker
Added quote

[Bilharzia]

2 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

 And vikings liked their axes. Must have been a reason. 

The most common weapon of the Vikings was ... the spear.

https://www.vikingmartialarts.com/viking-warfare/2017/3/6/the-viking-spear

 

Mounted knights used a 1h spear in the form of a lance. Spears have disadvantages along with their advantages - reach is one. If someone gets inside your reach when you have a spear, your attack advantage is gimped, this is when a sword or axe becomes useful - it is still potent in a close range fight especially if you are armoured, a spear, not so much. Spears can also be broken more easily. Swords also have a symbolic value which is a bit higher than spears so they tend to get depicted more.

You can see the "sword on a stick" principle clearly here. Bronze age sword (top) Bronze age spear head (bottom). The spear is going to be more potent, it is basic physics that a toddler finds out waving a stick around.

 

The main weapon of the period was the spear, not only for the peasant but also for the professional soldier and even the nobility. It was the traditional weapon that Woden used and remained the weapon par excellence among the Germanic peoples even during the tenth and eleventh centuries

https://regia.org/research/warfare/spear.htm

 

Quote

I’ve seen very few (no) illuminations of medieval knights with short spears.

https://www.pinterest.com.au/greek_hero1/medieval-spears-manuscript-images/

 

https://manuscriptminiatures.com/search?tag=127

 

Do more research 🙂

 

Edited May 7, 2022 by Bilharzia

[Barak Shathur]

Thanks for the fun and exhaustive replies! This is what I come here for.

4 hours ago, lawrence.whitaker said:

A spear is an incredibly effective weapon for dealing damage. A sharp metal blade on the end of a length of stout wood, driven with force and leverage in a single direction is going to penetrate armour more efficiently and effectively than a sword, axe or mace. Military picks/great axes/warhammers are specialized weapons for hacking through armour, which is why they have the Bash, Stun and Sunder traits (which spears, long and short, do not).

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.

 

5 hours ago, lawrence.whitaker said:

The battleaxe is not really the sort of formidable Gimli-style thing you often see depicted in fantasy fiction; it's a relatively unobtrusive weapon with a narrow head that can be easily kept in the belt and used in close-quarters battle to pull-down shield rims and chop at exposed limbs where a spear won't be as effective.

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. 

 

5 hours ago, lawrence.whitaker said:

But it's a slashing/hacking weapon, whereas a spear is designed for impaling and driving into the target: not just the spearhead, but sometimes the shaft as well. Swords are more all-purpose, being both slashing and stabbing weapons, but you don't have the same momentum and leverage as you do with a spear.

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. 

 

5 hours ago, lawrence.whitaker said:

A weapon causes most of its damage from the end where inertia builds and momentum is at its peak. This means the end or tip of whatever is being swung around. The longer the weapon, the wider the swing, the more power you can generate. A normal hit from a sword can feel like a bolt of lightning coming from a spear. The multiple handholds on a spear meant it could be used in many different ways and the power of a full-body thrust put into one had a massively damaging effect through armor, mail, padding, and bone.

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%.

 

5 hours ago, lawrence.whitaker said:

But Your Mythras is Your Mythras, and if you want to make swords and axes superior in damage to spears, then you should do so.

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.

 

 

[Barak Shathur]

4 hours ago, Bilharzia said:

The most common weapon of the Vikings was ... the spear.

https://www.vikingmartialarts.com/viking-warfare/2017/3/6/the-viking-spear

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.

4 hours ago, Bilharzia said:

Mounted knights used a 1h spear in the form of a lance.

A completely different animal! I'm talking about the one handed short spear as represented in Mythras.

5 hours ago, Bilharzia said:

The main weapon of the period was the spear, not only for the peasant but also for the professional soldier and even the nobility. It was the traditional weapon that Woden used and remained the weapon par excellence among the Germanic peoples even during the tenth and eleventh centuries

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.

5 hours ago, Bilharzia said:

https://www.pinterest.com.au/greek_hero1/medieval-spears-manuscript-images/

 

https://manuscriptminiatures.com/search?tag=127

 

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.

5 hours ago, Bilharzia said:

Do more research 🙂

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.

[Barak Shathur]

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. 

[Bilharzia]

Methinks you are protesting too much. A spear is +1 more than a broadsword, +1 more than a longsword, +1 more than a mace, and so on ... it's a long hafted weapon. Note though that the difference is slight. Don't take any of my references as definitive anything. They are arbitrary links I found in less than a minute, but they refute your claims that there are "no illuminations of medieval knights with short spears" - there are clearly plenty, on horseback or on foot. If you know the Norse sagas you know how much spears were used - a lot, and not just because they were cheap, they were a favoured and potent weapon, and not just in pitched battles. A lance is just a spear, it doesn't have to be just the poncy high medieval jousting lances, it's also a spear, and typically, one-handed.

