Weapon damage

[Atgxtg]

I have to note that boars don't have parrying weapons, particularly shields. I realize it isn't necessarily trivial, but once it happens, it happens, and trying to reingage back to proper spear range is non-trivial.

There uis some truth to that, but then again shields are not the big problem to a warrior wielding a spear. Most of the time the spear is going to "rebound" off the shield making it easier to bring back into play.

Another big thing to consider is just how much of a reach advantage a spear has, especially when used in two hands. WIth a 8 foot spear or so, you probably have about 4-6 feet or reach. Now a foe using a sword and shield is probably reposed behind the shield, and so has to lower his guard a little to swing the aword (another plus for the gladius and other thrusting weapons). So that gives the spear user a good three feet or so. Since most combatnatant tend to stay out of reach of the longest weapon and dart in, that gives the spear user an easier time of attacking and retreating. If the foe manages to get in close, step back AND use the shaft to move his weapon out of line or even bind weapons.

If you are fighting with a one-handed spear in a spear and shield arrangement, then you can always fight reposed to get an even fight with a swordsman.

That did not seem to be the opinion of the sojutsu instructors I talked to, or perhaps more accurately, they seemed to consider it inadequately stable, and prone to bein too easy to knock out of alignment (there was some disagreement here, but it tended to be in degree, not kind).

(Note I've carefully discussed the longer spears; the shortest ones are another issue, but they also, at that point, tend to eliminate most bonuses to effectiveness they have over other weapons that are otherwise more versitile).

I can imagine just how must disagreement there was. There is a lot of variant among spears, especially among Yari. I wouldn't want to try to choke up on a 18-shaku Yari of the Oda clan.

One key to choking up on a spear is just how it is weighted. A Point heavy spear is probably a bit easier to pull that off with.

I've mentioned this when dealing with two handed use several times, but having watched attempts to do so one handed I am, shall we say, unimpressed; frankly, a six foot stick is simply too unwieldy to use as a bludgeon with one hand unless one is _very_ strong.

I'm not that strong and I have done it. You don't need a big sweeping arc, just a few inches. It doesn't need to be a powerful attack, just enough to mess up you foe and get you time and/or distance.

I'm an ex-fencer, so I'm aware of this, but there are risks to doing so fast enough to be of use, not the least that tripping is a real issue unless you're on firmly even footing, and frankly, there's no guarentee once someone's gotten up in on you, that they won't simply follow. I can't help but think this is even more true if both are moderately to heavily armored, which can't help the lead time of the retreater much.

And if the foe continues to follow through as he approaches? Keep in mind also, that in a lot of combat, there are any number of reasons unlimited retreating isn't practical.

[Enpeze]

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

I didnt read the whole thread back, but there is no doubt that you are favoritizing the sword. Maybe its more my poor wording in english, because I am not so adept in your native tongue. Sorry for this, I am trying to improve.

I think as long there is no definition about what this discussion is really about we cannot come to a conclusion.

IMO the sword has many advantages and and spear also. So its a draw and which of the weapons is better depend on circumstances like

-fighting against cavalry or from horseback

-cost of the weapon

-which techlevel has the weaponsmith? which material is it?

-weight (how many miles do the soldier have to carry it before battle?)

-unit tactics

-against which enemies is it used?

-flexibility in different terrains

-learning curve in weapon training

So each weapon has its time for use. It cannot just be a rough generalization: this or that weapon is superior. It depends on the specific situation.

[Nightshade]

There uis some truth to that, but then again shields are not the big problem to a warrior wielding a spear. Most of the time the spear is going to "rebound" off the shield making it easier to bring back into play.

I was mostly referring to using a shield to deflect the shield upwards so you could come up from under it. Obviously, this isn't certain, but it seems like its much easier to do with a shield than, say, another weapon (or none at all).

Another big thing to consider is just how much of a reach advantage a spear has, especially when used in two hands. WIth a 8 foot spear or so, you

Note I've acknowledged that benefit several times, though it only seems a signfiicant one with medium to long spears.

probably have about 4-6 feet or reach. Now a foe using a sword and shield is probably reposed behind the shield, and so has to lower his guard a little to swing the aword (another plus for the gladius and other thrusting weapons).

