Spear?

[Raleel]

1 hour ago, Barak Shathur said:

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.

 

Did you miss the stabbing section? The page is annoyingly hard to read with an atrocious font color and background.

Quote

STABBING  wounds, on the other hand ( or anywhere in the body, for that matter) , are  more dangerous, especially in the days before surgery and infection control.

Psychology is very important here. Many stab victims collapse through shock almost immediately regardless of the severity of the wound. Some retain composure and survive extensive wounds, others go into shock and die from less serious damage.

It continues on a bit, but there is even a picture that is captioned with "not so impressive, but more deadly". They acknowledge that brain penetrating injuries are fatal, but then go on to talk about how the entire chest cavity is death to get stabbed in. The slashes in the pictures, while impressive, are not actually all that deadly compared to being hit by a spear in the torso.

Now, one might argue that spears should get Drop Foe special effect (in Mythras Imperative and in Firearms), which is designed to emulate said shock, but that would make them even more potent, by quite a bit.

1 hour ago, Barak Shathur said:

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.

Mythras specifically avoids damage escalation on a larger scale. If you want to reflect this with a lower damage die, armor piercing works well. Several variants of the trait can be found, but essentially it's half the max weapon damage, rounded up. I've found this to be an exceptional way to deal with armor without escalating damage, and works well with military picks. Escalating damage a bunch (like doubling it) tends to lead to rocket tag.

1 hour ago, Barak Shathur said:

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.

Styles with axes could potentially take Shield Splitter, a trait on p89. Roll twice, take the best, apply damage to the shield when using the damage weapon special effect. Now the 1h battle axe is doing more than 4 points of damage 75% of the time, and 6 55% of the time

Sunder applies specifically to armor, because the armor doesn't have hit points, just armor points.

58 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

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.

and here in lies where the spear has a weakness. it's L reach is great, but gaining a special effect can get you inside it's reach. This is less doable (actually mostly impossible armed) against M reach weapons. 

Mythras has a lot of nuances in it. It is balanced on a lot more axes than a lot of other games.

[Bilharzia]

6 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

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.

Oh Christ

 

[Barak Shathur]

8 hours ago, g33k said:

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.

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. 

Edited May 8, 2022 by Barak Shathur

[Barak Shathur]

8 hours ago, Raleel said:

Mythras specifically avoids damage escalation on a larger scale. If you want to reflect this with a lower damage die, armor piercing works well. Several variants of the trait can be found, but essentially it's half the max weapon damage, rounded up. I've found this to be an exceptional way to deal with armor without escalating damage, and works well with military picks.

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

[Bilharzia]

43 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

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

The Battle axe is one of the few 1h weapons which can use the special effect Sunder. The only others are Lance and Military Pick, so that effect is quite rare and can be very useful. It also has Bleed, another potentially lethal SE which can kill with a single point of damage. As an aside, spears have neither of these SEs. You may be a bit fixated on damage only, if you are using that as your only metric. Mythras' combat system is a significant advance from RQ3, and that part of the rules is the most radical departure from older RQ. For contemporary fans of Mythras, it's a big deal that changes BRP combat for the better.

I can tell you have a bit of an axe-bromance going on, but your complaint is the first I have seen in about 10 years of RQ6/Mythras. You might be pleased to know that the Mythras 2H axe (Dane Axe, Great Axe) maintains it's damage from RQ3 (2d6+2) but also has Sunder and Bleed. Considering armour values and weapon damages were re-thought for RQ6, this makes the Mythras Great Axe more powerful than the RQ3 equivalent.

Armour piercing - yes this is a trait represented in Mythic Constantinople (puncturing trait) for certain weapons. I would not use it earlier than late-medieval or Renaissance periods as it will make a nonsense of armour & weapons as a whole.

Edited May 8, 2022 by Bilharzia

[Barak Shathur]

52 minutes ago, Bilharzia said:

The Battle axe is one of the few 1h weapons which can use the special effect Sunder. The only others are Lance and Military Pick, so that effect is quite rare and can be very useful.

So you have to hit the same location twice in order for this to have any effect? Doesn’t sound particularly effective to me.

52 minutes ago, Bilharzia said:

It also has Bleed, another potentially lethal SE which can kill with a single point of damage.

If you can get past the armour. Which an axe can’t do against plated mail or gothic plate.

 

52 minutes ago, Bilharzia said:

I can tell you have a bit of an axe-bromance going on

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. 

 

52 minutes ago, Bilharzia said:

You might be pleased to know that the Mythras 2H axe (Dane Axe, Great Axe) maintains it's damage from RQ3 (2d6+2) but also has Sunder and Bleed

I have no issues with the great axe in Mythras. 

 

[Bilharzia]

8 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

So you have to hit the same location twice in order for this to have any effect? Doesn’t sound particularly effective to me.

Err, whut? Sunder will rip the armour up when it exceeds the AP

 

8 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

If you can get past the armour. Which an axe can’t do against plated mail or gothic plate.

 

A strong fighter (1d4 damage bonus) will on average hit for 7 points of damage using a battle axe. If the top tier armour did *not* protect against that kind of hit, I would wonder about it. One point above the average will get through plated mail.

[Barak Shathur]

30 minutes ago, Bilharzia said:

Err, whut? Sunder will rip the armour up when it exceeds the AP

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. 

[Barak Shathur]

33 minutes ago, Bilharzia said:

A strong fighter (1d4 damage bonus) will on average hit for 7 points of damage using a battle axe. If the top tier armour did *not* protect against that kind of hit, I would wonder about it. One point above the average will get through plated mail

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

[Bilharzia]

1 hour ago, Barak Shathur said:

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

A dagger at maximum damage for the weapon and maximum damage bonus can penetrate plate, for a damage of 1 point. If you remove all the important detail from your thinking, you can make a case for anything. 