Although I don't use it much in my games, Reach is modelled by Mythras and supports the differences in weapon reach where a short sword fighter will have an advantage if they get under a spear fighter's reach.

In terms of SCA experience Pete Nash, who is responsible for most of the RQ6/Mythras combat rules, is a SCA knight of many years.

Try the Mythras Discord if you want a wider discussion. Plenty of HEMA and other martial arts guys as well as physicists, doctors, historians, military guys, rocket scientists and others with a lot of experience who will be happy to argue about nerfing spears or not until the aurochs come home.

[Barak Shathur]

1 hour ago, Bilharzia said:

spear is +1 more than a broadsword, +1 more than a longsword, +1 more than a mace, and so on ... it's a long hafted weapon. Note though that the difference is slight.

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. 

[lawrence.whitaker]

Quote

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. 

No. That categorically isn't how we approached weapon design. Each was assessed from a variety of factors based on how they handle IRL (and Pete's direct experience with swords, axes and spears - and other weapons), their damage capabilities, reach, mass, and what they were designed to do. We didn't assign any arbitrary values based on 'popularity' or to make spears seem 'cool' or 'heroic'. 

[Raleel]

https://www.netvike.com/wounds-from-combat.html The above link is filled with graphic imagery, so caution, but it talks a bit about the different kinds of wounds from slashing (axe) and stabbing (spear) weapons. Specifically, it speaks about how a stabbing weapon has a far greater chance of hitting organs.
 

I’m digging around for some more medical papers, but thus far the consensus has been that the force of the strike is much more focused in a stabbing scenario. Consider that you are bringing the mass of the weapon as well as your strength into a singular point.

https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1520915/7/Pope_YJASC-S-15-00816 extracted.pdf (Thank you UK weapons nerds) points to spear thrusts being in the 1000N range at peak. I’ve been unable to find a study on it, but https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/angular-momentum with a 1kg axe at 2m is more like 71N. Having another study going at it with axes and swords would be great.

the other thing to consider is armor scaling. At the point you make spears d6+1, they cannot pierce articulated plate without a crit or a damage mod. This may not be an accurate reflection of reality. 

[Barak Shathur]

6 hours ago, Raleel said:

https://www.netvike.com/wounds-from-combat.html The above link is filled with graphic imagery, so caution, but it talks a bit about the different kinds of wounds from slashing (axe) and stabbing (spear) weapons. Specifically, it speaks about how a stabbing weapon has a far greater chance of hitting organs.

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?

6 hours ago, Raleel said:

I’m digging around for some more medical papers, but thus far the consensus has been that the force of the strike is much more focused in a stabbing scenario. Consider that you are bringing the mass of the weapon as well as your strength into a singular point.

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.

6 hours ago, Raleel said:

the other thing to consider is armor scaling. At the point you make spears d6+1, they cannot pierce articulated plate without a crit or a damage mod. This may not be an accurate reflection of reality. 

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.

Edited May 7, 2022 by Barak Shathur
afterthoughts

[Barak Shathur]

8 hours ago, lawrence.whitaker said:

No. That categorically isn't how we approached weapon design. Each was assessed from a variety of factors based on how they handle IRL (and Pete's direct experience with swords, axes and spears - and other weapons), their damage capabilities, reach, mass, and what they were designed to do. We didn't assign any arbitrary values based on 'popularity' or to make spears seem 'cool' or 'heroic'. 

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?

[g33k]

8 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

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. 

The Chaosium guys are IMHO a bit more blunt about it than the TDM guys, but I think TDM / Mythras inherits this from RQ -- "balance" isn't a terribly-important design consideration.  This basic framework was laid down by early SCA guys at Chaosium in the late 1970's.  Pete Nash (of TDM) is an expericence HEMA guy, and was the main combat guy for the Mongoose RQII product, which evolved directly into Mythras when Nash&Whitaker left to found TDM.

Consider this:  would you expect a gladius to be the same as an arming-sword?  Would you expect a quarterstaff to be the same?  Why do you expect the spear to be "the same?"

Now, you may feel that "damage" is the wrong way to portray a spear's advantages.  But consider putting in SOMETHING more than "reach" to give players a solid, most-of-the-time reason to pick spears as their primary weapon; or else they'll just go to the bigger sword, with pointy-reach Impales AND the edgy ability to slash/cut/chop.

For reference, I submit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLLv8E2pWdk

Not that spear is absolutely-best in all circumstances; but the combo of long-reach, the high-damage of thrusts, the speedy movement from a long lever-arm + lightweight wood vs. metal shaft, & more, results in a synergy of small advantages that make it more likely to be the odds-on winning weapon more often than a sword.

 

[lawrence.whitaker]

22 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

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?

No.