I'm told that even slashing swords have an under-shield style technique that works for them; the only risk is of the opponent then coming up underneath the shield, but to some extent _any_ use of a weapon limits shield play.

So that gives the spear user a good three feet or so. Since most combatnatant tend to stay out of reach of the longest weapon and dart in, that gives the spear user an easier time of attacking and retreating. If the foe manages to get in close, step back AND use the shaft to move his weapon out of line or even bind weapons.

The problem with that is a longer weapon is almost always heavier than a shorter, even when the former is made of wood, and as such simple physics makes it slower to bring around.

I can imagine just how must disagreement there was. There is a lot of variant among spears, especially among Yari. I wouldn't want to try to choke up on a 18-shaku Yari of the Oda clan.

It wasn't about the spear types per se, but about how worthwhile spear-and-weapon techniques were, which turn on how wieldy the sword tends to be. They were pretty consistent on deciding it was only useful with spears with short hafts, though; its just how short they suggested (some thought nothing much beyond a jo in length was workable).

One key to choking up on a spear is just how it is weighted. A Point heavy spear is probably a bit easier to pull that off with.

I would imagine so, but at that point I'd think when using it farther back it would also be harder to use. Or put simply, there's going to be an optimal point of grip, one way or another; its just a question as to where that is (of course with some historical setups that use the shield as bracing, this is a bit confused).

I'm not that strong and I have done it. You don't need a big sweeping arc, just a few inches. It doesn't need to be a powerful attack, just enough to mess up you foe and get you time and/or distance.

I'm not convinced with an armored opponent interested in pressing the attack that's sufficient.

There are big risks to backpedalling on a battlefield, although fencing is a bit differernt from easier forms of armed combat. The older weapons are a bit slower, and movement is less along a line. But when I used to use a shinai both us us were jumping a dodging backwards A LOT. Getting some distance was never much of a problem.

I'll bet you were fighting on even footing however, weren't you? And what were you wearing while doing so? I never had any trouble ballistaing back away from an opponent fencer either, but for the most part we were fencing on flat floors with little question there was a clear space behind us. How often is that the case in a real battlefield?

While Unlimited retraeating is impractical. In actuallity it doesn't work that way. For one thing almost any retraeat with a thrusting weapon can be used to spring back for a thrusting strike (if you've fenced you know what I mean).

The problem is, it _doesn't_ do that if the opponent follows _immediately_. Now when fencing, you're able to move extremely fast, so if you're quick and lucky you can retreat and get back into line before the opponent responds (but it requires both, because if he's alert enough to notice you start and immediately follows through, you, at best, won't have changed a thing). I can't imagine that this will be true to the same extent with moderately armored opponents.

Secondly, a warrior fighting someone using a spear is often forced to give some ground too. Typically there is a lot of step in/jump back stuff from the guy trying to close without getting speared.

Of course, as with almost any extension type attack; but the point is, once someone comes up in under spear range, the _last_ thing he's going to do is retreat again given a choice, because he's now at his ideal range, and the other combatant isn't. So if the spearman can't force it, it likely won't happen.

[Nightshade]

I think as long there is no definition about what this discussion is really about we cannot come to a conclusion.

IMO the sword has many advantages and and spear also. So its a draw and which of the weapons is better depend on circumstances like

-fighting against cavalry or from horseback

-cost of the weapon

-which techlevel has the weaponsmith? which material is it?

-weight (how many miles do the soldier have to carry it before battle?)

I don't actually have much evidence a typical sword is heavier than a typical spear; there's less metal involved, but by the time you're dealing with a 5' of wood, the difference is generally not going to be significant.

So each weapon has its time for use. It cannot just be a rough generalization: this or that weapon is superior. It depends on the specific situation.

I'm afraid I can't agree; I think its possible to say that a given weapon is _on the average_ a better single choice, without saying that the other has no use, or does not have its virtues.

[Atgxtg]

I was mostly referring to using a shield to deflect the shield upwards so you could come up from under it. Obviously, this isn't certain, but it seems like its much easier to do with a shield than, say, another weapon (or none at all).

That isn't a weakness of the spear per say, but an effect that could apply to any weapon.

Note I've acknowledged that benefit several times, though it only seems a significant one with medium to long spears.

Any advantage is reach is significant. In many cases a foot or soo is more significant edge than 5 or 6 feet. It is sort of an in for a penny thing. If you got a reach advantange it translates into a speed advantage.