Well of course a hit from a marshmellow can penetrate plate. (with a critical hit).

[Bilharzia]

1 hour ago, Barak Shathur said:

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. 

If you disregard the fact that the armour is being destroyed, sure it "has no impact".

Ancient weapons aren't exploding laser beams, sorry, not even battle axes.

I can't see you are interested in anything but hyperbole.

[Barak Shathur]

14 minutes ago, Bilharzia said:

A dagger at maximum damage for the weapon and maximum damage bonus can penetrate plate, for a damage of 1 point. If you remove all the important detail from your thinking, you can make a case for anything. 

Well of course a hit from a marshmellow can penetrate plate. (with a critical hit).

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. 

[Barak Shathur]

14 minutes ago, Bilharzia said:

If you disregard the fact that the armour is being destroyed, sure it "has no impact".

Ancient weapons aren't exploding laser beams, sorry, not even battle axes.

I can't see you are interested in anything but hyperbole.

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. 

[g33k]

15 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

... I’m interested in what an average person wielding it can do. 

Die.

The  "average person" with a battle-axe is going to die, if they face any sort of trained opponent; even if that opponent only has a dagger.

[Barak Shathur]

16 minutes ago, g33k said:

Die.

The  "average person" with a battle-axe is going to die, if they face any sort of trained opponent; even if that opponent only has a dagger.

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

[Raleel]

38 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

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

Against someone in the best armor available as this argument has been set up as? Die. Said articulated plate armored guy moves in, axe guy hopes to trip him and get a bypass armor. Knight guy likely has a better combat skill, parries with his hand, ignores the damage attempts to move in to punch average peasant man in the face. spear man may get lucky with an impale, but it won’t stop knight guy. All that armor is going to stop most anything shy of a polearm.

on the other hand, if average man is going against someone with, say, a chain jacketed chest and abdomen, chain coif, and a gambeson on his arms, he’s going to do much better. He can pick bleed and have a 3/5 chance of getting an arm or a leg with the shot that goes through the gambeson pretty much by default. 

If you bring a tank to the battle field, you can’t expect to damage it with rifles. Average people don’t rush knights with one handed weapons. They use great axes, long spears, and glaives. 

[Barak Shathur]

11 minutes ago, Raleel said:

Against someone in the best armor available as this argument has been set up as? Die. Said articulated plate armored guy moves in, axe guy hopes to trip him and get a bypass armor. Knight guy likely has a better combat skill, parries with his hand, ignores the damage attempts to move in to punch average peasant man in the face. spear man may get lucky with an impale, but it won’t stop knight guy. All that armor is going to stop most anything shy of a polearm.

on the other hand, if average man is going against someone with, say, a chain jacketed chest and abdomen, chain coif, and a gambeson on his arms, he’s going to do much better. He can pick bleed and have a 3/5 chance of getting an arm or a leg with the shot that goes through the gambeson pretty much by default. 

If you bring a tank to the battle field, you can’t expect to damage it with rifles. Average people don’t rush knights with one handed weapons. They use great axes, long spears, and glaives. 

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

Edited May 9, 2022 by Barak Shathur

[Raleel]

8 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

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

I would go for a book that covers that period better - mythic Constantinople. In there we find 

Puncturing – the weapon has a significant metal spike, usually slightly curved and designed to penetrate stiff armour. Can also apply to ammunition. Ignores a specific number of armour points equal to half the maximum damage capability of the weapon but only against rigid armour. So a puncturing dagger (1d4+1 damage) ignores 3 points of rigid armour.

said military pick would then gain 4 points of armor piercing, which would mean he could get through the plate 50% of the time.

[Barak Shathur]

13 minutes ago, Raleel said:

I would go for a book that covers that period better - mythic Constantinople. In there we find 

Puncturing – the weapon has a significant metal spike, usually slightly curved and designed to penetrate stiff armour. Can also apply to ammunition. Ignores a specific number of armour points equal to half the maximum damage capability of the weapon but only against rigid armour. So a puncturing dagger (1d4+1 damage) ignores 3 points of rigid armour.

said military pick would then gain 4 points of armor piercing, which would mean he could get through the plate 50% of the time.

Excellent!

[Barak Shathur]

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?

[Raleel]

6 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

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?

I would just have a fixed amount instead of half the damage rolled because its slightly simpler, but nothing is going to break by replacing sunder with armor piercing. It’s far more resilient than that. 

[Barak Shathur]

8 hours ago, Raleel said:

I would just have a fixed amount instead of half the damage rolled because its slightly simpler, but nothing is going to break by replacing sunder with armor piercing. It’s far more resilient than that. 

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. 
 

 

[Ian Absentia]

2 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

I’m starting to really warm up to this game. 

With judicious application, it'll treat you right.

!i!

[Mugen]

On 5/8/2022 at 11:50 AM, Barak Shathur said:

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. 

Note that all it takes to ensure you hit the same location twice is a combat Special Effect.

[Barak Shathur]

25 minutes ago, Mugen said:

Note that all it takes to ensure you hit the same location twice is a combat Special Effect.

That still means it takes two successive hits for this special effect to have any impact. As far as I can tell, all the other special effects have a potentially immediate effect. Also, sundering armour feels a little "gamey" to me. Is this what axes do? Is it how axes were used historically? To me it seems the concentration of force of any hafted weapon is more likely to have a bludgeoning effect, simulated by reduction of AP, rather than permanently destroying a whole section of armour. Also as I said before, it gives me as a GM more book keeping to keep track of. Simple armour reduction seems both more realistic and easy to implement. But that's just me.