There are situations where a dagger, shortsword or even an axe is going to be more effective. If you thoroughly read (and play) the Mythras combat rules, you'll see that weapon damage is but one of many factors influencing the combat rules. Mythras combat is far less about inflicting shock and awe damage, and far more about exposing the weaknesses of an opponent, exploiting them, and denying the opponent the ability to retaliate. I've seen characters and NPCs taken out by flower vases, tankards and chair-legs - let alone axes, maces or spears.

And I never said that the primary function of a battle axe was to pull down shield rims. That was simply one example of how it can be (and was) used.

BTW, I do appreciate your kind words on the work we've put into Mythras, but be assured that the same - if not more - attention to detail was put into how weapons are represented. We took the opportunity to review and evaluate prior editions of RQ and make informed decisions and sound choices based on experience, countless hours of gameplay, and real-life examples. RQ6 and Mythras diverge from previous RQ editions in many ways where combat is concerned - but these weren't whims or attempts to be different: they were carefully considered and tested decisions based on sound reasoning.

It's quite okay for you to disagree with the damage a weapon does - by all means adjust it to suit your style of play - but please don't think that the mechanics reflect personal preferences or attempts to make X or Y seem cool or edgy.

[Barak Shathur]

3 minutes ago, g33k said:

The Chaosium guys are IMHO a bit more blunt about it than the TDM guys, but I think TDM / Mythras inherits this from RQ -- "balance" isn't a terribly-important design consideration.

But so much in the RQ family is balanced, whether they like it or not.

 

4 minutes ago, g33k said:

Consider this:  would you expect a gladius to be the same as an arming-sword?  Would you expect a quarterstaff to be the same?  Why do you expect the spear to be "the same?"

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.

7 minutes ago, g33k said:

Now, you may feel that "damage" is the wrong way to portray a spear's advantages.  But consider putting in SOMETHING more than "reach" to give players a solid, most-of-the-time reason to pick spears as their primary weapon; or else they'll just go to the bigger sword, with pointy-reach Impales AND the edgy ability to slash/cut/chop.

As I said above, I would give it a first strike function (plus impale). That's enough to make it very attractive.

21 minutes ago, g33k said:

For reference, I submit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLLv8E2pWdk

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.

 

[Barak Shathur]

17 minutes ago, lawrence.whitaker said:

No.

There are situations where a dagger, shortsword or even an axe is going to be more effective. If you thoroughly read (and play) the Mythras combat rules, you'll see that weapon damage is but one of many factors influencing the combat rules. Mythras combat is far less about inflicting shock and awe damage, and far more about exposing the weaknesses of an opponent, exploiting them, and denying the opponent the ability to retaliate. I've seen characters and NPCs taken out by flower vases, tankards and chair-legs - let alone axes, maces or spears.

And I never said that the primary function of a battle axe was to pull down shield rims. That was simply one example of how it can be (and was) used.

BTW, I do appreciate your kind words on the work we've put into Mythras, but be assured that the same - if not more - attention to detail was put into how weapons are represented. We took the opportunity to review and evaluate prior editions of RQ and make informed decisions and sound choices based on experience, countless hours of gameplay, and real-life examples. RQ6 and Mythras diverge from previous RQ editions in many ways where combat is concerned - but these weren't whims or attempts to be different: they were carefully considered and tested decisions based on sound reasoning.

It's quite okay for you to disagree with the damage a weapon does - by all means adjust it to suit your style of play - but please don't think that the mechanics reflect personal preferences or attempts to make X or Y seem cool or edgy.

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.

Edited May 7, 2022 by Barak Shathur
stuff

[lawrence.whitaker]

I'd seriously recommend that you play it RAW before adapting anything from RQ3. You may well find that you don't need to adapt anything at all. Pay attention to the Reach, Weapon Size, and Opening and Closing rules - they can make a lot more difference to how combat plays out than simply weapon damage. Plus, RQ3 doesn't have a true equivalence for Size and Reach, which is foundational to all Mythras weapons. These functions tend to be abstracted into Strike Rank, but in Mythras we've split them out quite deliberately to provide for more tactical variations when using different forms of weapons (especially shields).

I'd highly recommend using one of the Mythras Combat Training modules as well - 'Breaking the Habit' is an excellent one to start with. They're designed to show the nuances of combat, especially the effective use of Reach, Size and Special Effects.

After that, if you still think you need to adapt RQ3 weapon stats, then sit down with both books, study how the rules are applied, and start working through your options, what you want your game to achieve, and so on. Curiously, we took more or less this approach when designing Mythras. 😉

[Barak Shathur]

Looking forward to it!

[g33k]

48 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

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.

Gonna reiterate Loz here:  raw weapon damage ("shock and awe" damage) is not what wins most Mythras fights.  HP-attrition -- particularly regarding a die-type step (which only averages 1hp difference) -- is just not as substantial as you seem to expect it to be.