I'm told that even slashing swords have an under-shield style technique that works for them; the only risk is of the opponent then coming up underneath the shield, but to some extent _any_ use of a weapon limits shield play.

Sure, but an undershield technique would be vulnerable to a low attack, and reach weapons are best for striking low, since the attacker doen't have to extend himself to strike those areas. Considering that the legs tended to be unarmored for most fighters, going low with a spear would cause most swordmen a lot of problems. Drop down to protect the legs and there goes your speed.

The problem with that is a longer weapon is almost always heavier than a shorter, even when the former is made of wood, and as such simple physics makes it slower to bring around.

Yeah, so. Speed isn't everything. Look at the axe, mace, flair, and halbeard. All are effective, and all could be used to fight against a swordman. Another thing to consider is that thrusting weapons tend to be two to three times faster than slashing weapons, so that "heavy" spear is probably as faster or faster than a broadsword.

Guys with spears did fight and beat guys with swords. If the skill of the combatants was close, so was the outcome. Everything that you are noting for being able to be used against the spear has ways of being countered.

It wasn't about the spear types per se, but about how worthwhile spear-and-weapon techniques were, which turn on how wieldy the sword tends to be. They were pretty consistent on deciding it was only useful with spears with short hafts, though; its just how short they suggested (some thought nothing much beyond a jo in length was workable).

Well, ask them why the Spear (and even clumsier naginatas) were so prevant in Japan during the Sengoku peroid. It isn't because of Calvary, since years on warfare reduced the horse to the mount for higher ranking officers. A pointy stick is an effective weapon. Even against a sword.

I would imagine so, but at that point I'd think when using it farther back it would also be harder to use. Or put simply, there's going to be an optimal point of grip, one way or another; its just a question as to where that is (of course with some historical setups that use the shield as bracing, this is a bit confused).

True. But again, that holds for most weapons, and harder does not mean inefective. I have a two handed broadsword at home that I find too heavy to wield two handed, let along with one hand, but there are people who can do so.

I'm not convinced with an armored opponent interested in pressing the attack that's sufficient.

You would be if you had someone jabbing a spear into your face. Keep in mind that plate was very rare, and a spear can penetrate mail and most other armors. A determined foe who presses forward can very likely wind up impaling hilself on a grounded spear. That's one thing the spear can do that can't be done with a sword, axe, or mace.

I'll bet you were fighting on even footing however, weren't you? And what were you wearing while doing so? I never had any trouble ballistaing back away from an opponent fencer either, but for the most part we were fencing on flat floors with little question there was a clear space behind us. How often is that the case in a real battlefield?

You loose. What did you bet? I was fighting outdoors, mostly on grass, and on various types of ground (inclduing mud). We would also move to the side, something that modern fencers don't do. About 90% of our injuries ended to being to the hands (the blades tend to slide down each other on a strike).

The problem is, it _doesn't_ do that if the opponent follows _immediately_. Now when fencing, you're able to move extremely fast, so if you're quick and lucky you can retreat and get back into line before the opponent responds (but it requires both, because if he's alert enough to notice you start and immediately follows through, you, at best, won't have changed a thing). I can't imagine that this will be true to the same extent with moderately armored opponents.

What yo are failing to consider is that the armor slows down BOTH parties, so there is no advantage for the swordmans. In fact it sort of works the other way. As people get tired, they slow down, and that makes the intial reach advantage more signficant.

Most spear points have a decent edge on them, too, through most RPGs don't note it. If someone cloes you can simple move your arms back and slice with the edge.

Of course, as with almost any extension type attack; but the point is, once someone comes up in under spear range, the _last_ thing he's going to do is retreat again given a choice, because he's now at his ideal range, and the other combatant isn't. So if the spearman can't force it, it likely won't happen.

The hard thing is for the swordsman to get in close in the first place. Once there the sword has an advantage, but it is tough to get there. Buut the thing is ideal sword prange is actually just out of striking distance (unlike an RPG real fights tend to occur outside of weapon ranges.

If the spearman is using spear and sheild, he can push the attacker back with his shield.

[Joseph Paul]

Wow, are you short stroking that 8' spear for some reason Atgxtg? With a 9' one I can get about 12' of throw using a left foot forward/right hand on the butt stance. Start the throw and step with the right foot forward and twist the body to keep things lined up.

Also through out this I have been confused about what situation people are presuming for the spearman. Sometimes it sounds like single combat and sometimes it sounds like a melee. If it is a melee and a spearman is forced to retreat by the vigourous charge of a swordsman the man on the spear guys left kills the swordsman by sticking him in his unshielded right side. Teamwork- it will kill you.

If it is single combat and the spearman has a problem retreating then he needs to use the haft to block the advance of the swordsman, preferably by shoving the haft hard against the shield and using the end to leverage under his swordarm and throw him. Failing that slash at the arm and control it with the haft. In desperation use the butt spike (if so equipped) to strike him in the face or chest.

Single combat spear and 1-handed spear vs sword and shield. Remember to smack the swordsman with your shield on his way in. Step out and regain the range.

Other things to do if you are a spearman. Train,train,train. Shoot for the non-shield side leg as that leg is brought forward. Stick the spear on the shield and screw with it. Learn how to punch the shield so that it moves, then strike where it is not. In melees concentrate on the guy 1-3 men to the let and right of the guy across from you. If one of them gets out of step snipe him.

I need to look at Silver's "Paradoxes of Defense" to see if he has anything to say about it.

Over all a good thread so far.

[RMS]

I'll get back to the game since I think we've discussed the other as far as we can really go with it.

Frankly, the only reason I don't think you see spears used more often in the game is that they get lost on impales a lot, and most people don't want to take the time to train heavily in two melee weapons.

Part of the reason that they aren't seen in a Glorantha game (where I've mostly played) is that the dominant PC cultures have mythical ties to the sword. It fits the background of the characters. From a practical POV, they get magic that favors a sword. Other cultures get magic that favors the spear and will choose to use them. In fact, I'd argue that in the game, magic is far more important to what weapon is used than any minor details in weapon damage.

I'd estimate that 90% of the character in games I've run or played in have used swords as primary weapons, but that's strictly cultural. I currently have been playing a character that's specialized in the javelin + atlatl, and I have to say that's an extremely deadly combination, especially with Speeddate on top of it. This character has also had an uncanny knack for headshotting important foes with impales...probably cursed myself there.

[Enpeze]

I don't actually have much evidence a typical sword is heavier than a typical spear; there's less metal involved, but by the time you're dealing with a 5' of wood, the difference is generally not going to be significant.

I never claimed this.

I'm afraid I can't agree; I think its possible to say that a given weapon is _on the average_ a better single choice, without saying that the other has no use, or does not have its virtues.

This theoretical idea about average is not really useful. Especially if you dont define in forefront of the discussion which parameter your "average" includes.

Well then lets agree that we not agree. Reading the postings back the more the more I feel that its a trench war, which neither side will win. Has not much sense for me. I bail out.

[Nightshade]

That isn't a weakness of the spear per say, but an effect that could apply to any weapon.

Its not nearly as severe with slashing weapons or impact weapons as it is with thrusting weapons, however, and the longer the weapon is the more vulnerable it is to this.

Any advantage is reach is significant. In many cases a foot or soo is more significant edge than 5 or 6 feet. It is sort of an in for a penny thing. If you got a reach advantange it translates into a speed advantage.

I'm simply suggesting that with actual usage, the practical difference in reach with a 3' spear and a typical longsword (when used to thrust) is minimimal. If you don't agree, you don't, but it certainly seemed the case when watching spear and sword sparring when I was in martial arts.

Sure, but an undershield technique would be vulnerable to a low attack, and reach weapons are best for striking low, since the attacker doen't have to

Sure. But by the time you've already started that low attack, you presumeably have already gotten the shield out of line from above. There's nothing that requires you to do it _until_ you've already eliminated that risk from at least that individual combatant (and I'd have to assume that it wasn't that easy to avoid, since that seems to have been the core of the gladius thrust technique the legionnaires used, though obviously that requires less commitment than a slash would).

Yeah, so. Speed isn't everything. Look at the axe, mace, flair, and halbeard.

It's pretty close to it when it comes to actually delivering a blow to target before he does to you, all other things being equal. There are obviously other issues when things like penetration and damage are involved (against an armored target, getting in the first weaker blow that does little or nothing against him because his armor absorbed most of the force is obviously less useful than getting in the second blow that's heavier and can get through the armor), and in some cases it can be hard to parry a heavier weapon for obvious reasons--but most of this only works on non-thrusting weapons. It isn't appreciably harder to deflect a heavy thrusting weapon than a light. That's one of the trade-offs with them.

All are effective, and all could be used to fight against a swordman. Another thing to consider is that thrusting weapons tend to be two to three times faster than slashing weapons, so that "heavy" spear is probably as faster or faster than a broadsword.

Oh, it is; but that doesn't help much once its brought out of line. Recovery in the end is recovery, and mass is mass.

Guys with spears did fight and beat guys with swords. If the skill of the combatants was close, so was the outcome. Everything that you are noting for being able to be used against the spear has ways of being countered.

Certainly true; but that doesn't say it was as easily countered as the technique. Nothing I've seen suggests that's the case.

Well, ask them why the Spear (and even clumsier naginatas) were so prevant in Japan during the Sengoku peroid. It isn't because of Calvary, since years on warfare reduced the horse to the mount for higher ranking officers. A pointy stick is an effective weapon. Even against a sword.

You can get a lot of answers to that, but only a few of them have to do with advantages to the spear. However, note that there's one important difference here; shield use was _not_ common in Japan. This means in practice you're talking typically about two handed use, where the spear tends to look a lot better (two handed sword use doesn't make nearly the difference at the other end).

True. But again, that holds for most weapons, and harder does not mean inefective. I have a two handed broadsword at home that I find too heavy to wield two handed, let along with one hand, but there are people who can do so.

It matters quite a bit for a weapon that can be moved up inside of, however.

You would be if you had someone jabbing a spear into your face. Keep in mind

If its shortened up enough, why am I more concerned than I would be with him trying to do the same thing with a dagger?

You loose. What did you bet? I was fighting outdoors, mostly on grass, and on various types of ground (inclduing mud). We would also move to the side, something that modern fencers don't do. About 90% of our injuries ended to being to the hands (the blades tend to slide down each other on a strike).

I fenced in the round quite frequently, actually. Don't confuse match fencing with everything that goes on. And you managed to do retreats on that terrain at speed and never tripped? Really? I'm honestly having trouble believing this, having sparred in the martial arts in rough terrain and watched people trip with some frequency in those conditions, while lightly dressed and with good visibility.

What yo are failing to consider is that the armor slows down BOTH parties, so there is no advantage for the swordmans. In fact it sort of works the other

Actually, the slower both parties are, the more things harm someone retreating, because there's not enough time to get any real distance before the opponent can respond. The gap is almost entirely dependent on speed, and that's true even if both are very fast; that's because there's always some lag time between the start of a retreat and response, but if the person retreating can't get far in that time, it means less.

Most spear points have a decent edge on them, too, through most RPGs don't note it. If someone cloes you can simple move your arms back and slice with the edge.

Se my comments elsewhere about use of long knives. I don't doubt it does, but at the point you're effectively reduced to fighting with it as a long knife, I think that's enough to show the problem from my point of view.

The hard thing is for the swordsman to get in close in the first place. Once

Sure. That's an advantage of a reach weapon I've never denied. But once he does, he's easily inside the optimal combat range of the spear, and the guy's got the choice if he can't get back to that of essentially using the stick or the forshortened blade with the problems associated with it.

there the sword has an advantage, but it is tough to get there. Buut the thing is ideal sword prange is actually just out of striking distance (unlike an RPG real fights tend to occur outside of weapon ranges.

Its ideal against most weapons because you want to keep your own options open, but it still loses a lot less (at least if its not _too_ long and thrusting oriented itself--really long thrusting blades have some of the same problems I'm addressing here) than the spear here, so you just accept that.

If the spearman is using spear and sheild, he can push the attacker back with his shield.

Well, he can try, but playing shield push is a game for both; that ends up just turning on who's stronger and has the better balance.

[Nightshade]

I never claimed this.

Then I don't see what the point of your comment about weight of kit was.

This theoretical idea about average is not really useful. Especially if you dont define in forefront of the discussion which parameter your "average" includes.

I think it is useful, or I wouldn't have brought it up in the first place.

[Nightshade]

Also through out this I have been confused about what situation people are presuming for the spearman. Sometimes it sounds like single combat and sometimes it sounds like a melee. If it is a melee and a spearman is forced to

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

[Nightshade]

I'll get back to the game since I think we've discussed the other as far as we can really go with it.

Part of the reason that they aren't seen in a Glorantha game (where I've mostly played) is that the dominant PC cultures have mythical ties to the sword. It fits the background of the characters. From a practical POV, they get magic that favors a sword. Other cultures get magic that favors the spear and will choose to use them. In fact, I'd argue that in the game, magic is far more important to what weapon is used than any minor details in weapon damage.

The problem is that they don't seem to show up any more often in non-Gloranthan games. And again, part of it involves resource overhead; if you're going to carry more than one melee weapon you're going to use seriously, that drags down your training time. If not, you have to decide which one is best, and few people decide on the spear (the decision between sword, axe and mace tends to be more muddy; the Mace often gets left aside in part because of magical reasons; if you learn Bladesharp, you can often use it on your primary and secondaries (dagger if nothing else) but few people carry two bludgeons). With the axe, I suspect its either Strength issues (as I recall, there's no longsword equivelent on the typical list of axes; there's the battleaxe which as I recall typically has a Strength requirement of 13 for one handed use) or double function issues (at least some swords being able in some versions of the rules to be used as impaling weapons and slashing weapons).

In fact, I came to appreciate some of the virtues of the spear when I was forced to use it because it was the best melee weapon available to a primitive hunter I was playing in RQ3; but there's usually another choice that seems more attractive, overall.

I'd estimate that 90% of the character in games I've run or played in have used swords as primary weapons, but that's strictly cultural. I currently have been playing a character that's specialized in the javelin + atlatl, and I have to say that's an extremely deadly combination, especially with Speeddate on top of it. This character has also had an uncanny knack for headshotting important foes with impales...probably cursed myself there.

The only downside to that as compared to a bow (and I've commented elsewhere I've probably seen more RQ characters killed by arrow fire than any other single source over the years) is the rate of fire, but as I discovered with the same character's sling use, rate of fire isn't everything.

[Atgxtg]

Another "in game" reason is money. In RQ2 players started out with very little (CHAx100 lunars loaned from ther guilds), so they often started with a cheap weapon and upgraded as fortune allowed.

In RQ3 players pretty much got to choose their weapons (according to culture and profession) and so they could get more expensive stuff.

Plus in RQ3, broadswords can impale, giving them the same damage as a spear, and can damage attacking weapons that fail with a parry (polearms can't to that) so they wind up being equal or superior to spears in all ways except Strike Rank.

Maces suffer from having no damage pluses, so a 1D8+1 that implaes is superior to 1D10 thaqt doesn't. If you use the 1/2AP vs. soft armors then maces are useful.

Axes are about the only real threat to the sword. They tend to do more damage, but can't impale.

SInce BPR is going to give slash and crush rules, I suspect the other weapons will become more popular.

[Nightshade]

Another "in game" reason is money. In RQ2 players started out with very little (CHAx100 lunars loaned from ther guilds), so they often started with a cheap weapon and upgraded as fortune allowed.

I recall that being more of an issue for armor or mounts than weapons, though. But that was also 25 years ago now, so...

In RQ3 players pretty much got to choose their weapons (according to culture and profession) and so they could get more expensive stuff.

Plus in RQ3, broadswords can impale, giving them the same damage as a spear, and can damage attacking weapons that fail with a parry (polearms can't to that) so they wind up being equal or superior to spears in all ways except Strike Rank.

Well, they could also be used as throwing weapons, and I recall some special rules for setting versus charge (you used the mount's damage bonus rather than your own), but that never seemed to counterweight the reduced hit points and problem with losing them on an impale.

Maces suffer from having no damage pluses, so a 1D8+1 that implaes is superior to 1D10 thaqt doesn't. If you use the 1/2AP vs. soft armors then maces are useful.

The plus was kind of a wash; you traded higher minimums for lower maximums with a broadsword. The problem there was, again, as I recall the strength minimum was also higher.

Axes are about the only real threat to the sword. They tend to do more damage, but can't impale.

SInce BPR is going to give slash and crush rules, I suspect the other weapons will become more popular.

They seemed to do so when I used modified RQ:AIG rules, so I suspect you're correct.

[Atgxtg]

Jason mentioned special criticals for all weapons in his thread.

As for Slash and Crush, they appeared in RQ2, but back in the appendix, and were sort of so-so. Crush added the db in again, making it faily weak for PCs but great for Trolls. I think the old slash rule was the same as the current implae rule (back then impale was max plus rolled).

Personally, I'm not to worried about the loosing the weapon thing. Any decent warrior should have some sort of backup weapon just in case. Esepcailly people who use two handed weapons.

For all round versatility a bastard sword is hard to beat in RQ.

[Nightshade]

Jason mentioned special criticals for all weapons in his thread.

As for Slash and Crush, they appeared in RQ2, but back in the appendix, and were sort of so-so. Crush added the db in again, making it faily weak for PCs but great for Trolls. I think the old slash rule was the same as the current implae rule (back then impale was max plus rolled).

That's probably why you rarely saw them used; the crush was essentially heavily imbalanced dependent on the user. The RQ: AIG version, as I recall, treated armor at half value and moved the damage up a couple steps, so it was good for pretty much anyone.

Personally, I'm not to worried about the loosing the weapon thing. Any decent warrior should have some sort of backup weapon just in case. Esepcailly people who use two handed weapons.

For all round versatility a bastard sword is hard to beat in RQ.

Well, partly that's because its arguably too good. I don't disagree completely about a backup weapon, but almost no one who wasn't trying out for a rune cult that required one seemed to think a backup melee weapon was enough of a priority to spend much training time on, not when they were likely already spending their training time between a primary melee weapon, a ranged weapon and a shield.

[Atgxtg]

Most of my experienced RQ players would work on developing a secondary weapon. What tends to happen is that sooner or later you are going to have an arm down or loose a sheild or something and get stuck.

THe key encounter for my group happened when one guy lost his primary weapon to a foe who took it with him when he fell off the stairs (the PC didn't want to jump after it, go figure) right after he had lost his shield to a fumble (#"$%& shield strap!). Fortuantely, he had trained with 2H sword a little, off and on, and hard worked it up to 70%, so he just drew his sword and fought his way out of it.

Generally, it is better to wait a little for Rune status. Especially since once you hit the higher% you can't train anymore. That's a good time to get a seondary melee weapon.

Then again, most of my players didn't emphasise a missle weapon, but instead we had one or two dedicated archers. You get some tough units with a couple of melee fighters screening an acher. If we had a "tank" in front backed up by someone with a longspear (and the GM allowed them to attack from the second rank), the unit became especially formidable.

[badcat]

In Stormbringer 1, weapons broke fairly frequently (whenever a critical was parried, for those not familiar). It was suggested in the GM advice section that you could use weapon hit points and strike ranks and special damage types from RQ if you wanted. Early evidence of the versatility of the system. Me, I have always liked the combat rules in Stormbringer 1 as they were for various reasons, one of which was that it encouraged players to think about what weapon 'combo' they were carrying; and I noticed that they tended to carry the 'lesser' weapons as backup and for missile capability. It did get to where that primary weapon was frequently a bow...but you would often see the classic Greek combo of spear, shield, and shortsword, ( for instance) too.

[Nightshade]

Most of my experienced RQ players would work on developing a secondary weapon. What tends to happen is that sooner or later you are going to have an arm down or loose a sheild or something and get stuck.

I have to point out that unless you were using a two-handed weapon as a primary, there was no real reason to develop a secondary weapon per se; you could just as easily carry a backup (well, there might be weight issues but few people were so tight that the difference in weight between, say, a second longsword and a shortsword was likely to be critical). Now you might well need to develop an off-hand weapon skill, but there was really no need for that to be a different weapon as such; I had a character who got quite good with off-hand longsword, but it was still a longsword.

The obvious exception, of course, is if you were primarily a two-handed weapon user, but given how valuable a shield could be in RQ, we just didn't see too many of those (unless you count bowman, but then, bowman always had some kind of non-ranged weapon skill, too, and it was rarely two-handed).

Most people didn't want to wait that late in mye experience.

On the other hand, most I saw always pursued both; they might emphasize melee over missiles and vice versa, but it was too easy for situations to occur where the missile troops were going to need to defend themselves (outdoor encounters with larger numbers for example) or where the melee troops couldn't close quick enough without problems (long range encounters with bowmen for example).

[RMS]

The problem is that they don't seem to show up any more often in non-Gloranthan games. And again, part of it involves resource overhead; if you're going to carry more than one melee weapon you're going to use seriously, that drags down your training time. If not, you have to decide which one is best, and few people decide on the spear...

This is one real shortcoming of RQ/BRP. You should not have to train each new weapon up from scratch. An experienced warrior should be able to start at relatively high default for 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. weapons because much of the skills of a warrior are weapon independent. I've houseruled this in to my games in a logical fashion. I go the other way too and give short term small negative modifier to someone using a new-to-them weapon of the same type: ie. using a broadsword vs. bastard sword, which uses the same overall skill.

The only downside to that as compared to a bow (and I've commented elsewhere I've probably seen more RQ characters killed by arrow fire than any other single source over the years) is the rate of fire, but as I discovered with the same character's sling use, rate of fire isn't everything.

Yeah, but the character concept called for a javelin and not a bow. I can't imagine building a character from the equipment lists: how boring would that be. Concept first, all the time for me. The differences in the game are too minute to get caught up with IMO.

[RMS]

Plus in RQ3, broadswords can impale, giving them the same damage as a spear, and can damage attacking weapons that fail with a parry (polearms can't to that) so they wind up being equal or superior to spears in all ways except Strike Rank.

I never let broadswords (or bigger) impale. That's one of the advantages of short swords and spears in my game.

Maces suffer from having no damage pluses, so a 1D8+1 that implaes is superior to 1D10 thaqt doesn't. If you use the 1/2AP vs. soft armors then maces are useful.

I've never used that, but it's not a bad idea. I've used the crushing rules for Specials (stolen from the RQ2 appendices), but that has the limitation of only helping those with damage bonuses. It does make big trolls extremely dangerous!

Axes are about the only real threat to the sword. They tend to do more damage, but can't impale.

Axes are good weapons and taking away the sword's impale, they nicely balance out with the sword: a little more STR to wield the axe and a little extra damage but they can't be carried around as easily. The irony is that it's mainly women carrying them around in Glorantha!

SInce BPR is going to give slash and crush rules, I suspect the other weapons will become more popular.

I used the slashing rules for swords and axes in my game. They still don't have the potential to deal nearly the damage of a spear or arrow, but it makes all Specials interesting.

[soltakss]

Secondary weapons are important to people who want to advance in certain cults that need 90% in more than one fighting skill.

They are also important to people who fight different kinds of enemy. Spears are almost useless against certain forms of undead, for instance.

Soldiers typically learn two weapon skills, e.g. spear&shield/shortsword or 2H Axe/Broadsword, one main weapon and one secondary for close-quarters.

It's convenient to carry a secondary weapon, or have a secondary skill, if your prime weapon breaks, is stolen or becomes unavailable.

As for specials, I've been using Impales/Slashes/Crushes for years, as RQ2, but with Impales doing Max+Normal, Slashes doing Normal twice and Crushes doing Damage Bonus Twice rather then RQ2's Max damage Bonus which makes trolls and giants incredibly over-powered. Admittedly, a giant with a 7D6 Damage Bonus and a 2D8 club will do 2D8+14D6 on a crush, so it doesn't make a lot of difference, but I love rolling lots of dice to scare players.

[Sven Norén]

As for specials, I've been using Impales/Slashes/Crushes for years, as RQ2, but with ... Crushes doing Damage Bonus Twice rather then RQ2's Max damage Bonus which makes trolls and giants incredibly over-powered.

Doing that actually increases the average damage for a Crush. I.E: 2D6 average 7, vs. 6 for a maxed out d6.

[Triff]

Doing that actually increases the average damage for a Crush. I.E: 2D6 average 7' date=' vs. 6 for a maxed out d6.[/quote']

Still, blunt weapons get less dangerous in human hands that way (compared to max weapon damage + ignore armor, or wait, are we talking special or critical damage here?)

SGL.

[badcat]

Soltakss, you sound like my kind of GM, your philosophy of gaming reminds me of me but with the somewhat simpler Stormbringer 1 rules...not that I haven't used some of the options from RQ. Or Elric! more likely. The spot rules in that game were more compatible and thus could be retrofitted with less fuss and bother.